"... "As for Russia, we are, of course, interested in a broader dialogue and in the development of equal relations and cooperation between our two countries," Naryshkin said. "But, unfortunately, we do not see any signs of such an approach being found in American politics." ..."
"... "If Biden is elected, a disarmament deal would be much more difficult to achieve," Kiewiet said. "I don't think they [the Democratic Party] are capable of a foreign policy that treats Russia fairly." ..."
"... Regrettably, Mr. Naryshkin is correct. The US foreign policies have not been able to "make any adjustments" in attitude since the time of churchill's speech about the "iron curtin," and the military industrial complex, as well as the deep state, continue to dictate foreign policies to the White House. ..."
"... America is on the downslope, so poor relations will continue for quite a while. It is therefore up to Russia, China and others to build a new economic order that isn't US-centric. ..."
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want better relations with Moscow after the US election. That's according to the
head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, who is pessimistic about rapprochement between the nations.
Speaking to Dmitry Kiselev, the boss of media holding Rossiya Segodnya, Sergey Naryshkin explained that neither of the main US
political parties have any desire to improve the relationship between Moscow and Washington, as things stand.
"As for Russia, we are, of course, interested in a broader dialogue and in the development of equal relations and cooperation
between our two countries," Naryshkin said. "But, unfortunately, we do not see any signs of such an approach being found in American
politics."
The top spy's comments came on the eve of the 2020 US presidential election, in which Democratic candidate Joe Biden faces off
against the incumbent President Donald Trump. Throughout his entire leadership Trump has been accused of being a lackey of Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with some claiming he is compromised by the Kremlin.
However, Trump has shown little willingness to make friends with Moscow by increasing sanctions, pulling out of arms control treaties,
and putting pressure on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia to Germany. His opponent, Biden, has also shown no love
for Russia. While campaigning, the former vice president promised to be tough on the Kremlin, and there is little chance of him removing
any of Trump's sanctions, given his rhetoric.
On Tuesday, Professor Roderick Kiewiet from the California Institute of Technology told Russian news agency TASS that extending
arms control treaties could be even harder under Biden.
"If Biden is elected, a disarmament deal would be much more difficult to achieve," Kiewiet said. "I don't think they [the
Democratic Party] are capable of a foreign policy that treats Russia fairly."
peter R 52 minutes ago
Regrettably, Mr. Naryshkin is correct. The US foreign policies have not been able to "make any adjustments" in attitude
since the time of churchill's speech about the "iron curtin," and the military industrial complex, as well as the deep state,
continue to dictate foreign policies to the White House.
Lacus_Magnus -> peter R 5 minutes ago
Following WWI we invaded Russia from the east, while the UK, leading a coalition of pro-imperialists invaded from the west,
our oligarchs hated the socialist state then as much as now. They were only ok with the Russians from 1942 to '45, then it went
back to business as usual.
Anastasia Deko 44 minutes ago
America is on the downslope, so poor relations will continue for quite a while. It is therefore up to Russia, China and
others to build a new economic order that isn't US-centric.
BluDiva 7 minutes ago
Although a friendship with Russia could be immensely rewarding for the American people, there are a few, just a few, key players
in US foreign policy, who hold tremendous sway over anything good to happen. We all know why.
Shahriar Chaz -> Dadkhah 23 minutes ago
Finally someone speaking sense in Moscow...none of them are your friends and that includes the Trump supporters here.
billy brown --> CrazyJoe2 16 minutes ago
What about israel?
Naughtylus 52 minutes ago
I support Trump, and one of the reasons is because he bullies the EU OVERTLY. Those before him, bullied it too, but covertly,
allowing spineless EU politicians to pretend everything was fine to Europeans, and not having to enter in conflict with the USA.
But with overt bullying, EU politicians cannot pretend anymore, and are slowly forced to defend the EU against the USA. More of
Trump, and the EU could grow balls and pursue its own geopolitical interests, instead of serving the US Interests. That would
also be useful to Russia, because intrinsic European interests imply a rapprochement with Russia. But I will not hold my breath
about EU politicians growing balls..
"... Plenty has been said about the cheapness of Borat's humor, and the tiredness of the shtick. Likewise, many have observed that Cohen's comedy -- always heavily political -- has crossed the line into blatant politicking, especially with respect to the Giuliani interview. But there is more than enough here to suggest that the politics run much deeper than might be evident at first glance. ..."
Ayman Abu Aita is a family man. For years, he was a grocer by trade, running his shop in
Bethlehem while serving on the board of the Holy Land Trust, a nonprofit group working for
peaceful reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like many Palestinians, he is a
Christian, a practicing member of the Greek Orthodox Church.
He must have been as shocked as everybody else to see his face broadcast across the world
above the identifier: "ayman abu aita, terrorist group leader, al-aqsa martyrs brigade."
The interview in question -- conducted in character by Sacha Baron Cohen and featured in his
movie Bruno -- had been held under false pretenses, and deceptively edited to boot.
Abu Aita pursued legal action and, in a rare (albeit measured) victory for one of Cohen's
victims, managed to settle out of court. The lawsuit
ended in 2012, and the interview had been conducted in 2009, so this all may seem like
ancient history. But a few of the episode's more bizarre details have never been adequately
explained, and Borat's carefully timed return ought to revive our interest.
In addition to his long record of peaceful activism -- which had earned Abu Aita two years
in an Israeli jail on unsubstantiated charges -- Baron Cohen's fake terrorist just happens to
have been a parliamentary candidate in Palestine at the time of the Bruno debacle.
Thanks to Cohen's actions, Abu Aita received
death threats and sustained serious damage to his reputation, his business, and his
campaign.
While it remains possible that Abu Aita was a random victim, it practically defies belief:
why travel halfway across the world to interview a random person who is manifestly not
a terrorist? Had the goal here solely been the bit, the same scene could have been shot for a
fraction of the cost in a cheap LA motel, with an unknown actor of a reasonably believable
ethnic extraction. It is immensely difficult to consider the great lengths to which Cohen went
in painting Abu Aita as a terrorist to be somehow independent of who he was, of his years of
political activity, and of the damage done to him by the stunt. It is hard to see any of this
as accidental.
In Abu Aita's account , the
interview "was set up via Awni Jubran, a journalist for the Palestinian news agency, PNN," with
the supposed purpose of discussing peace efforts and life in Palestine. Cohen, in an interview
with David Letterman the week after Bruno 's premiere, offered a somewhat different
account of how he first became interested in Abu Aita. Out of character, clean-shaven, sporting
a t-shirt, a blazer, and the Queen's English, Cohen provided a sometimes-necessary reminder
that he is neither a poor Kazakh reporter nor a gay Austrian fashionista, but an obscenely
wealthy, Cambridge-educated Brit. This rarely seen, authentic Cohen informed Letterman that he
had sought a list of names from a contact at the CIA, and from there did some asking around in
the Middle East until he located the "terrorist" he wound up interviewing. The million
questions that ought to arise from this admission -- Who does Cohen know at the CIA, and why?
Why did this CIA contact share any information with him? What was the CIA's interest in Abu
Aita? and countless others -- were simply brushed aside, and the conversation continued.
In his answer to Abu Aita's complaints, Cohen swore, through his lawyers, that the
statements in question were "substantially true." Likewise, Letterman's answer attested to the
substantial truth of the interview while also "admit[ting] Cohen stated that he received
information from a contact at the 'C.I.A.'" While substantial truth in libel and slander law
allows for "slight inaccuracies of expression," any conceivable definition of the term still
includes Cohen's insistence on the sincerity of the CIA claim.
* * *
Fast forward eight years, and Cohen once again has his sights set on a candidate for office.
This time it's the vice president of the United States, in the midst of a heated reelection
campaign. (Cohen has never been shy about his Trump/Pence hatred, and has often stated publicly
that his sole reason for returning to his trademark brand of activist comedy was to help bring
an end to the present administration.)
On Thursday, February 27th, a man dressed as Donald Trump burst into the Potomac Ballroom at
the Gaylord in National Harbor, MD, where Vice President Pence was addressing the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC). With a woman in a green dress and ripped tights slung over
his shoulder, the man shouted something at the vice president in labored and heavily accented
English. Ian Walters, communications director of the American Conservative Union which runs
CPAC, said that it sounded vaguely obscene (suffice it to say the impersonator bungled the VP's
surname) but he could not make out clearly what the man was saying. Video footage of the
incident shows the crowd clearly appalled, and the pair were quickly escorted out by CPAC
security, Secret Service agents, and officers of the Prince George's County Police
Department.
Though no charges were pursued, the police report from the incident identifies the man as
Sacha Noem Cohen, while the woman identified is a stunt double who has worked extensively in
Hollywood. ( TAC has been in touch with the woman in question, but she had not
responded to our inquiries as of press time.) The PGPD report claims that all information was
shared with CPAC security, who then confiscated the pair's access passes. But CPAC personnel
maintain that they were never informed of Cohen's identity, and did not confiscate any pass
that would have tipped them off.
The police department's claim is hard to square with CPAC personnel's obvious confusion
about the events that followed. Over the next two days, two more Trump impersonators appeared
at the convention, both in professional-grade costumes. The third and final Trump impersonator
was detained by the Secret Service. His prosthetics were so elaborate that he had to call an
associate -- a professional makeup artist -- to assist in their removal so that the Secret
Service could confirm his identity. That wasn't the only person who came to help him, though:
Brian Stolarz, an attorney specializing in white-collar criminal defense, was at the ready.
From there, an hour and a half passed before the big event: somebody ran through a highly
trafficked area of the hotel in full Klan robes, while numerous CPAC attendees looked on in
horror. Security arrived quickly, and the Klan impersonator was detained as well. Stolarz --
the lawyer who had shown up for the Trump impersonator that same day -- was on the scene here
too, further confirming the link between what otherwise might have passed for unrelated
episodes.
Given everything that has occurred in the interim -- COVID became the big news just a few
days after CPAC -- most people seem to have forgotten that the Klansman story took on a life of
its own at the time. Because Cohen's presence was not made public at the time, despite the
discovery of his identity on Thursday, speculation ran wild. Clips of a man in Klan robes
running through CPAC made the rounds on the internet -- often, according to Walters, via
accounts that seemed obviously bogus. In addition to the social media buzz, the CPAC incidents
were given a good bit of airtime in major news outlets. The ACU fielded calls from, among
others, leaders of D.C.'s Black Lives Matter, outraged that one of the largest gatherings of
mainstream conservatives in the country would tolerate a Klansman strolling through. (The
initial clips that surfaced did not show the horrified reactions of actual CPAC attendees, nor
the actor's detainment by security.) Just as with the Abu Aita interview, what was ostensibly a
comedy act apparently doubled as a very real political influence operation.
It was more than six months before what actually happened at CPAC became apparent to the
public. With Borat Subsequent Moviefilm 's hurried release (a week and a half before
Election Day), the Trump impersonators and the Klansman were all shown to be part of a massive
Cohen stunt -- perhaps his biggest to date. But it is worth considering how carefully the film
itself glosses over the complexity of this production. Walters estimates that a team of a dozen
unauthorized security personnel were operating at CPAC, accompanying a slightly larger,
undercover film crew. It came to the attention of CPAC personnel that this group had rented,
and were operating out of, a block of rooms at the nearby Westin. All of these personnel had
purchased access passes to CPAC (which aren't cheap) and security also suspected that some
registration credentials may have been forged -- with top-notch equipment and skill, at that.
Walters estimated the cost of the operation to be somewhere around a quarter of a million
dollars, if not more.
To an impartial observer, this all would seem to be not a goofy comedy sketch, but a serious
information op at a major political event in the midst of an important election year. In a way,
it was: all these scenes existed independently, floating around the internet -- forming
opinions and sparking controversies and stoking hatred -- for months before they were folded
into the context of the film. First as tragedy and then as farce, right?
* * *
Between the CPAC saga and the movie's release, another major operation -- in some ways more
complex than that in February -- had been carried out at the end of June. The third annual
March for Our Rights rally was set to be a small affair, operated out of one organizer's
flatbed truck, run by a local crew with hardly any budget to speak of.
A few months before the event, though, the rally's three organizers -- Allen Acosta, Matt
Marshall, and Tessa Ashley -- were contacted by a production company who asked to film at the
event for a documentary. Something seemed off, and the organizers declined. Then, just a few
weeks out from the rally, they were contacted by a group representing themselves as a PAC based
in Southern California. The name they used was "Back-to-Work USA," and beside a cell phone
number -- which now goes to voicemail -- and one press release, there was little out there to
attest to their existence. Again, the organizers were skeptical, but the group seemed eager to
offer financial support.
Acosta, who has been the event's lead organizer in each of the three years it's occurred,
started out slow. He asked the two women from "Back-to-Work" -- the names they gave were Tamara
Young and Mary Harris -- if their group would pay to rent out porta-potties for the event. When
they followed through, he took it as a sign that they were legitimate, and that their offer of
support was sincere. At breakneck pace, the supposed PAC contracted a professional stage and
other equipment, an army of security, and a number of legitimate musical acts, including Larry
Gatlin. In all, the expenses -- the group virtually paid for the whole event -- amounted to
tens of thousands of dollars.
The morning of June 27th, Acosta kept close watch over the setup. He directed participants,
including Young and Harris, exactly where to park their cars. He gave a security briefing to
the team that Back-to-Work USA had hired -- about 40 locals hired for the day. Once the event
began, he immersed himself in the crowd, making conversation with attendees and making sure
everything went smoothly audience-side.
Meanwhile, the Back-to-Work crew claimed they were rushing to get one more act to warm the
crowd up for Gatlin. They told Marshall that they had found one at the last minute, and in the
middle of the action neither he nor any of the other event organizers had much time to vet the
new find.
The first portion of the event, which featured stump speeches from conservative political
candidates, was wrapping up, and they were ready to pivot to the entertainment segment, with
Gatlin headlining. At this point, organizers noticed a substantial swell in the crowd. Acosta
didn't think anything of it at the time, as he had encouraged people who might not be
interested in the political rally to come enjoy the music nonetheless. In retrospect, a number
of the new arrivals seem suspect. Notably, a group with Gadsden and Confederate flags were
standing off in the back, hesitant to join the main body of people even at Acosta's urging.
Looking back on the moment months later, he said it was "like they were waiting for a cue."
It was then that Acosta got a call from the police. One woman, upset by some Trump flags at
the rally, was causing a scene across the street. A few attendees were engaging with her
verbally. Acosta went over to help get a handle on the situation. The lone protestor continued
for about 15 minutes, and her outburst escalated until she was eventually arrested. At that
point, Acosta crossed back over to rejoin the event.
As soon as he returned, he was met with complaints from worried parents: somebody was
walking through the crowd with a backward-facing camera in his backpack, which the parents
thought was pointed down to the level of their children. Acosta actually found the man, and was
questioning him when a commotion broke out in the area of the stage. Acosta turned in that
direction, and in the blink of an eye the man had bolted for the parking lot.
The ruckus that caught Acosta's attention has been widely publicized, though very little of
what actually happened has broken into the mainstream narrative. The second act which
"Back-to-Work" had supposedly booked last minute was actually Sacha Baron Cohen, in character
as Borat who was in character as "Country Steve." Country Steve sang a song about injecting
various liberals with the Wuhan flu, as well as chopping up journalists "like the Saudis do."
Parts of the song also featured anti-Semitic undertones.
This was hardly met without resistance: one video -- distinctly absent from most reporting
of the event -- shows a young attendee, draped in an Israeli flag, grabbing a bullhorn and
rushing to the front of the crowd to confront Cohen. At the same time, Marshall and one other
rally participant (who happens to be the son of a Holocaust survivor) managed to get past
Cohen's security -- with a good bit of effort -- and chase him off the stage. In a late-October
interview with Steven Colbert, Cohen claimed that one of the two men reached for his gun while
rushing the stage. Marshall, who was carrying an unloaded pistol at the event, denies that this
ever happened. Cohen seems to relish the idea that he has placed himself in danger for these
stunts: he claimed to Letterman that his interview with Abu Aita was conducted at a secret
location, with two hulking bodyguards accompanying the "terrorist," while in reality it was
conducted at a popular hotel under Israeli jurisdiction, with Abu Aita accompanied by a
journalist friend and the peace activist who runs the Holy Land Trust.
Country Steve, clearly unwelcome, ran into a staged ambulance that rushed away with the
lights on. Acosta hurried to the parking lot and saw that the cars of the Back-to-Work crew had
all disappeared as well. In a matter of seconds the scam became apparent. But the spin was
quickly applied online: clips of the violent and anti-Semitic song started to pop up on social
media, with the confrontation by the young Jewish activist and the moment where Marshall chased
Cohen offstage conveniently left out. Special attention was given to the members of the crowd
who enthusiastically sang along. But, by and large, these do not seem to be actual attendees of
the March for Our Rights. For the most part, they seem to have come from the group of
bystanders that Acosta suggests were "waiting for a cue." Marshall -- who is convinced that
these were hired extras -- points out that these people are dressed in over-the-top,
stereotypical MAGA get-ups, complete with straw hats and Rebel flags. He also notes that, given
Washington's history and location, Confederate flags simply aren't a part of the culture, even
in more provocative corners of the right.
Nevertheless, the episode was cast as a classic Borat sting: Cohen, it was assumed, had
shown up at this rally, hopped on stage, and easily gotten the right-wingers to show their
racist side. Nobody looked into the immense effort that had gone into the scene. That somebody
had spent tens of thousands of dollars even to get him there, and apparently planted willing
collaborators in the crowd, was hardly considered at all.
Once again, the stunt took on a substantial political character. Reports that right-wing
rally-goers had gleefully participated in Country Steve's act cropped up all over the internet,
bolstered by social media buzz -- supposedly showing the dark underbelly of MAGA-world right
before the election. And once again -- as with CPAC, and Abu Aita, and any number of Cohen's
marks -- great pains were taken to hide just how orchestrated the whole thing was.
* * *
It's interesting how Borat -- within the plot of the movie -- is supposed to have wound up
at the rally in Washington. While quarantining with two new friends -- Jim Russell and Jerry
Holleman, two supposed QAnoners with virtually no online presence -- Borat stumbles upon a
video of his daughter, Tutar (played by newcomer Maria Bakalova) pretending to be a journalist
named Grace. In the clip, Tutar/Grace/Bakalova is interviewing two anti-lockdown activists
about the risk COVID emergency measures pose for a long-term slide into authoritarianism.
What's really interesting here is that this interview actually happened. The two
interviewees, Ashley and Adam Smith, are leaders of ReopenNC, a grassroots movement with over
80,000 members in their Facebook group. On April 22nd -- long before the March for Our Rights
rally in late June -- Ashley received an email from someone using the name Charlotte
Richardson, claiming to be "a producer for More Than Sports TV, a production company working
together with One America News Network on a documentary that explores the horrors of socialism
and its corrosive impact on creativity, success and innovation here in America." More Than
Sports TV had a website, registered in November of 2019. Likewise, Held Back, the supposed
documentary project in the works, had a website that was just registered on March 9th of this
year. (Neither website remains active today.) Given the apparently legitimate websites and the
purported connection to OAN, Smith agreed to the interview.
She conducted a 40-minute interview over Zoom with "Grace," in which the two talked
seriously about the subject matter; Bakalova did not break character once, and Smith never
suspected a thing. Charlotte even reached out to set up another interview, this time with
Ashley's husband, Adam, participating. It was from this second interview that a brief clip was
pulled and posted to The Patriots Report, ostensibly a news site. It is this posting that Borat
stumbles upon in the film.
The Patriots Report domain was registered in September of 2019. Like all the other sites in
play here, it was registered using an anonymous proxy service, making it impossible to
determine who purchased the domain. The bulk of its content is plagiarized from popular sites
like The Gateway Pundit -- though some portion, notably the Bakalova/Smith interview, is
original, fabricated content. As of October 31st, The Patriots Report is still active, still
masquerading as a news site, and still posting new content. In these last days before the
election, there seems to be a focus on just that. One
story , pulled from Politico
without attribution, warns that "Most social media users in three key states have seen ads
questioning the election." Another
story , ripped straight from
Daily Kos , has been pinned to the site's homepage for days: "It's not just social media:
Election disinformation now spreading through text, emails." If the site was meant solely as a
prop for a comedy film, it's hard to imagine why it's being used to spread fears over "election
disinformation" a week after the movie opened and mere days before the election itself.
This is particularly interesting given Cohen's public activism calling for stricter
censorship of speech by tech platforms, with a special focus on Facebook, in close association
with the Anti-Defamation League. Cohen is fond of talking about "fake news" on the talk show
circuit, but he has not offered any explanation as to why he is apparently running a fake news
outlet himself.
* * *
Besides the Smith interview and the widely discussed Rudy Giuliani interview, Borat revealed
in a tweet on October 24th that Bakalova, posing as an aspiring journalist for The Patriots
Report, had been given a brief tour of the White House press room by One America News Network's
chief White House correspondent, Chanel Rion. (That a White House correspondent generously
offered advice and a tour to a hopeful fellow journalist is somehow meant to be taken as a
prank.) On the surface level, he seems to just be suggesting that the current White House is
unserious because this actor -- who passed a Secret Service background check two days before
the tour -- was allowed into the press room and onto the north lawn.
But another interesting (and deeply concerning) dimension to Sacha Baron Cohen's operation
-- on top of CIA sources connecting with Palestinian activists, small fortunes spent crafting
political scenes that spread through the internet like a virus, and online disinformation
campaigns undertaken in earnest while publicly pushing for tech censorship -- is added by a
detail that Rion observed.
The camera crew Bakalova used in her White House stunt were neither amateur pranksters nor
Hollywood professionals: they were credentialed members of the press corp. When Rion inquired
about this, Bakalova's producer "shrugged and told [her] he has friends at CBS." According to
Rion, all three members of the crew had congressional press badges, and at least two of the
three had White House hard passes. Hard passes are issued to those who have been on the White
House grounds at least 180 times within a six month period -- suggesting that Bakalova's
accomplices were full-time, long-term members of the White House press.
Plenty has been said about the cheapness of Borat's humor, and the tiredness of the
shtick. Likewise, many have observed that Cohen's comedy -- always heavily political -- has
crossed the line into blatant politicking, especially with respect to the Giuliani interview.
But there is more than enough here to suggest that the politics run much deeper than might be
evident at first glance.
If we're supposed to be so worried about "election disinformation" and foreign election
meddling, shouldn't we be concerned about a British multimillionaire -- with unexplained
connections to the CIA and the White House press corps, and public affiliation with other
institutions clearly hostile to Trump like the ADL -- carrying out massive information ops in
the lead-up to an election that he has publicly expressed an interest in influencing? Or should
we just pretend it's all okay because the press told us we're supposed to be laughing?
I thought Borat was Mossad, not CIA - but you always learn something new here.
...with respect to the Giuliani interview
It was my impression that the President's personal lawyer was conducting a
counterintelligence operation to catch the deep state in the act. As you can see in the
movie, he caught them red handed. They infiltrated much closer than anybody thought.
Great expose! It's always interesting to find out that what appears to be random leftist
filthy-minded comedy is in fact well planned deep state conspiracy. The matrix is far more
complex and evil than we suspected.
*Lisa reads Comic Book Guy's Shirt*
Lisa: C:, C:\Dos, C:\Dos\Run. Ha! Only one person in a million would find that funny.
Prof. Frink: Yes, we call that the Dennis Miller Ratio
Misdirection. Your point was that this was an overly detailed analysis of a minor
comedian, and then mocked the sincerity of the article's concern. When confronted with the
reality that this is in no way minor, but in fact a widely promoted film, you insist I'm
free not to watch it, which is completely irrelevant.
Misdirection. Your point was that some random comedian has a movie on Amazon, and
somehow this is upsetting (?) to conservatives. When confronted with the reality that it's
just a silly film, you insist that it is "plastered" all over a streaming service, which is
completely irrelevant.
Oh my. A lot of hang wringing over a cheap, silly, no account, failed movie. No one with
any sense would take Cohen seriously. He is a known provocateur. His movies aren't funny
any more. And , while a Democrat, he has me feeling some sympathy for the targets he
exploits.
Except for Giuliani. He gets what he sows. He the king of disinformation. But one thing
which I have noticed. The successful parodies are by left leaning protagonists. Mostly
showing the stupidity of Trump supporters at his rallies. The Daily Show has made a staple
of humiliating boring Trump supporters.
Surely there are Biden supporters who are just as wacky. If not, that is interesting. It
does seem that right leaning Trump supporters are subject to believing the right's
disinformation. Now that is a problem which our author should investigate. And that is
actually important. Cohen's movies, not so much.
Update. It was just revealed that a Republican ad doctored a video of Biden being
confused about whether he was in Minnesota or Florida. While actually in Florida, the ad
doctored the clip to make it seem like he was in Minneapolis. Big difference. One has to
pay to be deceived by a liberal. It is free to be deceived by a conservative.
Cohen's pro-Israel turn in "The Spy" could have been produced by the Mossad. While the
story is in broad strokes true, every Arab and Syrian is depicted as drunk, incompetent,
corrupt, or a cuckold. Would appear being used by or in cahoots intelligence services is
nothing new for him.
Did you actually read the article or just scan it for something to complain about? Take
your own advice and get over yourself "petal".
If you read the actual reviews of the movie, or bother to watch it for yourself, people
are interpreting the actual events in the film, other than Cohen's actual actions, as real.
If the entire thing is a hoax, guess what? It IS a big deal.
Read the article, watched the film. Again - it's called satire, and it couldn't have
been made without interrupting things like CPAC; that a lot of work went in to getting it
right isn't a surprise. If it's a big deal, I imagine that's just how Cohen wanted it.
No, not all of it is satire. Don't just reflexively defend Cohen because he went after
Republicans. Now, if all you are going to talk about is CPAC and you ignore everything else
in the article, it's just a complex and expensive prank. However that's not all there is in
the article. Portraying a Palestinian politicians who isn't even Muslim as an Islamist
terrorist is NOT satire. It's slander. Don't pretend you don't understand that. If they
brought in fake protesters to perform as right wing fanatics at the March for Our Rights,
that's not satire. The film has two kids of jokes. Borat is a fictional character. The
viewer is aware of that. So there are the jokes which are based on his misunderstandings
and stranger from a strange land persona. The other jokes depend on his character evoking
legitimate reactions from unsuspecting people he is pranking. Either way the audience is in
on what's real and what isn't. In the Country Steve sequence the flag waving protesters
joining in to sing about killing and torturing their political enemies are being depicted
as authentic to the audience. If they aren't real that's not satire, it's slander against
the actual participants and it's fraud at the expense of the audience. I am sure on an
intellectual level you can understand this even if you really want to disagree with me for
the sake of not conceding the argument and defending a person who is theoretically on your
side.
Right. And I suppose if Cohen were a right-winger interrupting the sacred ritual of baby
dismemberment at Planned Parenthood, this would be acceptable to you in the name of
satire?
I thought it interesting the Borat character is jailed in a gulag at the start. So he's
aware of their awfulness.
Did SBC not make the connection that gulags exist in nations with totalitarian
governments? It seems unlikely, since he regularly flatters the party of more government at
the expense of the liberty-loving conservatives.
The pearl clutching over the fact that an extremely elaborate and well-organized stunt
at CPAC required high levels of coordination to pull off is extremely funny to me.
For some reason we need to believe that entertainers and pranksters are dumb people
getting by on luck and audaciousness, so we are somehow offended when it turns out they're
professionals who make things that are extraordinarily complex look easy.
Outrage isn't pearl-clutching and it is not in this case concerned merely with the fact
that this stunt took time and money, or that a political leader or his supporters were
mocked. It is concerned with the fact that something that was initially portrayed as a
spontaneous event, and latterly as a mere humorous 'stunt' - and that is where the scale
and above all the expense of the thing becomes relevant - genuinely reflects the nature of
one political party and its supporters. In the case of the 'stunt' in Israel, it seems at
face value - I'm not familiar with the story so I can't say - that the detestable Mr Baron
Cohen deliberately tried to influence an election and ruin a man's reputation. So much the
worse for him if he did it all in good fun.
It's almost as if the writer has no idea how movies are made; that movies just
spontaneously appear on the screen; that the credits which list the names of scores of
specialists, are some kind of inside Hollywood joke; and that movie making, unlike every
other business, doesn't requires financing.
Okay for a lot of you this is going to fall on deaf ears because you just come to The
American Conservative to whine about the existence of American Conservatives and whine
further if any actual American conservative objects. I suppose some of you will whine about
me pointing this out too. It just proves my point, so spare me the snark.
Okay that said.
The reason this article matters is that Sacha Baron Cohen's whole angle is that the
absurd characters he portrays lure the unsuspecting into revealing the unpleasantness of
their true selves. If you've actually taken the time to watch the movie you know that the
sing along at the March for Our Rights really is treated as actually documentary footage,
Cohen's charterer is supposed to be fake, but we are supposed to believe that that crowd
singing enthusiastically about murdering and torturing their political opponents is
completely real. If all of that was staged then what Cohen is doing is extremely deceptive
and probably grounds for a civil suit by the event's original organizers.
If you read the actual reviews, both professional reviews and user reviews, (the
professional reviews are overwhelmingly positive BTW) all of that is taken at face value
and many people are commenting on how Cohen had once again "hilariously" uncovered the dark
nature of American culture.
If he's fabricating large parts of this movie, which Amazon Prime is both giving away
and heavily promoting, that's a big deal. If partisanship is just going to lead you to
respond to this by blowing the whole thing off as Republicans not being able to take being
the butt of the joke Cohen has uncovered a dark aspect of our culture, not racism, sexism
and violence, but gullibility, apathy and partisanship.
Grow up! Comedians have been ridiculing politicians since mass media was invented. Cohen
is very successful, and he's not on your side. So you hint at some sort of Jewish
conspiracy and demand an investigation. Paranoid thinking at its finest.
The President of these United States tweets that the killing OBL was fake, and that the
then VP of the United States ordered the murders of the SEALS who killed the stand-in OBL,
and you want to talk about how a comedian is unfairly going after Trump?
Aww, now, how bad can Cohen be? After all, he was the keynote speaker at the ADL's 2019
Summit, and even received their International Leadership Award. Those are some pretty high
honors.
Cohen is a sick freak. I told him so in my one-star review of his latest freak show
"movie." If he violates US law against foreign meddling in elections, he should be deported
or arrested.
I would observe that even though Cohen insisted "on the sincerity of the CIA claim" in
court the assertion might not be true as there is no way to check or verify it. If Cohen
has an intelligence relationship it is far more likely to be with an agency from where he
was born (Israel) or where he lives (UK). Neither Mossad nor SIS would be likely to confirm
any such relationship if it does exist, so Cohen is quite free to make something up that
enhances his story without any fear of being exposed.
What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?worldblee , Oct 31 2020
17:02 utc |
1
Pepe Escobar is as pessimistic about a Harris (Biden) administration as I am. The incoming
foreign policy team would be the return of the
blob that waged seven wars during the Obama/Biden administration:
Taking a cue from [the Transition Integrity Project], let's game a Dem return to the White
House – with the prospect of a President Kamala taking over sooner rather than later.
That means, essentially, The Return of the Blob.
President Trump calls it "the swamp". Former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes – a mediocre hack – at least coined the funkier "Blob", applied to the
incestuous Washington, DC foreign policy gang, think tanks, academia, newspapers (from the
Washington Post to the New York Times), and that unofficial Bible, Foreign Affairs
magazine.
A Dem presidency, right away, will need to confront the implications of two wars: Cold
War 2.0 against China, and the interminable, trillion-dollar GWOT (Global War on Terror),
renamed OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) by the Obama-Biden administration.
The Democratic White House team Escobar describes (Clinton, Blinken, Rice, Flournoy) would
be an assembly of well known war mongers who all argue for hawkish policies. The main
'enemies', Russia and China, would be the same as under Trump. Syria, Venezuela, Iran and
others would stay on the U.S. target list. U.S. foreign policy would thereby hardly change
from Trump's version but would probably be handled with more deadly competence.
But Escobar sees two potential positive developments:
In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the
JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and
re-starting nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of
Russia, not a new all-out Cold War, even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record,
that Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
I believe that Harris (Biden) will disappoint on both of those issues. The
neoconservatives have already infested the Harris (Biden) camp. They will make sure that
JCPOA
does not come back :
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But
both neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East
and reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eric Edelman, a former diplomat and adviser to Dick Cheney, said Trump's peace plan has
fostered an open political divide in the U.S. over Israel, ...
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic, echoed the fear that Israel is being politicized.
...
...
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
...
"There will be voices" in the Biden administration that seek a return to the Iran deal, but
the clock has been running for four years, and we're in a different place, he said. And "it
will be hard [for Biden] not to use the leverage that the sanctions provide in part because
Iran is not abiding by a lot of the limits of the nuclear agreement They're about three,
maybe four months away from having enough fissile material to actually develop a nuclear
weapon."
For lifting the sanctions against Iran the Harris (Biden) administration will demand much
more than Iran's return to the limits of the JCPOA. Iran will reject all new demands, be they
about restricting its missile force or limiting its support for Syria. The conflict will
thereby continue to fester.
The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally
prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want more concessions from
Russia than that country is willing to give. Currently it is Russia that has the upper hand
in strategic weapons with already deployed hypersonic missiles and other new platforms. The
U.S. will want to fill the new 'missile gap' and the military-industrial complex stands ready
to profit from that. The New-START prolongation will eventually run out and I do not see the
U.S. agreeing to new terms while Russia has a technological superiority.
Domestic policies under a democratic president will likewise see no substantial
difference. As Krystal Ball remarked,
here summarized from a Rolling Stone podcast:
But even with a Biden win, Ball doesn't think it will mean much for policy.
"My prediction for the Biden era is that very little actually happens," says Ball.
"Democrats are very good at feigning impotence. We saw this in the SCOTUS hearings as well.
They're very good for coming up with reasons why, 'oh those mean Republicans, like we want
to do better healthcare and we want left wages, but oh gosh, Mitch McConnell, he's so
wiley, we can't get it done.'"
'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real
change never came. The Harris (Biden) administration must be seen in similar light.
I therefore agree with the sentiment with which Escobar closes his piece :
In a nutshell, Biden-Harris would mean The Return of the Blob with a vengeance.
Biden-Harris would be Obama-Biden 3.0. Remember those seven wars. Remember the surges.
Remember the kill lists. Remember Libya. Remember Syria. Remember "soft coup" Brazil.
Remember Maidan. You have all been warned.
Posted by b at
16:45 UTC |
Comments (183) I have been trying to set the expectations for my deluded Democratic,
pro-tech industry, pro-security state friends and colleagues who think they are
forward-thinking progressives but actually just hate Trump as emblematic of non-college
educated blue collar types they prefer not to associate with. Biden himself said it, "Nothing
will change," and Obama deported many more people in his first term than Trump has to pick
but one issue. There will be no M4A, little change in foreign policy, no major stimulus for
workers, etc. But since the face in the White House will have changed, they will convince
themselves that America has changed and it was all thanks to them...
One major change I expect to see is that BLM protests will fade into the background if
Harris/Biden is elected. Without the need to pressure an administration the elites want to
get rid of, there won't be the funding and energy to sustain it. But America will continue on
the same downward trajectory and the same divisions will still exist with no remediation in
sight.
Really, so what? You have a choice between chaotic anarchic corruption, and organised
professional corruption. Is it not better to have the calm, predictable, version - at least
you know what you're getting. In any case I am not sure Biden would be able to go back to
launching new wars so easily. The US gives the impression of being over-stretched as it is.
It seems clear that Biden will win. This means that the possibility of a serious military
confrontation with Russia is more likely than it would be with a Trump win. In any Biden
cabinet Michelle Flournoy will have a major voice. She would have likely become Hillary's
Secretary of Defense. In August of 2016 Flournoy wrote a major foreign policy article
advocating a 'no fly' zone over Syria. That would have meant that the US military would have
been obliged to prevent the Russia airforce from operating in Syrian skies (even though, the
Syrian government had invited the Russians to be there). No one really knows if Flournoy
would have been given authority to carry out such insanity had Hillary won, but the
consequences of such insane policy are easy to imagine.
But without much doubt, a Biden administration will have Susan Rice and Michelle Flournoy
in very high policy positions. Given that Biden is rapidly descending into dementia and
Kamala Harris seems utterly clueless, US government foreign policy will very likely be led by
a Rice/Flournoy collaboration in the coming years. Of course, China has become a much bigger
player in the last four years. Maybe those fools around Biden will be distracted by China and
they avoid war with with Russia. In either case it looks like very dangerous times
ahead.
Trump was always for me about controlled demolition of the empire.
Putin will not tolerate another ramping up of hostilities in the MENA.
I believe, just as in 2016, open military confrontation with Russia hangs in the
balance.
It is believed here and elsewhere that Russia and China are working hand in hand and
lockstep to thwart the empire.
They may be trade allies but they are not bed fellows.
Russia will always do what is in its own interest and will be beyond reproach from China
come a last-minute attempt for it to talk down hostilities btw Ru and U.S.A.
I hope those peddling the narrative that all is theater and a mere globalist game to keep
the peons entertained are correct.
But I fear the stupidity and egoism of man far more than I do their love of money and life
of luxury.
The JCPOA's "snap back" provisions etc. prove that Obama never intended JCPOA as a long term
agreement in the first place. The issue was always how long it would suit, not how long it
would take for the US to. Nor is the US going to forego it's support for a colonial assault
on the Middle East, aka Israel, any more than England will give up Gibraltar.
That said, there really is a policy debate between attacking Russia first or attacking
China first or simultaneously attacking both. The thing is, the conflict will continue after
any election. Since the Democratic Party isn't a programmatic party but a franchise operation
of Outs, there will be zero unanimity within the Democratic Party and not even a clean sweep
of the national government will resolve the dispute, which will be waged with exactly the
same panic-mongering, paranoid cries of treason, barely subdued hysteria at the prospect of
the lower races overtaking the God-given rights of the US government to exercise imperium
(right to punish, particularly with death, originally) over humanity, and so on. The same
ignorant vicious halfwits who were convinced Clinton Foundation was worse than the Comintern
infiltrating innocent America made assholes of themselves. They'll just do it again over
Biden, but with different made up excuses.
Domestically, there will be real differences, albeit some will still consider them
entirely minor. There will be less emphasis on military officers masquerading as civilian
officials; more emphasis on actually having competent officials who are even confirmed by the
Senate; somewhat larger infrastructure investment; somewhat less deliberate destruction of
government capacity to deliver services; slightly greater emphasis on keeping money valuable
by limiting government spending, with smaller increases in military spending, slightly
greater taxes, and only limited support to state governments going bankrupt, bankrupt
unemployment and pension funds; a few restrictions on mass evictions; no separation of
families in ICE prisons; open appeals to racism will cease. There will not however be any
Medicare expansion, nor will there be a radically progressive federal income tax, not even a
new bankruptcy law, nor will there be even political reforms like direct popular election of
the president or even reform of the judiciary. There may be a minimum wage increase to $15
per hour.
One note: The idea that any president will honor any deal to step down or that a president
can be forced down is refuted by history thus far. All theories that Biden is scheduled to be
terminated are silly. Or worse, attempts to race bait Harris (note the ones who like to call
her by her first name.) The influence exercised by Obama in getting Biden the nomination
shows that if Biden is in any sense a puppet, he's Obama's puppet. Fixating on Harris instead
is foolish even as some sort of amateur conspiracy mongering. No matter what Obama thinks,
the inauguration will sever all puppet strings.
Can't say I'm convinced by all these threats of wars. They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in
Syria when they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to
do, and required too vast a military investment. Situation remains true today. You'll find
most of Biden's prospective wars fall in the same category.
The US self-declared "progressives" are horribly dumb people, no matter their degrees and
"intellectual" professions. Stupidity is the illness (weakness) of the societal immunity
system. The Blob of the parasitic class is the pestilence that thrives on the immune weakness
of the US society. Not happy with mine, then find a better metaphor.
I repeat myself from before, US presidents change, US policy (Mayhem Inc.) does not.
Nether on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela ..., nor on China. If Trump loses, I will miss only
the potential duel at the OK Corral between Trump and the Blob/Swamp. If Trmp wins, I am
buying popcorn.
@Laguerre #7
I would argue the failure of a "no-fly" zone in Syria was more due to united UN (Russia and
China) opposition plus the Russia airbase in Tartus rather than any policy changes in the US.
It's everywhere. And matched by Democratic Party ineptitude, fake "resistance", and
generally lax attitude (spurred by a false sense of security due to polling numbers that
can't be relied upon).
That's why I'm predicting a Trump landslide - including winning the popular vote.
The Deep State wants a 'Glorious Leader' type that can lead the country against Russia and
China.
KB has it right the demodogs will have better PR but nothing will change. The only thing I
hope they do is fully throw the u.s. govt behind stopping the virus and even that will be
hard do to many stupid people.
Trumpster and the swamp all he did was change the cruel animals in it and biden will
change it back to the other cruel animals that were there before.
It is hard to tell what will change if the Democrats win because they have flip flopped on
policies so many times that you don't know what they really stand for.
Are they going to ban fracking or not?
Are they going to end the oil industry or not?
Are they going to pack the Supreme Court or not ?
Are they going to implement the Green New Deal or not ?
Are they going to encourage immigration or not ?
Are they going to tear down the Wall?
Are they going to defund the police or not?
Other than #OrangeManBad what do they actually stand for ?
Jonathan Pie lays it out quite nicely https://youtu.be/IdnHfYbr1cQ
The one issue that is critical is that it is clear than Biden will not make it full term.
His mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly. He might just make it over the goal post line
but just barely.
Therefore the real question is what will Kamala Harris do?
Russia has a lead in strategic weapons that the US will not be able to catch up with.
Hence the US emphasis on nuclear weapons to bridge the gap. Russia has successfully thwarted
the empire on several occasions. How will the empire struck back ? (So as not to lose
credibility with allies and vassals alike)
They are going to reduce government subsidies for fracking
And encourage the oil industry's ongoing retooling to other energies
They are going to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats in keeping with the number of Circuit
Courts
They are going to implement environmental legislation and policies
They will hopefully try to adopt a comprehensive policy on immigration and naturalization
They will abandon The Wall project as pointless
They will review the role of the police in dealing with situations where a social worker or a
psychologist (with police escort) might better be able to handle the situation
Kamala Harris will keep an active and high profile as she is being groomed to run in
2024
I agree that trajectory in foreign policy will be the same. I think a Trump administration
would tend to entrench into the bureaucracy the xenophobic nationalists. This is in contrast
to the neoliberal nationalists that make up the Democrat side of the foreign policy clique.
In practice the latter ends up carrying water for the neocons, so the difference from the
global perspective, the perspective of those on whom the bombs fall, is academic.
Domestically, however, I don't think we can say there's no significant difference. At some
point far down the road, there will be a more meaningful internal political struggle in the
US. Talking about when the $$ printing power runs out, so several presidential cycles from
now at the very earliest, maybe many decades away.
The out-groups targeted by xenophobic nationalism will shift by then - either black or
hispanic people will necessarily be included into the Republican party, and the divide may be
more a matter of religion or nationality than race, but the overall idea will be the
same.
No matter the details, it would be better to go into that conflict without giving the
right-wingers a big head start. I think we should admit that Trump does accelerate the
process. Maybe readers outside the US take some pleasure in the chaos produced by this, but
for anyone actually planning to live within the US, who also objects to unrestrained
nationalism, there actually is a pretty high price to pay for peeling off the mask of phony
benevolence off of the de-facto imperialist foreign policy.
'b' half the truth isn't the truth, no doubt you'l get round to the other half. It's
conspicuous !
In these times focusing on what might happen if we get Biden, is biased.
What in your view might happen if we get trump ?
Given his track record.
Much more relevant I feel.
@Malchik #16
Well, kid, I will guarantee that 2/3rds of what you say will happen with a Biden win, won't
happen.
I am particularly struck by your assertion that "super predator" Biden and "Lock 'em up"
Harris will do anything to rein in police misbehavior. That is pure fantasy.
As for fracking: the subsidies were primarily by banksters in the form of loans and have long
since ended. Nobody believes fracking is going to be a profitable business for at least a
decade.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote. Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority
of adult America. By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the
interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016
election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white
supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
In my opinion, it's time for the non far-right of the USA to start thinking seriously
(specially if you're one of the twelve socialists in the country) in Third Party vote. Yes,
you won't pick up the fruits immediately, but at least you're build up a legacy for the
generations to come to try to change the landscape.
Now, of course, very little will change with Biden-Harris. But this has a good side, too:
it shows the American Empire has clearly reached an exhaustion point, where the POTUS is
impotent to the obstacle posed by China-Russia. Putin has already publicly stated he doesn't
care who's next POTUS; China has already stated what the USA does or decides won't mean shit.
Maybe the rising irrelevance of the POTUS is good in the greater scheme of things - or, at
least, it gives us new, very precious, information about the core of the Empire.
Is b really suggesting Trump is more peaceful than Biden?
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious. They are all on Team Deep State, which serves the monied class.
And the pretense that the Deep State is divided or partisan is equally laughable.
Strange that so many smart people fall for the shell game behind the 'Illusion of
Democracy'. Is it so difficult to see the reshuffling of deck chairs and entertaining
diversions that pass for "US politics"?
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
But seriously, things have been changing very rapidly all of my life, and accelerating as
we go. I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either. They
remain focussed on their depraved personal ambitions and demented interpersonal disputes. So
no change in the midst of lots of change is what I expect, time to keep an eye out and
consider ones options.
By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Jesus but that is an ignorant comment. Michael Moore explained 4 years ago why Trump will win
the election (2016) https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4
div> @vk #21
You said:
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right
viewpoint is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is
certainly going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck
aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust
Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly
support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right"
and "proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely
this view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right" and
"proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this
view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious.
That's not actually true.
Biden has 47 years of track record to rely on.
HRC, ditto.
Bush is umpteenth generation Bush in government (100 years plus).
Obama was groomed through Harvard, community organization and Senate position as a servant of
the oligarchy.
Trump is a billionaire and 2nd generation wealthy, but he neither shares the views of the
oligarch classes - his historical behavior is clear proof of that - nor is he predictable as
the other 4 are.
If presented with a neocon view - all 4 of the above would 100% agree.
Trump? 85%.
That is a difference albeit absolutely not world changing.
Pure BS.
Giving health care to 20 million poor Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at. Adding pre
existing conditions save millions of lives. That's why the right despises Obama so much. How
dare he give money to those free loaders!
lets show what the republicans have done for poor Americans besides taking more needex
money from them and giving it to their rich buddies.
and No, Democrats cannot do anything if they don't control the Congress. They should have
done it 2 years ago but since all they were doing was scream RUSSIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! at
the top of their lungs,the people turned their backs on them.
Bullshit article.
The Democrats are not going to end fracking. It is doomed to collapse without their help. A
Wall Street Journal study revealed a remarkable fact that few Americans know; From 2000-2017
fracking companies spent $280 billion more to extract fracked oil and gas than they received
in revenue. Fracking is nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme predicated on the constant
issuing of debt and stock. Fracking wells deplete quickly. There is a constant need for more
expensive drilling. The remaining areas that will be fracked have less productive wells. Much
of the debt fracking companies have issued is back loaded while the well's production is
front loaded. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue generated to meet debt
obligations. What made the scheme possible was the artificially low interest rates created by
the Federal Reserve. There was a demand for yield that drove investment into debt of dubious
quality. A crash is inevitable.
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
I am curious why you think so.
Biden is nothing, if not a creature of habit (of obedience to his corporate masters).
Biden likely NSC: Tony Blinken. Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy NSC under Obama.
Susan "Bomber" Rice?
John Kerry?
Sally Yates? The one who signed the FISA warrants based on the Steele Dossier (based on 2
drunkard Russians in Malta mad at being fired)
Michael Bloomberg?
Jamie Dimon?
The only "fresh blood" in this group is the teenage blood they inject to try and remain
young.
Elizabeth Warren, were Biden to appoint her as Treasury Secretary, *would* constitute fresh
blood.
The likelihood of the Senator from MBNA appointing her to that position is zero.
I would love to be wrong in that instance, but it ain't gonna happen.
What is trumps legacy so far ?
Let's call that -- - 'The Crimes Of Donald Trump'
Well he has legitimised cold blooded murder.
Ditto racism.
Run roughshod over national laws and conventions. -- Invading an embassy. Assange, koshogie
murder, white helmit chlorine attack false flag. Funding and arming by US of Isis.
Corporate mansloughter by virus.
Interference in numerous country's internal politics.
Allowing Israel to interfer take over US politics.
The above are a few that comes to mind.
Have we done away with law and order ?
Feel free to add to my 'Crimes of Donald Trump' list.
In a word normalisation.
I hope you are right that the US will avoid war in Syria because they would lose. I was,
on the other hand, very impressed that Flournoy was advocating that no fly zone in August of
2016. It was on the basis of her article at that time I fled the US Democratic Party. I knew
it was bad before, but it suddenly became clear how Hillary would lead us int WWIII.
We've talked at moa about how policy doesn't change much between Democrat and Republican
Administrations. And we've talked about the Illusion of Democracy.
That each President has a different personality as well as different priorities and
challenges during their time in office doesn't indicate any fundamental difference in how we
are governed.
And Hillary Clinton wants to be Secretary of Defense in a Biden administration. Not only
would the world be in trouble I could see her using the DOD internal hit teams to go after
her domestic enemies. They will make 8 years of Bush junior look like a Disneyland vacation.
It will be similar to the many unsolved murders of Weimar Germany.
That was sarcasm, I knew it was going to cause trouble, sarcasm never works on the web
unless you add a /sarc tag or something, I guess I feel a bit perverse today.
But to be serious, any attempt to predict what comes next here must rely on the idea that
the future will be like the past, we extrapolate in other words, from various trends that we
pick out. We can expect Biden to remain who he has been in the past, politicfally he's a
hack, what we know of Harris does not suggest any principles to speak of either, so I feel
more like I want to pay attention to what's coming than trying to predict what they is going
to do or not do. That likely depends on "contingencies" just as in the past.
#23 - "I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either."
This is a highly relevant observation. For some time the character and intellectual scope
of the political/managerial sectors in the West have been noticeably mediocre, and will
likely continue as such for the foreseeable future. The necessary reforms of capitalism were
vetoed decades ago, ensuring that productive energies would gradually dissipate. For the last
decade all the West has had to offer the rest of humanity is neoliberal austerity, colour
revolutions, and armament contracts. This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out
self-imposed isolation, a process the political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging
and supporting without realizing it at all.
Interesting to see how the kayfabe vocabulary of Dim propaganda infects everyone's thought
and speech. Including b's:
"'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies."
Republican my eye. Democrat policies, period. A party founded, maintained and run to
implement the ruling class empire and war agenda, just like the Repucrats.
As if Obama was some kind of exception. Ditch this language.
usa is the major unknown;
China and Russia don't need to physically war - they are winning at PR around the globe.
Even tiny Cuba has greatly better creds!
usa needs to be a people who truly and consistently respect their allies.
Which comes back to usa being the major unknown.
'Cept for warmongering.
"All of us who spent careers in the military were raised on the notion that you lead by
example, and President Trump has been the antithesis of that in dealing with this
pandemic," said Charles "Steve" Abbot, former commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and deputy
Homeland Security Adviser. "Instead of taking steps that I would call 'Crisis Management
101,' President Trump shirked his duty to the nation by failing to provide the central
leadership necessary to get our arms around the problem, and he continues to mislead the
entire nation about this terrible threat. The result of that failure of leadership was that
his administration committed an unrelenting string of missteps, and the American public has
lost trust in what the president tells them."
The sixth Fleet is Europe, so "this terrible threat" must be Russia, which is the natural
enemy of the DNC/AtlanticCouncil/NATO unlike Trump the 'Putin-lover.'
And more on anti-Russia, from the article:
President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton said earlier this year that
Trump had repeatedly raised the issue of withdrawing the United States from NATO, and
warned of "a very real risk" that Trump would actually follow through in a second term.
Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and the number three official at the
State Department, put it this way: "Every modern president since Harry Truman has viewed
our commitment to democratic allies around the world as sacrosanct, because for half a
century those alliances have been a key source of American power." He noted that a
dissolution of NATO is at the top of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wish list. "Under
President Trump we have walked away from that global leadership, and, as a result, trust in
the United States has plummeted even among our closest friends. That's done enormous
damage."
This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out self-imposed isolation, a process the
political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging and supporting without realizing it at
all.
Posted by: jayc | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 37
I've been sort of fascinated by that for some time, back when I was young we were still
smart enough to know we had to compete with the USSR, and that we therefore had to develop
our human capital. And we did pretty well for a couple decades, but then after VietNam they
stopped doing that and choose the present "system" instead. Thus abandoning their long-term
ability to compete, the source of their power in the first place. Banana republics do not
compete well. Decadent.
But you have to give credit to the Russians and the Chinese too, their achievements are
impressive by any standard. Our enemies, the ones who have survived, have all proved their
mettle.
Can be, can be, no expectations in Biden / Harris. Nevertheless, Tronald is definitely not
the lesser evil. His foreign policy is also heading for a clash with China, and things are
not going well with Russia either. The warmongering anti-Iran axis has his support, the war
in Yemen continues, he won't leave Syria alone, his extremely Israel-friendly attitude
increases the danger of war. Everything that is suspected of being left-wing in South America
is strangled.
In addition, he has an encouraging effect on all the fascists of the world, his disastrous
ecological policy, his negative influence on the treatment of the Corona crisis, his general
dislike of multilateral organizations and treaties on which the weaker states of the world
are compulsorily dependent. Overall, he exerts an extremely negative influence on the entire
globe. He should be disposed of.
He will lose the elections, but what happens then is open.
The claim that support for minority rule isn't purely partisan BS is yet another lie. The
moral principle in countermajoritarianism like the Founders' is that democracy cannot be
allowed to threaten property. Except of course property before democracy, before liberty,
before humanity is a vile and disgusting tenet that shames everyone so lost to common
decency. The defense that a piece of parchment, a law, makes things moral and righteous and
that even opposition is somehow wrong is an offense against common sense. By that standard,
the Thirteen, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were the end of freedom in America!
It's one thing to have a mind deranged by rabid hate of your perceived social superiors,
but to openly uphold vulgarity is merely snobbery inverted. It is a mean and small minded
vice, always, and never a virtue. The Access: Hollywood tape was proof of vulgarity but to
defend it as not being proof of a crime but as a positive good is vicious. Vicious is not a
synonym for "bad ass." Or if it news, then "bad ass" is a horrible insult.
And, speaking of deranged minds, Wilson was felled by a stroke and Reagan was felled by
Alzheimer's, yet they did not fall from power. Quite aside from the question of how anyone
could decide who is battier, Trump or Biden, Biden will never be replaced by Harris for
incapacity short of a coma.
A very cogent analysis by b. But I believe the return of the Blob may not be as ominous as
feared.
The dangerous component of the Blob's collective fantasy is the confrontation against
China and Russia. As late as 4, 5 years ago the prevailing sentiment among Americans, the
masses and the elites alike, was one in which The Empire's might was still considered
unquestionably dominant and unchallenged. There was penchant for dressing down both China and
Russia, and the clumsy maneuvers of the Blob's operators (Obama/Clinton/Bolton/Rice et al)
were wholeheartedly supported even if contemptuously regarded for their clumsiness. That
sentiment has evaporated, especially after Chinese and Russian military parades as well as
American's numerous own infrastructure project failures along with abject performances of
Boeing jets and Zumwalt class destroyers. The COVID19 pandemic adds salt to injury.
There is an issue with self confidence now, up and down the hierarchy within the American
society, perhaps with the lone exception of Trump's rednecks.
So, the Blob may return with a vengeance but their political capital may be rather meager.
They will be all mouth and little substance, as would Trump's prospective second term.
I do not always agree with the opinion of the Saker, but in this matter I tend to support him
and can only quote from one of his recent articles :
And, in truth, the biggest difference between Obama and Trump, is that Trump did not start
any real wars. Yes, he did threaten a lot of countries with military attacks (itself a
crime under international law), but he never actually gave the go ahead to meaningfully
attack (he only tried some highly symbolic and totally ineffective strikes in Syria). I
repeat – the man was one of the very few US Presidents who did not commit the crime
of aggression, the highest possible crime under international law, above crimes against
humanity or even genocide, because the crime of aggression "contains within itself the
accumulated evil", to use the words of the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson. I submit that just
for this reason alone any decent person should choose him over Biden (who himself is
just a front for "President" Harris and a puppet of the Clinton gang). Either that, or
don't vote at all if your conscience does not allow you to vote for Trump. But voting
Biden is unthinkable for any honest person , at least in my humble opinion.
I am surprised by people who are of the opinion that half-dead Biden, suffering from
obvious dementia, is better. If only not Trump.
In 2016, Hilary, in fact, openly stated that she was going to use the so-called 'nuclear
blackmail' against the Russian Federation. And there was no guarantee that this crazy old
witch, having become president, would not have pressed the very button that launched nuclear
missiles at Russia. Four years ago, the choice was between an insane sadistic misanthropist
who could actually start a nuclear war, and a "dark horse" businessman with the illusory
prospect of some improvement in relations between the two strongest nuclear powers. I do not
want to drag in religion and the intervention of higher powers here, but it may not be at all
accidental that Trump snatched victory from the witch. Maybe we avoided a nuclear war.
Yes, now both options are bad. But of the two evils, it is better to choose the lesser,
which, of course, Trump is.
two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the JCPOA, or Iran
nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and re-starting
nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of Russia,
not a new all-out Cold War , even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record, that
Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
What? Funny. I thought it was Obama (read Democrats) who started this new Cold War. Just
to remind - It was Obama who made the decision to deploy missiles in Poland and Romania,
which are a direct threat to Russia. It is Obama & Co who are responsible for the
Ukrainian coup, which, in fact, became a trigger for the total deterioration of relations
between Russia and the West. It was Obama who began the unprecedented expropriation of
Russian diplomatic property in the U.S. and the expulsion of russian diplomats. It was under
Obama that "the doping scandal" was organized against Russia. And so on and so on...
Trump just continued what Obama had started. It is strange that Pepe Escobar does not
understand this.
If Iran and/or Venezuela get their oil back on the market, that will cause an oil price crash
that would "end fracking." It can't survive oil much under $50/barrel over a long term.
An oil price crash would also effect the larger energy market, making solar and wind less
competitive, even though their direct competition is really coal rather than oil.
Huge and powerful constituencies don't care about Iran or Venezuela, but care very much
about oil prices staying high. They make common cause now, and will under Biden too.
Well, having given deep consideration to the question and the current advanced state of
malady in the USA - I will leave it to Vic as he has summarised the position with minimum
fuss - here.
Enjoy this sharp witted, all encompassing 4 minute rant from inside the asylum. I would
shout the bar for all with this one.
Biden is an old man. He is a tired man, if not now, then in six months. He has already told
wealthy donors that nothing will change. He has no record of leadership. He has no record of
achievement, unless you count floating to the top. He will be the establishment's model
'status quo, do-nothing Democrat.
Biden will preside as a figurehead legitimizing the shenanigans of the blob, Wall Street,
and the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Oil. Heck, I doubt that he will even override many of
Trump's executive orders, except for the token bone thrown to his delusional supporters.
Harris will be as much a figurehead as Biden. She is utterly unprepared. While she is
likable enough, she lacks gravitas and "credibility," which, she will be convinced, can be
established only by bombing a few wogs back to the Stone Age.
Both will serve as placeholders until Trump 2.0 arrives in 2024. Elites will sufficiently
sabotage the economy until then to assure that Trump 2.0 with neocon values is elected in
2024.
the usa is an approaching train wreck and no amount of persuading one side or the other is
going to change any of this... the world is moving on and rightfully so... no one wants to
get down into this... the swamp and fake news is permanent at this point...until the whole
system implodes - this is what we have in store.. vote for trump or biden - it matters not...
one is a slower motion move then the other - but the end result is the same... there is no
way out... sorry... on the other hand it is beautiful and sunny here where i live... life
goes on outside this political circus called the usa presidential election..
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
I do not agree with you on 99.8% of wordly affairs BUT this comment you wrote is pure
gold!!
Even on the other side of the Atlantic ocean @ the western edge of Europe us reading types
know the difference.
And it annoys me just as much as it seems to annoy you how few people know that the US of
terror is a republic and NOT a democracy😂🥴
By the way, people who are truly interested in seeing the Democratic Party removed as an
obstacle to a true people's party (no one else here wants a workers' party) the very best way
to split the national party would be a clean sweep of House, Senate and Presidency followed
by enough treasonous shenanigans by Trump to arouse mass resistance. (Genuinely treasonous as
in subverting the republic by force, fraud and violence, not in the half witted definition of
dealings with foreigners so popular around here.) Biden et al. would split the Democrats
rather than enact a popular program---which would be left because the when the masses begin
to move they always march left.
Also by the way, Bloomberg is continuing his bid for a hostile takeover of the Democratic
Party, aping the media version of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!)
Party.
"Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real change
never came."
I was calling Obama "Bush Lite" during his first campaign. Anyone who read his foreign
policy platform would have to agree. And the *only* reason he negotiated the JCPOA was
because he needed at least one foreign policy win for his eight years - and he knew it would
be torn up by whoever came after him, either Clinton or Trump. But he needed it for his own
narcissistic view of his "legacy".
People forget that Obama wrote the leaders of Brazil and Turkey in 2010 prior to their
negotiation with Iran for a deal, listing the points of a deal he would accept. Clinton
pooh-poohed the idea that those leaders could get a deal. After a marathon negotiation
session, they got it. The US then dismissed the deal 24 hours later, prompting Brazil's
leader to release the Obama letter to establish that Obama was a liar.
"Change You Can Believe In" - "Make America Great" - only morons believe in campaign
slogans - or the people who utter them.
"The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want
more concessions from Russia than that country is willing to give."
Russia has made it abundantly and repetitively clear that they are not doing INCREMENTAL
DEFEAT any more - there are no concessions to make - they no longer do supine acceptance of
UKUSAi rights to dominate, subvert or belligerently mass arms at their advancing borders.
Why would any country concede to the incessant belligerence of the west? They must have
lead in their drinking water to be that dumb!
The concession must come from the aggressor, the colour revolution fomenter, the incessant
smearer and hate propagandist - the west.
A Harris/Biden Presidency lacks those attributes (perhaps lacks any attributes of
goodwill) and a Trump Presidency is no different.
The narcissistic personality disorders run the USA - the asylum inmates are in charge, not
the elected leaders. And the elected leaders are morons or wholly captive klutzes.
Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7 They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in Syria when
they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to do
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya -
vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August, 2013. He
only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him by getting
Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking no-fly zone yet
again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria. Then sometime in
2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama was having a meeting
on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or Wednesday, the Russia
Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian military assets would be
shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there wouldn't be a no-fly
zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
"Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch."
YES. thank you for the clarifying statement, as that is exactly what I expect too. Harris
/Biden blood spattered globe again. Or a Trump spattered equivalent. No socialism for the
USA.
We went from snarling Cheney Wars to shiny happy Obama wars to snarling Trump wars now back
to shiny happy Biden wars to... Forever War is obviously bi-partisan.
But perhaps with Great Depression 2.0 coming this Dark Winter in order to stave off civil
war and/or revolution they'll throw resources to much needed infrastructure projects,
diminish to a slight degree the supremacy of the for-profit healthcare industry through a
laughable but better than nothing 'public option' and make some baby steps toward avoiding
climate catastrophic.
The change is marginal. And probably meaningless. Hope is just another word for nothing
left to lose.
Those 77,000 - purely because of location - overcame 3 million+ votes. That's the
equivalent of giving those 77 thousands the right to vote 40 times each.
Are you in favor of censitary vote?
--//--
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
Yes, but at the end of the day, Hilary Clinton got 3.6 million votes more than Donald
Trump.
You're telling everybody you're in favor of censitary vote in opposition to one person,
one vote, just because you don't want an ideological enemy of yours to win. This is still
liberal - but you would have to dig to the early liberal thinkers (Locke, Tocqueville etc.)
to find such reactionary and elitist opinion.
Even by liberal standards today censitary vote is already considered outdated/reactionary.
Concretely, you're defending the interests of a blue collar elite of the north-midwest, who
number on the dozens of thousands, in detriment to more than half the voting population. It
is what it is: you can't fight against mathematics.
--//--
@ Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:47 utc | 25
So what? Fuck Michael Moore. If Michael Moore told you to jump off a cliff, would you do
it? He's not the guardian of the absolute truth, he's just a random guy with an opinion.
Michael Moore can defend a mythical blue collar America how much he wants to - it doesn't
change the fact this America doesn't exist anymore. America is, nowadays, the land of the
petit-bourgeois, the land of the small-medium business-owners (a.k.a. zombie business-owners)
, of the New York financial assets owning middle class "coastal elites", of the influencers,
of Kim and Chloe Kardashian, of Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, of the billionaire tied to Wall
Street. That's the true America, want it.
America will never be blue collar again. The insistence of turning America blue collar
again will destroy the American Empire. They will be the Gorbachevs of the USA.
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya
- vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August,
2013. He only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him
by getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking
no-fly zone yet again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria.
Then sometime in 2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama
was having a meeting on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or
Wednesday, the Russia Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian
military assets would be shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there
wouldn't be a no-fly zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
Thank you, it seems that your succinct statement should be included as an auto response
macro to every laguerre post. They never stop their blathering those AI CPU's. My take is
that they are a retro definition of the term interrupt .
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor but atm you have a serious case of
TDS. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would
they do if they wanted him removed?
Now I know I have been very very harsh on trump and his supporters of late. Please forgive me
! It's what we call 'tough love' I do have a heart, dispite all of America's crimes against
the rest of the world. I did hope that the US at the last moment would come to it's senses
and turn it's back on trump. Alas ! I fear not. Really sad, I'm sorry.
But for the rest of the world including myself, we can only watch with fascination and relief
as America destroys itself from within. My heart goes out to the inocent.
I fear trump supporters are in for a -- --
Pyrrhic victory (spelt correctly) I recommend googling the word.
Adolph Hitler rose to power with similar glory and power unbridled. Just as trump now !!
Then what ?
Dresden!!
Think on.
Why is it so hard to believe? The media needs a heel and they actually prefer Trump to
remain in office. Maybe on the ground level you have a lot of regular old liberals, but the
upper echelons of the media (and holding companies) are all about keeping the ratings bonanza
going. Another Trump term but with Democrat control of Congress would be like manna from
heaven to them. Matt Taibbi is one writer who has chronicled the phenomenon since before
Trump ever got elected. Here's a more recent piece. Let me know if it's paywalled and I can
copy/paste. CNN
chief has an ethical problem.
On JCPOA, The Nation had a quote from one of Biden's foreign policy advisers to a group of
Jewish campaing donors saying all sanctions on Iran will remain intact unless they return to
full compliance. I agree that it will not be as simple as that given political reality, but
Biden was closely involved in its negotiation and likely has some ownership of it.
I expect there to be a false flag attack by "Iran" to throw sand in the gears if
re-implementation looks likely, or perhaps an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Best plausible
outcome is Iran keeps its current level of cooperation, and a Biden admin looks the other way
on sanctions violationsw.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth
about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race
war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? What the hell would they do if
they wanted him removed?
_____________________________________________
Of course it was all phony and designed to not ring true, which benefits Trump by giving him
credibility with the voters.
The whole idea behind trump is the same as with Reagan he is portrayed as the outsider doing
battle against the corrupt and powerful Washington swamp. Trump is Reagan on steroids. But it
is all phony both Reagan and Trump are one of the powerful elites and their opposition by the
left wing media is designed to give them credibility with voters.
Remember that half of the corporate controlled media loves Trump and sings his praises
daily. It is only half the corporate media that is attacking Trump the other half is showing
its viewers blacks that strongly support Trump and solid evidence that Russiagate is pure
bullshit.
As for what the media would do if they really wanted to bring Trump down. They would
attack him on real issues instead of phony ones that actually strengthen trump's
credibility.
"What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?"
The same thing it always changes, absolutely nothing except who accepts the bribes from
the elite.
As long as the American people stay asleep they will continue with the "American DREAM"
until they suddenly wake up inside their newly constructed corporate industrial zone. The
prison industrial complex is the model society if you're an elite.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone, don't get so caught up in this sham (s)election that
you ruin what little freedom you have left.
Berlin's Madame Tussauds has put Donald Trump's wax figure into a
dumpster . Is this normal behavior by a museum? Is this not "an interference in the
democratic processes of the United States"? Or is it okay because the Germans are doing it?
(But God forbid if a Russian or an Iranian criticizes a U.S. presidential candidate publicly
ahead of the election.) Have similar performances been staged against Bush, under whom the
U.S. intelligence agencies manufactured claims of Saddam Hussein preparing to use weapons of
mass destruction, which the U.S. "free" media printed almost in unison without any criticism,
leading to an invasion that killed 650,000
Iraqis ? When a visitor beheaded Adolf Hitler's figure in 2008, the same museum
had this to say :
Madame Tussauds is non-political and makes no comment or value-judgement either on the
persons who are exhibited in the Museum or on what they have done during their lifetime.
I guess starting a war that resulted in deaths of 26,000,000 million Soviets -- most of
them Russians -- is not nearly as bad as being a rude person who has once recommended in
private grabbing women by their genitals.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side. Remember the saying "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people". Whoever wins the election is going to be faced with major unrest, the worms
are clearly not going back in the can. There are easier ways to get someone re-elected.
Trump is clearly at least as toxic as any of them wrt foreign policy, however he is not a
globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
@ Maureen O # 45 In 2009, Biden tried very hard to convince Obama not to surge 30,000 more troops into
Afghanistan.
Perhaps he was successful? . . . Obama actually surged 70,000 troops into Afghanistan,
raising Bush's 30K to 100K+. That got Mr Hope & Change the Nobel Peace Prize.
We should remember there were 6 UNSC against Iran, and one of them under Chapter 7 ( the
most dangerous), before JCPOA. We should keep in mind there are gang of 5 + 1( 5 in UNSC +
Germany) coalition behind 6 resolutions.
From Iran's eye, Imperialism was, combination of these 5 in the club, and their collateral
and vassals ( Germany, Japan, etc). The master of JCPOA, caught the opportunity to put a
wedge into the body of the club, and it worked perfectly. America is mad cutting her own
arteries, out side the club. Trump or Biden are not different in this regard, America needs
some one to understand the depth of the wound and retreat immediately, before too much
hemorrhage. And such person ( or group ) is not in horizon. Let it die by her own
wounding.
Thank you for that Philip Giraldi report. The descent into madness from the raucus sounds
of the echo chamber. Where does a revolution start?
First they need to dismantle their media concentration across the spectrum of "news"
including all media forms.
Second they need to send their journalists through the same cultural revolution cycle as
was done in the China and other countries where people go to different work supporting the
growth of their communities for a five to ten year separation from the craft of journalism.
Listen to the people and sweat alongside them in their labour to survive.
Sure there is much more but the echo chamber must surely be demolished at
commencement.
I believe back in August 2013 after a CW attack in East Ghouta, east of Damascus, wrongly
blamed on the Syrian govt that Obama was preparing to enforce his no-fly zone threat. Then
the UK parliament voted not to support such a threat, Obama hesitated and then Putin saw his
opportunity and posted an opinion in the New York Times. That ultimately stopped the US from
going ahead with the attack.
I'm sure British MPs have since been forced to "come to their senses".
I linked to and commented upon Pepe's article when it was published by Asia Times a
few days ago, and I don't see any reason to add to it as b echoes much of my sentiment. What
I will do is link to a brief item by Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei, professor of International
Relations at Fudan University, "How
China elects their political leaders" , which seems very appropriate at this moment in
time:
"China has established a system of meritocracy or what can be described as 'selection plus
election'. Competent leaders are selected on the basis of performance and broad support,
through a vigorous process of screening, opinion surveys, internal evaluations and various
types of elections. This is much in line with the Confucian tradition of meritocracy. After
all, China is the first country that invented civil service examination system or the 'Keju'
system....
"Indeed, the Chinese system of meritocracy today, makes it inconceivable that anyone as
weak as George W. Bush or Donald Trump could ever come close to the position of the top
leadership. It's not far-fetched to claim that the China model is more about leadership
rather than the showmanship as it is in the West. China's meritocratic governance challenges
the stereotypical dichotomy of democracy versus autocracy. From Chinese point of view, the
nature of the state including its legitimacy, has to be defined by its substance, that is,
good governance, competent leadership and success in meeting the people's needs."
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and even
read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State , of which an open preview can be
read here . Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read
here .
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the
Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly
that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to
say about China.
I'm all for sending the entire Australian news media into a cave for 5 - 10 years. Maybe
in 10,000 years archaeologists investigating the cave will be wondering whether fossil
remains there denote a species of human more primitive than those found in Liang Bua cave on
Flores Island in Indonesia. :-)
Can you elaborate on this funding you referred to for BLM protests? What is your evidence
that it was actually funding street protests? Are you referring to the national corporate
BLM? If so, what does that have to do with leaderless protests in the streets?
From February 13 to February 15, 1945, during the final months of World War II (1939-45),
Allied forces bombed the historic city of Dresden, located in eastern Germany. The bombing
was controversial because Dresden was neither important to German wartime production nor a
major industrial center, and before the massive air raid of February 1945 it had not
suffered a major Allied attack. By February 15, the city was a smoldering ruin and an
unknown number of civilians -- estimated between 22,700 to 25,000–were dead.
Dresden and other cities held magnificent collections of human posterity. Cities of
science - of intellectual excellence and endeavour within europe. Cities of humans associated
with brilliant minds doing the work of human understanding and progress.
Sure Hitler's imbecile adventures ably funded by global private finance capitalism and a
hatred of communism led to war that ultimately led to the vengeful destruction of great
cities and great store houses and museums of this earth of mankind.
Hitler did not bomb Dresden.
Germans were proud of their science and their knowledge and storehouses and museums.
Europe shared in that pride in excellence as did many throughout the world.
Those first shells falling on Berlin TWO months after the demolition of cities of science
and archeology and human history. NOT cities of military significance.
I think of Vietnam
I think of Iraq
I think of Korea
I think of China
I think of Japan
Bombed by UKUSA. So lets not obsess with a dead nazi comrade, lets open our eyes to the
live nazis.
I think Biden will win this presidency, and win it fairly easily. It will become apparent
early on that the Biden Administration intends not only to turn the heat up on Russia, but
will continue Trump's aggression towards China. There may be a feint towards renewing JCPOA,
but it will not be fulfilled, and aggression towards Iran will not abate either.
The Mighty Wurlitzer of pro-war propaganda is again spinning up in anticipation. The
Atlantic and the Economist have been busy comparing Chinese Policy towards it's Muslim
citizens with the Holocaust...Russia, Russia, Russia!!! which never went away is again being
amped up.
But, this isn't 2016. Four years has given China and Russia time to further modernize
their militaries. Iran has developed its missile and drone programs to the point that a
conflict with Israel will result in mutual destruction. In 2016 USA/NATO had the military
advantage, but that is now gone, and the balance shifts further by the day. I almost feel
sorry for Biden, as he will be the one taking the blame when the economy collapses and
America gets their asses handed to them. Hopefully it doesn't go nuclear, but I am not very
optimistic.
With the NeoCon infestation capturing the Democratic Party, the media, and a big chunk of
the Republican, it is only a matter of time before they get their way. Short-sided parasites
as they are, this time they will kill their host. If humanity survives, a new multi-polar era
may emerge.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is just
fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the German
public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Naw, you're not reading me right. Did you check out the Taibbi piece? He has numerous
others over the past 4 years. Also see Les Moonves and other corporate media executives'
statements on Trump during that same time period. I acknowledged that the rank and file among
the media class is largely woke, liberal and pro-Biden (and very anti-Trump), but they don't
call the shots and you're not looking at the situation with enough attention to details. It's
the little things that give it away.
Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? A brand like Trump's has
been clearly demonstrated to benefit immensely from the negative coverage. The media are
hated by Trump's followers and the people who watch the media hate Trump. So what does that
tell you? Compare CNN and MSNBC ratings during Trump's term to Obama's. They know that hate
sells and they never call Trump out for his ACTUAL bad behaviors (other than COVID and ACB, I
guess) while they focus on meaningless nonsense, thus distracting the public from the
bi-partisan corporate dominated graft going on and the Empire's ongoing wars and sanctions
programs abroad. Very rarely if ever will you read or hear about the hundreds of thousands of
people who have died due to American sanctions on Iran or Venezuela. Why is that? Because top
brass at the corporate media outlets support it. They cheered when he launched the missiles
at Syria.
Someone did a study or analysis on the amount of air time given to Trump versus the
Democrat primary and it wasn't even close. He plays them and his supporters like a fiddle,
too. SNL had him on NBC when he was running against Hillary. Some argue that this might have
been due to the same mindset that Hillary's team was alleged to have had. Namely, that Trump
would be the EASIEST candidate for her to beat and he had no chance, so he was harmless as a
threat. I don't think it's that complicated. They know what gets ratings.
Yeah, occasionally they'll make a peep about the environment or jobs, but like the
Democrats in Congress and "Intelligence" Community's Russia and Ukraine witch
hunts/impeachment they intentionally ignore the types of actions that DO justify
investigations and impeachments. Do you honestly think that the Democrats thought Trump would
be removed from office for the bogus "whistle blower" charges they ginned up? Of course not -
the Senate was never going to go along with it and it wasn't exactly secret, even over here
across the pond it was obvious.
As far as him not being a globalist - he's not exactly anti-globalist when it comes to
policy, but why would that matter to the corporate media? Again, it's the corporate big wigs
and majority shareholders who make the calls and the reporters, editors and personalities on
TV know how to toe the line without being told explicitly. Now, if you want to talk Silicon
Valley and the social media giants, I'm with you - they are actively trying to help Joe
Biden. But take another example - the Hunter Biden laptop story. Social media giants censored
it, but it isn't like it's not being talked about non-stop by the MSM and newspapers. They
just don't talk about what was IN the emails or photos, leaving some of their viewers/readers
curious to go find out for themselves.
I didn't read jinn's comment in detail, but I'm definitely not trying to make points that
justify voting for Biden; but I stand by my points - I'm just pointing out what's REALLY
going on with all of the "negative" coverage of Donald Trump in the corporate mainstream
media. At the end of the day, the corporate MSM upper brass doesn't really care who gets
elected, but they also understand that having a "heel" (from the pro wrestling world) and
"bad guy" to always go after on crap that's ultimately meaningless, makes it easier to sell
the hate and drive ratings and subscriptions.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is
just fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the
German public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Respect and apology in return Mark2. I jumped the gun.
Yes, the sense of infallibility infuses the bloodlust of the UKUSAi.
With any luck humanity will be spared their obscene and lunatic 'reprisal mania' that has
rotted their minds. I somehow doubt that.
And I share your fear.
That said though - I am ever the optimist. There are many warrior clans of past decades
that have made delightful blunders and ended up on the block instead of on the grog in the
opponents bars. Time will tell.
I believe it is time for the great people of South America to shake off these barnacles on
the arse of humanity once and for all.
Sorry I got a little long winded in my last reply. I think this response will make my
position easier to interpret.
You asked: " What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?"
The answer to that question is the same as the answer would be if you asked what the
Democrats in Congress would (have) do(ne) if they really wanted to remove him from office.
They would actually investigate and attempt to prosecute a litany of possible crimes rather
than silly, simplistic accusations from a "whistleblower" that anyone with a IQ over 100
could see was not going to work.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and Americans really are that stupid. It wouldn't
necessarily conflict with what I've seen and heard from Democrat supporting relatives and
social media contacts. A lot, if not most of them STILL believe that there was collusion
between Trump and Russia. It was like my conservative friends and relatives for about a
decade after the Iraq war - they were CONVINCED that we DID find WMDs and that the US media
had somehow hidden it.
@vk #65
It is striking how you still refuse to acknowledge the reality of the law.
The United States is not a majoritarian democracy.
In fact, there is not one single country in the entire world that is a majoritarian
democracy.
If the law were changed via the methods already written, tried and true, then I guarantee
that there would be a lot more voters in the minorities of both red and blue states.
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
If ultimately the existing laws of the land are merely an impediments to anyone doing
whatever they have the power to do, then there is no law.
Uncle @ 90
Thanks for that. I feel we are in full agreement !
To perhaps clarify to those less astute than you.
My comment @ 68 points out the law of unintended consequence. The majority of Americans don't
want war, riots, poverty and distruction. They want to keep there families safe.
The comparison being the same can be said for Germans prior to the war, they weren't evil as
portrayed in history they simply made the same mistake the US is about to make. With the
consequence of there country devistated. A dreadful mistake voting for the wrong man, whipped
up by a false sense of superiority !
Don't do it.
Half of America won't tolerate it.
Free quarters of the rest of the world won't. By voting trump you vote for your own
distruction.
I would rather vote for a donkey, never mind Biden.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side.
__________________________________________
What other side???
I'm guessing you are accusing me of supporting trump but who knows maybe you think I'm
supporting Biden. Either way it is stupid of you to project your "side" based logic onto
others. Do you really think it is impossible to analyze without first taking a side?
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
Thank you, I liked that retort to vk. Can I distort your point that while the Demonazis
delude themselves in more popular votes - the Repugnents have more of the un-popular votes.
The deeply corrosive nonsense being shouted into the demonazi echo chamber is truly dangerous
to the point that they will generate a standing wave resonance and collapse the entire
building. Trouble is we will then have to endure an 11/11 to compete with their absurd 9/11
and - we'll never hear the end of it. :))
James
I share one bottle of wine a month. I don't do drugs, but thanks for asking.
I note you don't ask the 'right wing' to step a way'
But if the truth is hurting you. Perhaps you ought ?
Have a peaceful night.
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor ...
Thanks!
= ... but atm you have a serious case of TDS.
No. I'm neither for nor against Trump. I see him as a symptom of the system who has joined
(possibly long ago) Team Deep State (the managers of the Empire). If it wasn't Trump, it
would be some other media-savvy guy that can con the people.
= Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected?
IMO Trump's economic nationalism and zenophobia were very much planned. As was the failure
of the Democrats to mount any effective resistance. They pretend to hate Trump so so
much but shoot themselves in the foot all the time.
Russiagate was nothing more than a new McCarthyism. That works well for the Deep State
both internationally and domestically. Any dissenter is called a "knowing or unknowing"
Russian asset.
Background: I've written that Trump was meant to beat Hillary. The 2016 election was a
farce. Sanders and Trump were friendly with the Clintons for a very long time. Sanders was a
sheepdog (not a real candidate) and Hillary threw the race to Trump. Trump is much more
capable at what he does than Hillary would've been.
I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would they do if they wanted him
removed?
If the Deep State wanted him removed (but they don't) they would find a reason to invoke
the 25th Amendment. They have positioned people to do this, if necessary. For example: VP
Pence was a friend of McCain (who was a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er); Atty General Barr is close to the
Bushes and Mueller ('NEVER TRUMP'-ers); CIA Dir. Gina Haspel is an acolyte of John Brennan
(you guessed it, a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er).
=
MarkU @Oct31 23:18 #76
...he is not a globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
He's not anti-globalist as you seem to suggest. He's even bragged about his business
dealings with Chinese, Arabs, Russians - pretty much any group with money.
Trump and the Deep State - the true Deep State, not the pretended partisan off-shoot
- are EMPIRE-FIRST (and have been for decades). You can see this in what Trump has done
globally. USA just wants a bigger cut of the action because they have to do the 'heavy
lifting' of taking on China and Russia.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I know that my cynical perspective must generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in many
readers. But I don't see any other way to rationally explain Deep State actions and the
history that has brought us to where are today.
The numbers are there for everybody to see: Trump won with 3 million + votes below Hilary
Clinton. That is not democracy in any sense of the word unless you go back to the more
traditional forms of liberalism of the 16th-19th centuries. Those are the numbers, not my
opinion.
Besides, I think you're not getting the irony of your position: the situation in the USA
has gotten so degenerated that you're hanging by a thread - a thread you put on a golden
pedestal and claim is the salvation of the Empire (the electoral college). Where did I see
this? Oh, yes - the War of Secession of 1861-1865, when the slave states were already
outnumbered 6 to 1 by the northern states. They kept their parity artificially for decades,
until the whole thing suddenly burst up in the war (a war where they were crushed; no chance
of victory at all).
So, the problem isn't in the system per se, but the pressure the ossification of the
system is building up. When they seceded, the confederates genuinely thought they were the
true inheritors of the liberal thought, the slave states being the most perfect manifestation
of freedom; the same situation is building up today, albeit, obviously, on a much milder
scale (there's no California gold this time, just the good ol' race to the bottom).
--//--
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 2:25 utc | 95
I agree with you: the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote)
will give a chance for the conservatives (Republicans) to win back, for example, California
(which has 40-46% of the popular vote). But it will also give the Democrats Texas (Dallas +
Houston regions already make almost 50% of the population of the state and are Democratic
bastions). It will also open the gates for third parties to flourish (avoiding a situation
like Bernie Sanders, who had to affiliate to the Democrats).
Either way, it will give the American people and government a more honest, precise picture
of the state of the nation. Or are you willing to live a perpetual illusion of "coastal
elites vs heartland deplorables" forever (which, by the way, only fuels up secession as the
only solution)?
The myth of HIQ whitemen....
--------------------------------------
Caitlin[for prez]johnston
Russia gate morphes seamlessly into China gate without missing a beat.
One hiq white man opines, oh so innocently
IN Russia gate, they were quoting only anon, nameless witness.
This time its different, we've real witness testifying on teevee , in Tucker
[fuck China] Carlson show, no less !
The poor dear was referring to an 'ex CIA' [see, an insider, wink wink ] telling
Tucker [fuck CHINA] Carlson ....
Psssst, many dem were CCP trojans !
ROFLAMO
oR that HUnter BIden buddy whatshisname again, who told Tucker [fuck China] Carlson oh so
solemnly,
'Yes , I think the BIdens were compromised by the chicoms'
OMFG ! BIden is CCP'S man !
What happen if Biden get into the WH and immediately bomb Shanghai.?
Well half of gringos , the Trumpsters, would scream,
'Why isnt BIden bombing Beijing already, well BCOS we all know he's Xi's man in Washington'
!
The dems, eager to clear their potus name, would implore earnestly,
'Hey BIden, you should invade Beijing RIGHT now, show them repuc we are just as tough, no,
even better in showing the chicoms who's the boss around here.
What a devious brilliant way to get a bi partisan support for more
wars.
BI partisan ?
That practically cover 99% of HIQ gringos. hehehhehehhe
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me hundreds of times.........
Whether or not this is Donald Trump's last year as president, the near-certainty of new
episodes of reckless overreach by American foreign policymakers means that this is not the last
the country has seen of his America First policy.
Whether or not this is Donald Trump's last year as president, the near-certainty of new
episodes of reckless overreach by American foreign policymakers means that this is not the last
the country has seen of his America First policy.
The goal of this movement is ending nation states to end their influence, laws and
regulations, and thus try to dynamite, through sowing divide ( and in this they are helped by
alleged opponent Soros and his network of franchises mastering regime change, color
revolutions
Blunt coups d´etat and lately "peaceful transitions of power", being both, Soros and
the NRx, connected to the CIA...)countries with which make what they call "The Mosaic" of
regions resulting, at the head of which there will be a corporation CEO and their stakeholders
in a hierarchical autocratic order. These people think that Democracy simply does not work and
thus must be finished, and that there are people ( white, of course ) who have developed a
higher IQ ( at this poin
t I guess some of you have noticed this creed sound very familiar to you, from our neighbors
here by the side at SST, where "james" and Pat lately love each other so much...) and must rule
over the rest.
To achieve their goals, these people, as geeks from Silicon Valley, are willing to cross the
human frontier to transhumanism so as to enhance their human capabilities to submit the
rest...
Wondering why this topic have never been treated at MoA...nor at the Valdai Discussion
Club...
The Alt-Right and the Europe of the Regions. According to Wikipedia, Steve Bannon is inspired
by the theorist Curtis Yarvin ( https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilustration_oscura),
who states that countries should be divided into feudal areas in the hands of corporations
(Patchwork).
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth" Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country,
you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in
real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back
more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time , and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to
addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22 nd , 1963 and to which we
are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time .
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are
upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero
conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the
elected government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American
people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer
here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion
of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked
British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has
been occurring within the U.S. for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence,
and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate
itself , was spurred by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role
in the whole affair. This investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to
mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
" The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until
revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots , and human
experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s. " [emphasis
added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from
not just the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge
how best to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time . In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of U.S. citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved
on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of
Chile and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the
public, but failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of U.S. intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the U.S. federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was
the original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only
the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation
SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the
NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into
the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank
Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22 nd , 1963. Two
days before his assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas
accusing the president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1 st , 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and
charged Clay Shaw with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David
Ferrie and others. After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on
March 1 st , 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22 nd , 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in
the media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved
in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material
(which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount
of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified
material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is
now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver
Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of
secrecy that has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
" Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the
autopsy went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was
also vague about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that "after the
autopsy I also wrote notes" and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy
physician, James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a
fireplace at his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was
an original draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996
deposition by the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his "original
notes."
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra
K.] Spencer [who worked in "the White House lab"] said they were not the ones she
helped process and were printed on different paper. She said "there was no blood or opening
cavities" and the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked
on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at a
"supplementary autopsy" were different from the official set that was shown to him. "
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren Commission
acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire assassination record of
John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have occurred in these
records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
" We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious. "
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon .
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national
security, it is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country .
On Oct. 6 th , 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia
Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary
Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump
campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13 th , 2017
– Jan. 3 rd , 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7
th , 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the
House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3 rd , 2015 – Jan. 3 rd ,
2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
"... There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about the state of American diplomacy? ..."
I'm not even a US American but I recall deep my embarrassment when watching the vulgar
Hillary Clinton handling herself in the presence of Sergey Lavrov – around the time of
the excruciating "reset" event.
And today you guys have Pompeo for Christ sake! How can you stand the shame – where
do you get these people?
There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last
presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about
the state of American diplomacy?
Sure, Joe is trying to win cheap political points by catering to the abysmally ignorant
and savagely russophobic average American voters. But at what political cost to the country
he represents! And what exactly does this old American fool want to do when he says that
Russia and China will "pay a price."
What can America do to the world's supreme military power (Russia) and to the world's
supreme economic power (China)? Particularly now that these two superpowers are working
together.
How senile and stupid has Biden become! He stopped developing intellectually about 50
years ago. And now he never will.
The senility may be new but joe biden has always been stupid. One of the only people on
the planet that can stick both of his feet in his mouth at the same time.
Re: "...Thus, six years ago, in 2014, we spoke about this issue when we discussed the
theme The World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules. So, what is happening now?
Regrettably, the game without rules is becoming increasingly horrifying and sometimes
seems to be a fait accompli."
Putin said this virtually in the same breath directly after his previous paragraph you
excerpted where he speaks of the serious ongoing challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.
What that says to me is that he is hinting with his trademark subtlety that he thinks the
CV pandemic may not be a naturally arising event. In other words, a plandemic.
Yes, that's the ongoing rhetorical battle between the Collectivist nations who uphold the
sanctity of International Law and the Neoliberal Nations controlled by Financial Parasites
that can't survive under a functional International Law System. That distinction is
constantly becoming clearer particularly to those residing within the Neoliberal nations as
they watch their lives being destroyed. IMO, we're on the cusp of entering the most critical
decade of this century which will determine humanity's condition when 2101 is reached.
I'd have more hope for Russia if the Russian ruling class weren't so obsessed with the
West and didn't send their children to Western (woke) schools, etc.
theallseeinggod , 7 hours ago
They're not doing that well, but they're not repeating many of the west's mistakes.
Normal , 5 hours ago
Now the West has rules only for poor people.
Helg Saracen , 6 hours ago
Advice to Americans (for the sake of experiment): prohibit lobbying in US and the right of
citizens with dual citizenship to hold public office in US. I assure - you will be surprised
how quickly Russians go from non-kosher to kosher for Americans and how American politicians,
the media will convince Americans of this at every intersection. :) Ha ha ha
Nayel , 5 hours ago
If the [Vichy] Left in America weren't so determined to project their own Bolshevik
leanings on to a possible great ally that their ideology now fears, Russia would be just
that: a great ally that could help America shake the Bolsheviks that have infiltrated the
American government and plan the same program their Soviet forefathers once held over
Russia...
Arising 2.0 , 1 hour ago
Western zionist controlled propaganda reminds me of Mohamed Ali- he used to talk up the
******** so much before a fight that when the time came to fight the opponent was usually
traumatised or confused. Until Ali met with Joe Frazier (Russia) who didn't fall for all the
pre-fight BS.
ThePinkHole , 39 minutes ago
Time for a pop quiz! Name the two countries below:
Country A - competency, attention to first principles, planning based on reality,
consistency of purpose, and unity of execution.
Country B - incompetency, interfering in everything everywhere, planning based on hubris
and sloppy assumptions, confusion, and disunity.
(Source: Adapted from Patrick Armstrong)
foxenburg , 3 hours ago
This one is always good for a laugh....the Daily Telegraph's Con Coughlin explaining in
2015 how Putin will fail in Syria...
We have all this talk of the 'Ruskies' when in fact it is not the ordinary Russian people
but rather a geopolitical power struggle. The ordinary US citizen or European just wants to
maintain their liberty and be able to profit from their endeavours. The rich and powerful
globalists who hide behind their military are the ones that play these games. I am no friend
of Putin but equally I am no friend of our own political establishment that have been
captured by Wall Street. I care about Main Street and as the US dollar loses its privilege
there will be real pain to share amongst our economies. The last thing we need is for the
elites of the Western alliance to profit with cold/hot wars on the backs of ourselves.
Having been behind the iron curtain as a young Merchant Navy Officer I found ordinary
citizens fine and even organized football matches with the local communist parties. People
have the same desires and aspirations and whether rich or poor we should respect each others
cultures and territories. http://www.money-liberty.com/gallery/Predictions-2021.pdf
..they have always been the reason for the industrial-military complex....but now, who
needs them.....we got china to point the finger at. so having 2 useful idiot countries...will
keep the weapons boys going for quite some time....
Snaffew , 7 hours ago
...he boogeyman has never been Russia, it resides right here in the US under the guise of
government, military, mainstream media, propaganda and sanctions, sanctions, sanctions
against anyone that rightfully takes our slice of entitled pie because they built a far
better and far cheaper mousetrap.
Oh the horrors of claiming to be a democracy and a capitalist nation when you just can't
seem to play by the rules. **** America---we have let the elites take us down the road to
ruins. We are as much at fault as they are for believing their nonsensical bs the whole while
all the evidence was smoking right in front of our face. Who's more stupid...them or us? I'd
tell everyone to take a good long look in the mirror if you are looking for an answer to that
question---
The Russians ( Putin / Lavrov) say ever so politely that the US is not
agreement-capable.
I add that the US ( politicians, Wall Streeters, MSM, think tanks ) are:
not truth-capable;
not ethics-capable;
not shame-capable;
not honour-capable.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? He turns into a
ghoul without a soul, says I, a devil without human-ness! How dare they call us deplorables
when they are the despicables?
"... When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back more than 60 years. ..."
"... From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later. ..."
"... These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people. ..."
"... Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer here and here ), Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence. ..."
"... In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this. ..."
"... "The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added] ..."
"... On Dec. 22, 1974, The New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments, which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens. ..."
"... Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate. ..."
"... In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request. ..."
"... Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List. ..."
"... According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an investigation. ..."
"... Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ] ..."
"... On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
"Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it
treason." – Sir John Harrington.
As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,"
like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from top to
bottom.
This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King
Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet's father. This is showcased in the play by
reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are
ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a
couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with
him.
Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the
persisting "ruling system," of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of
affairs truly originate from?
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth" Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a
country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the
public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that
goes back more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing
this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still
waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time.
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they
are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive
evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected
government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American
people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence
(refer here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal
invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with
cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt
that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British
intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself, was spurred
by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This
investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
"The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of
illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led
to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just
the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best
to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US
citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was
approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile
and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the public, but
failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the US federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was the
original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but
only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of
Operation SHAMROCK ,
in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to
the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch
List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was
overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his
assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the
president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw
with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others.
After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in the
media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was
involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified
material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense
amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to
classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court
prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and
Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that
has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the autopsy
went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was also vague
about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that 'after the autopsy I also
wrote notes' and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy physician,
James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at
his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original
draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by
the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his 'original notes.'
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.]
Spencer [who worked in 'the White House lab'] said they were not the ones she helped process
and were printed on different paper. She said 'there was no blood or opening cavities' and
the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at
a 'supplementary autopsy' were different from the official set that was shown to him.
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren
Commission acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire
assassination record of John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have
occurred in these records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
"We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious."
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon.
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it
is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country.
On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe
documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton
emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign
by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 –
Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that
he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence
Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that
he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He
followed the instructions.
On March 20, 2018, President
Donald Trump
sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said
Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all
of which were crucial to Trump's
2016 election victory
.
"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of
equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You
should have increased it," Trump
said
to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit
scores
of alleged war crimes.
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief
in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961
of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who
regularly
fantasizes
about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president
has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states,
promoted
the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs
in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for
companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own
political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense
industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral
considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest
and even part of his own political message, the deceptive
claim
that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from
Hartung
,
a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense
strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Next month's election
will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off
― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given
the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to
continue
getting richer, as they have in a dramatic
way
under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favorites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department
spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark
Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first
appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections
to military contractors,
per
the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance
of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently
revealed
― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a
Joe Biden
presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies'
profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring
process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors
and other special interests.
"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of
law in the
Trump administration
, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient
now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan
good-government group.
The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last
year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a
rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ―
including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that
Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit
that urged Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo
pushed
out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general
criticized
the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red
Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center
in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged
war crimes.
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the
defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro
pressured
Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared
Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally
spoke
with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies
as part of this year's
coronavirus
relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead,
a Washington Post investigation
showed
.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that
they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility
that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted
that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed
said
it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense
industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose
numbers have also
grown
as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson
announced
she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations
made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate
itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,"
Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending
generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville,
welcomed
Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed
Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given
that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel
Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president
for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."
With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the
health pandemic
dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead
in surveys of most swing states
, his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to
President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase
fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush
announced
the
decisions
at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made
the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest
margin
of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer
margin
than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President
Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12,
2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political
fortunes.
Checking The Receipts
The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments
about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating
to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A
HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations
like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite
defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight
preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions
include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics
shows
that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did
donate
$500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which
noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder
told
ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military
budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year,
per
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has
said
he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security
world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.
And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in
other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's
underway as the Pentagon's inspector general
investigates
how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect
on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International
Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014
― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain
support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents,
Scherb of Common Cause said.
"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics
and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear
overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing
CEO Dave Calhoun
has said
he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election,
arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.
In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do
just fine.
The current electoral campaign differs from that of 2016 in that the media, both
conventional and online, has realized its power and has been openly playing a major role in
what might well prove to be a victory across the board for the Democratic Party. At least that
is the expectation, bolstered by a flood of possibly suspect opinion polls that appear to make
the triumph of Joe Biden and company inevitable while at the same time denigrating President
Donald Trump and covering up for Democratic Party missteps.
Most Americans no longer trust what is being reported in the mainstream media but when they
look for "real" information they frequently turn to online resources that they believe to be
more politically objective. That has never been true, however, and what most newshounds are
actually seeking is commentary that reflects their own views. In reality, the news provided is
almost always either spun or distorted and sometimes completely blocked, note particularly the
resistance to reporting the tale of the shenanigans of Hunter Biden.
The New York Post
is claiming that a trove of emails from a laptop reveals that "Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than
a year before the elder Biden pressured
government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the
company."
The emails include a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board
of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the
oil company Burisma's board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. "Dear Hunter, thank
you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some
time together. It's realty [sic] an honor and pleasure," the email reads. An earlier email from
May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma's No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for "advice on
how you could use your influence" on the company's behalf.
The correspondence, if authentic, disproves Joe Biden's claim that he's "
never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings ." One would think that the
story would be a real blockbuster, welcomed by self-respecting journalists but the reality has
been that the mainstream media is doing its best to kill it. Facebook and Twitter
have both blocked it though Twitter has since relented, and much of the rest of the liberal
media is regarding it as a hoax .
Facebook has in fact become something of a leader in reversing its self-promotion as a site
for free exchange of ideas. It has removed large numbers of users and alleged suspect sites and
has blocked any
"denial or distortion" of the so-called holocaust in response to what it regards as a surge
in anti-Semitism. It has hired a former Israeli
government official to lead the censorship effort on the site.
As Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can legally do whatever they want to set
the rules for the use of their sites, but when the two most powerful social media companies
choose to censor a major newspaper's story about a presidential candidate's possibly corrupt
son less than three weeks before the election it suggests a more sinister agenda. They are
quite likely banking on a Democratic victory and will expect to be rewarded afterwards.
Indeed, it should be assumed that Facebook and the other social media giants are
reconfiguring themselves for the post-electoral environment in expectation that they will be
more than ever politically and economically indispensable to aspiring politicians. This
willingness to engage with politically powerful forces has led to increased involvement in the
various mostly left-wing movements that have shaken the United States over the past five
months. Television and radio stations as well as corporations and local businesses have rushed
to endorse and even fund black lives matter without considering the damage that the group has
been doing to property and persons that have had the misfortune to cross its path, not to
mention some of the group's long-term more radical objectives. Individuals identified as blm
leaders have demanded mandatory training to reprogram whites as well as punitive reparations,
to include "white people"
turning over their homes to blacks.
Some of the developments are quite dangerous, most notably the compiling of lists of
organizations and individuals that are considered to be "enemies" of the new social justice
order that intends to take over the United States. One has noted the desire for revenge
permeating many of the comments on sites like Facebook (which claims to delete "threats" from
its commentary), to include some material in recent weeks that has called for the "elimination"
of Americans who do not go along with the new normal.
One of the most invidious steps taken by any of the corporate social media is
a recent decision by Yelp to allow Antifa to compile the raw material on so-called "fascist
businesses" that will be included on a list of "Businesses Accused of Racist Behavior Alerts."
The list itself was set up to appease demands coming from the blm movement.
Yelp is a review site that provides grades and commentary on a broad range of goods and
services, to include many businesses that cater to the public. The potential for abuse is
enormous as Yelp is an information site that has no capability to investigate whether
complaints of "racism" are true or not and Antifa, which is recognized as being at least in
part behind the devastating Portland riots, is far from an objective observer. In fact, this is
what Antifa has tweeted
about its new role , which will allow group members to submit names of "non-friendly"
businesses, defined as "also known as (AKA) any company that's hanging blue lives garbage in
their store or anything else that's anti the BLM movement."
The Antifa intention is clearly to put unfriendly shops and restaurants out of business, so
it will not exactly be interested in engaging in constructive criticism or changing behavior
through negotiation. Using the intimidation provided by the "Alerts" list and direct threats of
violence from Antifa and blm, businesses will be coerced into supporting radical groups lest
they be targeted. It is somewhat reminiscent of the old Mafia protection rackets, and who can
doubt that demands for money will follow on to the verbal threats?
The rise of the internet oligarchs might indeed do more serious damage to the freedoms that
still survive in the United States than will victory by either Biden or Trump. What Americans
are allowed to think and how they perceive themselves and the world have taken a serious hit
over the past twenty years and it can only get worse.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
We all like to have our worldview affirmed by a corroborating voice, even if that, too, is
an opinion. This, for me, was like lying back in a hot bath.
I have said as far back as I can remember, during Pompeo's tenure as Giant Blasphemous
Cream Puff of State, that the damage he was doing to the relationship between America and her
allies was significant and perhaps irreparable. The article, if accurate, reveals a China
which is quite a bit like Russia in its official treatment of minorities – subordinate
ethnicities are recognized as distinct societies if their population meets a reasonable
threshold, and where an ethnic population is regionally dominant, an autonomous government is
established to facilitate local governance by people of the same ethnic background.
I was not aware that during the term of China's one-child policy – a dreadful time
which led to the abortion or other more-horrible disposals of unwanted baby girls –
mothers among ethnic minorities were permitted two or even three children.
The article is obviously written in defense of China, but the authors seem to have
substantiated their claims satisfactorily where such material is offered. Unsubstantiated
opinion is often a close match with those offered by commenters on this forum.
George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister
Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with
Pompeosity!
I swear I saw the Pompous One deflate considerably after Plenkovic's speech about China's
BRI initiative. Good thing the wind was up and active otherwise the smell would have been
horrific and everyone would have been knocked unconscious.
"Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it
treason."
– Sir John Harrington.
As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet , " Something is rotten in the state of
Denmark ," like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from
top to bottom.
This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King
Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet's father. This is showcased in the play by
reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are
ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a
couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with
him.
Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the
persisting "ruling system," of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of
affairs truly originate from?
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth"
Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country,
you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in
real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back
more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time , and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing
this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still
waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time .
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are
upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive
evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected
government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer
here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion
of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked
British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has
been occurring within the U.S. for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence,
and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself , was
spurred by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This
investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
" The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of
illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots , and human experimentation
led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s. " [emphasis added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just
the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best
to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time . In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of U.S. citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved
on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of
Chile and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the
public, but failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of U.S. intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the U.S. federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was
the original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only
the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation
SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the
NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into
the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank
Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his
assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the
president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw
with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others.
After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in the
media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved
in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material
(which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount
of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified
material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is
now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver
Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that
has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
" Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the
autopsy went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was
also vague about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that "after the
autopsy I also wrote notes" and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief
autopsy physician, James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at
his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original
draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by
the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his "original notes."
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.]
Spencer [who worked in "the White House lab"] said they were not the ones she helped process
and were printed on different paper. She said "there was no blood or opening cavities" and
the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at
a "supplementary autopsy" were different from the official set that was shown to him. "
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren Commission
acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire assassination record of
John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have occurred in these
records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
" We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious. "
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon .
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it
is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country .
On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe
documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton
emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign
by the Clinton campaign with help of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan.
3rd, 2019, has stated in
an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was
Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also
said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
Problem here is when you suggest that killing a president is justified you eliminate any
possibility of democracy / republic whatever you name it. You are installing being ruled at
the wrong end of a barrel.
Miffed Microbiologist , 27 minutes ago
I have to agree with you. My mother was an investigative reporter who worked for Pierre
Salinger. She told me some pretty interesting things that were going on in the White House
during Camelot which the press shielded from the public. However to be fair, I honestly think
this was nothing unusual. Truth and politics rarely go together.
Miffed
Duke6 , 13 minutes ago
LOL. Compared to the globalist animals running the country after his death , the above is
poor at attempt at deflection.
If JFK flopped it was because he was taken out. He was also too promiscuous for his own
good. He really pissed some people off, which is the reason behind the gruesome public
assassination.
USGrant , 3 minutes ago
"Some people" was the MIC. His reluctance to fight a war in Vietnam and the firing of
Allen Dulles in the spring of 1962 set the stage. Johnson OKed it and the first full day as
president had a meeting with the military chiefs to ramp up the war. The red seal ones and
fives issued directly by the Treasury with no debt backing may have gotten the old money in
Europe involved as well.
Fight it all you want, but there's nothing you can do. "The emails are Russian" is going to
be the official dominant narrative in mainstream political discourse, and there's nothing you
can do to stop it. Resistance is futile.
Like the Russian hacking narrative, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, the Russian
bounties in Afghanistan narrative, and any other evidence-free framing of events that
simultaneously advances pre-planned cold war agendas, is politically convenient for the
Democratic party and generates clicks and ratings, the narrative that the New York Post
publication of Hunter Biden's emails is a Russian operation is going to be hammered and
hammered and hammered until it becomes the mainstream consensus. This will happen regardless of
facts and evidence, up to and including rock solid evidence that Hunter Biden's emails were not
published as a result of a Russian operation.
This is happening. It's following the same formula all the other fact-free Russia hysteria
narratives have followed. The same media tour by pundits and political operatives saying with
no evidence but very assertive voices that Russia is most certainly behind this occurrence and
we should all be very upset about it.
"To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work," Russiagate founder
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is heard assuring CNN's audience .
"Joe Biden – and all of us – SHOULD be furious that media outlets are spreading
what is very likely Russian propaganda," begins and eight-part thread by Democratic Senator
Chris Murphy, who claims the emails are "Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda."
"It's not really surprising at all, this was always the play, but still kind of
head-spinning to watch all the players from 2016 run exactly the same hack-leak-smear op in
2020. Even with everyone knowing exactly what's happening this time," tweets MSNBC's Chris
Hayes.
"How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops
18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious
handling of 2016 -- you are doubling down," Democratic Party think tanker Neera Tanden
tweeted in admonishment of
journalists who dare to report on or ask questions about the emails.
Virtually the entirety of the Democratic Party-aligned political/media class has streamlined
this narrative of Russian influence into the American consciousness with very little inertia,
despite the fact that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden has disputed the authenticity of the emails
and despite a complete absence of evidence for Russian involvement in their publication.
This is surely the first time, at least in recent memory, that we have ever seen such a
broad consensus within the mass media that it is the civic duty of news reporters to try and
influence the outcome of a presidential general election by withholding negative news coverage
for one candidate. There was a lot of fascinated hatred for Trump in 2016, but people still
reported on Hillary Clinton's various scandals and didn't attack one another for doing so. In
2020 that has changed, and mainstream news reporters have now largely coalesced along the
doctrine that they must avoid any reporting which might be detrimental to the Biden
campaign.
"Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it's immoral to report
on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden. In reality, it's the responsibility of
journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden,"
tweeted The Intercept 's Glenn
Greenwald recently.
"You don't even have to think the Hunter Biden materials constitute some kind of
earth-shattering story to be absolutely repulsed at the authoritarian propaganda offensive
being waged to discredit them -- primarily by journalists who behave like compliant little
trained robots ," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
Last month The Spectator 's Stephen L Miller described how the consensus
formed among the mainstream press since Clinton's 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to
be uncritical of Trump's opponent.
"For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over
what I will call the 'but her emails' dilemma," Miller writes. "Those who reported dutifully on
the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server and spillage of
classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids'
table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off
by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump
in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have
been highlighting Trump's foibles. It's an error no journalist wants to repeat."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and you've
got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it. This
means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an established
fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the energy
that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the White
House.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on, everyone
would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made, Russiagate would
never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful forces are pushing us
into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed nations, and Trump would be
grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The mainstream
news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon which they
have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information with
each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
The moment the New York Post reported on some of the sleazy, corrupt details contained on
Hunter Biden's hard drive, Twitter and Facebook, the social media giants most closely connected
to the way Americans exchange political information, went into overdrive to suppress the
information and protect Joe Biden. In the case of Facebook, though, perhaps one of those
protectors was, in fact, protecting herself.
The person currently in charge of Facebook's election integrity program is Anna Makanju .
That name probably doesn't mean a lot to you, but it should mean a lot – and in a
comforting way -- to Joe Biden.
Before ending up at Facebook, Makanju was a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic
Council. The Atlantic Council is an ostensibly non-partisan think tank that deals with
international affairs. In fact, it's a decidedly partisan organization.
In 2009, James L. Jones, the Atlantic Council's chairman left the organization to be
President Obama's National Security Advisor. Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Eric Shinseki,
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Chuck Hagel, and Brent Scowcroft also were all affiliated with the Atlantic Council
before they ended up in the Obama administration.
The Atlantic Council has received massive amounts of foreign funding over the years. Here's
one that should interest everyone: Burisma Holdings donated $300,000
dollars to the Atlantic Council, over the course of three consecutive years, beginning in
2016. The information below may explain why it began paying that money to the Council.
Not only was the Atlantic Council sending people into the Obama-Biden administration, but it
was also serving as an outside advisor. And that gets us back to Anna Makanju, the person
heading Facebook's misleadingly titled "election integrity program."
Makanju also worked at the Atlantic Council. The following is the relevant part of Makanju's
professional bio from her page at the Atlantic Council
(emphasis mine):
Anna Makanju is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative.
She is a public policy and legal expert working at Facebook, where she leads efforts to
ensure election integrity on the platform. Previously, she was the special policy adviser for
Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden , senior policy adviser to
Ambassador Samantha Power at the United States Mission to the United Nations, director for
Russia at the National Security Council, and the chief of staff for European and NATO Policy
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She has also taught at the Woodrow Wilson School
at Princeton University and worked as a consultant to a leading company focused on space
technologies.
Makanju was a player in the faux Ukraine impeachment. Early in December 2019, when the
Democrats were gearing up for the impeachment, Glenn Kessler
mentioned her in an article assuring Washington Post readers that, contrary to the Trump
administration's claims, there was nothing corrupt about Biden's dealings with Ukraine. He made
the point then that Biden now raises as a defense: Biden didn't pressure Ukraine to fire
prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma; he did it because Shokin wasn't doing his job when
it came to investigating corruption.
Kessler writes that, on the same day in February 2016 that then-Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that Shokin had offered his resignation, Biden spoke to both Poroshenko
and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The White House version is that Biden gave both men pep
talks about reforming the government and fighting corruption. And that's where Makanju comes
in:
Anna Makanju, Biden's senior policy adviser for Ukraine at the time, also listened to the
calls and said release of the transcripts would only strengthen Biden's case that he acted
properly. She helped Biden prepare for the conversations and said they operated at a high
level, with Biden using language such as Poroshenko's government being "nation builders for a
transformation of Ukraine."
A reference to a private company such as Burisma would be "too fine a level of
granularity" for a call between Biden and the president of another country, Makanju told The
Fact Checker. Instead, she said, the conversation focused on reforms demanded by the
International Monetary Fund, methods to tackle corruption and military assistance. An
investigation of "Burisma was just not significant enough" to mention, she said.
Let me remind you, in case you forgot, that Burisma started paying the Atlantic Council a
lot of money in 2016, right when Makanju was advising Biden regarding getting rid of
Shokin.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
That's right folks, the Facebook executive currently blocking all of the negative evidence
of Hunter and Joe Biden's corrupt activity in Ukraine is the same person who was coordinating
the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.
You just cannot make this stuff up folks.
The incestuous networking between Democrats in the White House, Congress, the Deep State,
the media, and Big Tech never ends. That's why the American people wanted and still want Trump,
the true outsider, to head the government. They know that Democrats have turned American
politics into one giant Augean Stable and that Trump is
the Hercules who (we hope) can clean it out.
The timing of the weapons
deals strongly suggests a calculated move by the Trump White House to deliberately
antagonize China. After all, the Republican president and his Democrat rival have been sparring
over which one is tougher towards Beijing. Riling up China would therefore play into President
Donald Trump's hawkish posturing.
With recent opinion polls showing Trump losing ground to Joe Biden only three weeks from the
ballot, it looks like the incumbent is throwing everything including the kitchen sink to boost
his re-election chances. Announcing sped-up troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, as well as a
touted nuclear arms agreement with Russia (dismissed by Moscow as overblown), seems to be part
of a last-gasp effort by the Trump campaign to scrape up votes.
But offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is taking electioneering to recklessly dangerous
levels. Trump may be betting that China will huff and puff and then a turn blind eye, thereby
permitting him to make political gain without any real damage done – like starting a
war.
It's more precarious than that. The Trump administration has been using Taiwan as a catspaw
against China for too long. The latest weapons deals being proposed are just part of a slew of
advanced armaments that the Trump White House has overseen in its determination to aggravate
Beijing.
The moves by the Trump administration to increase supply of offensive weapons systems to
Taiwan are unprecedented. Since Washington formally broke ties with Taiwan in 1979, as part of
its One China policy to placate Beijing's territorial claims, previous administrations have
limited arms sales to the breakaway island to "defensive" armaments.
Under Trump, however, Washington has signaled it is abandoning its One China
policy by explicitly moving towards supporting Taiwan and its separatist position. Selling
offensive missiles, torpedoes, anti-ship mines and F-16s to Taiwan over the past year alone
is letting China know that the US is threatening to back the island in an armed confrontation
with the mainland.
In recent months, the Trump administration has sent the most senior US officials on
high-profile
visits to Taiwan since 1979. Last month, Kelly Craft, the American ambassador to the UN,
declared support
for Taiwan to have official representation at the world body. Those high-level state
acknowledgements have coincided with Washington sending high-powered military forces
to the Taiwan Strait in the form of warships and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers.
These provocative moves have been met by China escalating its military forces in a show of
strength to underpin its self-declared right to retake Taiwan, which Beijing views as a
renegade state since the 1949 civil war when the defeated nationalist faction exiled there.
The anti-China hostility generated in Washington is a
bipartisan position adopted by Republicans and Democrats. That means the weapons sales
lined up by Trump for Taiwan will likely be voted through, no matter who wins the presidential
contest on November 3. There's also at least another four major arms packages
reportedly in the works due at a later stage.
The US foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon – as seen in several planning
documents over recent
years – have targeted China as a great power rival. The antagonism that Trump has
certainly lent his brash personality to is not going away even if he loses the election next
month.
Piling on weapons sales to Taiwan is not merely a reprehensible electioneering ploy which
Trump might cynically calculate benefits him. It is part of a growing dynamic of belligerence
out of Washington towards Beijing. Whether it's Trump or Biden sitting in the White House, that
doesn't alter the disastrous collision course that Washington is charting towards Beijing based
on the former's presumed imperialist prerogatives.
It's a foreboding sign of the times when China's President Xi Jinping this week
warned combat marines to be prepared for war in defense of the nation's sovereignty.
America's cowardly habit of beating up on other people for its own political ego trips
sooner or later goes too far. Washington messing around with China's sovereignty and national
security as seen with incorrigible and increasingly offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is
playing with fire. A fire that could be just one spark away.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Tom Fowdyis a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations
with a primary focus on East Asia.
His Holiness declining to meet the US secretary of state when he visited the Vatican on his
European tour further proves that his misguided America-first chauvinism is alienating more
nations than it's winning as friends.
Pompeo, everyone's favourite Cold Warrior and American chauvinist,
is on a European tour . Visiting Greece, Italy, Croatia, and notably, the Vatican, the
secretary of state is on a roll to win support for American security and energy interests
across the region. But he wasn't welcomed by all. Attending the Holy See today, the US' 'top
diplomat' found himself
snubbed by the Pope as he rolled into town peddling his vitriolic anti-China agenda, and
demanding the Church take on Beijing and refuse to renew a deal that gives it a say in the
appointment of bishops within that country. Pope Francis wasn't too impressed and refused to
meet him accordingly.
The snub is significant, because it reflects more broadly how Pompeo's highly aggressive and
evangelical foreign policy agenda is being received around the world. In short, it's a
shambles. Rather than respectfully and constructively engage with the interests of other
countries, on his watch, the State Department does nothing but pressure other nations. And it
does this while parroting the clichéd talking points of American exceptionalism,
hysterical anti-Communism, and a refusal to take into account the interests and practicalities
faced by its partners. The Vatican has its differences with Beijing, but how would embarking on
a collision course help it or the cause of Catholics in China? It wouldn't.
Pompeo is repeatedly described by major
US newspapers, the Washington Post among them, as "
the worst secretary of state in American history," and it's no surprise why. Diplomacy
requires the skills of understanding, prudence, compromise, calibration, and negotiation. The
current man in charge of America's relations with the rest of the world has none of those in
his armoury – only a one-sided diatribe about how every nation Washington holds a grudge
against is evil and a threat to the world, and the US' own political system is far superior (as
demonstrated by last night's presidential debate, perhaps ?). Pompeo repeatedly positions
himself as
speaking on behalf of other nations' people against their governments, while pushing a
policy that amounts to little more than bullying.
A look at Pompeo and the State Department's Twitter feed shows it to be a unilateral,
repetitive loop of the following topics: 'The Chinese Communist Party is evil and a threat to
the world', 'Iran is an evil terrorist state', American values are the best', 'We stand with
the people of X', and so on, ad nauseam. To describe it as hubris would be generous, and, of
course, it does nothing to support the equally inadequate foreign policy of the United States
in practice. This is further distorted by the unilateralist and anti-global governance politics
of Donald Trump, which place emphasis only on the projection of power to force other countries
into capitulating to American demands.
Against such a backdrop, it's no surprise that a toxic mixture of foreign policymaking has
led to other countries not being willing to take notice of Washington. It's winning neither
hearts nor minds, and it's this that has set the stage for not only the Vatican snub, but the
largely fruitless outcomes of his European adventures. Pompeo's visit to Greece produced no meaningful
agreements or outcomes of note , and he failed to get Athens to publicly commit to any
anti-China measures or even statements. A similar non-result was achieved from his visit to the
Czech Republic a month or so ago – the Czech prime minister even came out and
played down Pompeo's comments , after he engaged in a spree of anti-Beijing vitriol.
So, what's at stake for the Vatican? Undoubtedly, religion is a sensitive topic in mainland
China. The Chinese state sees unfettered religion as a threat to social stability, or as a
potential vehicle for imperialism against the country, and thus has aimed to strongly regulate
it under terms and conditions set by the state.
This has caused tensions with the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains a strict
ecclesiastical hierarchy, answering to the Vatican and not national governments. With China
being the world's most populous country, having among its vast population nine million
Catholics, this means the Church has had to negotiate and compromise with the Beijing
government to maintain its influence and control, and to secure the rights of its members to
worship. This has resulted in a 'deal' whereby the Vatican can have a say in the appointment of
its bishops in China, rather than the Church being completely subordinate to the
government.
But Pompeo doesn't care about these sensitivities – he wants one thing: Cold War. He
wants unbridled, unrestrained, and evangelical condemnation of China and, as noted above, is
utilizing his 'diplomatic visits' to push that demand. However, building a foreign policy on
preaching America First unilateralism, chauvinism, and zero compromise not surprisingly has its
limitations. As a result, Pompeo is finding himself isolated and ignored in more than a few
areas. Thus it was that, rather than completely squandering the Vatican's interests in
diplomacy with China, Pope Francis simply refused to meet him. For someone as fanatically
religious and pious as Pompeo, that's a pretty damning indictment of the incompetence within
the US State Department right now.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
Not very surprising to be honest, some people simply cannot go without regime change
to the point where they have to parade people about who weren't even born in Iran and who
have little to no support in the country as "dissidents" to try to guilt people into
supporting intervention. Of course with that comes slander against those who warn against
that, which unfortunately means TAC.
Trump ignored them??? Hardly. He hired John Bolton as his national security advisor,
and Rudy Giuliani is his personal attorney. Both of those guys are heavily tied to this
organization and advocate its line. And while he did stop short of actually invading
Iran, he was on the brink of doing so recently, talked out of it only at the last minute.
I'll give him credit for not going all the way with them, but he's given them far too
wide a berth and much too much influence in his foreign policy if you ask me.
He did not go all the way with them because he was told by the military and others,
who take their jobs and missions to server the American people seriously, that his
attacks on Iran - invasion was not "the table" at all - would face a humiliating defeat
at the same level of what happened to his efforts to extend the weapons sanctions at the
UNSC. Pompeo was sent home with his tail between his legs.
The idea that Trump would have invaded if allowed doesn't pass the smell test. He
spent much of the 2016 railing against regime change and foreign wars. His recent
instincts on this topic have been largely correct.
Trump did not want more war, and wanted to end the existing wars, that much is clear.
At the same time as he believes the Israeli line about Iran. But he did not want war with
Iran - he knows they would mine the Strait of Hormuz shut, and the U.S. economy would go
into a depression along with the world economy. No president would survive that.
But, he has had to appease top donor *Sheldon Adelson, in order to prevent a GOP
revolt in the Congress. The threat was always that they'd join the Democrats in
impeaching him, that Mike Pence would call for the same, and people would leave his
cabinet. So he caved by sanctioning Iran and destroying the lives of millions of people.
And he had to appease Israel by taking Syria's oil fields via the Marxist Kurd
mercenaries, and let them burn the wheat fields. But he did not start a war, and did not
want a war.
Lets be honest here. It isn't MEK disinformation tactics it is the tactics
of the US wrapped up and packaged as MEK. Just as Falon Gong is backed
by the CIA. MEK is a bunch of backwards ass hats with terrorist
tendencies. They are not some national level intelligence agency. This
is most likely crud made up by the US intelligence agencies sold as MEK
and pushed on the American people to convince them that Iran will be
dropping nuclear weapons on their house any minute now if they can stop
eating babies long enough, so they need to push their government to go
to WAR!!!!! with Iran and kill some Muslims. The gullibility of the
American people is why there will never be a time when they are not at
war.
Possibly, but the MEK does have an online presence and such. But of course, it is all
with Washington's money, and Washington's assistance.
For those who don't know: The MEK is a Marxist-Islamist group that initially supported
the Revolution, but turned against Ayatollah Khomeini as they didn't get to share power.
Because no one liked them. And Marxists were not allowed in revolutionary Iran - the MEK
was chased out along with the Soviet-installed communist party in northern Iran.
The MEK have been killing Iranian police, bureaucrats and local administrators.
This is their "revolution". They kill people mainly with bombs. The present Ayatollah's
left arm is withered after one of their bomb attacks.
The MEK have been killing Iranian physics professors and technicians. They kill
them with car bombs in traffic - a motorbike with two killers drive up to a car by a
traffic stop and attach a bomb with magnets. Of course, you can wonder where they got the
bombs, and money and transport. This is classic Mossad strategy. Likewise, dozens of
technicians and professors in Iraq have been murdered. Israel hopes for a
counter-reaction which the U.S. can exploit.
Rest assured, the political opposition in Iran hates the Marxist-Islamist MEK as much
as the government does. Which Washington and Israel don't acknowledge.
The MEK was housed by Saddam Hussein in an old military base. They had to leave Iraq
eventually after the overthrow of Hussein. The U.S. then shipped them to a brand new
training base in Albania. Crazy as it might seem. Albania's government is of course
as eager to be a paid Washington agent as the Kurds are.
Absurdly, this explicitly terrorist group has been taken off the terror list by
Washington. While Iran is called "terrorist" for helping Hezbollah, who formed to fight
back when Israel invaded Lebanon and massacred Shia villagers in the south with
artillery, because they lived close to the Palestinian refugee camps. And then kept
fighting when Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, Shia land, as a "buffer zone" for
many years.
The MEK killed thousands of people, including Americans. But the Lobby always gets
what it wants.
The MEK was founded in 1965 by three Islamic leftists with the goal of toppling the
U.S.-supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In the 1970s it undertook a campaign of assassinating U.S. advisers and bombing
U.S. corporations in Iran. It supported the 1979 Revolution in Iran, but in 1981 it
turned its guns against the Tehran government and began a campaign of assassinations and
terrorist operations that resulted in the death of thousands of Iranians, including the
executions of its own supporters by government officials, soldiers, police officers, and
ordinary people.
It then moved its headquarters to Iraq, made a pact with the regime of Saddam
Hussein, which was fighting a ferocious war with Iran. The MEK spied on Iranian troops
for Iraq, attacked Iran at the end of Iran-Iraq war with Hussein's support, and helped
Hussein put down the uprisings by the Iraqi Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south
after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
The MEK is despised by the vast majority of Iranians for what they consider to be
treason committed against their homeland.
"As a matter of journalistic ethics any organization engaging in systematic dishonesty
like this has provided a very good reason to blacklist them. ...This is not a matter of
foreign policy differences: if you wish to see the U.S. pursue regime change in Iran, the
MEK does not help make that case. Any publishers or think tanks who are aware of this
dishonesty and still treat them like a legitimate opposition group should be considered
part of a campaign not wholly different from the last time we were lied into a Mideast
war."
If MEK does NOT help to make the case for regime change in Iran - & outside
sponsored regime change is not ethical - then it would be unethical not to support them,
in order to help prevent unethical regime change. Although that's probably not what
horrible Hillary had in mind when, as Sec. of State in 2012, she de-listed them from the
U.S. official list of terrorist organizations. But if anyone will lie "us" into a war
with Iran, it will be AIPAC & innumerable other dishonest zionist organizations
working on behalf of the Jewish terror state, & it's new Saudi terror state partner;
both of whom look with favor on MEK as a bit partner in their joint effort to take out
the government of Iran. MEK is pretty small potatoes compared to The Lobby, who are
waging another campaign not wholly different from the last time they pushed us into a
M.E. war to benefit lying israel.
People tell you - You are a conservative, so do I. I support XYZ thus you should also
support them.
Before the 2003 Iraqi War, Many then Bush administration officials and self-anointed
"conservative opinion leaders" went on TV to lie to people to support their war. Today,
we still suffer the consequence but they are preaching to us other wars.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In no way should the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War be excused, nor
should "conservative opinion leaders" be let off the hook, but the Congress was
complicit, the Senate was complicit, the military was complicit, the intelligence
community was complicit, and the majority of the electorate was complicit. Nobody
cared whether the reason for the war was valid, people just wanted to vent their
frustrations against terrorists on an unrelated Arab country that the US had already used
as a whipping boy. What could happen?
Almost twenty years later and-- surprise! surprise!-- suddenly everyone recognizes the
war for the folly it was. Some people, like Dreher, seem to have genuinely changed their
stance based on what happened subsequently. But we'll all see what happens the next time
the war mongers-- from both sides of the aisle and from all over the country-- start
rattling their sabers.
Then there are the appeasers and anti-war peace-niks that would rather surrender than
fight for liberty or that (if they are willing to fight) will on risk OTHER PEOPLE's
(other American) lives, thus removing the need to ever put themselves at risk of learning
what actually goes in in the countries they are so sympathetic to.
The complete idiocy regarding Vietnam is the anti-war rhetoric surrounding. But has
laid the framework for installing fear into anyone who doesn't tow the ridiculousness of
what is argued by protesters -- which in every way has nearly every argument
backwards.
Since the aggressors in Vietnam were the communists of four countries, it is very safe
to say that those opposed to defending an independent S. Vietnam were in fact appeasing
communist aggression and that is accurate.
The nation of Vietnam has rarely known peace and the lines during the conflict
generally mark the region that separated the country's territorial history. The South
Vietnamese sound reason to seek defend their territorial and political independence and
we had sound reason to defend the same.
It was during that era that the liberal foundations showed their true colors. And if
one doubt it --- just look at the anti-Vietnam advocates -- the managers of the Iraq and
Afghanistan missteps and p[perhaps even worse their willingness to destroy the lives of
anyone who challenged their rational based on the very case they made -- which was
unsupportable.
There are some issues which simply are not really issues,
1. the lives of black people in the country and how they were/are socialized and the
consequence
2.what the civil war was really about
3.Mexican invasion of US territory to retake territory they lost to band of squatters
(lousy immigration enforcement) a war that is now taking place via our failure to enforce
border protection.)
"Since the aggressors in Vietnam were the communists of four countries, it is very
safe to say that those opposed to defending an independent S. Vietnam were in fact
appeasing communist aggression and that is accurate."
It's safe to say that BS like this is not hard to come by in the right wing nutjobs'
circles. No Vietnamese had/has ever attempted to attack, invade, kill and spray Agent
Orange anywhere in the US. So how come they became the aggressors?!
Viet Nam became truly independent AFTER expelling the American military.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee --
that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who
has delayed, denied, deceived the world." George W. Bush, September 17, 2002
Bless you for writing this but you are spitting into the wind. There are too many
people who want to believe this. The IRaq war analogy is apt. You have govt in exile
types like MEK (remember Chalabi) who have a vested interest in lying to us. You have the
hyper-pro Israel crowd and the newly accepted pro-Saudi crowd w/money to burn. I actually
expect and don't begrudge foreigners for trying to get the U.S. into their fights. I
resent the MSM that is simply in love with U.S. military conflicts who accuse people who
oppose them of being anti-American, conspiracy theorists.
The most laughable example was CNN accepting the notion that Iran has a massive cyber
presence in influencing our elections because our Intel Agencies told them so. Iran is
detested by the U.S. public as we steal civilian cargo from them that would make the
lives of people in other countries better. We sell the stolen goods for our benefit and
call them terrorists for their trouble. To suggest that they have sway over us is
laughable yet this passes for journalism.
Iran will be the next Iraq. If there is a God it will be the rock that breaks us. If
not then a crime of shocking proportions.
I largely agree but I think there's room for optimism, the US military particular the
army is largely a broken instrument, morale is not good except for the contractors,
General maintenance is down in favor of expensive toys that largely do not work. For all
of the bluster of this generation of sociopaths the military in general is a shadow of
itself not to mention we live in times of a rising China and the reemergence Russia,
neither of which would allow in on opposed attack on Iran.
How so? Our government seems to be providing the Saudi's with with as many bombs as
they need, Air Force retirees to fly in the backseatair of Saudi planes, we have slowed
down on the transfer of Thermo nuclear Technology as well as I assume the the delivery
systems for them true but that was likely just a temporary Flash of Conscience it'll
probably never happen again for that individual but if there something I'm missing please
do tell.
Look at it this way. Either the Saudi/UAE themselves have to deal militarily with
Iran, or the US. The US military-industrial complex is for selling weapons to these
client states whole-heartedly for obvious reasons. The Saudi/UAE has always expected and
often demanded the US is the one to "cut the snake's head" as "king" Abdullah of the
"Saudi" Arabia demanded frequently. These states know very well neither the "version" of
the weaponry they buy from the West is capable of performing in a real war with a
powerful enemy like Iran, nor are their personnel capable of operating them effectively.
So what they say to the US is, OK we'll buy your junk, but you need to do the job. In
other words, they want to fight Iran to the last AMERICAN soldier. The Pentagon wants
none of that. But happy to run the cash register. I hope I made my point clear.
MEK have no support in Iran. If a MEK member would walk down the street there the
people would tear them to shreds. When they started killing Iranians and cooperating with
Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war they committed political suicide.
You know, this really doesn't carry much weight. I am not going to dismiss the
complaints of a group because the majority don't support them. That is not a case for
regime change. I don't see a case for that as yet. But I don't buy this nonsense about
Iran land of peace ----
They were instrumental in destabilizing any peace in Iraq and remain so. Their Islamic
revolution has not passed and their ambitions are not as benign as as many including
Iranians like to pretend.
What does that have to do with anything that I said? If you want to come to power you
need the support of the people MEK don't have that so they will never gain power. Also
MEK are responsible for the revolution in the first place, they are the ones that carried
out bombing and assassinations even of Americans in Iran. They are the ones that attacked
the US embassy in Iran and held Americans hostage. There is a reason they were on the US
terror list until 2012. As far as Iran being the land of peace not sure where you got
that from, Iran has never claimed that and infact Iran will conduct foreign policy that
benefits its goals, which is true of any nation. You should try to stay on topic when you
reply to somebody though.
Yes, as you know the Iranians attacked, invaded and looted Iraq's oil and cultural
heritage. Had in not been for the US "rescue mission" Iranian would still be there. You
must be tone deaf.
Thump the conspiracy theories and emphasize the hard-line approach with no idea or
intent to actually go through with anything should he actually win. I see reference to
Q-anon and I immediately think Trumpian conspieracy.
Conservatives are easy to target, they are prepared to believe all sorts of nonsense.
Qanon aside they are prepared to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves and you can
lose weight on a vinegar and ice cream diet.
As opposed to the people who believe that a man can become a "real woman" just by
saying so, and nod approvingly when CNN shows the chyron "Mostly peaceful protests
continue" over footage of burning buildings.
Really, that's pretty damn funny like you retards don't believe in a bunch of
conspiracy nonsense and by the way don't put down Q is good fun to the geriatric
Community on the other hand you clowns are playing footsie with actual Nazis in Ukraine
while you accuse the right of being fascist that's beautiful congratulations it's going
to be great in a couple years when this country has seceded from each other and all of
you non-producers get to sort it out for yourselves, it's going to be magic.
Fake dissident groups. Wow! Not even the Chinese are this duplicitous. And people
whine and complain about Russian and Chinese 'infiltration' and 'meddling' ??
Which fale dissident groups? I missed that. I am not being sarcastic. I see people who
have been named as fake contributors all over the place. But I didn't see a reference to
a fake dissident group.
I'm still looking for the proof one way or the other of who the "good guys" are
here.
Fake this, fake that I can get from Trump every time he opens his mouth about "fake
news".
What I don't get from Trump (or from this article) is any references, documentation,
or solid proof of any kind other than accusations and counter-accusations -- one side I'm
supposed to believe because the author said so.
I'm not buying it without objective proof and trustworthy corroboration -- not just
more sock-puppets.
They are being dissed by many smart conservatives and others, because they have become
a tool of Saudi/Israel. They practically spearheaded killing Americans during the Shah,
and now they are enjoying American political and financial support. In that vein the
adage, my enemy's enemy is my friend, does not apply here. But if you are a money hungry
Giuliani, Kennedy, Bolton or Howard Dean being a gang of killers, Saddam Husein
mercenaries, and Saudi/Israeli agents don't matter.
"We are especially on guard when it comes to unsolicited foreign policy
commentary.""
So one would hope, but foreign meddling is rife. At least the Washington Examiner
makes an effort, whereas the Washington Free Beacon functions almost openly as an Israeli
organ inside the United States.
Ehem...The Israelis have admitted they essentially founded, financed and thoroughly
and continuously infiltrated the Palestinian revolutionary group, HAMAS to counter the
PLO achieve the ongoing ethnic destruction of Palestinian land freedom and society...the
MEK and their front group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran are comparable
Israeli emanations whose ultimate goal is the land grab from the Nile to the Euphrates
known as the Greater Israel project. This is Israeli history text book material, it is
not conjecture...Read what former Israeli officials such as Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev,
former Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s. had to say the New York
Times in that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a
"counterweight" to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation
Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referred to Hamas as
"a creature of Israel.") "The Israeli government gave me a budget," the retired
brigadier
general confessed, "and the military government gives to the mosques." Moreover, "Hamas,
to my great regret, is Israel's creation," said Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious
affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades to the Wall Street Journal
in 2009. Deliberately planned, as far back as the mid-1980s, according to Cohen in an
official report to his superiors playing the divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories,
by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists, HAMAS was built up to
become an "existential threat" fake tool of nuclear mighty Israel. In his report Cohen
wrote, "I suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before
this reality jumps in our face," he wrote. That was the point exactly, poor victimized
Israel "endowed with the right to defend itself". With Palestine now Kushnerized into
oblivion, Iran is next ...Go figure...
Hmmm
Means, motive, opportunity and who benefits spells out in no uncertain terms that the
entire create a justification and then go to war with Iran originates in Israel and is
being sold by the Zionists and Israel's literal army of jewish/Zionist/pro-Israel agents
masquerading as "lobbyists", "activists", "think tanks" "academics", the Media,
Hollywood, Congress, most of the White House Staff, etc., etc., here in the US. In other
words, by an Israeli controlled army in America made up of traitors, liars and
criminals.... A group who collectively ALWAYS put Israel Uber Alles.
That's where random sampling became a scam. People who hold minority views or views that they
think are opposite of the reviewer often will not respond honestly creating false narrative that
MSM propagate.
Notable quotes:
"... Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest ..."
"... So don't worry! As long as enough Americans keep playing Red v Blue, the Establishment will be just fine. ..."
Watching the network news on television or reading about current events in the newspapers
seemingly transports one to an alternate universe where nothing seems to make sense. The profit
driven news cycle in the United States is admittedly a poor mechanism for actually gaining an
understanding of what is going on, but seven days of Ruth Bader Ginsburg worship hardly
addresses what is ailing the country, particularly as questions about how she
earned many millions of dollars while serving as a judge as well as some unsavory aspects of her
career have been carefully buried.
A friend who is a retired U.S. Army general made an interesting comment several days ago,
observing that when it comes to politics and voting patterns the so-called "silent majority" is
indeed silent. What he meant was that many Americans who hold currently unpopular conservative
views will not respond honestly to a call from an unknown pollster regarding voting intentions.
This is particularly true of the current campaign in which Donald Trump is being reviled by the
media and depicted by the Democrats as no less than a threat to American democracy. Biden by
way of comparison pretty much gets a free pass, to include forgiveness for his frequent
faux pas and mental lapses. In other words, Trump is being framed as someone poised to
mount a totalitarian takeover of the United States, which in and of itself would disincline
many voters to indicate openly that they would support him over Biden.
My friend was suggesting that the polls on the upcoming election just might be more than
usually wrong. I would add to that the general vapidity of what one might expect from the
presidential debates, which are similarly being framed in such a fashion as to avoid any topics
that might really matter. But the polls do reveal two things. First, that there is a lack of
any confidence in
the integrity of politicians at all levels, and second, that jobs and healthcare are
the
principal concerns of nearly all voter demographics as they directly impact on quality of
life.
Healthcare is admittedly a complicated issue given the fact that the entire system in the
United States would have to be reformed, with considerable government intervention. The
respected British medical journal The Lancet recently published "Measuring
universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204
countries and territories" . The study revealed, to no one's surprise, that the United
States has by far the world's most expensive medical care, at around $9,000 per person per year
while at the same time delivering poorer results than virtually any other industrialized
nation. Medical expenses are in fact a leading cause of personal bankruptcy by Americans.
So, what are the two parties saying about health care? The Republicans want to overturn
so-called Obamacare and replace it with something else which they cannot
describe while the Democrats insist that they want to keep Obamacare in place while also
blaming the president for the response to the coronavirus. That's it. There is plenty of blame
to go around on Covid-19 and Obamacare is in fact a bad program. It is good if the government
is footing the bill for you, but anyone who is paying for his or her own insurance has seen the
rates treble and even quadruple since the program became active. It has become a gold mine for
the health care industry, which now assumes that it can charge whatever it wants and the
suffering customer will be obliged to pay for it. That there is no effective regulation of
health care is due to the fact that Big Pharma and other providers have completely corrupted
Congress through political donations to make sure that the highly profitable status
quo remains untouched.
And when it comes to the other great concern, "The Economy," which means jobs, the two major
parties have even less to say since they know deep down that they have both conspired in the
gutting of America's industrial and manufacturing infrastructure.
But another area dear to my own heart which the parties have been silent about is Foreign
Policy, which also subsumes National Security, a related issue that the opinion polls do not
specifically address. Both parties are strong on issuing position papers that refer to
supporting allies, meaning Israel followed by everyone else, confronting threats from Russia
and China, and maintaining the world's number one military. Beyond that it gets a bit vague. We
have recently learned from a possibly unreliable source named Bob Woodward that President Trump
sought to assassinate Syria's President Bashar al-Assad but was talked out of it. Trump did
order the assassination of senior Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, whom he and Secretary of
State have recently described as the "world's leading terrorist," which is manifestly untrue.
Is assassinating foreign leaders something that the United States wants to engage in? Why is no
one talking about it?
And then there are the "hot wars" being fought in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. None
of those wars benefit from a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by Congress and they
have cost the U.S. taxpayer trillions of dollars. Shouldn't that be under discussion? Or the
"maximum pressure" economic wars being waged against Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran? Those
"wars" have collectively killed tens of thousands of civilians and have done nothing to enhance
the security of the United States. Shouldn't Trump and Biden be talking about that?
Instead, we will see much finger pointing and hear a lot about how dangerous a win by either
presidential candidate will be, all couched in general terms based on a lot of "what-ifs." But
what the American public needs, particularly the silent majority, is a viable plan for decent
and affordable healthcare similar to what most of the rest of the world enjoys. And a new
government also must act decisively to challenge corporate offshoring interests to bring
manufacturing jobs back home. But most of all, the United States needs peace after nineteen
years of spreading chaos all over the globe. End the wars and bring the troops home. Do it
now.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest
Much respect, Phil, but you know the news cycle in America is not driven by "profit" but
rather by agenda. If profit drove the news CNN and MSNBC would be podcasts by now. (((Big
Other))) is willing to lose a lot of money in the short-mid term to drive their long term
agenda.
"What They Are Not Talking About: War and Peace, Healthcare and Jobs Are Non-Issues"
I'm not aware that either party has any credible idea what to do to really fix jobs and
healthcare so they basically have nothing to talk about.
Trump wants less war and the Deep State would like more war but even if President Biden and
then President Harris are willing to give it to them, the Covid Great Depression means we
really can't afford them any more so there is no point in talking about that either.
The election comes down to how many people really hate Trump + how many Republicans and
neutrals are willing to give him a second chance + how much the Democrats can stuff the
ballot boxes. Every thing else is just WWF noise.
This article really hits it on the head for me. The last four years I've been screaming
that the issues are:
1. End the forever wars, strengthen diplomacy
2. Jobs
3. More better jobs
4. Even more better jobs
5. Fix the trade balance (jobs)
6. End the healthcare boondoggle.
These are all issues that NO ONE talks about anymore.
People generally don't vote on issues. Except for fundamentalists, who vote on only one
issue, abortion, which is precisely equivalent to not voting on any issues at all.
What they vote on is "like" and "dislike." If they "like" a candidate, then they vote for
them. If they don't "like" a candidate, then they don't vote for them.
observing that when it comes to politics and voting patterns the so-called "silent
majority" is indeed silent.
Thanks, that statement sums up the underlining problem, that is why the massive problems
of the US are running out of control, with no fix in sight.
The general Middle Class public will not stand up for their own and true interests or even
want to comprehend what those interests might be until they are in a jobless claims line.
They go silent and let corrupted politicians of all shades run the show as if they dont have
a dog in the fight.
Trump supporters should call him out where he goes off the reservation to serve Special
interests and not their and the same goes for all others.
@jsinton ct exploiting a viral dempanic with its trillion$ for Wall Street, another
handful of 401Kibble to prevent snarling among the professional and managerial class who tend
to read and think, and a paid vacation for the proles.
But Beltway politics abhors a vacuum, and draws its breath from strife. Which is why
people have to be distracted and divided over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms,
strung along by the hopes/fears of Barr Durham indictments, and rallied to vote in the next
Most Important Election Ever by food fights over robed, unelected politicians whose real job
is to sanctify rule of a country and as much of the world as can be grabbed by
Washington.
So don't worry! As long as enough Americans keep playing Red v Blue, the Establishment
will be just fine.
This is the absolute crux of the matter. Debates are a ceremonial pissing contest. They
always censor any of your principal concerns. As with all official US propaganda, you can
categorically say there's never any mention of your rights.
Two things will happen in November. There will be a futile ritual to decide which CIA
puppet ruler fucks you over. Then on November 9th, the whole world is going to talk about
your rights. Unlike your parties, they ask you what you want. They encourage you, yes you, to
demand what you want and they give you a platform in front of the whole world, in the most
public forum on earth. You can watch it live. Hell, you can go there and have your say. A
bunch of Americans will. Actual democracy. Holy fucking shit.
Think of it. You have two coincident four-year cycles of governance. One is phony
bullshit. One is exactly what you need. The whole world is pushing your right to peace, to
health, to a livelihood, to your culture, all your other rights you don't even know you got.
It's like the whole world is yelling in your face, loud as they can, "Why do you put up with
that shit?" The world is trying to teach you how you run a grown-up country – go
through your rights systematically like a checklist, and make your government respect them.
And your horseshit regime in DC makes sure you never hear a peep about this great institution
of yours.
We could shitcan parties and elections, pick politicians by lot and run the country with
human rights reviews. It's that simple. This is how we get rid of this parasitic, predatory
US police state.
If there's a constant in history, it's that politicians never talk about the things that
matter to people because the solutions to the problems are too divisive – apart from
the fact that they're clueless anyway beyond a few barfly level notions.
They'd rather concentrate on looks.
In France, in 1981, socialist candidate François Mitterrand came up with 120
propositions that nobody read but his campaign adviser, Jacques Séguéla, a
publicist, thought he looked like a vampire and said to him: "If you don't have your canines
filed down, you'll always inspire distrust. You'll never get elected to the presidency with
such a set of teeth".
So he had his canines filed down.
Because it's SYSTEMIC RACISM! That is the source of all of our problems.
And the thing about systemic racism is that it's invisible, the only way to fight it is to
scream loudly about how bad it is, bend the knee when the national anthem is being played,
and give your nice local diversity officer a raise and a corner office. Jobs? Healthcare?
That just won't work, so don't even think about it.
Both main parties in the US (Republican and Democrat) are fundamentally controlled by
billionaires and corporations (billionaire robots), so they have no interest in helping the
little people.
Certain elements benefit from the broken medical system in the US. Ditto for offshoring
jobs, fighting wars with and selling expensive weapons, ruining the environment, and
welcoming third world immigration.
And the same forces control the media (MSM and big tech) which influences greatly what
people see and what they care about, get emotional about.
There was no discussion of the destruction of Syria, which was spared when Russia
intervened. If Wallace wanted to corner Trump, he could have mentioned that Trump said
American troops would be withdrawn from Syria several times, but it never happened. Why? And
what would Biden say if asked if American troops should leave Syria and Iraq?
Whatever health care system the Dems concoct will crash and burn because they will make
the care available to illegal aliens while ceasing to control the influx of same.
One morning a couple of years ago I received an urgent email from a moderately prominent
libertarian figure strongly focused on antiwar issues. He warned me that our publication had
been branded a "White Supremacist website" by the Washington Post , and urged me to
immediately respond, perhaps by demanding a formal retraction or even taking legal action lest
we be destroyed by that totally unfair accusation.
When I looked into the matter, my own perspective was rather different. Apparently Max Boot,
one of the more agitated Jewish Neocons, had written
a column fiercely denouncing some recent criticism of pro-Israel policies that Philip
Giraldi had published in our webzine, and the "White Supremacist" slur was merely his crude
means of demonizing the author's views for those of his readers who might be less than
wholeheartedly enthusiastic about Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies.
After pointing this out to my correspondent, I also noted that a good 10% or more of our
writers were probably "White Nationalists," and perhaps a few of them might even arguably be
labeled "White Supremacists." So although Boot's description of our website was certainly
wrong, it was probably less wrong than the vast majority of his other writing, which was
typically focused on American military policy and the Middle East.
Our webzine is quite unusual in its willingness to feature a smattering of writers who
provide a White Nationalist perspective. Such individuals are almost totally excluded from
other online publications, except for those marginalized websites devoted to their ideas, which
often tend to focus on such topics and related issues to the near exclusion of anything else.
However, I believe that maintaining this sort of ideological quarantine or "ghettoization"
greatly diminishes the ability to understand many important aspects of our world.
An interviewer should test this man's integrity with a simple question, such as.. "When
you retire, will promise to live off your generous pension....like Eisenhower in his rocking
chair....and not go to work for an arms manufacturer or think tank or any other paid
position?"
Rocky_Fjord 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 05:18 AM
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which
brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing
with its new toys and made a big mistake." -- and I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact
that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies
of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing with its new toys and made a big mistake."
He was a real giant in comparison with intellectual scum like Fiona Hill, Michael McFaul and other neocons.
Notable quotes:
"... I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members, distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was. ..."
"... There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto. ..."
"... Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well, from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become inconvenient. ..."
"... After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014, he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world. ..."
"... It was something far colder, more sustained, something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind of people who win races by kneecapping the competition. ..."
"... I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap, he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting. ..."
"... It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers. ..."
"... In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the parrots and pundits were lined up against him. ..."
"... Always I was skeptical of prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy. ..."
"... Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or margaret kimberly. ..."
"... His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the sand. ..."
I first reached out to Stephen Cohen because I was losing my mind.
In the spring of 2014, a war broke out in my homeland of Ukraine. It was a horrific war in a
bitterly divided nation, which turned eastern Ukraine into a bombed-out wasteland. But that's
not how it was portrayed in America. Because millions of eastern Ukrainians were against the
US-backed government, their opinions were inconvenient for the West. Washington needed a clean
story about Ukraine fighting the Kremlin; as a result, US media avoided reporting about the
"wrong" half of the country. Twenty-plus million people were written out of the narrative, as
if they never existed.
I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that
ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were
pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America
who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members,
distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought
for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He
spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was.
And so I e-mailed him, asking for guidance as I began my own writing career. Of course,
there were many who clamored for Steve's time, but I had an advantage over others. Steve and I
were both night owls, real night owls, the kind who have afternoon tea at three am. It
was then, when the east coast was sleeping, that he became my mentor and friend.
There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in
geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals
impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to
navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had
facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto.
But one thing Steve taught me is to stick to my strengths, and truth be told, there are
others who can describe his life better than I. I'll stick to what I learned during our
conversations at three in the morning, which is that, above all else, Stephen F. Cohen was a
man of faith.
Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all
sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well,
from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the
narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and
America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become
inconvenient.
After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia
experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just
write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with
legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014,
he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world.
The DC apparatchiks couldn't discredit Steve's credentials or track record -- he'd predicted
events in Ukraine and elsewhere years before they occurred. They couldn't intimidate him --
he'd faced far worse threats, like the KGB. Instead, they set out to turn him into an
America-hating, Putin-loving pariah.
This went beyond an ad hominem campaign. It was something far colder, more sustained,
something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the
target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at
Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators
and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind
of people who win races by kneecapping the competition.
I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of
course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve
cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap,
he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting.
It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his
beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and
civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their
world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things
far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers.
Steve liked movies and would often end a lecture with a movie reference to drive home the
thesis. When I think of him, I think of the ending of The Shawshank Redemption , the
line about Andy Dufresne crawling through filth and coming out clean on the other side. Steve
didn't live in a movie; I can't claim he emerged unscathed. What he did was come through
without bitterness or cynicism. He refused to turn away from the ugliness, but he didn't allow
it to blind him to beauty. He walked with grace. And he lost neither his convictions nor his
faith.
Lev
Golinkin Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka,
Amazon's Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program
selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d'Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston
College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now
called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and
immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues;
he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.
Pierre Guerlain says: October 1, 2020 at 12:42 pm
In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of
Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals
to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the
parrots and pundits were lined up against him. He was a Mensch. History will bear him
the historian out.
Valera Bochkarev says to Lance Haley: October 1, 2020 at 11:09 am
Hmm, who's the apologist here ?
If the Ukraine is SO sovereign how is it I did not see any outrage in your diatribe
against 'Toria, Pyatt and the rest orchestrating the Maidan putsch or the $5Billion US spent
on softening up the ukraine for the regime change ?
I believe in numbers, as in the number of military bases any given country has surrounding
the ones it wants to subvert, in the amount of money allocated to vilify and eventually bring
down the "unwanted" regimes and the quantity and 'quality' of sanctions imposed against those
regimes; and the sum of all of the above perpetrated against humanity in the past 75 or so
years.
Your vapid drivel, Mr Haley, evaporates almost without a trace once seen with those
parameters in mind.
Numbers don't lie.
Michael Batinski says: September 30, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Let me add from the perspective of an American historian who taught for forty years in a
midwestern university. From the start I depended on William Appleman Williams to keep
perspective and to counter prevailing interpretive trends.
Always I was skeptical of
prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by
colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism
and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy.
I will always be thankful.
Michael Batinski
Tim Ashby says: September 30, 2020 at 2:37 pm
The smothering agitprop in America trumps even Goebbels and co. with its beautifully
dressed overton window and first-amendment-free-press bullshit.
Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years
of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see
him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or
margaret kimberly.
Let's face it, we were lucky to win the editorial fight to even give him
space in the Nation.
His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing
voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both
of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the
sand.
No one claims to be an isolationist, but foreign policy analysts keep imagining and fearing
a "resurgence" of isolationism around every corner. This fear was on display in a recent
Atlanticarticle
by Charles Kupchan, who tries to rehabilitate the label in order to oppose the substance of a
policy of nonintervention and non-entanglement. Kupchan allows that a policy of avoiding
entangling alliances and staying out of European wars was important for the growth and
prosperity of the United States, but then rehearses the same old and misleading story about the
terrible "isolationist" interwar years that we have heard countless times before. This
misrepresents the history of that period and compromises our ability to rethink our foreign
policy today.
Kupchan's article is not just an exercise in beating a dead horse, since he fears that the
same thing that happened between the world wars is happening again: "If the 19th century was
isolationism's finest hour, the interwar era was surely its darkest and most deluded. The
conditions that led to this misguided run for cover are making a comeback." Kupchan wants to
borrow a little from the people he calls "isolationists" so that the U.S. will remain
thoroughly ensnared in most of its global commitments.
At the same time that he warns that "U.S. statecraft has become divorced from popular will,"
he seems to want to keep it this way by rejecting what he calls the "isolationist temptation."
If "a majority of the country favors either America First or global disengagement," as he says,
the goal seems to be to ignore what the majority wants in favor of making a few tweaks to the
same old strategy of U.S. primacy. Those tweaks aren't going to lessen popular support for a
reduced U.S. role in the world, and they will likely make the public even more disillusioned
with the remaining costs and demands of U.S. "leadership."
The key thing to remember in all this is that the U.S. has never been isolationist in its
foreign relations. The thing that Kupchan calls America's "default setting" is not real.
Isolationism is the pejorative term that expansionists and interventionists have used over the
last century to ridicule and dismiss opposition to unnecessary wars. Isolationism as U.S.
policy in the 1920s and 1930s is a myth , and the myth is
deployed whenever there has been a serious challenge to the status quo in post-1945 U.S.
foreign policy. Bear Braumoeller summed it up very well in his article , "The
Myth of American Isolationism," this way: "the characterization of America as isolationist in
the interwar period is simply wrong." We can't learn from the past if we insist on distorting
it. As William Appleman Williams put it in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy , "It not
only deforms the history of the decade from 1919 to 1930, but it also twists the story of
American entry into World War II and warps the record of the cold war." Williams also remarked
in a note that the use of the term isolationist "has thus crippled American thought about
foreign policy for 50 years." Today we can say that it has done so for a century.
Our government eschewed permanent alliances for most of its history, and it refrained from
taking sides in the European Great Power conflicts of the nineteenth century, but it never
sought to cut itself from the world and could not have done that even if it had wished to do
so. The U.S. was a commercial republic from the start, and it cultivated economic and
diplomatic ties with as many states as possible. You can call the steady expansion of the U.S.
across North America and into the Pacific and Caribbean "isolationism," but that just shows how
misleading and inaccurate the label has always been.
Post-WWI America was a rising power and increasingly involved in the affairs of the world.
Its economic and diplomatic engagement with the world increased during these years. If it
wasn't involved in the way that later internationalists would have liked, that didn't make the
U.S. isolationist. Braumoeller makes this point explicitly: "America was not isolationist in
affairs relating to international security in Europe for the bulk of the period: in fact, it
was perhaps more internationalist than it had ever been." The U.S. was behaving as a great
power, but one that strove to maintain its neutrality. That was neither deluded nor disastrous,
and we need to stop pretending that it was if we are ever going to be able to make the needed
changes to our foreign policy today.
00:13 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video
J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019
Cancel Autoplay is paused
Kupchan acknowledges that there has to be an "adjustment" after the last several decades of
overreach, but he casts this as a way of preventing more significant retrenchment: "The
paramount question is whether that adjustment takes the form of a judicious pullback or a more
dangerous retreat." No one objects to the desire for a responsible reduction in U.S.
commitments, but one person's "judicious pullback" will often be denounced as a "dangerous
retreat" by others. Just consider how many times we have been warned about a U.S. "retreat"
from the Middle East over the last 11 years. Even now, the U.S. is still taking part in
multiple wars across the region, and the "retreat" we have been told has happened several times
never seems to take place. Warning about the perils of an "isolationist comeback" hardly makes
it more likely that these withdrawals will ever happen.
He recommends that "judicious retrenchment should entail shedding U.S. entanglements in the
periphery, not in the strategic heartlands of Europe and Asia." Certainly, any reduction in
unnecessary U.S. commitments is welcome, but a thorough rethinking of U.S. foreign policy has
to include every region. Kupchan is right to criticize slapdash, incompetent withdrawals, but
one gets the impression that he thinks there shouldn't be any withdrawals except from the
Middle East. He cites "Russian and Chinese threats" as the main reasons not to pull back at all
in Europe or Asia, but this seems like an uncritical endorsement of the status quo.
It is in East Asia where the U.S. might be fighting a war against a major, nuclear-armed
power in the future, and it is also there where the U.S. has some of the wealthiest and most
capable allies. If the U.S. can't reduce its exposure to the risk of a major war where that
risk is the greatest and its allies are strongest, when will it ever be able to do that?
Reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia will make it easier to manage U.S.-Chinese
tensions, and it will give allies an additional incentive to assume more responsibility for
their own security.
The U.S. has far more security commitments than it can afford and far more than can possibly
be justified by our own security interests. That includes, but is not limited to, our
overcommitment to the Middle East. Our foreign entanglements have been allowed to grow and
spread to such an extent over the last seventy-five years that modest pruning won't be good
enough to put U.S. foreign policy on a sound footing that will have reliable public support.
There needs to be a much more comprehensive review of all U.S. commitments to determine which
ones are truly necessary for our security and which ones are not. Ruling out the bulk of those
commitments as untouchable in advance is a mistake.
There is
broad public support for constructive international engagement, but there is remarkably
little backing for preserving U.S. hegemony in its current form. In order to have a more
sustainable foreign policy, the U.S. needs to scale back its ambitions in most parts of the
world, and it needs to shift more of the security burdens for different regions to the
countries that have the most at stake. That should be done deliberately and carefully, but it
does need to happen if we are to realign our foreign policy with protecting the vital interests
of the United States. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics
Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The
American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Richard Hofsteder is largely responsible for this falsehood, like he is for making
"populist" a by-word, as Thomas Frank points out in his new book.
I prefer the term "non-interventionist" or Washingtonian, myself. I continue to be stuck
by the amazing wisdom of Washington's Farewell Address (largely written by Hamilton). It
really should be our guide to this day.
Try a seance and tell this Augusto Cesar Sandino. Two American brothers who owned a gold
mine in his country had another brother at the State Department. That's how FP was
"successful."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Europe would have been better off if the US had stayed out of WWI and let major
belligerents fight it out until they reached a cease fire on their own. The US entry into the
war, tipped the scales in favor of Britain and France and resulted in a very harsh peace
treaty being imposed on Germany in 1919. Four years later, Germany's currency collapsed,
wiping out the savings of millions of average Germans. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 made
economic conditions for people in central Europe very bad and conrtibuted to the rising
popularity of the Nazi party in Germany.
The world is so much smaller today than it was when this country was formed and organized
by the Founding Fathers. (Mothers were not allowed)
The idea of international associations and cooperation is required with today's world.
When some country like China sneezes, the whole world needs a face mask!
The Age of Daniel Boone is dead. America must be fully engaged in world matters. That does
not mean going into every country with our military. America needs to continue to give some
leadership in world affairs. It would be suicidal to close the windows to the rest of the
world.
I agree. The world is interconnected, engagement is a necessity. The problem with the US
FP at this point is to see every issue as an opportunity to throw around our military weight
and call it "engagement". Being fully engaged in the world is a state department issue -
smart and educated diplomats working the lines of communication and cooperation with every
nation to build a reputation for US leadership, to foment peace, and to build prosperity.
Obviously, under Trump and Pompeo this is a waste of breath.
Worth noting, a friend of mine, ex-CIA, has made an absolute fortune off of our military
preoccupations. And even he said (perhaps exaggerating) that you could get rid of 90% of the
traditional military with little or no loss in actual national security. Most of it is, as he
said, corporate welfare and window dressing.
(Of course he then said you should spend what you've saved entirely on cyber-security)
Using the 'I' Word for War and Profit
Column by Tim Hartnett, posted on April 03, 2013
in War and Peace
Column by Tim Hartnett.
Exclusive to STR
For about a century now, Humpty-Dumpty has been the go-to man for fans of elaborate
American foreign adventures. Unwelcome inquiries are put down with a one word incantation
that blesses and immunizes government-funded schemes that are always cash cows for somebody.
"Isolationist" means exactly what its users mean it to mean--no more and no less. Every entry
on the first page of my online search for the word "isolationism" provided the same
definition: "The national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with
other countries." Nobody on the furthest fringes of the political spectrum who gets ink or
air time comes close calling for a plan fitting that description.
The word remains in healthy circulation despite the total absence of public figures
advocating anything of the kind. Its real linguistic purpose is to obstruct examination of
extra-territorial programs that don't work and often do considerable harm.
Most of us first learned of the dreaded I-beast in grade school study of WWI. Back in that
good old day, the authorities had sense enough to put these naysayers in prisons after
allowing hostile crowds to have at 'em for an hour or so. If the folks at The Weekly
Standard, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, Fox News et al get their way, hoosegow entrepreneurs
will be back in that market before too long. How could anyone oppose US entry into The Great
War, anyway? It's what catapulted us to the top of the economic heap. We are probably only
one good war away from reclaiming that title.
The first people to stoke lynch mobs with the "I" word claimed we were fighting a war "to
make the world safe for democracy." The Irish, Indians, Algerians, Pacific Islanders, Russian
peasants, Filipinos, the Congolese and millions of other Africans were not educated well
enough to accept this as readily as freedom-loving Americans did. Without guys like J.P.
Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, Charles Schwab and others who hired PR men to keep the country
thinking right thoughts, foreigners are often easily misled. Isolationists are as rare on
Wall Street as atheists are in foxholes.
To understand the perfidious way that isolationism works, try and visualize a typical
slice of American policy from say 1968. Some experts and officers in a room at the Pentagon
decide a spot on the map could use a good bombing, and the order is relayed via satellite to
South Vietnam. At five they leave work to fight rush hour traffic and get home in time for a
smoke with Walter Cronkite. Some Navy fliers get dispatched, and once the napalm is fixed to
the jets, they're airborne. Thirty-five minutes later, the right patch below them, it's bombs
away and a U-turn. An undernourished five year old girl foolishly lives nearby and an eight
ounce blob of gel burning at 1,800 degrees lands on her back. She is immediately screaming
and burns for six minutes until an adult manages to put the incinerating child out.
Meanwhile, the flyboys are on terra firma again with beers, joints, Steppenwolf on the
turntable and much lamenting of St. Louis' undeserved defeat at the hands of Detroit. The
little girl's screaming still pierces the tropical air. The engineers and the chemists who
designed the people-melting device are on the other side of the world asleep in their
suburban beds. And the tiny thing can't stop screaming. The next day at Harvard, William
Kristol is expounding on communism, the domino theory, social responsibility, moral courage
and careful reading. And the 32 lb. waif is still going through an endless agony that no man
of oxen strength should ever have to endure in a lifetime. Isolating on these kinds of
details misses the "big picture," I've been told. Only communists, terrorists and other
abominable -ists focus on this kind of inhumane minutiae.
Forty years later, John McCain was wittily singing the lyrics "bomb Iran" while doubtless
a child was on fire somewhere that US ordnance had exploded. The one certain outcome of such
events is a profit for weapons manufacturers. Isolationists are oddly skeptical of the many
benefits anti-isolationists find in all-purpose bombing campaigns. What's always clear is
that people who speak publicly about their love for humanitarian bombing expect to be paid
for it.
There are a lot of things that "isolationists" just don't know, and it must be for this
ignorance they are so despised by both mainstream media and Wall Street's favorite
politicians. They don't know why we have 50,000 soldiers in Germany or another 30,000 in
Japan. Why we paid to keep an incorrigible thug like Mubarak in business for 30 years. Why we
need missiles in Eastern Europe. Why we helped every bloodthirsty, misanthropic power monger
in Central America. Why we needed to help Turkey get Ocalan. Why South Ossetia's
nationalistic prerogatives are our business. Why foreign governments should be pressured by
our diplomats on Wall Street's behalf. Why our government takes some kind of stand in every
foreign war, election, national event or internal matter of almost any kind. How we can
indict one country for human rights violations while buddying up to worse offenders like
Saudi Arabia regularly. Why our foreign initiatives proceed based on fantastic ideologies in
contempt of facts. These are just a few of the quandaries that afflict the minds of people
who aren't buying the divine right of American altruist aristocracy to fine tune the rest of
the world. They aren't exactly keen on the hyper-interventionist tendencies that keep so many
beltway bandits in the chips, either.
What they also don't know is why the elite media, the experts and elected officials, if
they truly understand these things, can't be called upon to explain any of them to the rest
of us satisfactorily. On March 20, Dana Milbank called Rand Paul an "isolationist" in his
column without any explanation. In the future, he might want to right click on Microsoft Word
and choose the Look up option before deploying the term.
After American involvement in Vietnam ended, many proponents of the action claimed the
death toll there would have been even worse without our presence. Others go so far as to
maintain that fighting in such conflicts protects US citizens' privileges, like freedom of
speech, here at home. They expect us all to believe that "Isolationists," by any definition,
wouldn't get away with spouting their un-American propaganda in public places, or on
television if any were allowed there, but for a policy that napalms little girls.
While people smeared with the I-word persistently point out that they are merely against
policies that are misguided, immoral and often murderous, their detractors insist that what
they really oppose is America. In the "big picture" mindset of the interventionist, you can't
have one without the other.
Beat them over the head with a stick, that might do it.
As for the entanglements in east Asia, none of the countries under direct US vassalage
have major disputes with China and do not need US protection. And it is likely that without
the US Korea would be on a path to reunification. The US is trying to beat everyone in line
to show who's the boss... So it seems, this K guy, like all his ilk are presenting things in
a very Manichean way: either primacy or "isolationism". There is so much in between these
two...
Not that foreign policy is high priority for most of the USA electorate, but still it looks
like some potential Trump voters do not approve this message.
That's why many of them probably will not vote for Trump in 2020, or will not vote at all
because there is no difference in this area between Trump and Biden: you can call the same
Zionist cutlet with two different names. but it is still the same cutlet.
People voted in Trump to be a protector of workers and lower middle class against financial
oligarchy. Instead, they got "Ziotrump", a marionette of Israel lobby who is first and foremost
the protector of Israel, MIC and the billionaire class.
The question is: Is Zionism an official ideology of the USA ruling elite? Zionism as any far right nationalism has it pluses
and minuses, but why this important decision is not discussed?
Notable quotes:
"... I like being energy independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
For many years the security framework in the Middle East has been described as a bilateral
arrangement whereby Washington gained access to sufficient Saudi Arabian oil to keep the energy
market stable while the United States provided an armed physical presence through its bases in
the region and its ability to project power if anyone should seek to threaten the Saudi
Kingdom. The agreement was reportedly worked out in a February 1945 meeting between
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, just as World War 2 was drawing
to a close. That role as protector of Saudi Arabia and guarantor of stable energy markets in
the region later served as part of the justification for the U.S. ouster of the Iraqi Army from
Kuwait in 1991.
After 9/11, the rationale became somewhat less focused. The United States invaded
Afghanistan, did not capture or kill Osama bin Laden due to its own incompetence, and, rather
than setting up a puppet regime and leaving, settled down to a nineteen-years long and still
running counter-insurgency plus training mission. Fake intelligence produced by the neocons in
the White House and Defense Department subsequently implicated Iraq in 9/11 and led to the
political and military disaster known as the Iraq War.
During the 75 years since the end of the Second World War the Middle East has experienced
dramatic change, to include the withdrawal of the imperial European powers from the region and
the creation of the State of Israel. And the growth and diversification of energy resources
mean that it is no longer as necessary to secure the petroleum that moves in tankers through
the Persian Gulf. Lest there be any confusion over why the United States continues to be
involved in Syria, Iraq, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump remarkably
provided some clarity relating to the issue when on September 8 th
he declared that the U.S. isn't any longer in the Middle East to secure oil supplies, but
rather because we "want to protect Israel."
The comment was made by Trump during a rally in Winston-Salem, N.C . as part of a
boast about his having reduced energy costs for consumers. He said " I like being energy
independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in
your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm
president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We
will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't
have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to
Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East."
The reality is, of course, that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been all about
Israel for a very long time, at least since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who has been
sometimes dubbed the first Jewish president for his deference to Israeli interests. The Iraq
War is a prime example of how neoconservatives and Israel Firsters inside the United States
government conspired to go to war to protect the Jewish State. In key positions at the Pentagon
were Zionists Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Feith's Office of Special Plans developed the
"alternative intelligence" linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to a mythical nuclear
program that was used to justify war. Feith was so close to Israel that he partnered in a law
firm that had an office in Jerusalem. The fake intelligence was then stove-piped to the White
House by fellow neocon "Scooter" Libby who worked in the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney.
After the fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also had something to say about the
origins of the war, commenting that the United States had
gone into Iraq because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld bought into the neoconservative
case made for doing so by "the JINSA crowd," by which he meant the Israel Lobby organization
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
And if any more confirmation about the origins of the Iraq War were needed, one might turn
to Philip Zelikow, who was involved in the planning process while working on the staff of
Condoleezza Rice. He said "The unstated threat. And
here I criticize the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over
and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says:
'Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use
nuclear weapons against us?' So I'll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has
been since 1990. It's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And
the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it's not a
popular sell."
So here is the point that resonates: even in 2002-3, when the Israel Lobby was not as
powerful as it is now, the fact that the U.S. was going to war on a lie and was actually acting
on behalf of the Jewish State was never presented in any way to the public, even though
America's children would be dying in the conflict and American taxpayers would be footing the
bill. The media, if it knew about the false intelligence, was reliably pro-Israel and helped
enable the deception.
And that same deception continued to this day until Trump spilled the beans earlier this
month. And now, with the special security arrangement that the U.S. has entered into with
Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the ability to exit from a troublesome region
that does not actually threaten American interests has become very limited. As guarantor of the
agreement, Washington now has an obligation to intervene on the behalf of the parties involved.
Think about that, a no-win arrangement that will almost certainly lead to war with Iran,
possibly to include countries like Russia and China that will be selling it military equipment
contrary to U.S. "sanctions."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Excellent synopsis of the situation. And if we look into the founding of Israel, we find
it was founded by war profiteers. This would explain why peace has been so "elusive". It has
been relentlessly dodged. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the 'War on Terror'" https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-roots-of-war-on.html
This declaration is against the will of the American people. Hawkish policies of this
nature, that endanger the American lives should be confirmed by a referendum of the people.
Of course that would be logical step in a democracy but USA is not a democracy but a diktat
of backroom unellected ruling clique.
990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are
the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that
works.
Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the
media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of
course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these
industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is
culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e.
non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an
advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential
prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a
civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate
cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here.
Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall
Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of
course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems
laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning
the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are
simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that
they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being
overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is
what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do
no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche
where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest
saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the
immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming
world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest
word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire
extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's
just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire
Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how
I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless
subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes
to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and
whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new
possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all
bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking
pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Honestly, I like way better out in the open like this. Now there is no reason to worry
about all the other BS excuses, it's all on the table.
So now, as a public, we have been informed; so what are we going to do about it? Or are
they so confident about their position that they know they can announce it to he world openly
and be sure that there will be zero consequences?
Protector, personal armies, saboteurs, financiers, assassin's, propagandists, liars,
thieves, rapists, slavers, and that is just for starters – which includes inside and
outside of the former country called the USA.
No, you are wrong. The problem with the 'industriousness' is that it is characterized by
the principle of profit before all, no matter how immoral the activity. People who do that
don't care about a civilized society and should not be able to reap the benefits of one.
Also high IQ isn't exemplified by trickery, lying, subverting and eroding the morals of
the host society.
The US is not only the protector, but has been the enabler of the mafia from the
start.
Chaim.Weizman and Nathan Sokolow approach the British with a dirty deal. The Zionists
offer to use their international influence to bring the US into the war on Britain's
side, while undermining Germany from within. The price that Britain must pay for U.S.
entry is to steal Palestine from Ottoman Turkey (Germany's ally) and allow the Jews to
settle there. Zionist agitated anti-German propaganda was unleashed in the US while the
Zionists and Marxists of Germany begin to undermine Germany's war effort from within.
Wilson establishes the Committee on Public Information (CPI) for the purpose of
manipulating public opinion in support of the war.
-M.S. King, The Bad War, p 50.
Similar scenario for "WW2" which was little more than a continuation of the previous
biggie. They really ought to be known as the One World Wars since they were obviously part
of the plan for the world to be dominated by the International mafia through such creations
as the League of Subjects and the United Slave Nations with the capitol at Tel Aviv.
Yes, Dr. Giraldi, you hit the nail on the head again.
However, the problem is that most White Middle Class Americans, are satisfied and fully
compliant with this situation where the USA is a Megalethon Vassal and Servile State
for the poor little Israeli state .
Also, let us be honest with ourselves, Blacks and other minorities on more occasions do
dare to speak out on this issue, only to get trounced upon by the MSM and silence and
snickers by the stay safe White American Middle Class. Do you ever find a Main Line
White Politician speaking up for America's interests and placing them first vis a vis our
best little ally ??? Only when it comes to Afro or the Hispanic – Americans
sticking their heads up a little does Middle White Americana get all worked up and
emotionally charged.
The White Middle Class and most certainly the well moneyed Corporate Class of America,
does not mind giving away huge transfers of their tax dollars, national debt, high
technologies, military hardware, and even their uniformed sons and daughter, upon command
from the likes of Trump and their political opportunists managing the country (Rep and Dem
alike). Serving and making America serve the Greater Zio Agenda for their ME and Global
domination has become the norm and unquestionable. Try raising this issue at a dinner party
and see how many people role their eyes and turn their heads away.
I doubt that the RU followers here, who seem more bent on street brawling with the false
bogeymen like BLM and ANTIFA, are the ones that will stand up to the in your face
take over of WDC by AIPAC and the Israel First Crowd, including front man Trump for the
Kushner-Bibi WH.
Let us not forget the thieving and scamming Sunday preachers who tell them it is great
to be in full service of the Zio (Jewish Talmudic based) domination agenda– as it has
become a direct ticket to a Raptured Heaven . Jesus for them was been thrown under
the bus long ago or strangely converted into a gun machine toting Israeli nut case
extremist settler, clearing the land and villages of the indignies children and
all.
Let us be frank, some elements of the America First Jewish intelligentsia are more
likely to call out and the whorishness ( extremes only) of the Washington's ZOG policies
than Middle Americana, who dare not risk their creature comforts, Game Time or corporate
positions.
As the old adage goes, you get the Government That You Deserve .
Are you all bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any
of you fucking pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Well your tribe has been incredibly effective at genocide and mass murder on an
unprecedented scale of barbarism in the past, and I have no doubt you remain just as
capable of such barbarity and cruelty today. Your rant makes that very clear.
Too bad the high IQ does not seem to correlate in a positive way with morality.
But thanks for the warning! Trust me, many of us are quite aware of your
capabilities.
The only reason Trump "spilled the beans" about how we are in the Middle East to protect
Israel and not to keep oil flowing is to get himself reelected and nothing else. As to war
with China, Zuckerberg alone would be able to bribe the administration in particular, and
both the parties in general, with his extra billions to keep them out of the war being that
he has married a chink, er, Chan. All will be back to business as usual after the election
at least, for four more years.
It means Netanyahu is the de facto president of the US.
Not quite. He is much more powerful than that. The entire Congress of the United States
stands and applauds when he arrives to speak. They would never do that for Trump, or any
president. The fear of being unpersoned keeps them in line.
@Ugetit
endence and freedom but things actually became more messy. Also the "hated" Russian
Romanovs were got rid off, Russia pushed under Communist Jewish dictatorship. Also the
destruction of the Caliph, imagine a united Turko-Arab Empire, no way Israel would have
survived that. Even T.E. Lawrence who helped the Arabs fight the Turks was totally
disappointed with the behaviour of his own Zionist controlled government. He was going to
speak to the British people about the great betrayal to the Arabs and being a war hero they
would have listened to him. But before he could do so he met with an "accident" while
riding his motorcycle. Yeah, very convenient.
@sethster
re good at gathering Nobel Prizes, which is best arranged by jury-rigging and
string-pulling thanks to their talent for networking, but no so good as making real
inventions. In Israel proper the mean Jewish IQ, 94, is not only disappointing but a few
points below even the Palestinian one. Spiritually the Jews have no longer been a chosen
people for ages and most of the intellectual development they knew from about 1850 onwards
was due to their being emancipated en masse from rabbinical authority, not by conforming to
it : now that are falling back under an even worse collective authority with Zionism they
are reversing the intellectual gains they once made.
Back in the second half of the 80s the big war games were all IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ!!1! There
was a strong push from all the interagency pukes with their dotted-lines reports to Langley
– to aim at Iraq, and to suppress any practical considerations that might interfere
with this very lucrative debacle. We watched these moles countering evidence and analysis
with declamatory bullshit they made up. Way back then CIA had decided. April Glaspie's
headfake sprung a trap set in Kuwait by the NOCs infesting Bechtel. That
horizontal-drilling rhubarb was years in preparation.
Iraq was one big war with three phases: beating up on the Iraqi armed forces; ten years
of blowing shit up; the occupation.
It turned out great. CIA got money-laundering nirvana, a chaotic zone where they could
ship pallets of money around. They got an arms entrepot that lasted 20 years.They got a
great network of sites for the torture gulag, with secure impunity – when Iraq tried
to accede to the Rome Statute in 05, the CIA torturers were on the spot to nip it in the
bud. The tame jihadi boogeymen the torture camps produced were invaluable in creating
Rumsfeld's "terrorist corridor" in the Sahel and justifying the P2OG and the Pan-Sahel
Initiative. That put AFRICOM garrisons, US-trained warlords, and CIA torture sites in one
of the most diplomatically recalcitrant regions of the world:
So turn that frown upside down! Your old bosses got a lot out of that charlie
foxtrot.
@sethster
re all conceived and started by Gentiles Henry Ford is a great example and he knew Jews
quite well. The only industries , as you call them, that Jews are involved in are
leech enterprises financial corporations are excellent examples of leech enterprises. The
financial products they contrive are methods to extract value from productive
industries.
A large percent of Jews are devoted obsessed with gaining wealth and power from the efforts
of others which is the reason for their inordinate involvement in the Deep State and also
for the abject loathing by many Gentiles throughout the ages.
Whether the truth is hidden or now out in the open doesn't matter to a people so stupid
as to believe the Creator's offspring walked, eat and crapped on this little planet 2k
years ago.
Exhibit B of their stupidity: Electing Trump (and more than a few of his
predecessors).
The NWO won't come to America as Greta Thunberg marching ahead of the Democrats in Mao
suits under LGBTQ and GND banners and tumbrels of Christians headed for the guillotine, but
as one transnational compliance regime after the other enacted by treaty, such as mandatory
bi-annual vaccinations with largely inefficacious vaccines carrying not just behavior
modifying chemicals and sterilants as adjuvants, but DNA-altering horrors. Anyone want to
argue the threats posed by these DNA- or mRNA-modifying vaccines made from, among other
things, insect DNA?
Some think it's over the top to talk about the NWO that's on the horizon as a
Sino-Judaic, world-hegemonic NWO, but the United States government is itself already little
more than a collection of compliance regimes in service to International Jewry. The 29
standing ovations from a Congress afraid to be the first to stop clapping for a kitchen
cabinet salesman-turned-Caesar made that clear enough. The rest of the story, like the
nonsense that Congress and DJT are voluntarily protecting Israel, is eyewash for
fools when International Jewry owns them all like the trained seals who perform in the
Central Park Zoo.
The Holy Rollers were never going to bail from Trump after the embassy move to
Jerusalem. Jews on the other hand are likely not amused about such a revelation. So his
words were unlikely about the election.
@lavoisier
nd stern conversation, "For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the
existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people." He's a brilliant intellectual
and a thoughtful politician, and we don't need to worry – he won't give up his
existential friendship so easily. And certainly not because of Bennett or his colleague
Orit Strock, the party whip.
A very symbolic photo posted by the Israel Defence Forces' Twitter account, in the tweet
linked to by user Talha
It is time to be more honest. A foreign war that the US loses may be the only way out of
the political, moral and social impasse that currently afflicts the US. The forces that
control the US government need to be removed and that seems increasingly unlikely to arise
from simply domestic opposition.
It took World War II to remove Adolf Hitler from power in Germany. Why should anyone
expect anything less to change the government of the United States? The US wants a war with
Russia and China. Perhaps it is best that it be granted one? Let's see some articles on this
proposition.
The odd thing is how so many Jews still support immigration despite the fact that a lot of
the immigrants are (from the Jewish/Zionist perspective) at best indifferent to Israel and at
worse outright hostile and want it gone.
Or perhaps they realise democracy is a sham and the Jewish elite have got their backs?
Hence their plans to mongrelise Europeans nations don't really conflict with their Zionist
ambitions.
One thing is for sure, when things start to get hairy in the West, all Jews will have a
nice First World ethnocracy to move to.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
You must have been misinformed if you think that "Germany sold Israel submarines". Not
really as you can find out from the link bellow. The first two submarines were donated and
the third was "hawkered" for about half the production cost.
@anon
the empire starts WW3, e.g. the "big one" at Yellowstone, which will do so much damage as to
make it impossible for the evil empire to continue it's pursuit of world domination and
control.
I do think it is game over for quite a while in the West regarding opposition to Israel.
Israel may collapse or have to come to the table or something due to some game changer in the
Middle East, but I don't see it happening due to lack of support from the West anytime
soon.
Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each other's internal
affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication
technologies and high-tech methods."..
####
That is some excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.
Of course the USA will never agree to such a proposal, because (a) it does not regard its
meddling as 'interference' but as the bringing of the gift of freedom, (b) it stands on its
absolute right of judgment as to what is a situation that requires more democracy and what is
not, and (c) it probably knows at some level that Russia did not meddle in the US elections,
and that it would therefore in that case be constraining its own behavior in exchange for
nothing.
But then, when refused – I imagine the US will try to extract something from the
offer, such as "A-HA!! So you ADMIT to meddling in our elections!! – Russia can
obviously claim, "Well, we tried."
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders,
planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A
trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."
"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of
propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.
Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western
government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding,
from what they said to where they said it.
The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle,
carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out
a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.
US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels,
from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also
organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the
UK's Channel 4.
More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK
government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media
activists.
Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the
leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on
major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient
TV .
These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian
armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a
network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push
pro-opposition talking points.
Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's
Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided
opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."
"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.
The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense,
known more commonly as the White Helmets.
ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria
Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White
Helmets in the United States.
It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria
Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm
wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone
--------------
Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck,
Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply
involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country.
The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation
has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.
A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.
I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it
implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.
The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in
the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.
Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not
involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where
more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism
of US/UK gov'ts and media.
OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli
interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that
(impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites
like a fiddle.
I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are
going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows
naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the
US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're
also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's
jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the
remaining jihadis and unite Syria.
The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the
British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
(JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th
Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon
MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial
operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was
headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct
parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those
contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also
reservists in the 77th.
I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center
(formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and
cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those
guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when
I was penetrating those hackers.
Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think
they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they
were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups.
They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as
MISO. I don't know what the difference is.
There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.
There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by
the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.
It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same
sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber
one carried out that crusade and escalated it.
That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom
(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications
to obscure the real war.)
"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious
fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.
Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve
that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the
earth, as noted in the article.
The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort
to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of
a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.
Recruiting for military is much easier if there is no jobs.
Notable quotes:
"... They want to eliminate the EPA, vacate the State Dept and many other Depts, except for a few high-placed cronies, wipe all financial, labour, consumer and environmental regulations off the books; eliminate or reduce to a bare minimum federal health insurance, medicaid, medicare and Social Security, crush public education, privatize everything they can sell, and so on. They are not in power to "govern" but to destroy government. This is all being done with a fairly unified agenda: to free "the market" from any restrictions whatsoever, so that they -- global elites -- can make as much money as possible. It's a cabal of global corporations, militarists, Christian sovereign white supremacists, fossil fuel giants and bankers ..."
I wonder if any of the commentators here have considered that the [neoliberal] cabal now
in power in the US (not elsewhere) are not in power to "take power" except for a temporary
period. They don't want to run the federal government, they want to destroy it, except for
the police state and the military.
They want to eliminate the EPA, vacate the State Dept and many other Depts, except for
a few high-placed cronies, wipe all financial, labour, consumer and environmental regulations
off the books; eliminate or reduce to a bare minimum federal health insurance, medicaid,
medicare and Social Security, crush public education, privatize everything they can sell, and
so on. They are not in power to "govern" but to destroy government. This is all being done
with a fairly unified agenda: to free "the market" from any restrictions whatsoever, so that
they -- global elites -- can make as much money as possible. It's a cabal of global
corporations, militarists, Christian sovereign white supremacists, fossil fuel giants and
bankers , and I think there's a high degree of cooperation for the agenda. The
revolution is the cabal run by Trump/Bannon who are more extreme and ideological than any
previous faction, who have no tolerance for compromise. They have an apocalyptic vision of
grinding it all down to a bare minimum police state.
"Trump doesn't even have the balls to go after the people who spied on him and tried to
remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal in American
history, yet nothing will be done about it."
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all political
theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office ( they could've
added his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to
the impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
We are talking about thee most brazen pack of hypocrites, but charging Trump with war
crimes with Obama, Bush, Clinton's, and Dick Cheney just standing around just might be a
bridge too far.
However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my
first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands
that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength."
And as we've seen all of it was a lie. Trump's whole campaign was a calculated
bait-and-switch fraud. In order to win the election the con man had to steal votes from antiwar
voters such as myself just the same as if he'd rigged voting machines.
Trump is a lying, mass-murdering, psychotic, psychopathic, traitorous, Israel-first,
America-last hard core militant zionist extremist.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real
political alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in
a better position.
The Ds defeated that possibility when they conspired to derail Sanders and promote
Clinton. As a result, Obama's legacy is Trump. But there was a Deep State faction pulling
Obama's strings that's likely supporting the attempt to foment a domestic Color Revolution,
yet for the life of me I can't see why as all the grifters are getting billions--unless--it's
perceived that Trump's stalled their imperialist projects or stopped what they hoped to
accomplish via JCPOA. In other words, we need a better motive for Russiagate than the mere
disruption of Trump's administration.
The Nexus is Ukraine, where the DNC, Obama and others were heavily involved with corruption,
money into their pockets and money laundered for campaign uses, illegally brought back into
the US.
It was never Russia or Russians. It was always the Podesta-Clinton-Obama operatives and
their true believers in FBI and DOJ, working with the Russophobes in NGOs and the State
Dept.
The desperation as Trump became a real possible President and then an actual elected
President was to cover their crimes in Ukraine and the illegal actions to spy on Trump and
set up Trump campaign associates.
The difficult call now is how high up do the present investigators have cover to save the
institutions of the FBI and DOJ? A real take down would go to Obama, Biden, Clapper, Comey,
Brennan, Podesta, Clinton and all their lieutenants. It would collapse the CIA, State, FBI,
DOJ, and all the lying experts on Russia who perjured to Congress.
Red Ryder gets it -- Ukraine is the specific catalyst, linked to the New Cold War against
Russia and the corruption of the Democrats involved in that conflict.
There is also Flynn and his dirt on Obama's Syria/ISIS policy -- remember his Al Jazeera
interview about Obama's "wilful decision" to ignore DIA reports on ISIS. Flynn knows the US
and its allies had some kind of links to ISIS and Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) in Syria.
And there is also the more general concern, raised by Karlof1, about the Presidency and
the empire.
I found this barb delivered by Lavrov during his presser with Zarif I linked to on the open
thread to be very curious when thought about in the context of Russiagate:
"The fact that the United States has threatened to impose sanctions on those who defy the
American interpretation of the current situation serves as further proof of Washington's
desire to move like a bull in a china shop, putting ultimatums to everyone and punishing
everyone indiscriminately because, in my view, the incumbent US administration has lost
its diplomatic skills almost for good ." [My Emphasis]
Red Ryder @8 & profk @10 connect Ukraine and the outing of the Empire's role in the
creation of Daesh. Yes, it seems much is related to Russia's Phoenix-like rise and outwitting
the Empire's buffoons beginning in 2013 that's generated the above behavior noted by Lavrov.
If TrumpCo does get a second term, unless the entire foreign policy team is dumped and
replaced, its agenda will go nowhere other than further into the hole they've dug for
themselves over the past 20 years--almost every nation is now against Bush's USA as many now
know who the terrorists really are and where they live.
What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American color revolution? If so
Trump needed to win. Obama and the FBI did the groundwork here at home. There is some debate
if the first Trump dossier was actually the second one to cover for the Cody Shearer one that
was given to Strobe Talbot to give to Christopher Steele. Still it had the same goal as to
foster doubt about the legitimacy of 2016 that is currently culminating with the gun toting,
fire bombing hissy fit of the children of liberal privilege. Now if those blasted supreme
righties would just show up, and the whole thing can go really hot like it did in Ukraine,
Libya, Egypt, almost Syria, and any country I might be forgetting. Notice the Trump
administration is parroting the left's white supremacist conspiracy. Its all really bad
theater, but does anyone really care the crumbing infrastructure and the looming economic
collapse when you can instead root for your team. Yes, I am guilty of the later too. Added
bonus we already have a twofer of enemies (Russian and China) for yet another elitist war.
I very doubt that it was "Russiagate" who make it difficult for Trump to pursue the policies
he had been advocating during his election campaign...In fact, "Russiagate" has long ago been
debunked and we have not seen Trump worrying a bit about the average American Joe, most
flagrant during this pandemic...I doubt he would had behaved different were the "Russiagate"
to have never existed..
Simply, electoral "promises" almost never are fullfilled in the already dating decades
neoliberal order, both from the right or the "alleged" liberal left...
On the same grounds, we could affirm then that conspiracy theories about Obama´s
birth place made it difficult for Obama to pursue the policies he had been advocating during
his election campaign....
That Trump has ties to Russian oligarchs is, to my view, out of doubt for anyone following
a bit some writers who use to deeply research their analyses out there like John Helmer....
That these oligarchas had anything to do, in this respect, with the Kremlin, it is doubtful,
but highly likely related to business shenanigans amongst them and Trump & Co...related
to illegal bribes and money laundering...
What have been largely proved is that Trump and his administration have been using big
data management corporations and social networks engineering to manipulate elections and give
coups eveywhere ( as the thorough research I posted at the Week in Review leaves in evidence
it happened in several countries in Latin America , which leads us to suspect that they would
not resist the desire to use the same methods in the US...before...and after the 2016
elections...having Bannon ad chief of campaign and then as chief of staff in 2016 so as that
does not add for tranquility, with what legal methods is respected for achieving whatever
goal..as the last events have clearly showed...
It was during Trump´s mandate that the war on Yemen continued towards total
erradication of Yemenis, especially of Shia belief, by indiscriminate bombing and blockade of
essential goods...that Qasem Soleimani was murdered without any justified reason...that NATO
started a cheeky build up in Russian borders who remained still free of it...that the US
withdrew from most international agreements leaving US/Russia, US/Iran, US/LatinAmerican
relations at its lowest levels, by underminig any remaining trust...Trump reinstated and made
even harsher sanctions against everybody who was not already a "puppet regime", including
Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Iran, China, and, even looping the loop, against puppet
governments in the EU...
I very doubt it was Russiagate which kept him from releasing his tax records as requested
by governance transparecny, returning the ammounts of money defrauded in the "University
Loans" affair, clarifying his ties to Epstein network, stopping sowing hatred and divide
amongst US population, build the most world wide network of far-right extremists since post
WWII around the world but especially in Europe to undermine what of "democracy" remains left,
labeled and declared as "terrorists" any political party abroad who does not go along and
oppose his puppet government´s corrupt policies anywhere, lit the Middle East on fire
by continuously provoking Iran, Lebanon, Syria, sent his regime envoys to the EU to twist arm
so that the European countries dedicate more budget to buy provedly ineffective arms from the
US when the money is most needed for socio-economic and health issues in the middle of a
pandemic, not to mention the requisition of health supplies´ cargos in the very Chinese
tarmac which had been previously ordered and bought by European countries which needed them
urgently, criminalized, and tried to label them as second cathegory citizens, a great part of
US population of non-white foreign descent through whose hard work and shameful labor
conditions US thrived along all these decades, well, you name it, the list would be almost
for a book...or two...
To blame all this mess on "Russiagate" is, well, in the best case, underestimating the
readership here...
Oh please, b: "legal jeopardy", don't make me laugh. It's been four years . The whole
political part of Trump's career he's been under the tutelage of mafia consigliere Roy Cohn.
Even better known, he's flown on the Lolita Express, and the FBI has a trove of videos etc
from Epstein's safe (hmm, what else does the latter have in common with Roy Cohn besides the
Trump connection). Bottom line, he's a deeply compromised individual who's concluded long
ago, and correctly, that he's in over his head and better off just playing along. He's had no
reservations appointing professional Russophobes like Fiona Hill; in fact, which of his
appointees has not been a Cold Warrior besides perhaps T-Rex, who was a mere Venezuela
hawk because of some old Exxon bad blood, and who was quickly ditched anyway. Even now, his
own FBI director spouts RussiaGate red meat, and the Donald is doing squat about it.
What does it all matter to Trump? He doesn't have a good name to clear. He didn't run for
president expecting to win, let alone to carry out this or that specific program. This
Vale Tudo carnival atmosphere clearly suits him: if his opponents can make baseless
accusations, so can he. If they can expect to skate beyond some meaningless fall guys, so can
he. To actually uphold the law--it's just not how he rolls.
Had he mostly contented himself with playing president on TV and enjoying the perks of the
office, and understood you can't just let a pandemic kill off your own voters, all would've
been dandy. But, predictably, his ego got the better of him, and he just had to be the
statesman who was finally going to bring China to heel. Again, merely tweeting about it
could've been ignored, but by appointing an array of rabid ideologues who went to work on
"decoupling", he's sided with a Deep State which will hate him regardless, against
Corporate America which went into China to, you know, make money. In this way, he's made
himself enemies a Republican can ill afford; combine this with his personal style (or lack of
it), and just about nobody has his back any more. So the machine goes about purging this
alien body from its system.
when do the American people get to investigate Truman, Ike, John McCain, JFK, Johnson, Bush,
Obama, FBI, Trump, 9/11, CIA, invasion of Iraq, wall street, the US Treasury, the military,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the like..?
,==He did it==> he did not do it, <=someone else did it, ==>avoids the basic
problem:
America has a government that
a.) conducts wars to protect the economic interest of its favored few.
b.) uses law , to grant feudal lords wealth creating by extracting bits of wealth from
Americans.
c.) conducts nearly all its affairs in classified secret..
d.) is un accountable for the money it spends.
e.) is un accountable for the genocides it conducts in foreign lands.
f.) has two crime families which divide and conquer the citizens to control all election
outcomes
g.) has given to private bankers, its power to print money, control the economy, and tax the
people.
h.) has not adhered to the Bill of Rights or the un amended constitution.
i.) refuses to require private media to speak only the truth.
j.) Refuses to comply with and orto enforce the 1st and 4th amendment<=papers and effects
t/b secure
expand this list as you like
and
Americans have
a.) no access to the USA. <= 3 votes, insolation of state or voting district,
out 527 positions don't get it & none for the President
b.) must pay to the USA taxes and have no input as to how such taxes are collected or
used,
c.) must register their presence to the USA with id numbers
d.) must obey USA laws which Americans had no say in writing, or passing.
e.) must endure foreign wars and domestic programs that serve no legitimate domestic
interest.
expand this list as you like.
You are onto something there...I do not recall whose US think tank analyse I read about US
youth tending ideologically to the left...the same could be said of any youth around the
world after they have been left without future prospect and past opportunities to rise
through the social ladder by rampant savage neoliberal capitalism...
I said at the time that the Ukrainian experiment of 2014 was a general dressed rehearsal
for a future planned authoritarian fascist rule in most of the world, especially the West,
once the prospects, already known by the elites, of collapsing capitalism are obvious for the
general public and cause the consequent uprising..It is in this context that the pandemic and
its sudden impoverishing outcome fits, along with the "orchestrated" violent riots at various
locations, to justify martial law...
Notice that "rewritting of history of WWII" in favor of fascism is a feature of any US
administration since the fall of the USSR...
Past days I read that Roger Stone, former Trump advisor, if i am not wrong also implied in
a corruption case, advised Trump to declare martial law after winning in Novemeber...It is in
that context that all the noise we have been hearing all these past months about the riots,
militias, coups, and so on fit...What we have not heard about is about hundreds of thousands
of evictions, inacabable line ups for food banks, and the total socio-economic disaster more
than anything willingly built by TPTB...
Recal that they "built their own reality, and when you are catching up with that reality,
they build another one"...
It is difficult to teach old chickenhawk a new tricks. Looks like she is a real "national
security parasite" and will stay is this role till the bitter end.
"America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit." took hit because of the crisis of neoliberalism
not so much because of Russia resistance to the USA neoliberal domination and unwillingness to became a vassal state a la EU
states, Japan and GB.
Her hostile remark confirms grave mistake of allowing immigrants to occupy high position in the US foreign policy hierarchy.
They bring with themselves "ancient hatred"
Only a blind (or a highly indoctrinated/brainwashed) person is unable to see where all these neocon policies are leading...
Notable quotes:
"... America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit ..."
"... "They lost the entire US political class ..."
Fiona Hill, the National Security Council's senior director for European and Russian affairs
till 2019, says divisions are rising inside the Kremlin over the knowledge of persevering with
a "dirty tricks" marketing campaign that's had combined outcomes and will now face diminishing
returns.
On the one hand, Russia's 2016 affect operations succeeded past the Kremlin's wildest goals.
The US-dominated, unipolar world that Putin has lengthy railed in opposition to is now not.
America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit. "On that ledger, wow, yes,
basically over-fulfilled the plan," mentioned Hill.
At the identical time, getting caught in the act of making an attempt to sabotage US
democracy has proved pricey. "They lost the entire US political class and politicized ties so that the whole future of
US-Russia relations now depends on who wins in November," she mentioned.
Probably counting on the desperate vanity and ego of Trump with the looming election to not
shorten the length of the leash on Pompass. Pompass must also have noticed that Trump is
willing to shove the homeland into civil war in order to claim victory, so maybe Pompass
finally has the latitude to slake his bloodthirstiness.
Since I'm wondering down the path of speculation, a bit further into the murk. If there is
one thing that characterizes the US today from the highest to the low, it is corruption. I
submit that this corruption finds its zenith in the military, and especially the procurement
train: any engagement with a near-peer (or the coalition/bloc we're talking about here,) and
the rot and corruption will collapse this empire in upon itself. I've had this suspicion for
some time, and believe if the going got rough the collapse would come rather quickly and
completely.
Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion
billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like
(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg,
extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security
breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers],
and of course, electoral cheating;
(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by
stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;
(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet
"magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and
chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after
making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness
to "negotiate".
The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to
reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.
This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the
"idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting
solutions.
As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of
"aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in
minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in
earth orbits.
Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the
cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created
somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!
And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus
permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense --
this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn
it"... let's see... I doubt this.
Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet
and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional
explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can
be made even without using russian nukes.
There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are
already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of
parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their
ancestors.
In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody
sometime before dinner.
CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is
Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in
Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So
Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows
now that too! !!! LOL
> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after
allegedly stealing information from the United States.
> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration,"
Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then
created" the rocket, reports TASS.
> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy
us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever
heard of. "
->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the
rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This
situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years
(the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of
trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is
the natural course of events.
All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American
provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it
worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better",
in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything,
I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".
Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more
and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is
what autohypnosis does not work.
The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And
5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is
not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even
have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands,
"here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed,
and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well,
something like that, ah. "
At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply
developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and
disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are
like "wow, wow."
Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.
But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template
for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are
satisfied.
Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings
another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is
scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global
goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of
"successful success is my second self".
This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last.
Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest,
which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.
It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.
After the dissolution of the USSR the US elite lost the traction with reality and became mad
in a very literate sense of this word. A gang of exceptional idiots. Like in Mad Hatter in Alice
in Wonderland. For Mad Hatter that was toxic substances (mercury) used in the hat industry, for
the US elite it was toxic doze of exeptionalism and adoption of "Full spectrum dominance
doctrine" promoted by crazy neocons like Wolfowitz and Libby. The best way to destroy the empire
is to adopt "full spectrum Dominance Doctrine" which guarantee overextension and subsequent
demise. The dominance disappears like The Cheshire Cat disappearance leaving only his grin,
prompting Alice to remark that "she has often seen a cat without a grin but never a grin without
a cat".
US officials like Pompeo now often sound like some podunk UN official from a podunk country trying to impress a waitress in a
NYC bar.
But at the end of the cold war the 'west' began to ignore the actual international law and
to replace it with its own rules which others were then supposed to follow. That hubris has
come back to bite the 'west'.
Colm O'Toole @ 26, Uncle Tungsten @ 32, David G @ 33:
I am also sad to hear of Andre Vltchek's passing. He used to be an occasional contributor
to Off-Guardian.org.
His death is being treated as suspicious by Turkish police authorities. I myself am rather
puzzled by the decision to travel overnight by car from Samsun to Istanbul, given his state
of health (according to the report that Colm O'Toole linked to) and the length of the car
journey (about nine hours) when he could have travelled by plane.
our host misses the real challenge for humans on this planet, perhaps by design. I think
Michael Krieger had it right, what we should be aiming for is the decentralizing of power.
invest in localism. get to know your local power structure. get ready for trade and barter
survival mode.
On October 15, former U.S. drone operator Brandon Bryant testified before the German
Parliament about the role the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany, plays in the U.S. drone
program. Hours later, Shadowproof reported, two American Air Force officers showed up at
the house of Bryant's mother in Missoula, Montana, to inform her that she was on the "hit
list" of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), which Bryant's attorney is calling a
clear sign of whistleblower intimidation.
Bryant, now an outspoken critic of the U.S. drone program, left the Air Force after what
he described as a moment of moral clarity. "We were hunting for Anwar al-Awlaki, an
American citizen," he told a German parliamentary inquiry committee last week. "I suddenly
realized that by doing what I was doing I was going against the American Constitution which
I had sworn to protect. That was when I decided I had to get out."
Bryant came back to his hometown in Missoula and became active in local politics,
culminating in a felony arrest for allegedly intimidating local council members over his
criticism of how local officials use public funds. this was right before the pandemic, and
since then there has been nothing in the news about his case. I would know, since I could
possible be a witness in the case.
if you aren't at least a little prepared for a disruption in critical supplies, and choose
instead to waste time commenting on online forums, it won't matter how up to date you are on
"rules based international order" vs. "international law". at that point the reality will be
something like this: if you aren't holding it, you don't have it, and if you can't defend it,
you won't be keeping it for long.
"... Each of these two camps wields rhetoric that masks its true practice. Democrats and Republicans pose as heralds of the "free world" in the face of "dictatorships", as defenders of racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and as champions of the fight against "global warming". The Jacksonians, for their part, take turns denouncing the corruption, perversity and ultimately hypocrisy of their predecessors while calling to fight for their nation and not for the empire. ..."
"... The two camps have in common only the same cult of force; whether it is at the service of the empire (Democrats and Republicans) or the nation (Jacksonians). ..."
The U.S. 2020 presidential campaign pits two radically different visions of the United States: empire or nation?
On the one hand, Washington's claim to dominate the world by "containment" – a strategy articulated by George Kennan in 1946 and
followed by all presidents until 2016 – and on the other hand, the rejection of imperialism and the desire to facilitate the fortunes
of Americans in general – a strategy articulated by President Andrew Jackson (1829-37) and taken up only by President Donald Trump
(2017-20).
Each of these two camps wields rhetoric that masks its true practice. Democrats and Republicans pose as heralds of the "free
world" in the face of "dictatorships", as defenders of racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and as champions of
the fight against "global warming". The Jacksonians, for their part, take turns denouncing the corruption, perversity and ultimately
hypocrisy of their predecessors while calling to fight for their nation and not for the empire.
The two camps have in common only the same cult of force; whether it is at the service of the empire (Democrats and Republicans)
or the nation (Jacksonians).
The fact that the Jacksonians unexpectedly became a majority in the country and took control of the Republican Party adds to the
confusion, but should not confuse Trumpism with what the Republican ideology has been since World War II.
In reality, Democrats and Republicans tend to be well-to-do people or professionals in new technologies, while Jacksonians – like
the "yellow vests" in France – are rather poor and professionally tied to the land from which they cannot escape.
... ... ...
The Jacksonian agenda
As soon as he took office, Donald Trump questioned the Rumsfeld/Cebrowsky strategy of annihilating the state structures of all the
countries of the "Broader Middle East" without exception and announced his wish to bring home the troops lost in the "war without
end". This goal remains at the top of his priorities in 2020 ("Stop Endless Wars and Bring Our Troops Home").
As a result, he excluded the Director of the CIA and the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee from regular meetings of the National
Security Council. In so doing, he deprived the supporters of imperialism of their main tool of conquest.
There followed a battle for the presidency of this council with the indictment of General Michael T. Flynn, then his replacement
by General H. R. McMaster, the exceptionalist John R. Bolton, and finally Robert C. O'Brien.
In May 2017, Donald Trump called on U.S. allies to immediately cease their support for jihadists charged with implementing the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski
strategy. This was the Riyadh speech to the Sunni heads of state and then to NATO heads of state and government. President Trump
had declared NATO obsolete before changing his mind. However, he obtained not the abandonment of Russia's policy of containment,
but the halving of the credits used for this purpose and the allocation of the funds thus preserved to the fight against jihadism.
In doing so, it partially stopped making NATO an instrument of imperialism and turned it into a defensive alliance. It has therefore
demanded that its members contribute to its budget. Support for jihadism, however, was pursued by the supporters of imperialism with
private means, notably the KKR Fund.
Hence his watchwords: "Wipe Out Global Terrorists Who Threaten to Harm Americans" and "Get Allies to Pay their Fair Share.
Like the Democrats and Republicans, the Jacksonian Donald Trump is committed to restoring the capabilities of his armies ("Maintain
and Expand America's Unrivaled Military Strength"). Unlike his predecessors, he did not seek to transform the Pentagon's delusional
management by privatizing one department at a time, but rather developed a plan to recruit researchers to compete technologically
once again with the Russian and Chinese armies.
Only Donald Trump's desire to regain primacy in missile matters is supported by Democrats and Republicans, although they do not agree
on how to achieve it ("Build a Great Cybersecurity Defense System and Missile Defense System") : the tenant of the White House wants
the USA to equip itself alone with these weapons that it can eventually deploy on the territory of its allies, while its opponents
want to involve the allies in order to maintain their hold on them. From the point of view of the Democrats and Republicans, the
problem is obviously not withdrawing from the Cold War disarmament treaties to build a new arsenal, but the loss of means of diplomatic
pressure on Russia.
A professional politician, Joe Biden hopes to restore the imperial status of the former First World Power.
The program of Democrats and non-party Republicans
Joe Biden proposes to focus on three objectives: (1) reinvigorate democracy (2) train the middle class to cope with globalization
(3) regain global leadership.
Reinvigorate democracy
: in his words, this means basing public
action on the "informed consent" of Americans. In doing so, he used Walter Lipmann's 1922 terminology, according to which democracy
presupposes "manufacturing consent". This theory was discussed at length by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in 1988. It obviously
has nothing to do with the definition formulated by President Abraham Lincoln: "Democracy is government of the people, by the people,
for the people".
Joe Biden believes he is achieving his goal by restoring the morality of public action through the practice of "political correctness".
For example, he condemns "the horrible practice [of President Trump] of separating families and placing the children of immigrants
in private prisons," without saying that President Trump was merely applying a democratic law to show its futility. Or he announces
that he wants to reaffirm the condemnation of torture that President Trump justified, without saying that the latter, like President
Obama, has already banned the practice while maintaining life imprisonment without trial in Guantánamo.
He announced his intention to convene a Summit for Democracy to fight against corruption, to defend the "Free World" against authoritarian
regimes, and to advance human rights. In view of his definition of democracy, it is a question of uniting allied states by denouncing
scapegoats for what is wrong (the "corrupt") and promoting human rights in the Anglo-Saxon sense and especially not in the French
sense. That is to say, to stop police violence and not to help citizens to participate in decision-making. This summit will launch
an appeal to the private sector so that new technologies cannot be used by authoritarian states to monitor their citizens (but the
USA and its NSA can always use them in the interest of the "Free World").
Finally, Joe Biden concludes this chapter by highlighting his role in the Transatlantic Commission for Electoral Integrity alongside
his friends, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who overthrew the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Michael Chertoff,
former US Secretary of Homeland Security, who put all US citizens under surveillance. Not forgetting John Negroponte who organized
the Contras in Nicaragua and Daesh in Iraq.
Educating the middle class to cope with globalization
. Joe Biden
believes that the politics that have been pursued since the dissolution of the USSR have led to the rapid disappearance of the middle
class, and that training the remaining middle class in the use of new technologies will prevent the relocation of their jobs.
Renewing U.S. leadership
. In the name of democracy, this means
stopping the rise of "populists, nationalists and demagogues. This formulation helps us understand that democracy, according to Joe
Biden, is not only the fabrication of consent, but also the eradication of the popular will. If demagogues pervert democratic institutions,
populists serve the popular will and nationalists serve the community.
The
Oval Office of the White House is looking for a tenant.
Joe Biden then specifies that he will stop wars "forever"; a formulation that seems to support the same goal as the Jacksonians,
but differs in terminology. It is in fact a question of validating the current adaptation of the system to the limits imposed by
President Trump: why make US soldiers die abroad when one can pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy with jihadists at a lower cost?
All the more so since when he was only an opposition senator, Joe Biden gave his name to the plan to partition Iraq that the Pentagon
was trying to impose.
A verse follows on the enlargement of NATO to include Latin American, African and Pacific allies. Far from being obsolete, the Alliance
will once again become the heart of U.S. imperialism.
Finally, Joe Biden pleads for the renewal of the 5+1 agreement with Iran and disarmament treaties with Russia. The agreement with
President Hassan Rohani aims to classically divide Muslim countries into Sunni and Shia, while the disarmament treaties aim to confirm
that the Biden administration would not envisage a global confrontation, but the continued containment of its competitor.
The program of the Democratic Party candidate and non-party Republicans concludes with the assurance of joining the Paris Accord
and taking leadership in the fight against global warming. Joe Biden specifies that he will not give gifts to China, which is relocating
its most polluting industries along the Silk Road. On the other hand, he omits to say that his friend, Barack Obama, before entering
politics, was the drafter of the statutes of the Chicago Carbon Emissions Trading Exchange. The fight against global warming is not
so much an ecological issue as a matter for bankers.
Conclusion
It must be said that everything is opposed to a clarification. Four years of upheavals by President Trump have only succeeded in
replacing the "endless wars" with a low-intensity private war. There are certainly far fewer deaths, but it is still war.
The elites who enjoy imperialism are not ready to give up their privileges.
So it is to be feared that the U.S. will be forced to go through an internal conflict, a civil war, and break up like the Soviet
Union once did.
"... Former defense secretary Jim Mattis appears to have been plotting a coup with then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats after growing furious with President Trump for banning transgenders from the military and moving to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral [in May 2019] to pray about his concern for the nation's fate under Trump's command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, "There may come a time when we have to take collective action" since Trump is "dangerous. He's unfit." ..."
"... Translation: we may have to stage a coup to get him out of power. Plenty of Democrats and former and current intelligence officials are working on a Color Revolution come November as we speak . ..."
Former defense secretary Jim Mattis appears to have been plotting a coup with then-Director
of National Intelligence Dan Coats after growing furious with President Trump for banning transgenders from the military and moving to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria.
Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral [in May 2019] to pray about his concern
for the nation's fate under Trump's command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, "There
may come a time when we have to take collective action" since Trump is "dangerous. He's
unfit."
In a separate conversation recounted by Woodward, Mattis told Coats, "The president has no
moral compass," to which the director of national intelligence replied: "True. To him, a lie
is not a lie. It's just what he thinks. He doesn't know the difference between the truth and
a lie."
Mattis doesn't know the difference between a male and a female. Trump reportedly accurately said his generals were a "bunch of pussies."
"Not to mention my f**king generals are a bunch of pussies. They care more about their
alliances than they do about trade deals," Trump told White House trade adviser Peter Navarro
at one point, according to Woodward.
No lie detected!
Ann Coulter, who has repeatedly tried to tell Trump today's generals have nothing in common
with those of the past like Trump-favorite Gen. George Patton, responded to the news on
Wednesday by saying Trump has won her back!
Unfortunately in his brilliant analysis of USA-Russia relations Stephen Cohen never pointed out that the USA policy toward
Russia is dictated by the interests of maintaining global neoliberal empire and the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" which was
adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after the collapse of the USSR.
Like British empire the USA neoliberal empire is now overextended, metropolia is in secular stagnation with deterioration
standard of living of the bottom 80% of population, so the USA under Trump became more aggressive and dangerous on the international
arena. Trump administration behaves behaves like a cornered rat on international arena.
Notable quotes:
"... On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio. ..."
"... from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks. ..."
"... the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. ..."
"... Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China. ..."
"... My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. ..."
"... It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker. ..."
"... In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day. ..."
On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the
"dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with
the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who
enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC
Radio.
A year ago, I reviewed his latest book, War With Russia? which drew upon the
material of those programs and took this scholar turned journalist into a new and highly
accessible genre of oral readings in print. The narrative style may have been more relaxed,
with simplified syntax, but the reasoning remained razor sharp. I urge those who are today
paying tribute to Steve, to buy and read the book, which is his best legacy.
From start to finish, Stephen F. Cohen was among America's best historians of his
generation, putting aside the specific subject matter that he treated: Nikolai Bukharin, his
dissertation topic and the material of his first and best known book; or, to put it more
broadly, the history of Russia (USSR) in the 20 th century. He was one of the very
rare cases of an historian deeply attentive to historiography, to causality and to logic. I
understood this when I read a book of his from the mid-1980s in which he explained why Russian
(Soviet) history was no longer attracting young students of quality: because there were no
unanswered questions, because we smugly assumed that we knew about that country all that there
was to know. That was when our expert community told us with one voice that the USSR was
entrapped in totalitarianism without any prospect for the overthrow of its oppressive
regime.
But my recollections of Steve also have a personal dimension going back six years or so when
a casual email correspondence between us flowered into a joint project that became the launch
of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). This was a revival of a
pro-détente association of academics and business people that existed from the mid-1970s
to the early 1990s, when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the
Communist Party from power, the future of Russia in the family of nations we call the
'international community' seemed assured and there appeared to be no further need for such an
association as ACEWA.
I hasten to add that in the original ACEWA Steve and I were two ships that passed in the
night. With his base in Princeton, he was a protégé of the dean of diplomats then
in residence there, George Kennan, who was the leading light on the academic side of the ACEWA.
I was on the business side of the association, which was led by Don Kendall, chairman of
Pepsico and also for much of the 1970s chairman of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council of
which I was also a member. I published pro-détente articles in their newsletter and
published a lengthy piece on cooperation with the Soviet Union in agricultural and food
processing domains, my specialty at that time, in their collection of essays by leaders in the
U.S. business community entitled Common Sense in U.S.-Soviet Trade .
The academic contingent had, as one might assume, a 'progressive' coloration, while the
business contingent had a Nixon Republican coloration. Indeed, in the mid-1980s these two sides
split in their approach to the growing peace movement in the U.S. that was fed by opposition in
the 'thinking community' on university campuses to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars agenda. Kendall
shut the door at ACEWA to rabble rousing and the association did not rise to the occasion, so
that its disbanding in the early '90s went unnoticed.
In the re-incorporated American Committee, I helped out by assuming the formal obligations
of Treasurer and Secretary, and also became the group's European Coordinator from my base in
Brussels. At this point my communications with Steve were almost daily and emotionally quite
intense. This was a time when America's expert community on Russian affairs once again felt
certain that it knew everything there was to know about the country, and most particularly
about the nefarious "Putin regime." But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, polite debate about the
USSR/Russia was entirely possible both behind closed doors and in public space, from the
start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following
Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the
official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a
welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly
found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem
attacks.
From my correspondence and several meetings with Steve at this time both in his New York
apartment and here in Brussels, when he and Katrina van der Heuvel came to participate in a
Round Table dedicated to relations with Russia at the Brussels Press Club that I arranged, I
knew that Steve was deeply hurt by these vitriolic attacks. He was at the time waging a
difficult campaign to establish a fellowship in support of graduate studies in Russian affairs.
It was touch and go, because of vicious opposition from some stalwarts of the profession to any
fellowship that bore Steve's name. Allow me to put the 'i' on this dispute: the opposition
to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the
profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective,
not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of
Eurasia. In the end, Steve and Katrina prevailed. The fellowships exist and, hopefully,
will provide sustenance to future studies when American attitudes towards Russia become less
politicized.
At all times and on all occasions, Steve Cohen was a voice of reason above all. The problem
of our age is that we are now not only living in a post-factual world, but in a post-logic
world. The public reads day after day the most outrageous and illogical assertions about
alleged Russian misdeeds posted by our most respected mainstream media including The New
York Times and The Washington Post . Almost no one dares to raise a hand and
suggest that this reporting is propaganda and that the public is being brainwashed. Steve did
exactly that in War With Russia? in a brilliant and restrained text.
Regrettably today we have no peace movement to speak of. Youth and our 'progressive' elites
are totally concerned over the fate of humanity in 30 or 40 years' time as a consequence of
Global Warming and rising seas. That is the essence of the Green Movement. Almost no one
outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two
years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and
military confrontation with Russia and China.
I fear it will take only some force majeure development such as we had in 1962 during the
Cuban Missile Crisis to awaken the broad public to the risks to our very survival that we are
incurring by ignoring the issues that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Princeton and New
York University was bringing to the airwaves week after week on his radio program.
Postscript
In terms of action, the new ACEWA was even less effective than its predecessor, which had
avoided linking up with the peace movement of the 1980s and sought to exert influence on policy
through armchair talks with Senators and other statesmen in Washington behind closed doors of
(essentially) men's clubs.
However, the importance of the new ACEWA, and the national importance of Stephen Cohen lay
elsewhere.
This question of appraising Stephen Cohen's national importance is all the more timely given
that on the day of his death, 18 September, the nation also lost Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg,
about whose national importance no Americans, whether her fans or her opponents, had any
doubt.
My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became
one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. It
was not a role that he sought. It was thrust upon him by the expert community of international
affairs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, from which he reluctantly resigned over
this matter.
It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media
who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on
the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his
right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of
his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker.
In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of
hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to
recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most
revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral
counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this
day.
[If you found value in this article, you should be interested to read my latest collection
of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, published in
November 2019 and available in e-book, paperback and hardbound formats from amazon, barnes
& noble, bol.com, fnac, Waterstones and other online retailers. Use the "View Inside" tab
on the book's webpages to browse.]
"If at any time the United States believes Iran has failed to meet its commitments, no
other state can block our ability to snap back those multilateral sanctions," Pompeo
declared in a statement posted on his official Twitter account on Sunday evening.
The top US diplomat was referring to the avalanche of sanctions Washington has been hellbent
on slapping on Tehran after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) overwhelmingly rejected
the US resolution to extend a 13-year arms embargo against the Islamic Republic past October
earlier this week.
The humiliating defeat , which saw only one member
of the 15-nation body (the Dominican Republic) siding with the US, while China and Russia
opposed the resolution, and all other nations, including France and the UK, abstained, did not
discourage Washington, which doubled down on its threat to hit Iran with biting sanctions.
... ... ...
"Of course other states can block America's ability to impose multilateral sanctions. The
US can impose sanctions by itself, but can't force others to do it," Nicholas Grossman,
teaching assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Illinois,
tweeted.
"That's what 'multilateral' means. Is our SecState really this dumb?" Grossman asked.
Daniel Larison, senior editor at the American Conservative, suggested that Pompeo might
be having a hard time grasping the meaning of the word 'multilateral'.
Some argued that Pompeo could not be unaware of the contradictory nature of his statement.
Dan Murphy, former Middle East and South Asia correspondent for the Christian Science
Monitor, called it "one of the most diplomatically illiterate sentences of all time."
"I guess the end game here is [to] alienate the rest of the world even further to feed his
persecution complex?" Murphy wrote.
John Twomey, 16 August, 2020
Explanation. What Pompeo understands and what many others can't grasp is that the US
decides if their sanctions are "multilateral" because the USA speaks for all other countries
whether they like it or not.
My Opinion, 17 August, 2020
Reminiscing of his shady past as a new CIA recruit he said. "We lied, we cheated and we stole". Apparently, Mikey didn't
do all too well in his literature classes, either and that's why the most suitable candidate from zionists perspective.
"... There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive) while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time! ..."
Speaking as an Independent, I say that our country, the USA, has engineered past confilcts and wars in order to feed the military
industrial complex. Not so much that it results in a nuke-shooting war, but in a regular non-nuke shooting war. The solution?
Send the sons and daughters of the politicians into direct combat, every time they approve another war. That should keep things
a bit more peaceful.
Professor Cohen is this nation's most objective and therefore most valuable thinker on Russia! The charge that his views are
"not patriotic" is a compliment rather than the insult they intended. A scholar's views are only valuable to the public and, more
importantly, policy makers, if they are OBJECTIVE!!! Which is to say that he follows the FACTS wherever they lead!
Any "discussion" with no mention of the supranational central bank cartel is intentional deceptive omission. The "brass ring"
is forced use of petro-dollars. The central bank stock holders and bankers loaning all dollars into existence as national debt,
do not care who owns land. They care who pays off national debts and interest on debt. Civil war is their racket. There are no
sovereign nations. No genuine nations that create their medium of exchange publicly. No national people. Just participants in
an extortion or its victims. The "Elite" collect on money they created as loans in their central banking accounts. All others
are only human numbers assigned billing addresses.
Welcome to the New World Order ....where Multinational corporations rule & their profits are what are most important..... NOT
nation states it's the 99.9% against the .01% and they use MSM propaganda & fear to control the DUMB masses thinking
I just discovered John Batchelor Show on which Cohen has a guest spot- I just was drawn to this man's thinking, probably because
I had made up my mind about Russia during the Ukraine crises. Seeing the US has ruin every country we have gone into- I'm on Russia's
side, especially where Russia and Ukraine has a history, on that side of the world.
38:49 - Apologies for the somewhat Utopian
question here. I agree with everything Cohen has said, but regarding cause of jihadist terrorism ( ie implosion of the economies
in the region), does it make sense to discuss primarily this game of terrorist whack a mole (bombing, invading and crushing Jihadist
insurgencies)? Is there any point in talking about a pro active policy of recreating sustainable, stable economies in the region?
What would that even look like?
Not very many average Americans would be able to easily access and watch this. Average Americans still consume mainly mainstream
media. Too bad, because this lecture would have opened their eyes and have blown up their brain-contaminated minds by the CNN,
the New York Times and alike.
I agree wholeheartedly Loane. Have always been extremely impressed with and appreciative of Cohen's carefully & thoughtfully
considered contribution. We in the US have gone a bit off the deep end when it comes to this deeply embedded belief in exceptionalism
and superiority, and have been extremely rude to much of the rest of the world in the process. It amazes me how patient Russia
has been with us, waiting for us to come around to a more sober understanding of the world we live in today. I have to conclude
that what we are experiencing here in the US is a perennial phenomenon that comes with the end of all empires throughout history,
the mission creep of over-extending resources and the big one, seemingly blind hubris.
There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift
will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive)
while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine
interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least
I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time!
NATO'S reason to exist ended when the Warsaw Pact was demolished. It was created to confront the socialist Warsaw Pact but
today ALL of the members of the pact are part of NATO, except Russia. So why is it still operating? Who are they confronting?
They are a bunch of bureaucrats looking for a reason to stay employed in an organization that lost its excuse to be. However,
their behavior has gone from increasing security to actually becoming a menace to trigger a nuclear war to destroy life on earth.
It will take a Republican President to turn our relationships with hostile nations around. For some irrational reasoning, the
current administration refuses negotiation with it's enemies. Somehow this is going to create understanding. and a less dangerous
world. I don't see a continuation of this Administrations policy anything but reckless . I am assuming this policy has been one
determined through Clinton, and will remain so. Clinton has said on a number of occasions, it is the Obama Administration's policies
that will be hers as well. As an ex cold warrior, who has spent a lot of time chasing Soviet boomers in the North Atlantic, I
am not willing to gamble my children and grand children's lives . It is a dangerous and ego driven pissing match. Let us start
talking , This administration and families can climb into their luxury nuclear bomb proof bunkers...... My family and most Americans
don't have that luxury.
Dr. Cohen, so Putin gave the Northern Alliance to the USA after 911 to bludgeon Afghanistan for hiding Bin Laden? Paul Craig
Robert, David Ray Griffin and a growing list of Americans believe 911 was a total bamboozle. If that is true which it looks increasingly
like it was, does that mean Putin was playing along with the our Reichstag fire? What does that make Putin? NATO should have been
totally remade after 1986, but it wasn't and we simply missed a huge opportunity not for worldwide U.S. hegemony, but for a new
umbrella of security by super powers in alliance. Obviously, the proliferation of ethno-religious groups was in Putin's mind when
he welcomed us into Afghanistan, but damn it man, tell people EXACTLY why we and the Russians want to be in the Golden Crescent
besides the extraction of minerals.
Julia Ioffe is a joke -- she is essentially a typical "national security parasite" and of the level that surprisingly, is
lower that Max Boor, although previously I thought this is impossible. Julia Ioffe is very typical of the anti-Russian thinking
in the West.
This incessant Russophobia constantly being trumpeted by the Washington militarist imperialists must stop. It's putting the
world on the brink of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen's a godsend along with a handful of the other intellectuals out there speaking and writing the truth that penetrates
the miasma of disinformation, half-truths and exaggerations emanating from the state-corporate nexus in the American mass media.
Cohen, along with John Pilger, James Petras, Robert Parry, Michael Parenti, John Pilger, Eva Bartlett, Diana Johnstone and
Paul Craig Roberts must be read widely in order for folks to get a grasp of where the Washington imperialist ruling class is driving
the world.
at 25:40 he just destroys her totally. what
a point he made, amazing!! "thank you professor" the guy on the left wants to end Cohen's carnage of the so called experts. Cohen
made minced meat out of em. Fact after fact...stonewalled em both. Listen to her, ISIS doesn't have nuke's, she obviously doesn't
have a clue.
Cohen is always cogent and convincing. One area I wish some historian would look into is how "Russia-gate" is not echoing Cold
War themes, but echoing themes from the German Nazis in particular their belief about a great Jewish conspiracy against Europe.
Even Putin recently remarked on all these accusations: "It reminds me of anti-Semitism, A dumb man who can't do anything would
blame the Jews for everything." Look at how Putin is drawn and pictured on major outlets. The NYTimes blamed resistance to TPP
on Putin.
The Russians like the Jews are behind every social problem. Popular culture shows and speaks of Russia in the same way Nazi
propagandists wrote about Russia.
Undermining Western liberal democracies, Jews were compared to spiders catching people in the webs. Same with Putin. Pick up
Hitler's speech after the invasion of the Soviet Union justifying it., Echos? Accidental rhetoric of conspiracies ?
"to look past a long list of transgressions and abuses..." this is what I absolutely hate about America, they are all so stupid
and ignorant to their own countries misdeeds it is unbelievable, infuriating beyond belief. The US is currently fighting 7 wars
simultaneously, which it all started itself under false pretences and hid the real reason beneath a thick layer of BS propaganda
and misinformation.
The secession of Crimea is the least egregious event of the entire conflicts history. The EU and US have pumped billions of
dollars into the coup which took place weeks before the Crimean referendum, on the 20th of February 2014, 2 weeks prior to that,
an intercepted phone conversation between Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State of the United States to Europe) and Geoffrey
Pyatt (US Ambassador to the Ukraine) was leaked on February 4th, 2014. In this phone conversation, they describe key positions
within the Ukrainian government being filled by Klitshko and Yatz... fast forward a few weeks, who do we see? Klitsh and Yatz!
It was the most obvious sponsored coup in history.
Putin snatched the Crimean peninsula from NATO, who wanted to seize Russias military harbour in Sevastopol (which the Russians
have used to supply Syria, this was one and a half years before they entered the conflict directly, apart from being a very important
strategic harbour in general), by suggesting a referendum to the local government and they accepted.
Why? Because they were ethnic Russians and knew who gained power in Kiev, the neo-Nazi, Bandera-worshipping OUN, which the
US has nourished, supported and developed for the last 100 years within the Ukrainian territory. These Nazis hate Russians, they
have a deep seeded hatred of all things Russian which has been indoctrinated and drilled into them by the CIA for decades, the
first thing they did after seizing power was to demote the Russian language from the official list of languages of the Ukraine.
They have since honoured Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators from WWII by erecting statues, renaming streets, creating new holidays
etc. This is just one example of US misinformation and propaganda, nothing they say accurately describes the truth, nothing, not
one thing has it's bases in reality. Be it about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and what have you, it's all lies and propaganda
to mask their intentions.
North Korea is another example. North Korea is a hornets nest they kick once in a while to scare the Japanese and South Koreans
into tolerating US occupation longer. Everything North Korea does is a direct response to threats and intimidations by the US.
They staged a drill off the coast of North Korea which they called "Decapitation" for F's sake.
They have ratcheted up the tension again these past few months to sneak in their THAAD weapons stations, before the new President
was chosen. And these THAAD systems have absolutely nothing to do with North Korea, it's against China and Russia, North Korea
is a pretext.
The still active war, which has merely been under a seize fire for decades, against North Korea, could have been ended before
there was colour television, but the US needs North Korea to exist in order to justify their occupation of S.Korea and Japan.
And by the way, the CrowdStrike guy testified in 2017 that there was ZERO PROOF that the Russians hacked the DNC, but Schiff
hid that for 2 years until John Ratcliff threatened to declassify it, then Schiff's sorry ass released the interviews. So, this
man was 100 percent right, there is ZERO PROOF the Russians or anyone hacked the DNC. Its a damned lie, and it was always a lie.
As usual, the journalists and leftist have nothing to offer- no facts, no forensic evidence, no truth. Only speculation hyperbole
and hysteria. I don't believe Russia are the good guys but give me a break in all this crap!
why did cohen tell everyone even potential 'terrorists' that there is too much of exactly what 'terrorists' wish to get their
hands on in the former soviet states?!!? if he is 'so afraid' of 'terrorism...' WHY did he say THAT?!!? not very bright... or
perhaps he is FOS. idk?! wth?! SMH. maybe e is trying to inform people who r not 'terrorists,' so that people know n can figure
out how to address the issues...?
Yet, for any terrorists who wanted to know how to get materials he spoke of, now they may know a region where they could potentially
go to attain the materials... maybe in 'terrorists' circles they all know this already? it just seems concerning, is all...
Beth Lemmon, 2 years ago (edited)
Love Stephen Cohen, he is spot on and right about most if not all points, he's fair, wicked smart and sober minded. However
he isn't right about POTUS Trump. If anyone has been watching this type of discourse about world geopolitics it looks like the
NWO wants wars to depopulate the earth, set up a OWG and a utopia. It's so blatantly obvious to those who are honest and not ideologically
possessed.
They recruit their stupid Antifa army and zombie possessed minions to do their dirty work in the streets. They want send our
amazing military to do the fighting wars that are just to feed the MIC, and does nothing for America's good.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a
blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian
relations, has died of lung cancer at the
age of 81.
As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject
of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet,
this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and
his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with
the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions
against Moscow.
In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow
to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.
I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not
have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final
years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war,
which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.
The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's
War
with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016
cold
war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in
some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.
"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment
in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're
in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the
possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented
military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between
Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are
flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."
Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is
planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the
chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as
nearly
happened many times during the last cold war.
"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy
Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we
-- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless
accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in
American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by
the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has
ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his
associates have committed treason."
"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine
if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been
crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against
the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."
"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War
is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote
last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to
understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political
space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements,
often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold
Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for
rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."
"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold
War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War
is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente
were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and
universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the
White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."
"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources
I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless
response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the
still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an
opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."
"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy
pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen
wrote in another
essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan
support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in
Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US
Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement
Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before
midnight."
And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The
Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war
escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party
has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of
the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly
predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth,
even while his own life was nearing its end.
And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even
more complex with the
addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been
plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping
up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions
to continue to increase.
We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand
a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for
détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this
world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet
may well depend on our doing so.
Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us
all.
People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats
in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon
never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will
be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.
PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago
Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top
of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.
awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago
Sad to hear this.
What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr
that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or
want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it
seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last
war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight
it.
Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago
Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over
climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.
thunderchief , 41 minutes ago
One of the very few level headed people on Russia.
All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.
Send in the clowns.
Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.
Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago
cooperate with Russia
Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?
fucking truth , 3 minutes ago
That is the crux. All or nothing.
Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago
Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern
russian history.
Normal , 1 hour ago
The bankers created the new CCP cold war.
evoila , 19 minutes ago
Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to
even put them on the same panel.
RIP Stephen.
Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence
which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers
thebigunit , 17 minutes ago
I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.
He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.
He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick"
was a bunch of crap.
He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with
his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.
Boogity , 9 minutes ago
Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with
the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been
ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.
This article is dedicated to the memory of an activist, inspiration, and recent friend:
Kevin Zeese. Its scope, sweep, and ambition are meant to match that of Kevin's outsized
influence. At that, it must inevitably fail – and its shortfalls are mine alone. That
said, the piece's attempt at a holistic critique of 19 years worth of war and cultural
militarization would, I hope, earn an approving nod from Kevin – if only at the
attempt. He will be missed by so many; I count myself lucky to have gotten to know him.
– Danny Sjursen
The rubble was still smoldering at Ground Zero when the U.S. House of Representatives
voted to
essentially transform itself into the Israeli
Knesset , or parliament. It was 19 years ago, 11:17pm Washington D.C. time on September
14, 2001 when the People's Chamber approved House Joint Resolution 64, the Authorization for
the Use of Military Force (AUMF) "against those responsible for the recent attacks."
Naturally, that was before the precise identities, and full scope, of "those responsible"
were yet known – so the resolution's rubber-stamp was obscenely open-ended by
necessity, but also by design.
The Senate had passed their own version by roll call vote about 12
hours earlier. The combined congressional tally was 518 to one. Only Representative Barbara
Lee of California
cast a dissenting vote , and even delivered a brief, prescient speech on the House floor.
It's almost hard to watch and listen all these years later as her voice cracks with emotion
amidst all that truth-telling
:
I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international
terrorism against the United States. This is a very complex and complicated matter
However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country
is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, let's step back for a moment and think
through the implications of our actions today, so that this does not spiral out of
control
Now I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with opposing this resolution
during the very painful, yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so
eloquently said, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."
For her lone stance – itself courageous, even had she not since been
vindicated – Rep. Lee suffered
insults and death threats so intense that she needed around-the-clock bodyguards for a
time. It's hard to be right in a room full of the wrong – especially angry, scared, and
jingoistic ones. Yet the tragedy is America has become many of the things we purport to
deplore: the US now boasts a one-trick-pony foreign policy and a militarized society to
boot.
Endless imperial interventions and perennial policing at home and abroad,
counterproductive military adventurism, governance by permanent "emergency" fiat, and an ever
more martial-society? We've seen this movie before; in fact it's still playing – in
Israel. Without implying that Israel, as an entity, is somehow "evil," theirs was simply not
a path the US need or ought to have gone down.
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
In the nearly two decades since its passing, the AUMF has been cited at least
41 times in some 17 countries and on the high seas . The
specified nations-states included Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey,
Niger, Cameroon, and the broader African "Sahel Region" – which presumably also covers
the unnamed, but real, US troop presence in
Nigeria, Chad and Mali. That's a lot of unnecessary digressions – missions that
haven't, and couldn't, have been won. All of that aggression abroad predictably boomeranged
back home , in the
guise of freedoms constrained, privacy surveilled, plus cops and culture militarized.
Inevitably, just a few days ago, every publication, big and small, carried obligatory and
ubiquitous 9/11 commemoration pieces. Far fewer will even note the AUMF anniversary. Yet it
was the US government's response – not the attacks themselves – which most
altered American strategy and society. For in dutifully deciding on immediate military
retaliation, a "global war," even, on a tactic ("terror") and a concept ("evil") at that,
this republic fell prey to the Founders' great
obsession . Unable to agree on much else, they shared fears that the nascent American
experiment would suffer Rome's " ancestral curse " of ambition
– and its subsequent path to empire. Hence, Benjamin Franklin's supposed
retort to a crowd question upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, on
just what they'd just framed: "A republic, if you can keep it!"
Yet perhaps a modern allegory is the more appropriate one: by signing on to an endless
cycle of tit-for-tat terror retaliation on 9/14, We the People's representatives chose the
Israeli path. Here was a state forged
by the sword that it's consequently lived by ever since,
and may well die by – though the cause of death, no doubt, would likely be
self-inflicted. The first statutory step towards Washington transforming into Tel Aviv was
that AUMF sanction 19 years ago tonight.
No doubt, some militarist fantasies came far closer on the heels of the September 11th
suicide strikes: According to notes taken by aides,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld waited a whole five hours after Flight 77 impacted his
Pentagon to instruct subordinates to gather the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to
hit [Saddam Hussein] at same time Not only [Osama Bin Laden]." As for the responsive strike
plans, "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and
not."
Nonetheless, it was Congress' dutiful AUMF-acquiescence that made America's
Israeli-metamorphosis official. The endgame that ain't even ended yet has been dreadful. It's
almost impossible to fathom, in retrospect, but remember that as of September 14, 2001,
7,052 American troops and,
very conservatively, at least 800,000 foreigners (335,000 of them
civilians) hadn't yet – and need not have – died in the ensuing AUMF-sanctioned
worldwide wars.
Now, US forces didn't directly kill all of them, but that's about 112 September
11ths-worth of dead civilians by the very lowest estimates – perishing in wars of
(American) choice. That's worth reckoning with; and needn't imply a dismissive attitude to
our 9/11 fallen. I, for one, certainly take that date rather seriously.
My 9/11s
There are more than a dozen t-shirts hanging in my closet right now that are each
emblazoned with the phrase "Annual Marty Egan 5K Memorial Run/Walk." This event is
held back in the old neighborhood, honoring a very close family friend – a New York
City fire captain killed
in the towers' collapse. As my Uncle Steve's best bud, he was in and out of my grandparents'
seemingly communal Midland Beach, Staten Island bungalow – before Hurricane Sandy
washed many of them away – throughout my childhood. When I was a teenager, just
before leaving for West Point, Marty would tease me for being "too skinny for a soldier" in
the local YMCA weight-room and broke-balls about my vague fear of heights as I shakily
climbed a ladder in Steve's backyard just weeks before I left for cadet basic training.
Always delivered with a smile, of course.
Marty was doing some in-service training on September 11th, and didn't have to head
towards the flames, but he hopped on a passing truck and rode to his death anyway. I doubt
anyone who knew him would've expected anything less. Mercifully, Marty's body was one of the
first – and at the time, only – recovered , just two days after Congress chose war in
his, and 2,976 others' name. He was found wearing borrowed gear from engine company he'd
jumped in with.
I was a freshman cadet at West Point when I heard all of this news – left feeling so
very distant from home, family, neighborhood, though I was just a 90 minute drive north.
Frankly, I couldn't wait to get in the fights that followed. It's no excuse, really: but I
was at that moment exactly 18 years and 41 days old. And indeed, I'd spend the next 18
training, prepping, and fighting the wars I then wanted – and, ( Apocalypse
Now-style )
"for my sins" – "they gave me."
Anyway, Marty's family – and more so his memory – along with the general 9/11
fallout back home, have swirled in and out of my life ever since. In the immediate term,
after the attacks my mother turned into a sort of wake&funeral-hopper, attending
literally dozens over that first year. As soon as Marty had a headstone in Moravian Cemetery
– where my Uncle Steve once dug graves – I draped a pair of my new dog tags over
it on a weekend trip home. It was probably a silly and indulgent gesture, but it felt
profound at the time. Then, soon enough, the local street signs started
changing to honor fallen first responders – including the intersection outside my
church, renamed "Martin J. Egan Jr. Corner." (Marty used to joke , after all, that he'd graduated
from UCLA – that is, the University, corner of Lincoln Avenue, in the
neighborhood.)
Five years later, while I was fighting a war in a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do
with the 9/11 attacks, Marty's mother Pat still worked at the post office from which my own
mom shipped me countless care packages. They'd chat; have a few nostalgic laughs; then Pat
would wish me well and pass on her regards. When some of my soldiers started getting killed,
I remember my mother telling me it was sometimes hard to look Pat in the eye on the post
office trips – perhaps she feared an impending kinship of lost sons. But it didn't go
that way.
So, suffice it to say, I don't take the 9/11 attacks, or the victims, lightly. That
doesn't mean the US responses, and their results, were felicitous or forgivable. They might
even dishonor the dead. I don't pretend to precisely know, or speak for, the Egan family's
feelings. Still, my own sense is that few among the lost or their loved ones left behind
would've imagined or desired their deaths be used to justify all of the madness, futility,
and liberties-suppression blowback that's ensued.
Nevertheless, my nineteen Septembers 11th have been experienced in oft-discomfiting ways,
and my assessment of the annual commemorations, rather quickly began to change. By the tenth
anniversary, a Reuters reporter spent a couple of days on the base I commanded in
Afghanistan. At the time the outpost sported a flag gifted by my uncle, which had previously
flown above a New York Fire Department house. I suppose headquarters sent the journalist my
way because I was the only combat officer from New York City – but the brass got more
than they'd bargained for. By then, amidst my second futile war "surge," and three more of
the lives and several more of the limbs of my soldiers lost on this deployment, I
wasn't feeling particularly sentimental. Besides, I'd already turned – ethically and
intellectually – against what seemed to me demonstrably hopeless and counterproductive
military exercises.
Much to the chagrin of my career-climbing lieutenant colonel, I
waxed a bit (un)poetic on the war I was then fighting – "against farm boys with
guns," I not-so-subtly styled it – and my hometown's late suffering that ostensibly
justified it. "When I see this place, I don't see the towers," I said, sitting inside my
sandbagged operations center near the Taliban's very birthplace in Kandahar province. Then
added: "My family sees it more than I do. They see it dead-on, direct. I'm a professional
soldier. It's not about writing the firehouse number on the bullet. I'm not one for
gimmicks." It was coarse and a bit petulant, sure, but what I meant – what I
felt – was that these wars, even this " good " Afghan
one (per President Obama), no longer, and may never have, had much to do with 9/11, Marty, or
all the other dead.
The global war on terrorism (GWOT, as it was once fashionable to say) was but a reflex for
a sick society pre-disposed to violence, symptomatic of a militarist system led by a
government absent other ideas or inclinations. Still, I flew that FDNY flag – even
skeptical soldiers can be a paradoxical lot.
Origin Myths: Big Lies and Long Cons
Although the final approved AUMF
declared that "such acts [as terrorism] continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," that wasn't then, and
isn't now, even true . The toppled towers, pummeled Pentagon, and flying suicide
machines of 9/11 were no doubt an absolute horror; and such visions understandably clouded
collective judgment. Still, more sober
statistics demonstrate, and sensible strategy demands, the prudence of perspective.
From 1995 to 2016, a total of 3,277 Americans have been killed in terrorist acts on US
soil. If we subtract the 9/11 anomaly, that's just 300 domestic deaths – or 14 per
year. Which raises the impolite question: why don't policymakers talk about terrorism the
same way they do shark attacks or lightning strikes? The latter, incidentally, kill an average of 49
Americans annually. Odd, then, that the US hasn't
expended $6.4 trillion, or more than 15,000 soldier and contractor lives ,
responding to bolts from the blue. Nor has it kicked off or catalyzed global wars that have
directly killed – by that conservative estimate – 335,000 civilians.
See, that's the thing: for Americans, like the Israelis, some
lives matter more than others. We can just about calculate the macabre life-value ratios
in each society. Take Israel's 2014 onslaught on the Gaza Strip. In its fifty-day onslaught
of Operation Protective Edge, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)
killed 2,131 Palestinians – of whom 1,473 were identified as civilians, including
501 children. As for the wildly inaccurate and desperate Hamas rocket strikes that the IDF
"edge" ostensibly "protected" against: those killed a whopping four civilians. To review:
apparently one Israeli non-combatant is worth 368 Palestinian versions. Now, seeing as
everything – including death-dealing is "bigger in Texas" – consider the macro
American application. To wit, 3,277 US civilians versus 335,000 foreign innocents equals a
cool 102-to-1 quotient of the macabre.
Such formulas become banal realities when one believes the big lies undergirding the
entire enterprise. Here, Israel and America share origin myths that frame the long con of
forever wars. That is, that acts of terror with stateless origins are best responded to with
reflexive and aggressive military force. In my first ever published article
– timed for Independence Day 2014 – I argued that America's post-9/11 "original
sin" was framing its response as a war in the first place. As a result, I – then a
serving US Army captain – concluded, "In place of sound strategy, we've been handed our
own set of martyrs: more than 6,500 dead soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines." More than
500 American troopers have died since, along with who knows how many foreign civilians. It's
staggering how rare such discussions remain in mainstream discourse.
Within that mainstream, often the conjoined Israeli-American twins even share the same
cruelty cheerleaders. Take the man that author Belen Fernandez not inaccurately
dubs "Harvard Law School's resident psychopath:" Alan Dershowitz. During Israel's brutal
2006 assault on Lebanon, this armchair-murderer took to the pages of the Wall Street
Journal with a column titled " Arithmetic of Pain ."
Dershowitz argued for a collective "reassessment of the laws of war" in light of
increasingly blurred distinctions between combatants and civilians. Thus, offering official
"scholarly" sanction for the which-lives-matter calculus, he unveiled the concept of a
"continuum of 'civilianality." Consider some of his cold and callous language:
Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents – babies,
hostages at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide
material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the
terrorists politically, or spiritually.
Got that? Leaving aside Dershowitz's absurd assumption that there are loads of
Palestinians just itching to volunteer as "human shields," it's clear that when conflicts are
thus framed – all manner of cruelties become permissible.
In Israel, it begins with stated policies of internationally- prohibited
collective punishment. For example, during the 2006 Lebanon War that killed exponentially
more innocent Lebanese than Israelis, the IDF chief of staff's announced
intent was to deliver "a clear message to both greater Beirut and Lebanon that they've
swallowed a cancer [Hezbollah] and have to vomit it up, because if they don't their country
will pay a very high price." It ends with Tel Aviv's imposition of an abusive
calorie-calculus on Palestinians.
In 2008, Israeli authorities actually
drew up a document computing the minimum caloric intake necessary for Gaza's residents to
suffer (until they yield), but avoid outright starvation. Two years earlier, that wonderful
wordsmith Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that
Israeli policy was designed "to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of
hunger."
Lest that sound beyond the pale for we Americans, recall that it was the first female
secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who ten years earlier said of 500,000 Iraqi
children's deaths under crippling U.S. sanctions: "we think, the price is worth it."
Furthermore, it's unclear how the Trump administration's current sanctions-
clampdown on Syrians unlucky enough to live in President Bashar al Assad-controlled
territory is altogether different from the "Palestinian diet."
After all, even one of the Middle East Institute's resident regime-change-enthusiasts,
Charles Lister, recently admitted
that America's criminally-euphemized "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act" may induce a
"famine." In other words, according to two humanitarian experts
writing on the national security website War on the Rocks , "hurting the very
civilians it aims to protect while largely failing to affect the Syrian government
itself."
It is, and has long been, thus: Israeli prime ministers and American presidents, Bibi and
The Donald, Tel Aviv and Washington – are peas in a punishing pod.
Emergencies as Existences
In both Israel and America, frightened populations finagled by their uber-hawkish
governments acquiesce to militarized states of "emergencies" as a way of life. In seemingly
no time at all, the latest U.S. threshold got so low that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
matter-of-factly
declared one to override a congressional-freeze and permit the $8.1 billion sale of
munitions to Gulf Arab militaries. When some frustrated lawmakers asked the State
Department's inspector general to investigate, the resultant report
found that the agency failed to limit [Yemeni] civilian deaths from the sales –
most bombed by the Saudi's subsequent arsenal of largesse. (As for the inspector general
himself? He was "
bullied ," then fired, by Machiavelli Mike).
Per the standard, Israel is the more surface-overt partner. As the IDF-veteran author Haim
Bresheeth-Zabner writes in his new book , An Army Like
No Other: How the Israel Defense Forces Made a Nation , Israel is the "only country in
which Emergency Regulations have been in force for every minute of its existence."
Perhaps more worryingly, such emergency existences boomerang back to militarized
Minneapolis and Jerusalem streets alike. It's worth nothing that just five days after the
killing of George Floyd, an Israeli police officer
gunned down an unarmed, autistic, Palestinian man on his way to a school for the
disabled. Even the 19-year-old killer's 21-year-old commander (instructive, that)
admitted the cornered victim wasn't a threat. But here's the rub: when the scared and
confused Palestinian man ran from approaching police at 6 a.m. , initial officers
instinctually reported a potential "terrorist" on the loose.
Talk about global terror coming home to roost on local streets. And why not here in the
States? It wasn't but two months back that President Trump labeled peaceful
demonstrators in D.C., and nationwide protesters
tearing down Confederate statues, as "terrorists." That's more than a tad troubling,
since, as noted, almost anything is permissible against terrorists, thus tagged.
In other words, the Israeli-American, post-9/11 (or -9/14) militarized connections go
beyond the cosmetic and past sloganeering. Then again, the latter can be instructive. In the
wake of the latest Jerusalem police shooting, protesters in Israel's Occupied Territories
held up placards declaring solidarity with Black Lives Matter (BLM). One read:
"Palestinians support the black intifada." Yet the roots of shared systemic injustices run
far deeper.
Though it remains impolitic to say so here in the US,
both "BLM and the Palestinian rights movement are [by their own accounts] fighting
settler-colonial states and structures of domination and supremacy that value, respectively,
white and Jewish lives over black and Palestinian ones." They're hardly wrong.
All-but-official apartheid reigns in
Occupied Palestine, and a de-facto two-tier system
favoring Jewish citizens, prevails within Israel itself. Similarly, the US grapples with
chattel slavery's legacy, lingering effects institutional Jim Crow-apartheid, and its
persistent system of gross, if unofficial, socio-economic racial disparity.
Though there are hopeful rumblings in post-Floyd America, neither society has much
grappled with the immediacy and intransigency of their established and routine devaluation of
(internal and external) Arab and African lives. Instead, in another gross similarity,
Israelis and Americans prefer to laud any ruling elites who even pretend towards mildly
reformist rhetoric (rather than action) as brave peacemakers.
In fact, two have won the Nobel Peace Prize. In America, there was the untested Obama: he
the
king of drones and free-press-suppression – whose main qualification for the award
was not being named George W. Bush. In Israel, the prize went to late Prime Minister Shimon
Peres. According to Bresheeth-Zabner, Peres was the "mind behind the military-industrial
complex" in Israel, and also architect of the infamous
1996 massacre of 106 people sheltering at a United Nations compound in South Lebanon. In
such societies as ours and Israel's, and amidst interminable wars, too often politeness
passes for principle.
Military Mirrors
Predictably, social and cultural rot – and strategic delusions – first
manifest in a nation's military. Neither Israel's nor America's has a particularly impressive
record of late. The IDF won a few important wars in its first 25 years of existence, then
came back from a near catastrophic defeat to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War; but since
then, it's at best muddled through near-permanent lower-intensity conflicts after invading
Southern Lebanon in 1978. In fact, its 22-year continuous counter-guerilla campaign there
– against Palestinian resistance groups and then Lebanese Hezbollah – slowly bled
the IDF dry in a quagmire often called " Israel's
Vietnam ." It was, in fact, proportionally more deadly
for its troops than America's Southeast Asian debacle – and ended (in 2000) with an
embarrassing unilateral withdrawal.
Additionally, Tel Aviv's perma-military-occupation of the Palestinian territories of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip hasn't just flagrantly violated
International law and several UN resolutions – but blown up in the IDF's face. Ever
since vast numbers of exasperated and largely abandoned (by Arab armies) Palestinians rose up
in the 1987 Intifada
– initially peaceful protests – and largely due to the IDF's counterproductively
vicious suppression, Israel has been trapped in endless imperial policing and
low-to-mid-level counterinsurgency.
None of its major named military operations in the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip –
Operations Defensive Shield (2002), Days of Penitence (2004), Summer Rains (2006), Cast Lead
(2008-09), Pillar of Defense (2012), Protective Edge (2014), among others – has
defeated or removed Hamas, nor have they halted the launch of inaccurate but persistent
Katyusha rockets.
In fact, the wildly disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians in each and every
operation, and the intransigence of Israel's ironclad occupation has only earned Tel Aviv
increased international condemnation and fresh generations of resistors to combat. The IDF
counts minor tactical successes and suffers broader strategic failure. As even a fairly
sympathetic Rand report on the Gaza operations
noted, "Israel's grand strategy became 'mowing the grass' – accepting its inability to
permanently solve the problem and instead repeatedly targeting leadership of Palestinian
militant organizations to keep violence manageable."
The American experience has grown increasingly similar over the last three-quarters of a
century. Unless one counts modern trumped-up Banana
Wars like those in Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989), or the lopsided 100-hour First
Persian Gulf ground campaign (1991), the US military, too, hasn't won a meaningful victory
since 1945. Korea (1950-53) was a grinding and costly draw; Vietnam (1965-72) a quixotic
quagmire; Lebanon (1982-84) an unnecessary and muddled
mess ; Somalia (1992-94) a mission-creeping fiasco;
Bosnia/Kosovo (1992-) an over-hyped and unsatisfying diversion. Yet matters deteriorated
considerably, and the Israeli-parallels grew considerably, after Congress chose
endless war on September 14, 2001.
America's longest ever war, in Afghanistan, started as a seeming slam dunk but has turned
out to be an intractable operational defeat. That lost cause has been a
dead war walking for over a decade. Operations Iraqi Freedom (2003-11) and Inherent
Resolve (2014-) may prove, respectively, America's most counterproductive and aimless
missions ever. Operation Odyssey Dawn, the 2011 air campaign in pursuit of Libyan regime
change, was a debacle – the entire region still grapples with its
detritus of jihadi profusion, refugee dispersion, and ongoing proxy war.
US support for the Saudi-led terror war on Yemen hasn't made an iota of strategic sense,
but has left America criminally
complicit in immense civilian-suffering. Despite the hype, the relatively young US Africa
Command (AFRICOM) was never really "about Africans," and its dozen years worth of far-flung
campaigns have only further militarized a long-suffering continent and
generated more terrorists. Like Israel's post-1973 operations, America's post-2001 combat
missions have simply been needless, hopeless, and counterproductive.
Consider a few other regrettable U.S.-Israeli military connections over these last two
decades:
Both have set their loudly proclaimed principles aside and made devil's bargains
with the venal Saudis (many of whom really do hate our values), as well as with
the cynical military coup-artists in Egypt.
Both have increasingly engaged in " wars of choice
" and grown reliant on the snake oil of "magical" air power to [not] win them. In fact,
during the 2006 war there, the IDF's first-ever air force officer to serve as chief of
staff declared
his intent to use such sky power to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years." How's
that for the head of a force that still styles
itself "the most moral army in the world." It's hard to see much moral difference
between that and America's ever-secretive drone program (perhaps 14,000 total strikes) and
the US government's constant and purposeful underreporting of the thousands of civilians
they've killed.
Both vaunted militaries broke their supposedly unbreakable backs in ill-advised
invasions built on false pretenses. The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld has famously
called
Israel's 1982 Lebanon War – and the quagmire that resulted – his country's
"greatest folly." The mainstream US national security analyst Tom Ricks – hardly a
dove himself – went a step further: the 2003 "American military adventure in Iraq"
was nothing short of a Fiasco
.
Both armies have seen their conventional war competence and ethical standards
measurably deteriorate amidst lengthy militarized-policing campaigns. As van Creveld said
of the IDF during the 1982 Lebanon invasion (after it enabled
the vicious massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian militiamen: it was reduced from
the superb fighting force of a "small but brave people" into a "high-tech, but soft,
bloated, strife-ridden, responsibility-shy and dishonest army."
The wear and tear from the South Lebanon occupation and from decades of beating up on
downtrodden and trapped Palestinians damaged Israel's vaunted military. According to an
after-action review, these operations"weakened the IDF's operational capabilities." Thus,
when Israel's nose was more than a bit bloodied in the 2006 war with Hezbollah, IDF analysts
and retired officers were quick – and not exactly incorrect – to blame the
decaying effect of endless low-intensity warfare.
At the time, two general staff members, Major Generals Yishai Bar and Yiftach Ron-Tal,
"warned that as a result of the preoccupation with missions in the territories, the IDF had
lost its maneuverability and capability to fight in mountainous terrain." Van Creveld added
that: "Among the commanders, the great majority can barely remember when they trained for and
engaged in anything more dangerous than police-type operations."
Similar voices have sounded the
alarm about the post-9/11 American military. Perhaps the loudest has been my fellow West
Point History faculty alum, retired Colonel Gian Gentile. This former tank battalion
commander and Iraq War vet described "America's deadly embrace of counterinsurgency" as a
Wrong
Turn . Specifically, he's
argued that "counterinsurgency has perverted [the way of] American war," pushed the
"defense establishment into fanciful thinking," and thus "atrophying [its] core fighting
competencies."
Instructively, Gentile
cited "The Israeli Defense Forces' recent [2006] experience in Lebanon There were many
reasons for its failure, but one of them, is that its army had done almost nothing but
[counterinsurgency] in the Palestinian territories, and its ability to fight against a
strident enemy had atrophied." Maybe more salient was Gentile's other
rejoinder that, historically, "nation-building operations conducted at gunpoint don't
turn out well" and tend to be as (or more) bloody and brutal as other wars.
Finally, and related to Gentile's last point, both militaries fell prey to the
brutality and cruelty so common in prolonged counterinsurgency and counter-guerilla combat.
Consider the resurrected utility of that infamous adage of
absurdity mouthed by a US Army major in Vietnam: "it became necessary to destroy the
town to save it." He supposedly meant the February 1968 decision to bomb and shell the city
of Ben Tre in the Mekong Delta, regardless of the risk to civilians therein.
Fast forward a decade, and B?n Tre's ghost was born again in the matter-of-fact admission
of the IDF's then chief of staff, General Mordecai Gur. Asked if, during its 1978 invasion of
South Lebanon, Israel had bombed civilians "without discrimination," he
fired back : "Since when has the population of South Lebanon been so sacred? They know
very well what the terrorists were doing. . . . I had four villages in South Lebanon
bombarded without discrimination." When pressed to confirm that he believed "the civilian
population should be punished," Gur's retort was "And how!" Should it surprise us then, that
33 years later the concept was
rebooted to flatten presumably (though this has been contested) booby-trapped villages in
my old stomping grounds of Kandahar, Afghanistan?
In sum, Israel and America are senseless strategy-simpatico. It's a demonstrably
disastrous two-way relationship. Our main exports have been guns – $142.3 billion
worth since 1949 (significantly more than any other recipient) – and twin umbrellas
of air defense and
bottomless diplomatic top-cover for Israel's abuses. As to the top-cover export, it's not for
nothing that after the U.S. House rubber-stamped – by a vote of 410-8 – a 2006
resolution (written by the Israel Lobby) justifying IDF attacks on Lebanese civilians, the
"maverick" Republican Patrick Buchanan labeled the legislative body as " our
Knesset ."
Naturally, Tel Aviv responds in kind by shipping America a how-to-guide for societal
militarization, a built-in foreign policy script to their benefit, and the unending ire of
most people in the Greater Middle East. It's a timeless and treasured trade – but it
benefits neither party in the long run.
"Armies With Countries"
It was once
said that Frederick the Great's 18th century Prussia, was "not a country with an army,
but an army with a country." Israel has long been thus. It's probably still truer of them
than us. The Israelis do, after all, have an immersive system of military conscription
– whereas Americans leave the
fighting, killing, and dying to a microscopic and
unrepresentative Praetorian Guard of professionals. Nevertheless, since 9/11 – or,
more accurately, 9/14/2001 – US politics, society, and culture have wildly militarized.
To say the least, the outcomes have been unsatisfying: American troops haven't "won" a
significant war 75 years. Now, the US has set appearances aside once and for all and "
jumped the shark "
towards the gimmick of full-throated imperialism.
There are, of course, real differences in scale and substance between America and Israel.
The latter is the size
of Massachusetts, with the population of New
York City. Its "Defense Force" requires most of its of-age population to wage its offensive
wars and perennial policing of illegally occupied Palestinians. Israeli society is more
plainly "
prussianized ." Yet in broader and bigger – if less blatant – ways, so is the
post-AUMF United States. America-the-exceptional leads the world in legalized
gunrunning and overseas military
basing . Rather than the globe's self-styled "
Arsenal of Democracy ," the US has become little more than the arsenal of arsenals. So,
given the sway of the behemoth military-industrial-complex and recent Israelification of its
political culture, perhaps it's more accurate to say America is a defense industry with a
country – and not the other way around.
As for 17 year-old me, I didn't think I'd signed up for the Israeli Defense Force on that
sunny West Point morning of July 2, 2001. And, for the first two months and 12 days of my
military career – maybe I hadn't. I sure did serve in its farcical facsimile, though:
fighting its wars for an ensuing 17 more years.
Yet everyone who entered the US military after September 14, 2001 signed up for just that.
Which is a true tragedy.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.comHis work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
"... He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish? ..."
"... And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries? ..."
"... My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. ..."
"... Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank. ..."
"... If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots. ..."
"... The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades. ..."
"... Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan. ..."
"... The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it. ..."
"... There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones. ..."
"... I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern. ..."
"... Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy. ..."
"... When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause. ..."
"... But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice. ..."
"... the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables ..."
"... The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. ..."
It is clear that the heat has gone away in the fabled "Arab Street" over the issue of
Israel. If that were not so, the rulers would not have dared to do this. That being so ... It
will be very interesting to see how many people from these two countries go to Israel to
visit holy sites like the al-Aqsa Mosque. There have not been many religious tourists from
Egypt and Jordan. This is what the Israelis call pilgrims. Trump thinks that he can bring
Saudi Arabia into such a deal? Good! Let's see it. He thinks that Iran can be brought into
such a deal? Wonderful! Let's see it.
He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that
something we should relish?
And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad
two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of
Pompeo and Jeffries?
I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the
UAE.
I suspect this has less to do with peace and more to do with lining up a coalition against
Iran. He's signing peace deals at the white house the same day he not only threatens Iran for
a make believe assassination plot against our South African Ambassador, but admits he wanted
to assassinate Assad.
He's making a big mistake though if he thinks Iranians will behave and respond similarly
to the Arabs, and they are certainly not North Koreans.
He's being frog marched into a war with Iran while his ego is being stroked under the
guise of a Nobel peace prize.
What say about Alastair Crooke's "Maintaining Pretence Over Reality: 'Simply Put, the
Iranians Outfoxed the U.S. Defence Systems'" at Strategic Culture Foundation?
My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how
much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and
Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. The other issue is the degree with which Arab
elites can "reroute" Anti Israeli into Anti Iranian sentiments on the Arab street.
Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza
=! West Bank.
If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit
Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress
and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the
higher helots.
I think this will be fairly hard though. Various Historical, religion and cultural issues
specific to the situation make it quite hard for Arabs to actually assimilate into Israeli
society. There is also a lack of a unifying foe to unite against. If you look at relatively
successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was
threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause.
The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a
little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and
away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades.
The TDS afflicted media couldn't bear that some lemonade was made. Wolf Blitzer
interviewing Jared Kushner was all about pandemic nothing about the implications or process
to having couple gulf sheikhs recognize Israel. The fact is that these gulf sheikhs only paid
lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in any case. This formalizes what was reality.
The "Arab Street" have always been a manifestation of whatever were powerful manipulations.
The manipulators have been coopted in the current lemonade making. In any case Bibi must be
very pleased. He didn't have to give up anything in his difficult domestic political
predicament.
The arabs simply do not care anymore, from Morocco to Oman. Their spirit totally broken by
the "Arab spring", youth disillusioned and jobless. The only dream left for most is to ape
the western lifestyle. The others are fighting in wars.
I can see one of two futures, a Clean Break: Securing the Realm-style one in which all of the arabs live life as helots under the
thumb of a Greater Israel. This would bring relative economic prosperity to most of the
helots.
I think I see the flaw in this article: ..."If that turns out to be the case and this
maneuver succeeds in ultimately bringing about a two state solution for Israel and the
Palestinians,"...
Surely you don't believe that these maneuvers are intended to bring about a Palestinian
state?
The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab
states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but
closes to it.
There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst
the less accurate ones.
One running theme that I have been seeing from the former so-called neocon critics and ME
wars opponents (Michael Scheuer comes to mind) is their uncontrollable exhilaration for any
terrible so-called F.P. 'success' that the Trump admin achieves in the ME.
I also remember
when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it
a national security success. This is shameful pattern.
Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz
(Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians
United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American
interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this
outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy.
It it exactly what it is. Israel normalized relations with the most notorious
dictatorships and wants to implement Pegasus spying program and wide-scale surveillance
(among other nefarious things) in UAE and Bahrain. How is that a success for America? America
should stay out of these Israeli-first trouble making schemes and stay neutral or out of
there.
Let me tell you what a F.P. success is, OK? It would have been a huge success if America
was able to lure Iran into its orbit to fend of the Chinese communists out of the region and
out of our lives and have a stronger alliance with regards to its upcoming Cold War with
China.
It would have been successful for America to balance China out with Iran, India,
Turkey and Afghanistan, and not let China to invest billions in Haifa port (close to U.S.
military forces there) a major hub of its Belt and Road initiative and a huge blow to U.S.
new Cold war effort against China.
Think about it.
Allow me to raise a few points: first of all , every single one of these brutal backward
Arab dictatorships has had low key but crucial relations with Israel since the Cold War and
they just made it open, Big deal! Second, this joyfulness for a hostile anti-american country
is quite sad for two reasons:
1. that Larry touts it as a success for America, which is
anything but a success for America. It is a success for Bibi and Trump's evangelical/zionist
sugar daddies to cough up some Benjamins for Trump's campaign and his GOP/Likudniks. I guess
nowadays our judgement is so clouded and inverted that MAGA and MIGA are considered
inseparable.
2. The delusion that dems are bitterly angry and anti-Israel (because they are
anti-Trump) and therefore it automatically becomes an issue of partisan support for Trump and
whatever he does. This idea is so absurd that I won't get into it. Dems were the first to
congratulate Israel.
I would like Larry to tell me what he thinks of H.R. 1697 Israel Anti-Boycot Act which
punishes American citizens for practicing their god-given 2nd Amendment rights. or the 3.8
billion of aid, or the the gifting of Golan heights to Bibi? Are these big foreign policy
success too?
What the Arab-Israeli normalization means:
*The U.S. wants out of the ME to focus on China, a wet dream that Israel favors especially
post Cold War. It does not want secular, (semi) democratic sovereign states around it, and if
anyone pays attention close enough they do whatever they can to prevent any kind of political
reform and change of government to occur among Arab nations. Israelis are staunch supporters
of Saudi, Bahraini, UAE, Jordanian, and Egyptian dictatorships in the MENA region.
Israel
will now be better positioned to roll-back any kind of grassroots reform in the ME with the
help of their now openly pro-Israeli Arab rulers by directing policies to these backward
rulers to divest from human development and political reform and instead invest more in
security, tech, surveillance.
This trend also explains Israeli constant opposition to the
Iran Deal, which would have had further ramifications for political reform and accelerated
weakening of Hardliners in Tehran and a better position for America to pivot to China with
the help of a moderated Iran. Israel does not want a powerful democratic nation near its
borders, and especially not in Iran. Just take a look at Israel's neighbors and tell me how
many of them are democratic and friendly with Israel and how does Israel behave when there
are secular Arab democratic states around it?
There is a developing coalition of powerful states as a reaction to the Arab-Israeli
normalization that observers call "the rejectionists". They are, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan
(impending), Malaysia (impending), Iran, and EU (impending).
It is true that Iran has now a target on its back and if it were smart, it would try its
best to develop some kind of alliance with the secular democratic humanists in EU to try to
remove itself from isolation, save what is left of the Iran Deal, and try to isolate and
condemn Israelis, Arab dictators and their cohorts internationally and through diplomacy back
portraying them as illiberal and anti-democratic or similar things. Although I am not too
hopeful that Iran is be able to do this for a number of obvious reasons.
This Arab-Israeli normalization is a MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) vision of very
tightly controlled development for the MENA region and extremely' special' attention has been
given to the cyber tech development (call it surveillance) to control the 'Arab Street' from
social revolt and the prevention of next rounds of Arab Springs, which again goes back to
Israel's long-standing regional doctrine of propping pro-U.S. and now pro-Israeli Arab
dictatorships in the region.
In the end, it's all just tribal superstition. Logically a spiritual absolute would be the
essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we
fell.
The fact we are aware, than the myriad details of which we are aware.
One of the reasons we can't have a live and let live world is because everyone thinks their
own vision should be universal, rather than unique. So the fundamentalists rule.
The reason nature is so diverse and dense is because it isn't a monoculture.
Irrespective of our technology, we are still fairly primitive, in the grand scheme of
things.
When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in
history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty
highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or
used as that cause.
If this all ends up in the longest run leading to today's and tomorrow's Israelis
accepting the lesser Israel that Rabin ended up deciding would be necessary for a
lesser-but-still-real Palestine to emerge as a real country resigned with both resigned
enough to that outcome that they would tolerate eachother's separate independence over the
long term, then this will go somewhere good.
But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is
totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for
ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That
outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice.
To have a two state solution Israel will have to leave enough of Palestine without Jewish
settlement for there to be room for another state. Their actions show that they have no
intention of doing that.
Larry: the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad
enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats.
Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never
going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and
water tables)
The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push
this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. The gerontocracy that rules the PA will soon pass away. The younger generation of
Palestinians are much more sophisticated.
As a trial lawyer, I see this type of behavior all the time. If you offer someone
essentially nothing, they lose nothing by rejecting it. The Arab dictators will not be around forever. And before Camp David, the Palestinians
have suffered far worse than they are suffering now.
In short: "We Jews know that Arabs (Palestinians) will never, ever voluntarily give up
hope of resisting Jewish demands, and Jews will never stop with Jewish demands: that all of
Palestine become Jewish.
Since 'voluntary' will not work, only force -- an Iron Wall -- will suffice.
Jabotinsky defines "Iron Wall" as the enforcement capacity of an outside power:
"we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their
voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the
natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism.
Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in
defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue
and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population
– an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto,
our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour
Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power
committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be
deterred from interfering with our efforts."
Be aware that Benjamin Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was Jabotinsky's administrative
assistant, then replacement, in New York; that Bibi is very much heir to the ideological
fervor of Jabotinsky & of Benzion; and that Benzion and Benjamin laid out the blueprint
for the GWOT at the Jerusalem Conference July 4, 1979 https://www.amazon.com/International-Terrorism-Challenge-Benjamin-Netanyahu/dp/0878558942
Trump plays only a walk-on role in this carefully scripted 150 year old zionist drama.
"there isn't a lot of difference between KSA and these fiefdoms of uae and bahrain.." A
total crock. you obviously have never been to either of these places.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
...Amid all the pedantic squabbling over when it is and is not legal under US law for a
journalist to expose evidence of US war crimes, we must never lose sight of the fact that (A)
it should always be legal to expose war crimes, (B) it should always be illegal for governments
to hide evidence of their war crimes, (C) war crimes should always be punished, (D) people who
start criminal wars should always be punished, (E) governments should not be permitted to have
a level of secrecy that allows them to start criminal wars, and (F) power and secrecy should
always have an inverse relationship to one another.
The Assange case needs to be fought tooth and claw, but we must keep in mind that it is so
very, very many clicks back from where we need to be as a civilization. In an ideal situation,
governments should be too afraid of the public to keep secrets from them; instead, here we are
begging the most powerful government in the world to please not imprison a journalist because
he arguably did not break the rules that that government made for itself.
Do you see how far that point is from where we need to be?
It's important to remember this. It's important to remember that the amount of evil deeds
power structures will commit is directly proportional to the amount of information they are
permitted to hide from the public. We will not have a healthy world until power and secrecy
have an inverse relationship to each other: privacy for rank-and-file individuals, and
transparency for governments and their officials.
"But what about military secrets?" one might object. Yes, what about military
secrets? What about the fact that virtually all military violence perpetrated by the world's
largest power structures is initiated based on lies ? What about the utterly indisputable fact that the
more secrecy we allow the war machine, the more wars it deceives the public into allowing it to
initiate?
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't be trying to squint at
its own laws in such a way that permits the prosecution of a journalist for telling the
truth.
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't prosecute anyone for
telling the truth at all.
In a healthy world, governments would prosecute their own war crimes, instead of those who
expose them.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't commit war crimes at all.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't start wars at all.
In a healthy world, governments would see truth as something to be desired and actively
sought, not something to be repressed and punished.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't keep secrets from the public, and wouldn't have any
cause to want to.
In a healthy world, if governments existed at all, they would exist solely as tools for the
people to serve themselves, with full transparency and accountability to those people.
We are obviously a very, very far cry from the kind of healthy world we would all like to
one day find ourselves in. But we should always keep in mind what a healthy world will look
like, and hold it as our true north for the direction that we are pushing in.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reality007 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, no criminals that have committed or covered up war crimes, decades ago to
present, will ever be indicted. They are all above the law while all innocents that revealed
the truths must pay highly. We can only pray and hope for the best for Julian Assange.
Fred Dozer Reality007 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with robbing banks in criminal controlled countries. These governments,
murder, cheat, lie, & steal.
T. Agee Kaye 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 11:10 AM
The right of a people to know what their government is doing, and the potential consequences
of those actions on the people, nation, and society, is inalienable. The exposure of war
crimes and any corruption is not illegal and cannot be made illegal. The trial of Assange is
not about the legality of Assange's actions. It is a display of the influence that criminal
interests have over the government and judiciary. It is an attempt to create legitimacy by
creating precedent. Murder has plenty of precedent. It will never be legitimate.
Jewel Gyn 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:21 AM
Agreed but having said that, we are not living in a perfect world. Bully with big fists exist
and the lesser countries just stood by frustrated and sucking their thumbs, silent lest they
be targeted for voicing out. And you can see clearly why US is walking away from any form of
organised voice eg UN.
Odinsson 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:51 AM
What we need in the case of Julian Assange is factual reporting. While the motivation to
prosecute Assange is most likely political, there would be no ability to prosecute him were
it not for his active support of PFC Manning's hacking of a DOD information system. It is not
unlawful to publish classified information which was provided to you, so long as you are not
involved in the criminal acts leading to the exfiltration of the data. Had Assange not aided
PFC Manning by looking up hash codes in spreadsheets of known password to hash code
translations then the grand jury would not have indicted him. FWIW, it is my opinion that the
statute of limitations expired long ago and this should be grounds for dismissal of all
charges against him.
jholf 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:04 PM
These world leaders, claim to be Christians, ... their God 'commands', "Thou shalt not kill."
Yet, for more than 6 decades, that is exactly what each of these Christian Commanders in
Chief, have done for no reason, other than to fill the pockets of the elite. A man is known
by his deeds, Assange gave us truth, while these world leaders gave us war and destructi
I always assumed that Trump was the candidate of MIC in 2016 elections, while Hillary was the
candidate of "Intelligence community." But it looks like US military is infected with desperados
like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts.
But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable
fully please them despite all his efforts. Military desperados are not interested in how many
American they deprived of decent standard of living due to outside military expenses. All they
want is to dominate the word and maintain the "Full Spectrum Dominance" whatever it costs.
It is Trump's tortured relationship with the military that stands out the most, especially
as told through the eyes of former Secretary of Defense Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired marine
general. It is clear that Bob Woodward spent hours speaking with Mattis -- the insights,
emotions and internal voice captured in the book show a level of intimacy that could only be
reached through in-depth interviews, and Woodward has a well-earned reputation for getting
people to speak to him.
The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the US' standing as the
defender of a rules-based order -- built on the back of decades-old alliances -- that had been
in place since the end of the Second World War.
It also makes it clear that Mattis and the military officers he oversaw placed defending
this order above implementing the will of the American people, as expressed through the free
and fair election that elevated Donald Trump to the position of commander-in-chief. In short,
Mattis and his coterie of generals knew best, and when the president dared issue an order or
instruction that conflicted with their vision of how the world should work, they would do their
best to undermine this order, all the while confirming to the president that it was being
followed.
This trend was on display in Woodward's telling of Trump's efforts to forge better relations
with North Korea. At every turn, Mattis and his military commanders sought to isolate the
president from the reality on the ground, briefing him only on what they thought he needed to
know, and keeping him in the dark about what was really going on.
In a telling passage, Woodward takes us into the mind of Jim Mattis as he contemplates the
horrors of a nuclear war with North Korea, and the responsibility he believed he shouldered
when it came to making the hard decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used or not.
Constitutionally, the decision was the president's alone to make, something Mattis begrudgingly
acknowledges. But in Mattis' world, he, as secretary of defense, would be the one who
influenced that decision.
Mattis, along with the other general officers described by Woodward, is clearly gripped with
what can only be described as the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'.
What defines this 'syndrome' is perhaps best captured in the words of Emma Sky, the female
peace activist-turned adviser to General Ray Odierno, the one-time commander of US forces in
Iraq. In a frank give-and-take captured by Ms. Sky in her book 'The Unravelling', Odierno spoke
of the value he placed on the military's willingness to defend "freedom" anywhere in the world.
" There is, " he said, " no one who understands more the importance of liberty and
freedom in all its forms than those who travel the world to defend it ."
Ms. Sky responded in typically direct fashion: " One day, I will have you admit that the
[Iraq] war was a bad idea, that the administration was led by a radical neocon program, that
the US's standing in the world has gone down greatly, and that we are far less safe than we
were before 9/11. "
Odierno would have nothing of it. " It will never happen while I'm the commander of
soldiers in Iraq ."
" To lead soldiers in battle ," Ms. Sky noted, " a commander had to believe in the
cause. " Left unsaid was the obvious: even if the cause was morally and intellectually
unsound.
his, more than anything, is the most dangerous thing about the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'
as captured by Bob Woodward -- the fact that the military is trapped in an inherited reality
divorced from the present, driven by precepts which have nothing to with what is, but rather by
what the military commanders believe should be. The unyielding notion that the US military is a
force for good becomes little more than meaningless drivel when juxtaposed with the reality
that the mission being executed is inherently wrong.
The 'Military Messiah Syndrome' lends itself to dishonesty and, worse, to self-delusion. It
is one thing to lie; it is another altogether to believe the lie as truth.
No single
general had the courage to tell Trump allegations against Syria were a hoax
The cruise missile attack on Syria in early April 2017 stands out as a case in point. The
attack was ordered in response to allegations that Syria had dropped a bomb containing the
sarin nerve agent on a town -- Khan Shaykhun -- that was controlled by Al-Qaeda-affiliated
Islamic militants.
Trump was led to believe that the 59 cruise missiles launched against Shayrat Airbase --
where the Su-22 aircraft alleged to have dropped the bombs were based -- destroyed Syria's
capability to carry out a similar attack in the future. When shown post-strike imagery in which
the runways were clearly untouched, Trump was outraged, lashing out at Secretary of Defense
Mattis in a conference call. " I can't believe you didn't destroy the runway !",
Woodward reports the president shouting.
" Mr. President ," Mattis responds in the text, " they would rebuild the runway in
24 hours, and it would have little effect on their ability to deploy weapons. We destroyed the
capability to deploy weapons " for months, Mattis said.
" That was the mission the president had approved, " Woodward writes, clearly
channeling Mattis, " and they had succeeded ."
The problem with this passage is that it is a lie. There is no doubt that Bob Woodward has
the audio tape of Jim Mattis saying these things. But none of it is true. Mattis knew it when
he spoke to Woodward, and Woodward knew it when he wrote the book.
There was no confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syria at Khan Shaykhun. Indeed, the
forensic evidence available about the attack points to the incident being a false flag effort
-- a successful one, it turns out -- on the part of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists to
provoke a US military strike against Syria. No targets related to either the production,
storage or handling of chemical weapons were hit by the US cruise missiles, if for no other
reason than no such targets could exist if Syria did not possess and/or use a chemical weapon
against Khan Shaykhun.
Moreover, the US failed to produce a narrative of causality which provided some underlying
logic to the targets that were struck at Khan Shaykhun -- "Here is where the chemical weapons
were stored, here is where the chemical weapons were filled, here is where the chemical weapons
were loaded onto the aircraft." Instead, 59 cruise missiles struck empty aircraft hangars,
destroying derelict aircraft, and killing at least four Syrian soldiers and up to nine
civilians.
The next morning, the same Su-22 aircraft that were alleged to have bombed Khan Shaykhun
were once again taking off from Shayrat Air Base -- less than 24 hours after the US cruise
missiles struck that facility. President Trump had every reason to be outraged by the
results.
But the President should have been outraged by the processes behind the attack, where
military commanders, fully afflicted by 'Military Messiah Syndrome', offered up solutions that
solved nothing for problems that did not exist. Not a single general (or admiral) had the
courage to tell the president that the allegations against Syria were a hoax, and that a
military response was not only not needed, but would be singularly counterproductive.
But that's not how generals and admirals -- or colonels and lieutenant colonels -- are
wired. That kind of introspective honesty cannot happen while they are in command.
Bob Woodward knows this truth, but he chose not to give it a voice in his book, because to
do so would disrupt the pre-scripted narrative that he had constructed, around which he bent
and twisted the words of those he interviewed -- including the president and Jim Mattis. As
such, 'Rage' is, in effect, a lie built on a lie. It is one thing for politicians and those in
power to manipulate the truth to their advantage. It's something altogether different for
journalists to report something as true that they know to be a lie.
On the back cover of 'Rage', the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Robert Caro is quoted from
a speech he gave about Bob Woodward. " Bob Woodward ," Caro notes, " a great
reporter. What is a great reporter? Someone who never stops trying to get as close to the truth
as possible ."
After reading 'Rage', one cannot help but conclude the opposite -- that Bob Woodward has
written a volume which pointedly ignores the truth. Instead, he gives voice to a lie of his own
construct, predicated on the flawed accounts of sources inflicted with 'Military Messiah
Syndrome', whose words embrace a fantasy world populated by military members fulfilling
missions far removed from the common good of their fellow citizens -- and often at conflict
with the stated intent and instruction of the civilian leadership they ostensibly serve. In
doing so, Woodward is as complicit as the generals and former generals he quotes in misleading
the American public about issues of fundamental importance.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff
during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter
Whichever construct you want to believe, the fact remains that US has continued to sow
instability around the world in the name of defending the liberty and freedom. Which brings
to the question how the world can continue to allow a superpower to dictate what's good or
bad for a sovereign country.
Johan le Roux Jewel Gyn 18 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:42 AM
The answer you seek is not in the US's proclaimed vision of 'democracy' ot 'rescuing
populations from the clutches of vile dictators.' They just say that to validate their
actions which in reality is using their military as a mercenary force to secure and steal the
resources of countries.
Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 04:57 PM
Bob Woodward was enshrined as a great, heroic like journalist by the Hollywood propaganda
machine, but reality is he is a US Security agent pretending to be a well informed/connected
journalist. And indeed, he is well informed/connected, since he was a Naval intelligence man,
part responsible of the demise of the Nixon administration when it fell out of grace with the
powerful elites, and the Washington Post being well connected with the CIA, the rest is
history. And as they say, once a CIA man, always a CIA man.
That is correct. Woodward is a Naval intelligence man. The elite in the US was not happy
about Nixon's foreign policy and his detante with the Soviet Union. Watergate was invented,
and Nixon had nothing to do with it. However, it brought him down, thank's to Woodward.
NoJustice Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:48 PM
But he also exposed Trump's lies about Covid-19.
lectrodectus 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:45 AM
Another first class article by ....Scott .. The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump
as a threat to the Us' standing as the defender of a " rules -based order -built on the back
of decades -old alliances-that had been in place since the end of the second World War". It
also makes it clear that " Mattis and the Military officials he oversaw placed defending this
order above the implementing the will of the American People " These old Military Dinosaurs
simply can't let go of the past, unfortunately for the American people / the World I can't
see anything ever changing, it will be business as usual ie, war after War after War.
Jonny247364 lectrodectus 5 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:53 PM
Just because donny signs a dictact it does not equate to the will of the americian people.
The americian people did not ask donny to murder Assad.
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:56 PM
"a threat to the US’ standing as the defender of a rules-based order –" Who made
that a thing? who voted for the US to be the policeman of the planet? and who said their
"rules" are right? I sure didn't, nor did anyone I know, even my american friends don't know
whose idea it was!
fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
It's interesting to note that every president since J.F.K. has got America into a military
conflict, or has turned a minor conflict into a major one. Trump is the exception. Trump
inherited conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria etc) but has not started a new one, and he has spent
his three years ending or winding down the conflicts he had inherited.
NoJustice fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:34 PM
Trump increased military deployment to the Middle East. He increased military spending. He
had a foreign general assassinated. He had missiles fired into Syria. He vetoed a bill that
would limit his authority to wage war. Trump is not an exception.
T. Agee Kaye 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:59 PM
Good op ed. 'Rage is built on a lie' applies to many things.
E_Kaos T. Agee Kaye 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:46 PM
True, the beginning of a new narrative and the continuation of an old narrative.
PYCb988 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 07:25 PM
Something's amiss here. Mattis was openly telling the press that there was no evidence
against Assad. Just Google: Mattis Newsweek Assad.
erniedouglas 12 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:14 AM
What was Watergate? Even bet says there were tapes of a private relationship between Nixon
and BB Rebozo.
allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:03 PM
Continuation of a highly organized and tightly controlled disinformation campaign to do one
singularly the most significant and historically one of the most illegal act of American
betrayal... overthrow American elections at any and all costs to install one of the most
deranged, demoralized sold out brain dead Biden and his equally brown nosing Harris only to
unseat a legally and democratically elected US president according to our Constitution! Will
their evil acts against America work? I doubt it! But at a price that America has never
before seen. Let's sit back and watch this Rose Bowl parade of America's dirtiest of the
dirty politics!
E_Kaos allan Kaplan 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:49 PM
"brown nosing harris", how apropos with the play on words.
Bill Spence allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
Both parties and their politicians are totally corrupt. Why would anyone support one side
over the other? Is that because you believe the promises and lies?
custos125 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:35 AM
Is there any evidence that both Mattis and Woodward knew that the allegations of a Syrian use
of chemical weapons by plane were not true, a false flag? On the assumption of this use, the
capacity to fly such attack and deploy such weapons was destroyed for some time. I recommend
reading of Rage, it is quite interesting, even if some people will not like it and try to
keep people away from the book.
E_Kaos custos125 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:58 PM
My observations were: 1 - where were the bomb fragments 2 - why use rusted gas cylinders 3 -
how do you attach a rusted gas cylinder to a plane 4 - were the rusted gas cylinders tossed
out of a plane 5 - how did the rusted gas cylinders land so close to each other My conclusion
- False Flag Incident
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:58 PM
The is only one threat to peace in the world, and it's the US/Israeli M.I.C.. War mongering
children, who actually believe, against all reason, that they are the most worthy and
entitled race on earth! they are not. The US has been responsible for more misery in the
world than any other state, which isn't surprising given how many Nazi's were resettled there
by the Jews. They are also the only Ppl on the planet who think a nuclear war is winnable!
How strange is that!
NoJustice 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:22 PM
So everything is a lie because Woodward didn't mention that there was no evidence found that
linked the Syrian government to the chemical attack?
Strongbo50 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:58 PM
The left is firing up the Russian Interference narrative again, how Russia is trying to take
the election. The real truth is in plain sight, The main stream media is trying to deliver
Biden a win, along with google yahoo msn facebook and twitter. I say, come on Russia, if you
can help stem that tide of lies please Mr Putin help. That's a joke but the media is real.
And Woodward in his old age wants one more trophy on his mantle.
CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:41 PM
Trump has become the great white whale. Seems like there are Ahab's everywhere willing to
shoot their hearts upon the beast to bring it down whatever the cost. I think it was this
kind of rage and attitude that got Adolf off to a good start.
NoJustice CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:44 PM
He's an easy target because he keeps screwing up.
Gryphon_ 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:59 PM
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Never in my life have I seen a
newspaper that lies as much as the post. Bob Woodward works for the post.
Crisis of neoliberal undermines the USA supremacy and the US elite hangs by the stras to the Full Specturm Domionanc edoctrine,
whih it now can't enforce and which is financially unsustainable for the USA.
Collapse of neoliberalism means the end of the USA supremacy and the whole political existence on the USA was banked on this
single card.
Notable quotes:
"... In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential," bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily. ..."
"... In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands, we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well. ..."
"... There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic opposition to communism. ..."
"... Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism. ..."
The international order is no longer bipolar, despite the elites' insistence otherwise.
Fortunately there is hope for change.
Despite its many failings and high human, social, and economic costs, American foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War has shown a remarkable degree of continuity and
inflexibility. This rather curious phenomenon is not limited to America alone. The North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment from Washington D.C. to London, which some have aptly
dubbed the "blob," has doggedly championed the grand strategic framework of "primacy" and armed
hegemony, often coated with more docile language such as "global leadership," "American
indispensability," and "strengthening the Western alliance."
In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian
Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In
fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when
it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential,"
bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily.
On the Left, and in the wake of
President Trump's election, the Democratic establishment began fixating its wrath on
Russia–adopting a confrontational stance toward Moscow and fueling fears of a renewed
Cold War. On the Right, the realigning GOP has increasingly, if at times inconsistently,
singled out China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, a hostile attitude further
exacerbated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alarmingly, Joe Biden, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has recently joined the hawkish bandwagon toward China, even attempting
to outflank Trump on this issue and attacking the president's China policy as too weak and
accommodating of China's rise.
In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate
lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive
forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called
on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands,
we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict
between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for
realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well.
Indeed, the dominant tendency among many foreign policy observers is to overprivilege the
threat of rising superpowers and to insist on strong containment measures to limit the spheres
of influence of the so-called revisionist powers. Such an approach, coupled with the prospect
of ascendant powers actively resisting and confronting the United States as the ruling global
hegemon, has one eminent International Relations scholar warning of the Thucydides Trap.
There are others, however, who insist that the structural shifts undermining the liberal
international order mark the end of U.S. hegemony and its "unipolar moment." In realist terms,
what Secretary Esper really means to protect, they would argue, is a conception of
"rules-based" global order that was a structural by-product of the Second World War and the
ensuing Cold War and whose very rules and institutions were underwritten by U.S. hegemony. This
would be an exercise in folly -- not corresponding to the reality of systemic change and the
return of great power competition and civilizational contestation.
What's more, the sanctimony of this "liberal" hegemonic order and the logic of democratic
peace were both presumably vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian
system, a black swan event that for many had heralded the "end of history" and promised the
advent of the American century. A great deal of lives, capital, resources, and goodwill were
sacrificed by America and her allies toward that crusade for liberty and universality, which
was only the most recent iteration of a radically utopian element in American political thought
going back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Alas, as it had eluded earlier generations of
idealists, that century never truly arrived, and neither did the empire of liberty and
prosperity that it loftily aimed to establish.
Today, the emerging reality of a multipolar world and alternate worldviews championed by the
different cultural blocs led by China and Russia appears to have finally burst the bubble of
American Triumphalism, proving that the ideas behind it are "not simply obsolete but absurd."
This failure should have been expected since the very project the idealists had espoused was
built on a pathological "savior complex" and a false truism that reflected the West's own
absolutist and distorted sense of ideological and moral superiority. Samuel Huntington might
have been right all along to cast doubt on the long-term salience of using ideology and
doctrinal universalism as the dividing principle for international relations. His call to
focus, instead, on civilizational distinction, the permanent power of culture on human action,
and the need to find common ground rings especially true today. Indeed, fostering a spirit of
coexistence and open dialogue among the world's great civilizational complexes is a fundamental
tenet of a cultural realism.
And yet, despite such permanent shifts in the global order away from universalist
dichotomies and global hegemony and toward culturalism and multi-polarity, there exists a
profound disjunction between the structural realities of the international system and the often
business-as-usual attitude of the North Atlantic foreign policy elites. How could one explain
the astonishing levels of rigidity and continuity on the part of the "blob" and the
military-industrial-congressional complex regularly pushing for more adventurism and
interventionism abroad? Why would the bipartisan primacist establishment, which their allies in
the mainstream media endeavor still to mask, justify such illiberal acts of aggression and
attempts at empire by weaponizing the moralistic language of human rights, individual liberty,
and democracy in a world increasingly awakened to arbitrary ideological framing?
There are, of course, systemic reasons behind the power and perpetuation of the blob and the
endurance of primacy. The vast economic incentives of war and its instruments, institutional
routinization and intransigence, stupefaction and groupthink of government bureaucracy, and the
significant influence of lobbying efforts by foreign governments and other vested interest
groups could each partly explain the remarkable continuity of the North Atlantic foreign policy
establishment. The endless stream of funding from the defense industry, neoliberal and
neoconservative foundations, as well as the government itself keeps the "blob" alive, while the
general penchant for bipartisanship around preserving the status quo allows it to thrive. What
is more, elite schools produce highly analytic yet narrowly focused and conventional minds that
are tamed to be agreeable so as to not undermine elite consensus. This conveyor belt feeds the
"blob," supplying it with the army of specialists, experts, and wonks it requires to function
as a mind melding hive, while in practice safeguarding employment for the career bureaucrats
for decades to come.
There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable
persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a
Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The world might have changed fundamentally with the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989, the bipolar structure of the international system might have ended irreversibly, but the
personnel -- the Baby Boomer Generation elites conducting foreign policy in the North Atlantic
-- did not leave office or retire with the collapse of the USSR. They largely remain in power
to this day.
Every generation is forged through a formative crisis, its experiences seen through the
prism that all-encompassing ordeal. For the incumbent elites, that generational crisis was the
Cold War and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation. The dualistic paradigm of the
international system during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry bred an entire generation to see the world
through a black-and-white binary. It should come as no surprise that this era elevated the
idealist strain of thought and the crusading, neo-Jacobin impulse of U.S. foreign policy
(personified by Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson) to new, ever-expanding heights. Idealism
prizes a nemesis and thus revels in a bipolar order.
Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment
that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of
the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the
past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of
the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the
system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of
exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic
opposition to communism.
Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize
and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological
superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism.
After all, a nemetic zeitgeist during which ideology reigned supreme and realism was routinely
discounted was tailor-made for dogmatic absolutism and moral universalism. In such a zero-sum
strategic environment, it was only natural to demand totality and frame the ongoing
geopolitical struggle in terms of an existential opposition over Good and Evil that would quite
literally split the world in two.
Today, that same kind of Manichean thinking continues to handicap paradigmatic change in
foreign policy. A false consciousness, it underpins and promotes belief in the double myths of
indispensability and absolute exceptionality, suggesting that the North Atlantic bloc holds a
certain monopoly on all that is good and true. It is not by chance that such pathological
renderings of "exceptionalism" and "leadership" have been wielded as convenient rationale and
intellectual placeholders for the ideology of empire across the North Atlantic. This sense of
ingrained moral self-righteousness, coupled with an attitude that celebrates activism,
utopianism, and interventionism in foreign policy, has created and reinforced a culture of
strategic overextension and imperial overreach.
It is this very culture -- personified and dominated by the Baby Boomers and the blob they
birthed -- that has made hawkishness ubiquitous, avoids any real reckoning as to the limits of
power, and habitually belittles calls for restraint and moderation as isolationism. In truth,
however, what has been the exceptional part in the delusion of absolute exceptionalism is Pax
Americana, liberal hegemony, and the hubris that animates them having gone uncontested and
unchecked for so long. That confrontation could begin in earnest by directly challenging the
Boomer blob itself -- and by propagating a counter-elite offering a starkly different
worldview.
Achieving such a genuine paradigm shift demands a generational sea-change, to retire the old
blob and make a better one in its place. It is about time for the old establishment to forgo
its reign, allowing a new younger cohort from among the Millennial and post-Millennial
generations to advance into leadership roles. The Millennials, especially, are now the largest
generation of eligible voters (overtaking the Baby Boomers) as well as the first generation not
habituated by the Cold War; in fact, many of them grew up during the "unipolar moment" of
American hegemony. Hence, their generational identity is not built around a dualistic alterity.
Free from obsessive fixation on ideological supremacy, most among them reject total global
dominance as both unattainable and undesirable.
Instead, their worldview is shaped by an entirely different set of experiences and
disappointments. Their generational crisis was brought on by a series of catastrophic
interventions and endless wars around the world -- chief among them the debacles in Afghanistan
and Iraq and the toppling of Libya's Gaddafi -- punctuated by repeated onslaughts of financial
recessions and domestic strife. The atmosphere of uncertainty, instability, and general chaos
has bred discontent, turning many Millennials into pragmatic realists who are disenchanted with
the system, critical of the pontificating establishment, and naturally skeptical of lofty
ideals and utopian doctrines.
In short, this is not an absolutist and complacent generation of idealists, but one steeped
in realism and a certain perspectivism that has internalized the inherent relativity of both
power and truth. Most witnessed the dangers of overreach, hubris, and a moralized foreign
policy, so they are actively self-reflective, circumspect, and restrained. As a generation,
they appear to be less the moralist and the global activist and more prudent, level-headed, and
temperamentally conservative -- developing a keen appreciation for realpolitik, sovereignty,
and national interest. Their preference for a non-ideological approach in foreign policy
suggests that once in power, they will be less antagonistic and more tolerant of rival powers
and accepting of pluralism in the international system. That openness to civilizational
distinction and global cultural pluralism also implies that future Millennial statesmen will
subscribe to a more humble, less grandiose, and narrower definition of interest that focuses on
securing core objectives -- i.e., preserving national security and recognizing spheres of
influence.
Reforming and rehabilitating the U.S. foreign policy establishment will require more than
policy prescriptions and comprehensive reports: it needs generational change. To transform and
finally "rein in" North Atlantic foreign policy, our task today must be to facilitate and
expedite this shift. Once that occurs, the incoming Millennials should be better positioned to
discard the deep-seated and routinized ideology of empire, supplanting it with a greater
emphasis on partnership that is driven by mutual interests and a general commitment to sharing
the globe with the world's other great cultures.
This new approach calls for America to lead by the power of its example, exhibiting the
benefits of liberty and a constitutional republic at home, without forcibly imposing those
values abroad. Such an outlook means abandoning the coercive regime change agendas and the
corrosive projects of nation-building and democracy promotion. In this new multipolar world,
America would be an able, dynamic, and equal participant in ensuring sustainable peace
side-by-side the world's other great powers, acting as "a normal country in a normal time."
Reflecting the spirit of republican governance authentically is far more pertinent now and
salutary for the future of the North Atlantic peoples than is promulgating the utopian image of
a shining city on a hill.
Arta Moeini is research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a postdoc
fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Dr. Moeini's latest project advances a
theory of cultural realism as a cornerstone to a new understanding of foreign policy.
The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy will be co-sponsoring "The Future of Grand Strategy
in the Post-COVID World," with TAC, tonight at 6 p.m. ET. Register for free here
.
"... But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing consent: "It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative." ..."
"... In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion". This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or, if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses like a shepherd, to its will. ..."
"... It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west, especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but "presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession. ..."
"... While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information) leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such presstitution. ..."
"... Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia? Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it? Why is a new civil war in the US promoted? ..."
"... Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come together and unite, at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included. For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's. ..."
"... Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb. Not worth to pay attention to it. ..."
"... Other than few independent blog site such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket. ..."
"... Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new phenomenon. These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft. ..."
"... Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence "their" captive government. ..."
"... What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train. ..."
"... In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights, people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much. ..."
"... I've been saying for years here to watch the documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations, Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s ..."
Every few days U.S. 'intelligence' and 'officials' produce fake claims about this or that
'hostile' country. U.S. media continue to reproduce those claims even if they bare any logic
and do not make any sense.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Post published fake news
about
alleged Russian payments to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops.
[T]hat the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings
and new
sanctions on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June
2, just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead .
...
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Despite that the Democrats
continued to use the fake story for attacks on Donald Trump.
Yesterday the commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East
drove a stake though the heart of the dead corpse of the original story:
Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian
government
bribed the Taliban to kill American service members , the commander of troops in the
region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate
the existence of such a program.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
But as one fake news zombie finally dies others get resurrected. Politico's
'intelligence' stenographer Natasha Bertrand produced
this nonsensical claim :
The Iranian government is weighing an assassination attempt against the American ambassador
to South Africa, U.S. intelligence reports say, according to a U.S. government official
familiar with the issue and another official who has seen the intelligence.
News of the plot comes as Iran continues to seek ways to retaliate for President Donald
Trump's decision to kill a powerful Iranian general earlier this year, the officials said. If
carried out, it could dramatically ratchet up already serious tensions between the U.S. and
Iran and create enormous pressure on Trump to strike back -- possibly in the middle of a
tense election season.
U.S. officials have been aware of a general threat against the ambassador, Lana Marks,
since the spring, the officials said. But the intelligence about the threat to the ambassador
has become more specific in recent weeks. The Iranian Embassy in Pretoria is involved in the
plot, the U.S. government official said.
Ambassador Lana Marks is known for selling overpriced handbags and for her donations to Trump's campaign.
To Iran she has zero political or symbolic value. There is no way Iran would ever think about
an attack on such a target. Accordingly the South African intelligence services
do not believe that there is such a threat:
South African Minister of State Security Ayanda Dlodlo said the matter was "receiving the
necessary attention" and that the State Security Agency (SSA) was "interacting with all
relevant partners both in the country and abroad, to ensure that no harm will be suffered by
the US Ambassador, including any other Diplomatic Officials inside the borders of our
country."
However, an informed intelligence source told Daily Maverick that although the
"matter has been taken seriously as we approach all such threats, specifically, there appears
to be, from our perspective, no discernible threat. Least of all from the source that it
purports to emanate from.
There was "no evidence or indicator", the source said, so the plot was "not likely to be
real". The "associations made are not sustainable on any level but all precautions will be
put in place".
The source suggested this was an instance of the "tail wagging the dog", of the Trump
administration wielding a "weapon of mass distraction" to divert attention from its failures
in the election campaign running up to President Donald Trump's re-election bid on November
3.
The spokesperson for the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs, Saeed Khatibzadeh, strongly
denied the allegation in the Politico report which he called "hackneyed and worn-out
anti-Iran propaganda".
In January the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Soleimani
led the external campaigns of the Iranian Quds Forces. He was the one who orchestrated the
campaign that defeated the Islamic State. His mythic-symbolic position for Iran and the
resistance in the Middle East is beyond that of any U.S. figure.
There is simply no one in the U.S. military or political hierarchy who could be seen as his
equal. Iran has therefore announced that it will take other ways to revenge the assassination
of Soleimani.
As an immediate response to the assassination of Soleimani Iran
had launched a precise missile attack against two U.S. bases in Iraq. It has also announced
that it will make sure that the U.S. military will have to leave the Middle East. That program
is in full swing now as U.S. bases in Iraq are again coming under
daily missile attacks :
More than eight months after a barrage of rockets killed an American contractor and wounded
four American service members in Kirkuk, Iraq, militia groups continue to target U.S.
military bases in that country, and the frequency of those attacks has increased.
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of the
U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be cutting its
footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about
2,200 troops leaving the country .
Just hours agon two Katyusha rockets were fired against the U.S.
embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone. Two British/U.S.convoys also came under attack . U.S. air
defense took the missiles down but its anti-missile fire is only further disgruntling the Iraqi
population.
These attacks are still limited and designed to not cause any significant casualties. But
they will continue to increase over time until the last U.S. soldier is withdrawn from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other Middle East countries. That, and only that, is the
punishment Iran promised as revenge for Soleimani's death.
The alleged Iranian thread against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa is just another fake
news propaganda story. It is useful only for lame blustering:
According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack,
against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani, which
was carried out for his planning a future attack, murdering U.S. Troops, and the death &
suffering...
...caused over so many years. Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will
be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!
The danger of such fake stories about Russia or Iran is that they might be used to justify a
response in the case of a false flag attack on the alleged targets.
Should something inconvenient happen to Ambassador Lana Marks the Trump administration could
use the fake story as an excuse to respond with a limited attack on Iran.
It is well known by now that U.S. President Donald Trump is lying about every time he opens
his mouth. Why do U.S. journalists presume that the agencies and anonymous officials who work
under him are more truthful in their utterings than the man himself is hard to understand. Why
do they swallow their bullshit?
Posted by b on September 15, 2020 at 11:50 UTC |
Permalink
US and European journalists are also lying constantly, that's why. Even when they make
embarrassing attempts at "being unbiased" or "factual". Do they understand it? Many might
not, but some do, perhaps fewer than anyone would think reasonable.
Btw a lot of these "journalists" in Europe in particular openly self-identify to "the
left" or even as socialists and communists or "greens". So much for ideology as some kind of
solution: entirely worthless and superficial.
But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission
accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing
consent:
"It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the
more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative."
Just for laughs, I looked at the reviews of Gordon Chang's book, 'The Coming Economic
Collapse of China' to see if I could figure out the reasoning and one of the reviewers said
that China weakens because they lack a free press to hold their govt accountable. I had a
good laugh at that one.
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion".
This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or,
if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses
like a shepherd, to its will.
Friedrich von Hayek - a colleague of Popper and father of British neoliberalism (the man
behind Thatcher) - then developed on the issue, by proposing the institutionalization of
public opinion. He proposed a system of three or four tiers of intellectuals which a
capitalist society should have. The first tier is the capitalist class itself, who would
govern the entire world anonymously, through secret meetings. These meetings would produce
secret reports, whose ideas would be spread to the second tier. The second tier is the
academia and the more prominent politicians and other political leaderships. The third tier
is the basic education teachers, who would indoctrinate the children. The fourth tier is the
MSM, whose job is to transform the ideas and opinions of the first tier into "common sense"
("public opinion").
Therefore, it's not a case where the Western journalists are being fooled. Their job was
never to inform the public. When they publish a lie about, say, Iran trying to kill an
American ambassador in South Africa, they are not telling a lie in their eyes: they are
telling an underlying truth through one thousand lies. The objective here is to convince
("teach") the American masses it is good for the USA if Iran was invaded and destroyed (which
is a truth). They are like the modern Christian God, who teach its subjects the Truth through
"mysterious ways".
It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west,
especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and
stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but
"presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession.
Unfortunately they have been amazingly successful in brainwashing people. One current
example, from numerous ones that could be cited, is the public's opinion on Julian Assange.
.
While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable
effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their
acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information)
leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such
presstitution.
What I am saying is nothing new to the bar flies here. But I am extremely distressed when
I see how poorly informed (propagandized, brainwashed) the vast majority of the people I know
are. Let's say a decade ago, ideological polarization was the main reason why it was so
difficult to have an open discussion on important issues the US. Today it has become even
more difficult because, thanks to the success of the presstitutes, people also have different
sets of "facts". And most alarmingly, after successfully creating a readership who believe in
alternative "facts", the mainstream presstitutes are moving on to creating a logic-free
narrative. Examples include Assad supposedly gassing his people when he was winning (even
though that was guaranteed to produce western intervention against him). A more recent
example is the Navalny affair. Sadly, very sadly, way too many people are affected.
Hi, thanks, and sorry, but: why does nobody look behind the curtain?
Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia?
Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it?
Why is a new civil war in the US promoted?
Are these random developments of history? Are laws of history behind that?
NO!! Surely not!
Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come
together and unite,
at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included.
For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's.
If something is going against the common sense, then there should be a reason behind.
This reason I recommend You, with due respect, to find - and to uncover the plan.
Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb.
Not worth to pay attention to it.
The actual demand is to understand and to show the forces playing deep underwater.
And to preview where these forces are determined to strike against.
A new report showing that US state-level voter databases were publicly available calls into
question the narrative that Russian intelligence "targeted" US state election-related
websites in 2016.
The problem with these sorts of accusations about "state-sponsored" hacking is they assume
that because a target has some connection to a state or some political activity that it means
the hackers are "nation-state". In reality, personal identification information (PII) is a
commodity on the black market, along with intellectual property - and *any* hacker will
target *any* such source of PII. So the mere fact that it is an election year, and that
voting organizations are loaded with PII, makes them an obvious target for any and every
hacker.
"Oregon's chief information security officer, Lisa Vasa, told the Washington Post in
September 2017 that her team blocks 'upwards of 14 million attempts to access our network
every day."'
This is the usual ridiculous claim from almost every organization. They treat every
Internet packet that hits their firewall as being an "attempt to access" the network (or
worse, a "breach" - which it is not.) Which is technically true, but would only be relevant
if they had *no* firewall - a setup which no organization runs these days. By definition,
99.99999% of those attempts are random mass scans of a block of IP addresses by either a
hacker or some malware on someone else's machine - or even a computer security researcher
attempting to find out how many sites are vulnerable.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
Barflies should write Gen Frank McKenzie inside the back cover of their diaries, and count
the days until we hear of/from him again. I've a feeling he's crossed a line and knows
precisely what he's doing and why. Imo, the Swamp has just been put on notice.
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of "public opinion".
vk, I can't find anything regarding this coinage. Could you please provide a link.
Wiki is specially devoid of it and it goes back to 16 century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion
The term public opinion was derived from the French opinion publique which was first used in
1588 by Michel de Montaigne in the second edition of his Essays
Thank you, b. In this world of illusion that mainstream press provides it is forgivable that
we cannot even convince members of our own families that are dear to us of the underlying
truths behind what these masters of deception continue to print. Surely they only do so
because livelihoods are threatened, and the public perceptions are reaching a critical point
where belief in what they write, read by the diminishing numbers of faithful few, reaches a
pinnacle of perception and spills chaotically down into a watershed of realization.
I remember when we were told what happens on the top floor of the New York Times. It
opened my eyes. And perhaps here also, b is providing a chink through which we may glimpse
what is happening in military circles in fields of operation where facts collide with
fiction:
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander
of the U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be
cutting its footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about 2,200
troops leaving the country.
On Hayek's "tiering", google "IHS model" ("pyramid of social change") and his book "The
Intellectuals and Socialism".
On Popper's conception of "public opinion", see "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945).
Yes, the term itself is not Popper's invention - he never claimed to have done so. But he
gave it a "twist", and we can say nowadays every Western journalist's conception of "public
opinion" is essentially Popper's.
because on matters related to Iran, China and Russia, they are not independent, there is
no real difference between the two camps in US, Biden' foreign policy which is endorsed and
supported by NYT and WP is not that different than Trump's, if not more radical. There is no
free press in US, as matter of fact, as long as this United Oligarchy of America exist there
will be no free press.
As well, this fake news propaganda barrage continues in the context of determined censorship
of alternative media and social media - a campaign which has been largely promoted by the
liberal intelligentsia in the US, in the name of reducing "fake news."
Having to live within an ever-widening swamp of utter BS is wearying and mind-numbing - also
to the point, one may assume.
Yes, I agree, IMO/observation, the US Government, the political parties and their supportive
media are rapidly ideologically polarizing their constituencies to two hard entrenched
ideological camps (which as you say has become hard shelled impenetrable). Except on one
common ideological point, which almost all the population has been and is being brain washed
as young as first grade, this common used term, which shield you from needing to investigate
or form any other opinion is: US has always been, is and will be a "force for good" by its
constitution, no matter what she has done or will do. This sentence when fully believed and
carved in one' mind from childhood is very difficult to erase and crack. These two
ideologically opposing camps about 70% of the population will not want to hear any fact or
not, other than what they are told and believed all their life.
"Unlike utopian engineering, piecemeal social engineering must be "small scale," Popper
said, meaning that social reform should focus on changing one institution at a time. Also,
whereas utopian engineering aims for lofty and abstract goals (for example, perfect justice,
true equality, a higher kind of happiness), piecemeal social engineering seeks to address
concrete social problems (for example, poverty, violence, unemployment, environmental
degradation, income inequality). It does so through the creation of new social institutions
or the redesign of existing ones. These new or reconfigured institutions are then tested
through implementation and altered accordingly and continually in light of their effects.
Institutions thus may undergo gradual improvement overtime and social ills gradually reduced.
Popper compared piecemeal social engineering to physical engineering. Just as physical
engineers refine machines through a series of small adjustments to existing models, social
engineers gradually improve social institutions through "piecemeal tinkering." In this way,
"[t]he piecemeal method permits repeated experiments and continuous readjustments" (Open
Society Vol 1., 163).
Only such social experiments, Popper said, can yield reliable feedback for social
planners. In contrast, as discussed above, social reform that is wide ranging, highly complex
and involves multiple institutions will produce social experiments in which it is too
difficult to untangle causes..."
So Top-Down with a vengeance, but softly, softly, hunting for 'good results', for what and
how these are defined is left out entirely, and who exactly runs the process...? (Btw China
sorta follows this approach with 'social experiments' gathering data that is analysed etc. to
improve governance.)
Don't forget that the only time the Amerikastani Empire's warmongering imperialist media
called Trump "presidential" was when he launched missiles at Syria on false pretences in
support of al Qaeda.
The statement by praetor McKenzie probably won't do much to remove the "Russian bounties"
tale from the received Beltway belief structure, where it lodged immediately upon
publication, any more than earlier refutations, or its inherent implausibility, did. I see
the bounties regularly referred to by Dems and Dem-adjacent media as established fact.
In the same light, it's worthwhile to read the Politico article on the alleged Iranian
designs on the purse princess and try to spot other fictions included as supposedly factual
background, some qualified as being American assertions, but others presented as undisputed
fact, such as:
Trump's version of the almost-happened retaliation after Iran downed a U.S. drone
that the attack that killed a U.S. "contractor" in Iraq that started last winter's
U.S./Iran tit-for-tat was "by an Iranian-allied militia"
Soleimani was responsible for the death of numerous U.S. troops
Soleimani plotted to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi ambassador in
Washington (remember that one? a blast from the past)
This new one about the plot to get the ambassador in Pretoria may be too trivial to get
sustained attention, but it will show up as background in some future Politico article or the
like, joining the rest in the Beltway's version of reality, which at this point is made
almost entirely of these falsehoods encrusting on each other, decade after decade, creating
the phony geopolitical mindscape these people live in.
Mere factual refutation – even from otherwise establishment-approved sources –
won't remove these barnacles. For instance, in February the NY Times itself published a
debunking of the initial account that it was an Iran-backed Shia militia, as opposed to
Salafist I.S.-affiliated forces, that killed that U.S. contractor last December. But the good
(if delayed) reporting is forgotten; the lie persists. The same fate awaits McKenzie's
dismissal of the Russian bounties nonsense.
The thoughtful reader would at this point stop and ponder. "Fake News About Iran, Russia,
China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread". I agree with this statement. But not just U.S. Journalism. Minimally U.K. Journalism is
on-board, if not tutoring the Yanks in the art of Journalism. And then there is Europe
herself, she too has armies of Journalists and many Journals. They too mostly fake around in
general.
Now then, that leave Journalism in "Iran, Russia, China". It is fine trait to root for
underdogs but Journalism in these states is also subject to a highly controlled and managed
environment. It is disingenuous to ignore these facts.
Given this congregation of "fakers", worldwide, it is very reasonable to question the very
"fight" that these "fakers" keep telling us is on between the "adversaries".
Good to see so many being able to name the operation of the official narrative. It serves
also another purpose, witnessed by one of the most consequential actions of all, the wanton
abandonment of international law and accountability - the GWOT and the launching of same in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That other purpose is to create cover for those, elected in our name,
to avoid responsibility.
"Who knew?" asked the soulless Rumsfeld. And the refrain returned from the hollowed out
halls of the Greatest Democracy On Earth (tm) - "We were misled!", "Look it says so right
there in the official narrative, REMEMBER?" But the misleaders are never rounded up and never
face any consequences, cause truth be told all that voted for the AUMF belong in the pokey.
And the congressional class of '02-'03 would do the same thing all over again, 'cause the
narrative's got their back.
Despite the future grimness predicted by 1984 , the ability and effectiveness of Media
Structures to openly lie and thus herd the public to embrace the preferred Narrative hasn't
turned out quite the way Orwell thought it might. Former authoritarian blocs learned the hard
way that it's better to tell their citizens the truth and actively engage them in governance,
while the Anglo-Imperial powers have gone in the opposite direction, thus the question why?
IMO, the longstanding Narrative related to the mythical Dream has greatly eroded in the face
of Reality, while at the same time the Rentier Class and the Duopoly it controls needs
to try and obfuscate what it's doing. And thus we've seen the rise of BigLie Media to be used
for the purpose of Divide and Rule. There're numerous works detailing how and why; two of the
more important are Manufacturing of Consent and J is for Junk Economics . Part
of the overall process of dumbing-down populations is the deliberate destruction of the
educational process, particularly in the areas of philosophy and political-economy/history,
which are essentially connected as one when considering the History of Ideas or a sub-area
like the Philosophy of Science.
Such a dumbing-down of a nation's populous can be measured, the USSR and its Warsaw Bloc
being the most evident, but also The Inquisition and its affect on the advancement of science
within the regions it ruled, and the inward turning of China during the Ming Dynasty which
allowed for its subjugation by Western forces beginning in the 16th Century. Most recently,
this is evident in China's passing the Outlaw US Empire in terms of geoeconomics and thus
overall geopolitical power. An explanation for India's inability to match China's development
can be found in its refusal to do away with its semi-feudal caste system and not educate its
masses so they can become a similar collective dynamo as in China. At the beginning of his
brief tenure, JFK noted the Knowledge Gap that existed between a USSR that was nearing its
intellectual heights (although that wasn't known then) and the USA whose educational system
effectively excluded @60% of students from having the opportunity to advance. There would
never have been a Dot.Com economy without JFK's initiative to improve educational outcomes.
There seems to be a notion within the Outlaw US Empire's elite that an well educated populace
presents a danger to their rule and they can get by using AI and Robotics to further their
future plans. Here I'd refer such thinkers to the lessons provided by the failure of Asimov's
Galactic Empire in his Foundation series of books--particular their reliance on AI, robotics,
dumbing-down the populace to the point where no one recalls how atomics functioned. The sort
of balance sheet being constructed by the Fed cannot repair or replace crumbling
infrastructure or train the engineers needed to perform the work.
So, what continual BigLie Media lies tell us is the continued downward spiral of the
West's intellectual abilities will continue while an East that values the Truth and Discovery
moves on to eclipse it, mainly because the West has stopped trying, thinking it's found a
better way based on the continual amassing of Debt, which is seen as wealth on their balance
sheets. Ultimately, the West thinks the one person holding all the assets as the winner of
its Zero-sum Monopoly Game is a better outcome than having millions of people sharing the
winnings of a Win-Win system that promotes the wellbeing of all. I can tell you now which
philosophy will triumph, but you all ought to be capable of reasoning that outcome.
After a sound and an in-depth analysis, b sometimes confounds me with his credulity. Take
this sentence for example: "Why do U.S. journalist presume that the agencies and anonymous
officials who work under him are more truthful in their uttering than the man himself is hard
to understand. Why do swallow their bullshit?" Of course there is no daylight between the US,
and indeed the whole Western governments, and its Press. Other than few independent blog site
such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign
sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is
nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket.
You only have to look at who owns the media and who their close friends are,
to understand why the media says what it says or lies what it lies !
It's an industry promoting the elites self-interest, creating fictioous enemy countries to
feed the arms industry and create US domestic mass paranoia.
The Israeli lobby groups are at the wheel of the whole dam clown car.
Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new
phenomenon.
These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing
nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft.
No doubt the two propaganda streams will merge until we will be told that the CIA now
believes that Iran will attempt plausible deniability by funnelling the money through Putin,
who will offer it to the Taliban by way of a bounty on the Ambassador's head.
The CIA's wet dream: the Taliban does it, Putin arranged it, but it was all Iran's fault,
leading to:
A) infinite occupation of the poppy fie.... sorry, Afghanistan
B) even more sanctions on Russia
C) war with Iran
'"Public opinion", according to Bernays, is an amorphous group of judgments which are not
well elaborated even in the head of a single average individual. He extracts a quotation from
Wilfred Trotter, which states that this average man has many strong convictions whose origin
he can't explain (Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, p. 36). People's minds have
"logic-proof compartments" which must be approached by means beyond the rational. (pp.
61–68).'
Yes, I forgot to mention this very important book. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be),
Popper got the term from Bernays.
Popper, von Hayek... these guys are the fathers of neoliberalism. I'm not mentioning
backyard intellectuals here. They shaped the West as we know it today and, if you're a
Westerner and wants to understand the civilization you live in, you have to know what they
formulated.
Just to clear that off: I don't agree with Popper's (or Bernays, for that matter)
conception on "public opinion". The Marxist conception of ideology is much more complete and
precise scientifically.
Speaking of education (although of science/tach, rather than critical thinking)...
Add in the migration of top-level educated individuals. In the US, an underdeveloped
primary/secondary school system creates room at the university/grad level to absorb talent
from the rest of the world. For many years, this was a source of competitive advantage --
imported human capital is better than home grown, because if you import, you take it away
from someone else. Clever!
It was not that big a deal for the US if social mobility of native born lower and middle
classes was stifled somewhat. (and I would say it still would not be a big deal if the
resources of the country were not so grossly mismanaged/wasted/stolen).
But in the current century, or certainly the decade now ending, China alone can fill every
US grad school science/tech program and still have people to spare for itself. Other parts of
the world are right up there as well.
And then you have computers. Sometime between 2000 and 2010, computers became pretty much
cheap enough that you could give one to a every kid, even in families of limited means.
Provided the primary/secondary education system is there to support it, a country could
develop as much tech talent as they had population. The first generation of kids whose
childhood took place under this condition is now coming out of university - I would think
vastly greater in numbers than any amount the US (or Euro) higher educational system can
absorb. Should be a pretty serious shifting of gears in how human capital is distributed
worldwide.
But none of this is about critical thinking. Few systems of organizing society actually
promote that ... it tends to happen in spite of the organizing principles, rather than
because of them. Nor are the most educated (regardless of country of origin) any less
susceptible to the propaganda - if anything they are more so, due to the design of the
message, because it is more important that they receive it. You want a book recommendation
that talks about that, check out 'Disciplined Minds' by Jeff Schmidt (though perhaps with an
overly pessimistic outlook -- people can recognize the reality he describes and deal with
it... it is only the more naive/idealistic types who fall extra hard for the mythology and
then find themselves in a conflict they can't handle). There are lots of other avenues to
take too... about the psychology of self-discovery, discovery of self-vs-social-organism
etc....
Exactly that and yet we are constantly fed a diet from the bottom of the barrel. NYT?
WAPO? They are rags. Gutter press peddling drivel. Surely there are more erudite and critical
publications in this world than these USA drivel sheets. I am aware of good journalism in
Switzerland and elsewhere but currently separted from a device adequate to translate and
quote.
Thank you Conspiracy-theorist it I way past time we escaped the neverending story of BS +
HATE.
A propos fake news, John Helmer reports on the Navalny saga and was lately on the
Gorilla radio podcast with Chris Cook to discuss the newest events. It's a one-hour-talk
but very enjoyable listening to Helmer. You can also follow his reports on his blog
Dances With Bears .
Try this on for size. This is a conclusion I arrived at several decades ago, wrote about
several times, but not recently.
Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal
and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the
working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's
ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection
measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence
"their" captive government.
The princes and barons of industry and finance were very open about their complaints. The
advance of regulation on their ability to pollute and to exploit must stop or they would take
their bundles of riches and go elsewhere. It is what Saint Ronny was ALL about. And so all
that got fat and filthy rich during the real American Century took their wealth where
regulation and labor fairness and justice didn't exist to continue their exorbitant profit
taking.
And then they imported those cheap products here to wreak what was left of our industrial
base and to impress on all of us that they remain the boss, the real power. Drive down wages,
destroy pensions and safety nets and put US proles back into wage slavery. Remember the 80's
and 90's when Wal-Mart basically told established and storied US manufacturers "either you
produce the goods we want for what our Asian suppliers can make them for, or you're
finished." And that is exactly what happened. Wal-Mart was just the vanguard, it is now
ubiquitous. Another aspect of this assault was forcing us proles into the stock market
through our pensions and retirement funds so as to make us all sympathetic to de-regulation -
so as not to hurt OUR bottom line. Many labor unions became just a sick symbiosis with the
industries they "served."
Incomplete and observational, I am not erudite or lettered, but I think it is an accurate
narrative.
There is a curious schizophrenia where the U.S. press will treat presidential claims about
foreign affairs as a sacred truth but treat claims denying adultery, such as in the Lewinski
affair, as dismissible.
Living in the USA (Steve Miller classic) has always seemed to me about dealing with falsehood
and deception. US highschool seemed like he time for me when the formidable pressure to
conform became completely nonsensical, perhaps because it was so utterly cruel, but also
because it seemed untruthful. You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and
thought that seemed alien to human behavior, but were presented as the sine quo non of how to
be. How to succeed, how to live. It seems to me that if you were attempting to retain
truthfulness, this conformity was rife with logical fallacies of every sort which if you
tried to deal with them, or confront them, you were ostracized or at worst outcast.
In the many years since, it seems like everything else, once a person adopts untruthful
behavior, it is next to impossible to change course, so you deal with all kinds of people who
have doubled down on their personal deceptions. Marriages based on financial success come to
mind, and are like any deception, the cause of incredible dis ease and misey.
There is a philosophical concept I came upon called parrhesia that Foucault gives a
fantastic series of lectures on which can be found by searching the web, that investigates
the perils implicit in telling truth to falsehood, and the many disasters and tragedies that
have befallen human kind in the attempts to do so.
I've come to think that humans by nature are basically incapable of avoiding whatever it
is that is "truth." Because over and over life seems to present situations that are the
unswervingly the same to everyone. Youth and aging, for example, and the end result never
varies, like illness, death, and dying. And everyone has their own similar story navigating
the human predicaments and facing an inalterable "truth," which might be in this example,
death.
My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not only who try
their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who cannot escape
an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it. I suppose in this moment of history, you need
only look at pandemic, wildfires, and conflicts to see how far human beings have digressed
from an Eden. But there must be a purpose to it all? Like, trying to cling to any kind of
integrity.
You think international fake news is just a Trump thing? Just off the top of my head we have
thins like Tonkin Bay, Kuwait babies being massacred by Iraqi troops, my personal favorite
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and a multiple of mean Assads killing their people with
poison. That is just a bipartisan few. We have one political party, who serves the deep
state. The deep state serves the interests of Wall Street and more importantly the Rothschild
world banking system. Give the spooks a lot of credit they let us have two "choices" while
controlling both. Think of it as a neo fascism kinda thing that ironically finances the anti
fascists. The press is just a means to an end. Assume everything is an agenda, and read the
independents for some actual thought. I may not agree with you all the time, but I do love
you MoA. Thank you for all your work.
'spooked oligarchy...reforms..culminated in ..70s'
Yep. When committed Dem's go off on Trump, it's deeply felt but kindof a ritual rant.
Bring Ralph Nader into the conversation, just mention him in passing, and the response
becomes live! Betrayal, danger of being shown up again!
Old and Grumpy @67 has a good point. Anyone suggesting that fake news is in any way related
to Trump being President are big parts of the problem for why fake news persists in the first
place. Suggesting that it is because of Trump, and thus implying that the fake news will go
away when Trump does, is either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly deceitful, though probably
both. Trump ranting about fake news exposed the problem and forced it into the public
discourse. Those rants did not create the problem.
"You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and thought that seemed alien to
human behavior ... ... forced to double down"
I had short but deeply influential conversation right out of college with a recruiter/HR
manager from Raytheon, of all places. He talked about exactly what you said. He spoke, in a
hypothetical third person, about a mid-career guy with a mortgage and family who finds
themselves questioning the defense industry. How that isn't the best place to be in,
mentally. I changed my career plans that day, forever thankful for the encounter.
However, regarding people being able to avoid unpleasant realities, he was of the opinion
that for most people, it is possible to do so. Even beneficial. (Except of course for the
recipients of his company's products. I didn't say that but I think he figured out that I was
thinking it). The issue, from the point of view of running an effective organization, is what
happens if the doubters and believers start to mix? Part of his assigned task was to simply
keep out people curious enough to ask too many questions. That's one of the "benefits" of
really polarizing politics too.
"My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not
only who try their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who
cannot escape an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it."
That's what modern pharmaceuticals are for, and why one in six Americans (officially) are
prescribed them. If we include the numbers of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and/or
grey/black market pharmaceuticals, then the proportion would be a bit (quite a bit) larger.
People who succeed at being truthful (mostly to themselves) are not confronted with cognitive
dissonance mind-quakes; however, such individuals are confronted with experiencing the retch
reflex when consuming mass media.
Is being truthful vs embracing the lies then half-dozen of one and six of the other? I
find satisfactory peace of mind from being truthful and simply avoiding the primary vector of
deception; the mass media. Noble individuals like our host and some of the posters here will
slog through that vile cesspool of lies and fish out the little nuggets of truth that leak
out. It is selfish of me to leave such dirty work to others, but at least I am not
hermetically isolated on a mountain somewhere.
An interesting thought. I have long had the feeling that a large part of the obviously
orchestrated drive to almost define both of the two US parties with really incredibly
unimportant issues like bathroom preferences were designed to split the voters as equally as
possible, so that to swing elections one had only to control the votes of a very small number
of tie breakers. I still think this is likely true, but I do think you make an important
point that a lot can be learned about what is truly important to the PTB by reflecting on the
topics that aren't being argued over.
Compare the "two" US political parties, and you will note that while they seem to be getting
ever more extreme and irreconcilable and quasi-religious in their differences, these
differences are always on the periphery. Both parties are being indoctrinated with certain
common beliefs they will take for granted because they are never talked about -- because
these points are not allowed to be in contention. So while even something like climate change
can be a big divider (no worries, there's money to be made on both sides of that issue, and
means of control); but you will never hear debate about
1. America is the greatest ever!
2.
America is always and unquestionably a force for good, and even it's proven bad things
(kidnapping, rendition, and torture programs) are done "for the greater good."
3. Unbridled
capitalism is the only way, and the privatization and unwinding of any vestiges of social
programs, like education, social security, and even utilities and infrastructure, is always a
good thing deserving of priority.
4. Individualism is the best, if not only, way. To be a
hero you must strike alone against the bad guys/the system/the government; someone who
rallies others, causes forces to be gathered and united, unionized, whatever are discouraged
or ignored.
5. "Leadership" in the affairs of others around the world is American right,
responsibility, and destiny. Having the largest, almost entirely offensively oriented
military on earth is essential; and having it, we must use it to get our money's worth.
6.
Omnipresent "intelligence" services equal safety and are absolutely required for life to be
normal. I'm sure there are other examples of "universally agreed" doctrines in the US, but
these are some that leap out.
These crazy MSM lies Anecdote. Last Sat (Geneva, Switz.) I spoke to 20 ppl whom I know
somewhat, all know I like to discuss news etc. I said, weird news this week, making no
mention of Navalny. 18/20 believed Putin poisoned Navalny and brought it up spontaneously!
There is something so appealing and narratively 'seductive' about spies and 'opponents'
(Skripal ) and mysterious poisons used by evil doers etc. that fiction just flows smoothly
into fact or whatever is 'real.'
I had to mention Assange myself to most, but there the reaction was very mixed, most
thought Assange was being persecuted, or it was 'not right', and took this story seriously in
one way or another - 4 ppl claimed not to know the latest news. Here, NGOs, Leftists and
Others have made demands for him to be offered asylum in Switz, so he has been front
page.
Besides that (I'm always interested in from-the-ground view-points, experiences, so post
some myself) what is going on is monopoly consolidation:
Mega MSM in cahoots with the MIC, Big Pharma, Big Agri, Finance, and so on. Corporations
joining up their positions bit by bit while also competing in some ways, bribing and owning
the Pols. who are front-men and women tasked with providing a lot of drama, manufactured
agitation, etc., which in turn is fodder for the MSM, etc.
Overall, the most important sector to watch is the GAFAM, 1, the reign of the middle men
is close at hand (control information, both the channels and the content, and commerce up to
a point.) All this leaves out energy considerations, another vital topic left aside.
Thanks for your reply! I've touched on the topic of human capital and its development
occasionally here, positing it's the #1 asset of all nations. Those nations who neglect to
develop their own human capital are bound to become deficient when it comes to basic
comparative advantages with other nations, particularly as political-economy shifts from
being materialistic to knowledge-based; thus Pepe Escobar agreeing wholeheartedly with my
comment about India. (He added this article to his FB timeline and I posted my comment
there.)
From 1999-2003, I was involved in developing distance learning platforms for the rapidly
advancing ability to learn outside of a school's four walls. The other educators I worked
with and myself had great hopes for the virtual classroom and what it might do to aide both
teachers and students. At the time we thought this development would provide a great
opportunity for the third member of the educational team--parents--to play a greater role in
the process since active parental involvement was proven to generate better student outcomes.
But for that to be properly implemented, equitable funding for all school districts became an
even greater issue than it was already. This issue highlighted the huge problems related to
financing education at a moment when BushCo Privatizers began to seriously threaten what was
already in place. And that problem has only worsened, the vast disparities being very evident
thanks to COVID-forced distance learning. The primary reason good teachers can't be retained
is the entire system's a massive Clusterfuck. And computers aren't substitutes for even poor
teachers. And parents are even more aloof from becoming involved in the process than ever
before.
The dumbing-down I mention is now entering its third generation. The educational structure
needs to be completely refitted nationally, but I wouldn't give that task to any of the
fuckwits employed by the past three administrations--Yes, I'm arguing education needs to be a
completely federal program instead of the 53 different school systems in states and
territories; and yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls and potential corruption that poses, which is
a microcosm of all the problems at the federal level of government. This problem is yet
another very basic reason why the Duopoly and its backers need to be ousted from government
and kept as far away as possible as the structure is torn down and rebuilt--The USA will
never be great again until that is done.
I suggest that the reason that the media focus on the ridiculous is to convince the public
that there is nothing important happening - except where the MSM wants the participation of
the public as in with anti-Russia, anti_China, anti-Socialism, etc. Good to get the public
participation directed at harmless targets.
They've got to fill the papers with something. The public must be kept warm, comfortable,
semi-comatose, watching cat videos...
Last thing anybody wants is the involvement of the public, they will only screw
everything-up or try anyway.
Thanks for your reply! Your explanation sadly is correct, but it was put into motion prior
to Reagan becoming POTUS. The tools used to undo the New Deal were put into place before FDR
became POTUS. And FDR's unwillingness to prosecute those who attempted to overthrow his
government provided that faction to infiltrate government and eventually attempt to undo the
good that was done prior to WW2. When looked at closely, American society was generally quite
Liberal in the positive aspects of that term and during the Depression was becoming ever more
Collectivist with the war advancing that even further. At the war's end, it was paramount for
the forces taking control of the nation to push the public to the right and away from its
collectivist proclivities. Where we find ourselves today thus is not an accident of history
but an engineered outcome. You may recall voices on the Right accusing Liberals and their
organizations of engaging in Social Engineering. Those accusations were projections since it
was actually forces on the Right that were maneuvering society to the Right while assiduously
applying the principle of Divide and Rule to create a condition where they would be immune
from political challenge, which is where we are now.
A few understand this ugly truth and how we arrived here. What's missing is scholarship
that links the changes that began in the 1870s with today's situation. Yes, there're good
examinations of various pieces of the overall puzzle. But it appears that only Hudson and
those in his small circle have figured it out; yet, they haven't produced a complete history
that encapsulates it all. And for us to have a realistic chance to undo what's been done, we
need to know how it all transpired.
Antonym @ 60
"There are big differences between Trump and Biden regarding their foreign policies:
Trump is hard on Xi-China and soft on Putin Russia, while Biden is the reverse."
I don't share your view. The current administration's foreign policy is very much aligned
with that of past administrations and the diplomatic circus surrounding the Skripal affair
alone is evidence that nobody is soft on Russia.
What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being
allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever
trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train.
In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights,
people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much.
If a Trump hater hears the criticism that the president is too soft on Russia, he will
readily grab the bash-Russia stick hoping to score a few hits on Trump. The same person's
reaction to a criticism on Biden will be either indifference or angry denial. In either case,
he will not be opposed to the bash-Russia nor the bash-China movement.
The dem hater's reaction is similar. Indifference to the soft-on-Russia claim (ie. no
opposition to the bash-Russia movement) and active support for the China-bashing.
The article and subsequent discussion brings to mind Dawkins discussion of Memes and
Memetics. Not those pesky internet memes. The propaganda war is fierce, and almost without
exception the people here are poking and prodding perhaps without being able to put the
finger on the "EZ button". This is war, baby, so one thinks the following link may be useful:
Wherein: " Ideally the virus of the mind being targeted will be overwritten with a higher
fidelity, fecundity, and longevity memeplex in order to assure long term sustainability. When
this is not practical, it is still possible to displace a dangerous memeplex, by creating a
more contagious benign meme utilizing certain packaging, replication, and propagation
tricks."
The lie is irrelevant, whether true or false, it must be believable, and it must
successfully replicate.
You are right, the early FDR days were, in hindsight, one of the most important in setting
the course of the US for the next century, and unfortunately Big Business won, taking us on a
long, ugly road to the right. I agree this would be a most fascinating history book if some
of those respected, genuinely knowledgeable people you often cite could collaborate on an
opus.
Yes, most people do not know that the wide ranging labor laws implemented at that time
were actually not meant to empower organized labor, but to limit it. Perhaps FDR thought it
was the best he could do for the working class, but I tend to think it was more a case of him
thinking that by outlawing general strikes, wildcat strikes, strikes in support of other
unions, and setting up an NLRB with a lot of political control by business, the powers who
had so recently let it be known they were ready to actively try to overthrow the government
might be mollified. I think he feared the US was at the cusp of a revolution, and perhaps it
was. Whether or not if would have been better had that been allowed to proceed is the big
question.
Anti-China activists funded by NED & Co make up all sorts of horrid stories online, which
are then picked up by MSM and political NGOs to spoon feed world audiences/viewers. Viola,
you have "fact-based" anti-China news!
This is literally what these overseas Uyghur activists do all day. Putting a random
caption on a video they ripped down from a medical worker's tiktok in China. And people
believe it. They'd even believe if the follow up rebuttal is that this is a forced labour
doctor.
Glad to see his name mentioned here. I've been saying for years here to watch the
documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations,
Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental
illness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
Thanks for your reply! JK Galbraith in his American Capitalism: The Concept of
Countervailing Power lamented what you recap in your 2nd paragraph and that there was
thus no power capable of offsetting Big Business although one was sorely needed. As I wrote,
some very sharp minds have written about small segments of the overall movement toward
totalitarianism since the 1870s, Galbraith's 1952 book being one that's still worth
reading.
"... On the strength of Adrian Vermeule's review last month (" Liturgy of Liberalism ," January 2017), I picked up Ryszard Legutko's The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies . Legutko sees many parallels between the communism that dominated the Poland of his youth and the political-social outlook now treated as obligatory by Eurocrats and dominant in America, which he calls "[neo]liberal democracy." ..."
"... One parallel struck me as especially important: "Communism and [neo]liberal democracy are related by a similarly paradoxical approach to politics: both promised to reduce the role of politics in human life, yet induced politicization on a scale unknown in previous history." We're aware of the totalitarian dimension of communism. But liberalism? Isn't it supposed to be neutral with respect to substantive outlooks, endorsing only the constitutional and legal frameworks for free and fair political debate? Actually, no. Liberals always assert that liberalism is the view of politics, society, and morality "most adequate of and for modern times." ..."
"... [Neo]Liberalism, Legutko points out, is committed to dualism, not pluralism. He gives the example of Isaiah Berlin, who made a great deal out of the importance of the pluralism of the liberal spirit. Yet "Berlin himself, a superbly educated man, knew very well and admitted quite frankly that the most important and most valuable fruits of Western philosophy were monistic in nature." This means that liberalism, as Berlin defines it, must classify nearly the entire history of Western thought (and that of other cultures as well) as "nonliberal." Thus, "the effect of this supposed liberal pluralism" is not a welcoming, open society in which a wide range of substantive thought flourishes, but "a gigantic purge of Western philosophy, bringing an inevitable degradation of the human mind." ..."
"... The purge mentality has a political dimension. Since 1989, European politics has shifted away from a left vs. right framework toward "mainstream" vs. "extremist." This is a telling feature of [neo]liberal democracy as an ideology. "The tricky side of 'mainstream' politics is that it does not tolerate any political 'tributaries' and denies that they should have any legitimate existence. Those outside the mainstream are believed to be either mavericks and as such not deserving to be treated seriously, or fascists who should be politically eliminated." ..."
"... Lumpenproletariat ..."
"... Legutko speaks of "lumpenintellectuals." These are the professors and journalists who buttress the status quo by rehearsing ideological catechisms and exposing heretics. We certainly have a lumpenintelligentsia ..."
"... I regularly read two lumpenintellectuals in order to understand the orthodoxies of our political mainstream: Tom Friedman over at the New York Times and Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal . The former is a cheerleader for today's globalist orthodoxies, complete with ritual expressions of misgivings. The latter eagerly plays the role of Leninist enforcer of those orthodoxies ..."
♦ Boys and girls are different. There, I've said it, a heresy of our time. We're not
supposed to suggest that a woman shouldn't fight in combat, or that an athletic girl doesn't
have a right to play on the boys' football team -- or that a young woman doesn't run a greater
risk than a young man when binge drinking. We are not supposed to reject the conceit that the
sexes are interchangeable, and therefore a man can become a "woman" and use the ladies'
bathroom.
Male and female God created us. I commend this heresy to readers. Remind people that boys in
girls' bathrooms put girls at risk, and that Obergefell is a grotesque distortion of
the Constitution. True -- and don't miss the opportunity to say, in public, that men and women
are different. This is the deepest reason why gender ideology is perverse. As Peter Hitchens
observes in this issue (" The Fantasy of
Addiction "), there's a great liberation that comes when, against the spirit of the age,
one blurts out what one knows to be true.
♦ Great Britain
recently announced regulatory approval for scientists to introduce third-party DNA into the
reproductive process. The technological innovation that allows for interventions into the most
fundamental dimensions of reproduction and human identity is sure to accelerate. Which is a
good reason for incoming President Trump to revive the President's Council on Bioethics. (It
existed under President Obama, but was told to do and say nothing.) We need sober reflection on
the coming revolution in reproductive technology. Trump should appoint Princeton professor
Robert P. George to head the Bioethics Commission. He has the expertise in legal and moral
philosophy, and he knows what's at stake. (See " Gnostic Liberalism ,"
December 2016.)
♦ On the strength of Adrian Vermeule's review last month (" Liturgy of
Liberalism ," January 2017), I picked up Ryszard Legutko's
The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies . Legutko sees many
parallels between the communism that dominated the Poland of his youth and the political-social
outlook now treated as obligatory by Eurocrats and dominant in America, which he calls
"[neo]liberal democracy."
One parallel struck me as especially important: "Communism and [neo]liberal democracy
are related by a similarly paradoxical approach to politics: both promised to reduce the role
of politics in human life, yet induced politicization on a scale unknown in previous history."
We're aware of the totalitarian dimension of communism. But liberalism? Isn't it supposed to be
neutral with respect to substantive outlooks, endorsing only the constitutional and legal
frameworks for free and fair political debate? Actually, no. Liberals always assert that
liberalism is the view of politics, society, and morality "most adequate of and for modern
times."
This gives [neo]liberalism a partisan spirit all the more powerful because it is denied.
Although such words as "dialogue" and "pluralism" appear among its favorite motifs, as do
"tolerance" and other similarly hospitable notions, this overtly generous rhetorical
orchestration covers up something entirely different. In its essence, liberalism is
unabashedly aggressive because it is determined to hunt down all nonliberal agents and ideas,
which it treats as a threat to itself and to humanity.
[Neo]Liberalism, Legutko points out, is committed to dualism, not pluralism. He gives the example
of Isaiah Berlin, who made a great deal out of the importance of the pluralism of the liberal
spirit. Yet "Berlin himself, a superbly educated man, knew very well and admitted quite frankly
that the most important and most valuable fruits of Western philosophy were monistic in
nature." This means that liberalism, as Berlin defines it, must classify nearly the entire
history of Western thought (and that of other cultures as well) as "nonliberal." Thus, "the
effect of this supposed liberal pluralism" is not a welcoming, open society in which a wide
range of substantive thought flourishes, but "a gigantic purge of Western philosophy, bringing
an inevitable degradation of the human mind."
♦ The purge mentality has a political dimension. Since 1989, European politics has
shifted away from a left vs. right framework toward "mainstream" vs. "extremist." This is a
telling feature of [neo]liberal democracy as an ideology. "The tricky side of 'mainstream' politics
is that it does not tolerate any political 'tributaries' and denies that they should have any
legitimate existence. Those outside the mainstream are believed to be either mavericks and as
such not deserving to be treated seriously, or fascists who should be politically
eliminated."
♦ Karl Marx coined the term Lumpenproletariat . Lumpen means "rag"
in German, and its colloquial meanings include someone who is down-and-out. According to Marx,
this underclass has counter-revolutionary tendencies. These people can be riled up by
demagogues and deployed in street gangs to stymie the efforts of the true proletariat to topple
the dominant class.
Legutko speaks of "lumpenintellectuals." These are the professors and journalists who
buttress the status quo by rehearsing ideological catechisms and exposing heretics. We
certainly have a lumpenintelligentsia , left and right: tenured professors,
columnists, think tank apparatchiks, and human resources directors.
♦ I regularly read two lumpenintellectuals in order to understand the orthodoxies of
our political mainstream: Tom Friedman over at the New York
Times and Bret
Stephens at the Wall Street Journal . The former is a cheerleader for today's
globalist orthodoxies, complete with ritual expressions of misgivings. The latter eagerly plays
the role of Leninist enforcer of those orthodoxies.
♦ Bill Kristol recently stepped down
as day-to-day editor at the Weekly Standard . .... As he put it with characteristic humor, "Here at The Weekly Standard , we've
always been for regime change."...
Imagine for a moment that there is a foreign government that receives billions of dollars a year in "aid" and other benefits from
the United States taxpayer. Consider beyond that, the possibility that that government might take part of the money it receives
and secretly recycle it to groups of American citizens in the United States that exist to maintain and increase that money flow
while also otherwise serving other interests of the recipient country.
That would mean that the United States is itself subsidizing the lobbies and groups that are inevitably working against its own
interests. And it also means that U.S. citizens are acting as foreign agents, covertly giving priority to their attachment to a
foreign country instead of to the nation in which they live.
I am, of course, referring to Israel. It does not require a brilliant observer to note how Israel and its allies inside the U.S.
have become very skilled at milking the government in the United States at all levels for every bit of financial aid, trade
concessions, military hardware and political cover that is possible to obtain.
The flow of dollars, goods, and protection is never actually debated in any serious way and is often, in fact, negotiated
directly by Congress or state legislatures directly with the Israeli lobbyists. This corruption and manipulation of the U.S.
governmental system by people who are basically foreign agents is something like a criminal enterprise and one can only imagine
the screams of outrage coming from the
New
York Times
if there were a similar arrangement with any other country.
The latest revelation about Israel's cheating involves subsidies that were paid covertly by Israeli government agencies to groups
in the United States which in turn took direction from the Jewish state, often
inter
alia
damaging genuine American interests. The groups involved failed to disclose the payments,
which
is a felony
.
They also failed to register under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which mandates penalties for groups
and individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments.
In particular, FARA mandates that the finances and relationships of the foreign affiliated organization be open to Department of
the Justice inspection. It states that "any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts
at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal." Those who fail to disclose might be penalized
by up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000.
Israel's various friends and proxies, uniquely, have been
de
facto
exempt from any regulation by the U.S. government. The last serious attempt to register a major lobbying entity was
made by John F. Kennedy, who sought to have the predecessor organization to today's American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) comply with FARA. Kennedy was killed before he could complete the process.
To be sure, the U.S. government has recently been aggressive in demanding FARA registration for other nations as well as for
Americans working for foreign powers. There have been
several
prominent FARA cases
in the news.
Major Russian news agencies operating in the U.S. were compelled to register in 2017 because they were funded largely or in part
by the Kremlin. Also, as part of their plea deals, the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn both conceded that they had failed to comply with FARA when working as consultants with foreign
governments.
A leading recipient of the Israeli government's largesse has been the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), which has a presence in 43
countries worldwide, though it is registered in the U.S. as a
non-profit
.
It received a grant of $100,000 from Israel's Strategic Affairs Ministry in 2019, part of the $6.6 million that was doled out to
eleven American organizations in 2018-9.
Israel Allies particularly uses Lawfare to target the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has a
large and growing presence on university campuses. Effective lobbying by IAF in the U.S. has resulted in more than half of all
states passing legislation that bans or limits the BDS activity while legislation that would criminalize organizations working
against Israel has also been moving through congress. IAF has been directly involved in drafting such legislation and has more
recently been pushing for new laws that would legally define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.
The Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs initially, in 2015-7, tried to give money openly to diaspora organizations but found
that many American Jewish groups, to their credit,
would
not take it
due to concerns over FARA and being accused of "dual loyalty." So, the Ministry created an ostensibly
non-government "public benefit company" cut-out to distribute the cash in a more secretive fashion. The mechanism was given
the
operational name Concert.
Concert's sole purpose was to provide money to diaspora advocacy groups that would work primarily against BDS and other efforts
to delegitimize the Jewish state. Concert had an independent board, but its activity of directed by the Strategic Affairs
Ministry's director-general.
Concert's internal documents are predictably vague in describing the activities that it was funding, and one might assume that
they are purposely misleading. They refer to "defensive and offensive" actions, on "corporate responsibility," "the digital
battlefield," and regarding "amplification units" that would provide "support for organizations in a pro-Israeli network."
The intention was to improve Israel's image due to the widespread and completely accurate perception that its human rights record
is among
the
worst in the world
. Concert was created to serve as a mechanism to be exploited where situations prevailed that "require an
'outside the government' discussion with the different target audiences [and] provide a rapid and coordinated response against
the attempts to tarnish the image of Israel around the world."
Interestingly, one of the most recognizable recipients of Concert funds was Christians United for Israel (CUFI), America's
largest pro-Israel group, which received nearly $1.3 million in February 2019 to pay for several 10 week-long "pilgrimages" to
the Holy Land. Each pilgrimage involved thirty "influential Christian clerics from the U.S." who were clearly propagandized while
they were in the Middle East. Other large disbursements went to predominantly Jewish student groups, presumably to provide them
with both resources and necessary training to oppose campus critics of Israel.
The simple way to deal with the massive and illegal Israeli influencing operations that are being directed against the United
States would be first of all to deduct every identifiable dollar that is being spent by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to empower supporters in America from the $3.8 billion plus that Israel receives each year directly from the U.S.
Treasury. Israel would not be concerned if the United States were to recover a paltry $10 million or so, but it would definitely
send a message.
And then one might follow-up by requiring all the Israeli proxies that together make up the Israel Lobby to register under FARA.
One might start with AIPAC, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
but there will be many, many more before the work is done. And CUFI, for sure. The fundamentalist Christian head cases that place
Israel's interests ahead of those of their own country finally need to have their bell rung.
The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries
across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of
distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive
from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the
shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.
But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no
rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they
made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent
seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European
colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced
by Hollywood.
These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for
construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a
waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.
This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the
US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The
Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors
whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.
But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No,
it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice,
Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this
devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black
President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an
African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.
But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes
carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United
States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from
internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and
directly into the heart of darkness.
There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the
desert sand.
To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel
a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to
bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency
as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.
In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about
good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par
excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French
philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David
Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly
illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who
conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they
who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.
The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US
military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a
wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves
in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by
the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war
criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in
a new era of openness and partnership.
The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and
amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to
arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former
dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the
anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro
chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the
National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became
head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published
in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into
an international star.
Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas
Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of
the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the
Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the
Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate
government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi
government.
But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he
might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become
aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist,
stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag
flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as
Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.
However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military
juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level
talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most
importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months
before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would
be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.
The
Americans Enter the Fray
There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and
military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war
in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it
not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British
counterparts.
As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained
in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on
to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess
the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure
of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to
determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of
anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated
with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.
The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.
But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on
military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of
the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least
according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was
concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an
Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then
abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.
It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for
aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated
for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime
committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of
Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.
As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning
staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal
participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly
under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the
imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an
"easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation
whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.
Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to
turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab
Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly
became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama
Administration.
Obama's War Off the Books
One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated
dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets –
that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American
lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very
little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.
But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars;
the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the
groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington
Post
reported at the time:
Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to
the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental
funding would be requested from Congress.
Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the
Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core
Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular
Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But
the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.
Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war,
there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the
war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the
abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In
essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for
constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed,
some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct
corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.
So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless
you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon
spokesperson told CNN in 2011,
"The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1
billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and
humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of
discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN,
suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it
cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take
the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear
documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that
there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning
Constitution.
America's Dirty War in Libya
While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted
from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US
Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist
groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real
legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of
spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of
terror groups that did the dirty work.
While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment
mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the
time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the
primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:
"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel
Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members
were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the
fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under
the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."
Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that
the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to
be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they
are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after
Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links
to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.
Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty
good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US
operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi
opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.
"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone.
Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the
Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to
Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on
November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna],
Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a
population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest
per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."
It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region
including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as
anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among
the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.
Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA
facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times
reported in 2012:
"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons,
securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny
supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as
the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is
regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."
But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to
Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army
have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces
vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in
its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near
Langley, Virginia. As the
New York Times reported in 1991:
The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan
Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were
among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained
by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at
a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the
Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.
Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man,"
having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to
overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an
escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether
Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by
continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters
is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the
broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic
hellscape that is modern Libya.
Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.
The Past is Prologue
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos
and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus,
then surely Biden is the cure.
It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets
like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya.
Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A
warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates for support.
It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other
issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public
imagination and discourse.
But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The
Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan
African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial
powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of
vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.
Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.
Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together.
Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to
the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben
Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to
the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind
the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
AVmaster , 13 hours ago
Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)
Number of wars Trump has started: 0
This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back
somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.
fucking truth , 12 hours ago
Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see
a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.
ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Has no choice.
The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.
Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.
If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to
start scrapping them.
The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and
disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into
this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.
Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to
declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a
rogue president.
play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago
Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised
of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government
spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit
society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a
massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name
just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a
better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of
priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.
The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is
there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before
profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that
capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of
society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that
turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the
weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean
them off of the government teat.
DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago
Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense
protections not known to the public at this time.
ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago
DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.
The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.
play_arrow
1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago
To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a
fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of
Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while
Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found
not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an
open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by
China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?
play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend
munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow
scaleindependent , 10 hours ago
Final Jeopardy, genius!
What is Syria and Iran?
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.
lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago
Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if
pre-set by computer.
How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the
Pentagon.
Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail
Caesar?
play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago
Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering
millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like
Bush and Obama did).
play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Yep some people don't get it.
With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually
need more war to keep them gainfully employed.
Get the picture?
2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war
Don't forget also blockading Venezuela
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned
whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when
he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self
preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no
threat).
Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping
them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via
Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert.
Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.
Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM
in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games &
wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching
the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.
sauldaddy , 11 hours ago
That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to
Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought
slavery BACK to Africa
_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago
Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's
shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and
Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state.
On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.
Ms No , 13 hours ago
That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil
declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to
see how that ends up.
play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families
getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the
black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans
thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was
spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in
Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to
Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that
flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in
Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them
into the ground.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil
for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was
the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast
of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to
control.
play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago
I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??
No1uNo , 6 hours ago
Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary
at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.
Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the
overthrow....
quanttech , 13 hours ago
try the french treasury...
Bill300 , 12 hours ago
Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel,
had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst
the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold
mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in
Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?
These people are so evil.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?
I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is
not an easy thing to find
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil
DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago
Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples
based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be
playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
It's mind boggling.
Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs
dropping on the US one year.
Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago
Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k
decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?
Shifter_X , 9 hours ago
Hillary ******* Clinton
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.
Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their
petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.
end the fed, and all central banks.
Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago
That's the story in a nutsh-ell
desertboy , 10 hours ago
The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look,
the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an
interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.
Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's
future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new
CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.
No1uNo , 8 hours ago
I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out.
Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast
of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing
economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).
Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his
economy......different story.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!
not dead yet , 11 hours ago
Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar.
Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being
set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when
Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and
enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts
attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco
garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage
to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for
use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put
up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also
the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops
out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for
Western exploitation of Africa.
At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks
around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by
Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a
penny.
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
great info.
got a good concise source?
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want
to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches
SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago
America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing
Obama.
Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats
oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n
world.
ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago
The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic
Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of
humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount
Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The
university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those
students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice
Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus
in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail
Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.
The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie
Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive
at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the
globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.
It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice
Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in
1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts
gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300
and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.
Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie
commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.
And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo
of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson
of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail
and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in
1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a
message which needs to be understood.
David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further
description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.
If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the
Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the
presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared
hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer.
The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible,
to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work
associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central
America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when
Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.
Shifter_X , 8 hours ago
These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.
SMH
bobroonie , 13 hours ago
Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for
more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey
Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be
made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the
invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most
dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were
so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was
well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his
last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant.
According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left
for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and
Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were
up to.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.
the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy
to admit this.
David2923 , 5 hours ago
Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its
citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to
all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the
average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house,
equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great
Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states:
"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not
be owned by others.")
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to
buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all
Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the
finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to
doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya,
the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US
$2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though
much of this is now frozen globally.
You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and
its slave states.
dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago
Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red
pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.
We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american
president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has
slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of
course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.
Lokiban , 11 hours ago
Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars
Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal
to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which
we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.
That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did
in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.
NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago
Slick Willy --> War Criminal
Chimp --> War Criminal
Obongo --> War Criminal
Hillarity --> War Criminal
Groper Joe --> War Criminal
Etc... etc... etc...
Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???
If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's
attention on YOUR a$$!
Apeon , 11 hours ago
Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson
NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago
I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty
- sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago
Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.
No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his
oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went
missing.
It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both
Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country
taglady , 7 hours ago
Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through
exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because
of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only
invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in
every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and
many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after
911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real
Americans have struggled to make ends meet.
taglady , 7 hours ago
Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced
the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to
vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and
media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance
was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while
liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy
to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of
government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except
our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm.
Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all
of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS
"surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us
broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?
Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago
The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African
continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest
example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.
John C Durham , 1 hour ago
Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this
War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got
Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?
Libya only proves this true.
LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago
America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from
the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE
THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.
NO MORE . . . NO LESS
QABubba , 5 hours ago
This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote
foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our
leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a
"no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own,
stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined"
it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his
antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly),
and his troop convoys.
Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand
by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very
well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West
to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea
just receded by about 50 years.
And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American
thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the
flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to
assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed
their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the
US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of
the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and
Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold
after the 2014 Maidan coup.
By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he
died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all
of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other
fiat currencies.
That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their
private fiefdom to loot at will.
Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed.
After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?
lastugro , 10 hours ago
... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where
the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.
Michael Norton , 11 hours ago
Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar
Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some
CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.
dogfish , 9 hours ago
And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians.
Trump is a real humanitarian.
Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago
Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at
the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution
and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.
The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a
commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial
banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an
African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have
destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.
Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist
"Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily
overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful
fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French
adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of
Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.
Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the
Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black
Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours
the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the
deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal
is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the
innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had
fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a
major rupture with the Islamic creed.
Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab
to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving
them.
It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the
US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in
the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of
the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to
expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have
destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to
throw at Israel.
Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian
Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the
development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like
Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated.
Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead
Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this
madness.
Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates
through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men
run with gold and dollars.
At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like
Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and
why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical
appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the
system works.
Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker
C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is
why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the
domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist
apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties
to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.
Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching
over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder
get involved.
Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal
enterprise.
voting machine , 6 hours ago
Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.
This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101
Jackprong , 7 hours ago
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to
take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no
clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the
idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a
functioning Constitution.
Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!
bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago
" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist,
and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "
The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.
The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine,
Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!
Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago
Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.
Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from
the same fate.
Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and
subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.
Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely
destroyed for their stupidity.
OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago
First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international
diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it.
We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in
a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on
the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the
truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the
other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the
peaceful governments.
csc61 , 1 hour ago
The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding
that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden
hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns
... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to
scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than
privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily
corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would
happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign
documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to
pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden
thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the
white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury
mine deep and dead, I do not swing
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Fair enough..
Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of
Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..
Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity,
vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the
part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to
mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious
pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to
mind..
Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the
humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently,
to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh
thinking that ought now understand that..
What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via
the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..
The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and
RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect
RESTITUTION..
Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in
any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?
Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how
depraved?
Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?
With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..
With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..
But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that
patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?
Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their
salvation is self directed..
And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..
And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..
It's that simple..
And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..
That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the
Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."
And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many
colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of
Provident Divinity..
)
And the glorification?
That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought
demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..
And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit
of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the
Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except
above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..
So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you
keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..
And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..
And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..
By
Tony
Cox
, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.
The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get
involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.
Someone should tell the
New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good
reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.
Alas, ignorance of these
obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get
the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.
The latest example is the
New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex
as disrespect for the military at large.
"Trump has lost the right and authority to be
commander in chief,"
the
Times quoted
retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged
"despicable
comments"
about the nation's war dead – reported last week by
The
Atlantic
, citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."
Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist
when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the
president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the
temerity
to say
Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Except the pieces don't
fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to
war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national
security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's
national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.
Remember that great 1967
war movie, '
The
Dirty Dozen'
? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their
crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy
lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles
Bronson, told the mission leader,
"Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."
So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni,
but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the
"right
and authority"
to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want
senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.
The Times cited General
James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat
"when
it's required for national security and a last resort."
And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat
intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a
young man the last time that happened.
CNN tried a similar ploy
on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert
Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a
"pattern of public statements
" by
the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for
being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on
McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.
Apparently, this follows
the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US
from Mexico – which is undeniably true –
equals
saying
all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.
McCain was
a
warmonger
who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If
he
had his way
, many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the
US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.
All wars are hard on the
people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day
in the US, according to Veterans Administration
data
.
Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.
The media's deceiving
technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader
campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The
military
is
just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments,
such as
police
,
are demonized and attacked.
Trump has managed to keep
the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival,
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy
adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May
interview
with CBS News
that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.
Trump also has turned
around the VA hospital system, ending
decades
of neglect
that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.
Like past campaigns to
oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words
may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.
This is surely the last thing the American people want to hear, but it does confirm
President Trump's
recent statements saying that top Pentagon brass essentially seeks out constant wars to
keep defense contractors "happy": the Department of Defense plans to cut major military
contractors a $10 billion to $20 billion COVID bailout check .
Defense One
reports : "With lawmakers and the White House unable to come to an agreement on a new
coronavirus stimulus package, it's unlikely that money requested to reimburse defense
contractors for pandemic-related expenses will reach these companies until at least the second
quarter of 2021, according to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer."
Defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, Ellen Lord, in recent statements has
indicated the private defense firm stimulus would cover the period from March 15 to Sept. 15
and is estimated at "between $10 and $20 billion."
"Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once," Lord said at a press briefing
Wednesday. "It isn't going to be a first in, first out, and we have to rationalize using the
rules we've put in place what would be reimbursable and what's not."
And strongly suggesting that it won't be the last of such stimulus for defense firms who
have already profited immensely off post 9/11 'wars of choice' launched under Bush and Obama,
Lord
said , "I would contend that most of the effects of COVID haven't yet been seen."
"I'm not saying the military's in love with me," Trump added , as he advocated for
the removal of U.S. troops from "endless wars" and lambasted NATO allies that he says rip off
the U.S. "The soldiers are."
"The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight
wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make
everything else stay happy," he added.
"Some people don't like to come home, some people like to continue to spend money," the
president said. "One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that's what it was."
The "outrage" that followed included reporters claiming that Trump's words were
"unprecedented".
But that's far from the truth, as Glen Greenwald reminded his fellow journalists:
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1303109722468429824&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafter-trump-lambasted-endless-wars-enriching-defense-firms-dod-confirms-10-20-billion&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Well over a half-century ago, Eisenhower warned, "In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
and will persist."
And further: "We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry
can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our
peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early
September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of
noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always
maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.
Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back
in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows,
not just in Berlin but across the EU.
Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President
Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.
Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation,
managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate
on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European
common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.
I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments.
The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.
But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced
energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went
operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (£8.4bn)
1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.
But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian
opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy
from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's
state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and
reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.
These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced.
And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies
in retrospect.
Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown
everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia,
and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.
Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve
agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD)
stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream
2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen "
a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned
was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.
He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out
that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany."
Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement
in the affair.
The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up
foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying
to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance
between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now
a major foreign policy crisis.
The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension,
and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.
When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians
and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September
2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there
is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus.
What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.
So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social
democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation,
it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from
the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).
Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes
it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.
What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might
serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of
transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.
As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract –
will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization
was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude
contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?
In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas
pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute
on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were
in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia
etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.
So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts
be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much
too many) and not on arbitrariness.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
silvermoon 5 hours ago
All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests
with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.
Count_Cash
silvermoon 3 hours ago
Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening
time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when
you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!
gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago
U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of,
and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies
and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures
and regime itself.
Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago
Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical
weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think
about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok
again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.
Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it
was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.
It sounds
that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe
it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.
silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago
Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The
US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for
the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.
seawolf 6 hours ago
Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.
Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago
Exactly.
I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on
supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply,
just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe,
which means relations will only get worse.
Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago
If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through
Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or
that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are
they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on
these countries for doing so?
Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago
Its a far longer list
and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.
Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest
of Germany to stop de project. Reply
magicmirror 6 hours ago
Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and
time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.
SmellLaRata
5 hours ago
All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ?
And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi,
the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government
involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under
Obama.
gainwmn SmellLaRata
4 hours ago
Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried
by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons)
case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has
been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but
the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except
RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon,
not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would
say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective
perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about
innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make
the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge
it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.
Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago
After completing the pipe and
it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people
Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours
ago
How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North
America.
Hilarous 5 hours ago
The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists
for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas
magicmirror
Hilarous 4 hours ago
freedom gas and handsome presents .....
SandythePole 3 hours ago
This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied'
Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still
gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this
to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is
time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.
dunkie56 3 hours ago
Perhaps Russia should disengage
with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's
ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between
itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but
it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead
horse!
Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like
China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system.
So Russia is left out in the rain..
micktaketo 5 hours ago
I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia
should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt
countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first,
because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This
corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in
getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people
do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more
than one way to skin a cat, they say.
Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago
There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU
politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a
new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I
and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.
There is a tendency on the part of major Jewish groups in the United States and in Europe to
discover what they describe as anti-Semitism wherever one turns. Last month, a statue of the
well-known and highly respected 18 th century French writer and political
philosopher Voltaire
was removed from outside the Académie Française in Paris. Voltaire was a
major figure in the "Enlightenment," during which what we now call science and applied
rationalism challenged the authority of the church and the King.
The statue had recently been vandalized by the French version of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
because Voltaire had reportedly invested in the French East India Company, which engaged in the
triangular trade between Europe, Africa and the New World. The commodities included Africans
who were destined to become slaves in the European colonies. Beyond that Voltaire, a man of his
times, believed blacks to have "little or no intelligence" and also considered Jews to be born
"with raging fanaticism in their hearts."
Voltaire was reportedly much admired by Hitler, so perhaps it would not be off base to
suggest that in France, where the Jewish community is extremely powerful while Africans are
not, it was Voltaire cast as the anti-Semite that consigned his statue to a government
warehouse never to be seen again. By that reasoning, one expects that the world will soon have
a ban on the music of Richard Wagner and Ludwig van Beethoven as they too were admired by
Hitler.
The idea that someone can change history by ignoring aspects of it means that school
textbooks are being rewritten at a furious pace to make sure that there is overwhelming
coverage of the holocaust and black achievement. Also, the erasing of monuments is being
pursued with singular intensity in the United States, where the Founding Fathers and other dead
white males are being one by one consigned to the trash heap. Doing so, unfortunately, also
destroys the learning experience that can be derived from using the monuments as visual
mechanisms for confronting and understanding the mistakes made in the past. A commission set up
by the mayor of the District of Columbia has, for example,
compiled a hit list of monuments and commemorations that must be either removed, renamed or
placed into "context." It includes the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument. The name
"Columbia" is, of course, certain to be changed.
Interestingly, Jewish groups in the United States have been in the forefront in supporting
BLM's apparent mission to upend what used to pass for America's European-derived culture.
Ironically, that culture includes free speech, democracy and mercantilism, all of which have
greatly benefited Jews. The narrative is, of course, being wrapped around the common cause
of blacks and Jews together fighting against the alleged white nationalists who are being
blamed by the media for much of the violence taking place even when videos taken at the scenes
of the rioting definitely show nearly all black mobs doing the arson and looting.
And blacks who are skeptical of the Jewish role are quickly put in their place, as was
Rodney Muhammad of Philadelphia, who was
removed from his executive position with the NAACP after expressing skepticism about all
the Jewish friends that blacks suddenly appeared to be acquiring, quoting an observation often
attributed to the now disgraced Voltaire on a Facebook entry, "To learn who rules over you,
simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
The lead organization in shaping the acceptable narrative is the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL), which promotes itself as "Fighting Hate for Good." In other words, anyone on the other
side of the narrative is by definition a "hater." ADL apparently advertised an online
discussion topic for August 28 th , shortly after the shooting incident in Kenosha
Wisconsin that killed two white men and injured a third. The headline reads "Why all white
American middle schoolers must publicly condemn the Anti-Semitic murders by white supremacist
Kyle Rittenhouse."
If the ad is indeed genuine, one notes immediately that the killings are being framed as
anti-Semitism without any actual evidence to suggest that anything like that was involved or
that the shooter knew the religion of those who were confronting him. All three of the
"victims" are described as BLM supporters, which they apparently were, but it ignores the fact
that they were also Antifa activists and all three had
criminal records involving violence . One of them, Joseph Rosenbaum, is, to be sure Jewish,
and
also a pedophile , and the other two might also be Jews if ADL is correct, but that does
not seem to have been material in what took place. Credible accounts of the shooting suggest
that Rittenhouse was attacked by the three,
one of whom, Grosskreutz, had a gun, and was being beaten on his head with Huber's sidewalk
surfboard. He responded in self-defense.
And ADL is not alone in its defense of BLM. More than six hundred Jewish groups have signed
on to a
full page newspaper ad supporting the movement. The ad says "We speak with one voice when
we say, unequivocally: Black Lives Matter" and then goes on to assert "There are politicians
and political movements in this country who build power by deliberately manufacturing fear to
divide us against each other. All too often, anti-Semitism is at the center of these
manufactured divisions."
So, once again, it is all about the perpetual victimhood of Jews. That Jews constitute the
wealthiest and best educated demographic in the United States would seem to suggest that they
are especially favored, which they are, rather than targeted by raging mobs of hillbillies.
More than 90% of discretionary Department of Homeland Security funds goes to protect Jewish
facilities and the Department of Education and Congress are always prepared to create new rules
protecting Jews from feeling "uncomfortable" in their occasional interactions with critics of
Israel.
Jews largely think and vote progressive, which is part of the reason for aligning with
blacks even though rioting and looting is likely to affect them more than other demographics as
many of them might still have businesses in the cities that are most likely to be hit. But
there is also a much bigger reason to do so. Many blacks in BLM as well as progressive white
supporters were beginning to suggest that the movement should broaden its agenda and recognize
inter alia the suffering of others, to include the Palestinian people. A strong show of
support from Jewish groups, backed up by what one might presume to be a flow of contributions
to the cause, would presumably be a way of nipping that sentiment in the bud just as Jewish
donors to the Democratic Party were able to block any language in the party platform
sympathetic to the Palestinians.
It is of course the ultimate irony that Jewish groups are very sensitive to the suffering of
blacks in the United State while at the same time largely ignoring the
war crimes and other devastation going on in Israel and Palestine at the hands of their
co-religionists. The beating and shooting of unarmed and unresisting Palestinians, to include
children, the destruction of the livelihoods of farmers, and the demolition of homes to make
way for Jewish settlers is beyond belief and is largely invisible as the Jewish influenced U.S.
media does not report it. It is, simply put, genocide. And on top of that, Israel has been
bombing defenseless civilians in Gaza nearly daily of late, attacking and destabilizing Lebanon
and Syria, and also conniving with American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to go to war with
Iran.
It should not be surprising if black groups would be suspicious of the motives of the Jewish
organizations that suddenly seem to want to be friendly. When Rodney Muhammad was removed from
his position with the NAACP in Philadelphia, Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of ADL, tweeted
"Credit to Executive Committee of Philly NAACP & National NAACP for taking action here. We
hope this will enable new opportunities for collaboration as the local Black & Jewish
communities can do more to fight against hate & push for dignity of all people."
Greenblatt has been a leader in the fight to criminalize both criticism of Israel and also
the free speech being exercised by supporters of the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions movement (BDS). For him, "dignity of all people" clearly does not include
Palestinians or even anyone who peacefully supports their cause.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Oh, look, no masks! And you thought that got covered up by the investigation done by the
Mueller team? Let's go over this one more time:
The document declassified by DNI Grenell shows that there were 14 unique days when the NSA
received requests to "unmask"--the first was on 30 November 2016 by UN Ambassador Samantha
Power and the last came on 12 January from Joe Biden. There were two separate requests on the
14th of December by Samantha Power, which indicates two separate NSA reports. Samantha Power
would not have to submit two requests for the same document.
Sullivan will sustain the motion after some kind of hearing is what I would expect
now.
Likbez , September 2, 2020 10:41 am
He should suffer a little bit first.
I agree. I am not fan of Flynn and I will be the first to observe that for the former
chief of DIA he proved to be amazingly inept. Add to this his lunatic views on Iran. Flynn
has long been obsessed with finding a causus belli to justify an attack on Tehran. In this
sense keeping him in check was essential and firing him from the position of national
security advisor weakened Iran hawks in Trump administration. Aalthough Mattis was even
worse) . As Mark Perry observed:
"Mattis' 33-Year Grudge Against Iran is so intense" that it led President Obama to
dismiss him as Centcom commander. "Mattis' Iran antagonism also concerns many of the
Pentagon's most senior officers, who disagree with his assessment and openly worry
whether his Iran views are based on a sober analysis or whether he's simply reflecting a
30-plus-year-old hatred of the Islamic Republic that is unique to his service"
If such weaklings like Strzok can deceive and entrap him, what about real hard core
professionals? How such a person could raise to the the top in DIA? Do we need such a
gullible person as a national security advisor?
But, at the same time, the key event here is different, and in this sense his talks with
the Russian ambassador does not matter much (both sides understood that they are
recorded)
What FBI did to him is abhorrable, and puts a long dark shadow on Obama administration:
this is really not about Flynn but about the politicization of FBI in the manner that
remind me NKVD practices (which was famous for eliminating Stalin political opponents by
declaring them to be British spies and torturing out the confessions), no matter what is
our position on the political spectrum.
A full-bench US federal appeals court has reversed an earlier decision to dismiss the
'Russiagate' case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, returning it to the
judge who refused to let the charges be dropped.
In a 8-2 ruling on Monday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Judge Emmet Sullivan,
and sent the case back to him for review. Sullivan had been ordered by a three-judge panel in
June to drop the case against Flynn immediately, but hired an attorney and asked for an en
banc hearing instead.
Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell said the split was "as expected" based on the tone of
the oral arguments, pointing to a partisan divide on the bench, and added it was a
"disturbing blow to the rule of law."
The former top lawyer for the Barack Obama administration, Neal Katyal, hailed the decision as
"an important step in defending the rule of law" and argued the case should not be
dismissed because Flynn had pleaded guilty.
Flynn had indeed pleaded guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI, but Powell moved to
dismiss the charges due to the failure of his previous attorneys – a law firm with ties
to the Democrats – and the government to disclose evidence that could set him free. After
producing documents revealing that the FBI set out to entrap Flynn, had no valid cause to
interview him in the first place, and the prosecutors improperly extorted him into a plea by
threatening to charge his son, the Justice Department moved to drop all charges.
Sullivan had other ideas, however. In a highly unusual move, he appointed a retired judge
– who had just written a diatribe about the case in the Washington Post – to be
amicus curiae and argue the case should not be dropped. It was at this point that Powell took
the case to the appeals court, citing Fokker, a recent Supreme Court precedent that Sullivan
was violating.
Ignoring the fact that Sullivan had appointed the amicus and sought to prolong the case
after the DOJ and the appeals court both told him to drop it, the en banc panel argued the
proper procedure means he needs to make the decision before it can be appealed.
One of the judges, Thomas Griffith, actually argued in a concurring opinion that it would be
"highly unusual" for Sullivan not to dismiss the charges, given the executive branch's
constitutional prerogatives and his "limited discretion" when it came to the relevant
federal procedure, but said that an order to drop the case is not "appropriate in this case
at this time" because it's up to Sullivan to make the call first.
The court likewise rejected Powell's motion to reassign a case to a different judge.
Conservatives frustrated by the neverending legal saga have blasted the appeals court's
decision as disgraceful. "The Mike Flynn case is an embarrassing stain on this country and
its 'judges',"tweeted TV commentator Dan
Bongino. "We don't have judges anymore, only corrupted politicians in black robes."
While Flynn was not the first Trump adviser to be charged by special counsel Robert
Mueller's 'Russiagate' probe, he was the first White House official pressured to resign over
it, less than two weeks into the job.
With Mueller failing to find any evidence of "collusion" between President Donald
Trump's campaign and Russia, Democrats have latched onto Flynn's case as proof of their
'Russiagate' conspiracy theory. The latest argument is that the effort to drop the charges
against Flynn is politically motivated and proof of Attorney General Bill Barr's
"corruption."
Barr is currently overseeing a probe by US attorney John Durham into the FBI's handling of
the investigation against Trump during and after the 2016 election, with the evidence disclosed
during the Flynn proceedings strongly implicating not just the senior FBI leadership but senior
Obama administration figures as well.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
RussiaGate is about MIC, Intelligence agencies and Dem leadership need to have an enemy to
milt taxpayers and retain power and military budget. Nothing personal, strictly business.
I met Strobe Talbott in 1968 when he and I were graduate students at Magdalen College,
Oxford. I liked him and respected him, and after we lost touch as friends, I followed his
career at Time , the State Department, and the Brookings Institution with admiration.
In recent years, however, I've become disillusioned with the foreign policy he advocated with
regard to Russia and was disturbed to learn of his involvement in the genesis of the
Russiagate narrative.
August 3, 2020
Dear Strobe,
It has been a long time – a very long time – since we've been in touch, but I
assume you remember me from 1968, when we met at Magdalen College, Oxford. Having just
graduated from Yale, you were there on a Rhodes Scholarship; I was on a Reynold Scholarship
granted by my alma mater, Dartmouth. Despite your three-barreled WASP name (Nelson Strobridge
Talbott) and your distinguished pedigree (son of a Yale football captain, Hotchkiss alum,
etc.) you were unpretentious, and we made friends quickly.
Despite assurances from my draft board that I would not be drafted that year, I got an
induction notice on Nixon's inauguration day. You were the first person I consulted. Safe
from the draft, like most Rhodes Scholars, you listened sympathetically. We were together in
our opposition to the War if not in our vulnerability to the draft.
You and I played the occasional game of squash. And when my Dartmouth fraternity brother
and Rhodes Scholar John Isaacson injured your eye with his racket, I visited you in the
Radcliffe Infirmary during your convalescence. I was reading Tristram Shandy as part
of my program, and one day I read some bits to you. You seemed to share my amusement; I can
still see you smiling in your hospital bed with a big patch on one eye. When your father came
from Ohio to visit you, he invited me, along with your Yale classmate Rob Johnson out to
dinner at the Bear.
You had majored in Russian at Yale and were writing a thesis on some topic in Russian
literature, Mayakovsky, perhaps? At any rate, you seemed committed to Russian studies.
(Little did I know.) When I chose to take a student tour behind the Iron Curtain during the
spring vac, you gave me some reading suggestions and advised me to dress warmly. Having
packed for England's relatively mild climate, I lacked a warm enough coat; you generously
loaned me your insulated car coat, which served me well in Russia's raw spring cold.
You likely debriefed me after my travels; I must have passed on to you my sense of the
Soviet Union as a very drab place with a demoralized, often drunk, population, and a general
sense of repression. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy my trip – just that I was
struck by the stark differences at the time between the West and the East. How lucky I was to
have been born in the "free world."
The tour returned from Moscow and St. Petersburg via Ukraine and Czechoslovakia. In
Prague, just after the brutal suppression of Prague Spring, we were acutely aware of how
hated the Russians were. This just reinforced my distaste for what Ronald Reagan later termed
the Evil empire – perhaps the only thing he said I ever agreed with. So, like you, I
was staunchly anti-Communist at the time.
The next year, you got a gig polishing the text of Nikita Krushchev's memoirs, which had
been smuggled out of Russia. The publisher put you up in an "undisclosed location," which you
let on was the Commodore Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts; we met for coffee in Harvard
Square with friends of yours, possibly including Brooke Shearer whom you later married, and
one of her brothers, Cody or Derek. It may have been then that I drove you to the school
where I was teaching on a deferment, Kimball Union Academy in central New Hampshire; you
stayed overnight before returning to civilization.
Your second year, you moved into a house with Bill Clinton and two other Rhodes
Scholars.
During the next few years – the early 70s – you and I exchanged occasional
letters. After that, the rest is history: your illustrious career – as a journalist at
Time , then as a Russia hand and Deputy Secretary of State Department in the Clinton
administration, and then as president of the Brookings Institution – was easy to follow
in the media.
Eventually our paths diverged, I lost touch with you, with one exception.
In the mid-1990s, while you were serving at State, a close friend asked me to ask you to
do her a favor. I hate asking for favors, even for myself, and resent those who use
connections to advance themselves. But all my friend needed was for a senior State official
to sign off on a job application of some sort. I phoned your office from mine. I got a frosty
reception from your administrative assistant, who was justifiably protective of your time,
but she put me through. You recognized my voice, sounded glad to be in touch, and granted the
favor. It never came to anything, but I remember how pleased I was even to have such a brief
task-oriented phone encounter with you after a lapse of two decades.
In any case, over the next several decades I followed your career with interest and was
pleased with your success.
As I was by that of another member of the Oxford cohort, Bob Reich, another fraternity
brother of mine. We were not close, and I saw him less often in Oxford than I saw you. But
you and he both wound up in the Clinton administration – the Oxford troika, I like to
call you. You and Bob were doing what Rhodes Scholars were supposed to do: go into
professions, network, and perform public service. The Rhodes to success. Never a whiff of
scandal about either of you. You, Strobe, were very much what we Dartmouth men referred to as
a straight arrow.
So why am I writing you now, after all these years? And why a public letter?
In part, because I have become progressively more critical of the foreign policy that you
have advocated. Early on you were advocating disarmament. Good. And closer relations with the
Soviet Union. Also good. Indeed, you were regarded as something of a Russophile (never a
compliment). But while you initially resisted the expansion of NATO, you eventually went
along with it. Like George Kennan, I consider that decision to be a serious mistake (and a
breach of a promise not to expand NATO "one inch" to the east after Germany was
reunited).
When the Cold War ended, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO did not; instead, it expanded
eastward to include former Warsaw Pact members and SSRs until today it borders Russia. Russia
resistance to this is inevitably denounced in the West as "Russian aggression." Hence the
tension in Ukraine today. You're not personally responsible for all of this of course. But
you are deeply implicated in what seems to me a gratuitously provocative, indeed
imperialistic, foreign policy.
Two old friends could amicably agree disagree on that, as I disagree with virtually all my
liberal friends.
But your loyalty to the Clintons has apparently extended to involvement in generating the
Russiagate narrative, which has exacerbated tensions between Russia and the USA and spread
paranoia in the Democratic establishment and mainstream media. I am always disturbed by the
hypocrisy of Americans who complain about foreign meddling in our elections, when the USA is
the undisputed champ in that event. Indeed, we go beyond meddling (Yeltsin's reelection in
1996) to actual coups, not to mention regime-change wars.
My concern about this has come to a head with the
recent revelation of your complicity in the dissemination of the Steele dossier, whose
subsource, Igor Danchenko, was a Russian national employed by Brookings.
I don't know which is worse: that you and your colleagues at Brookings believed the
dossier's unfounded claims, or that you didn't but found it politically useful in the attempt
to subvert the Trump campaign and delegitimize his election. I suspect the latter. But
doesn't this implicate you in the creation of a powerful Russophobic narrative in
contemporary American politics that has demonized Putin and needlessly ramped up tension
between two nuclear powers?
A lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill twice and Hillary once, I am no fan of Trump or of
Putin. But Russiagate has served as a distraction from Hillary's responsibility for her
catastrophic defeat and from the real weaknesses of the neoliberal Democratic Party, with its
welfare "reform," crime bill, and abandonment of its traditional working-class base.
Moreover, in and of itself, the Russiagate story represents what Matt Taibbi has called
this generation's WMD media scandal. The narrative, challenged from the beginning by a few
intrepid independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté,
and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, is now being further undermined by the
declassification of documents by the Senate. If, as I have recently read, you were active in
disseminating the Steele dossier, you have contributed to
the mainstream media's gas-lighting of the American public – liberals, at least
(like most of my friends). Ironically, then, you have given credence to Trump's often, but
not always, false charge: "Fake News." Once described as a Russophile, you now seem complicit
in the creation of a nation-wide paranoid and hysterical Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
I hope that the U.S. will follow through on this. The more it sanctions left and right
for totally irrational reasons the more incentives will other countries have to build
mechanisms that make U.S. sanctions ineffective and useless. Russia has already done that
and China to some extend. The Europeans should have done this long ago but are only now
considering it seriously.
There are also counter measures that could and should be considered. A European tax on
digital products would seriously hurt Google, Facebook, Ebay and other U.S. companies. When
their profits and stocks drop the Trump administration might learn that wreaking balls have
the tendency to swing back.
We are seeing desperate measures taken to keep empire from crashing further and faster.
We may be at the point where things where going slowly and then speed up all of a
sudden.
I agree that Trump tactics have been like those of a wrecking ball and I don't think
he/his handlers care about any coincidental damage.....this game continues to be for
control of all the marbles and empire is losing, hence more delusional bullying.
The facets of the civilization war humanity is in will visit and touch every country.
The bonds of financial slavery will be broken by this war.
It seems to me Trump/Pompass are hoist on their own petard here, in that: had they
stayed in the JCPOA, they would now be in a better position to induce "snapback". Hmmm.
Priceless.
It's almost as if the U.S. state is a mindless, merciless, soulless entity which evil,
selfish people serve for own self-interest. Fortunately it would appear this monstrous
creature is discrediting and destroying itself. Perhaps with help from occasional
provocation. It flails like a blinded cyclops, momentarily very dangerous.
Any group still collaborating with the US deserves no sympathy for what happens.
There are also counter measures that could and should be considered. A European tax on
digital products would seriously hurt Google, Facebook, Ebay and other U.S. companies.
When their profits and stocks drop the Trump administration might learn that wreaking
balls have the tendency to swing back.
I don't think the EU can do that (unless it's just a symbolic tax, "to the delight of
the masses"). At this point in history, those big American companies are probably very well
fused and entrenched with the European government and governments of its members.
Besides, to do that would (that is, even if it could) automatically mean having to go
back to China as an inferior part, and we already know at least Germany and France don't
want that (they want a new European imperialism, as Merkel has already made clear many
times over the years of her endless reign).
The U.S. hopes to pressure Iran until it formally declares the deal dead. That could
then give pretext for launching a larger conflict against the country.
israel/neocons want war with iran before trump leaves office bc while they don't think
biden/harris would necessarily start it they'd have no choice but to continue if war was
already started, hence the (30 day) timeline.
If the sanctions are really imposed, it is likely the poodles (UK, France, Germany) will
chicken out rather than fighting against US. That will give Russian and China companies and
arms sellers a field day - bigger profits, less competitions - won't they?
So, who says Trump is not an agent of Russia / China? /sarc
The world's largest producer and arms trader, sponsor of terror ...
"It is an enormous mistake not to extend this arms embargo. It's nuts!" Pompeo told
reporters at the United Nations.
In the meantime, Iran announced a new ballistic missile with a range of approximately
870 miles and is named after Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. A new cruise missile boasting a
range more than 620 miles was named after Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis.
Interview Pompeo at a friendly CNBC broadcast today.
What the useless morons leading Europe should realize is that the only way forward is to
isolate the US and work with everyone else, China and Russia to begin with, to fully
blockade the country economically. Basically do to them what they'll end up doing sooner or
later to any other country. That EU countries can't see that they'll share Iran or Russia
fate in the future is painful - one wonders how world leaders can be so dumb.
all those European "allies" have simply been bought with money. Money talks and BS
walks, right? But they are finally understanding that US will trample them over as much as
it would trample Iran. the North Stream 2 project gave them a big clue.
The US has been stomping on the Euro for decades now, in fear it will become more powerful
than US dollar.
It just takes time. 50 million jobless in USA, dollar's purchasing power collapsing, while
the Americans argue over Antifa and BLM and the rights of transgenders as their country is
imploding all around them. Soon very soon indeed. The only problem is US might start a war
to divert the attention of the average American moron. War is always the final card they
use.
Below is a quote from the latest Reuters posting
"
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States was further isolated on Friday over its bid to
reimpose international sanctions on Iran with 13 countries on the 15-member U.N. Security
Council expressing their opposition, arguing that Washington's move is void given it is
using a process agreed under a nuclear deal that it quit two years ago.
"
Something is puzzling to me. What countries will be intimidated by the "snapback"
sanctions of weapon trade with Iran? It is quite possible that Chinese and Russian have
some shipments ready or getting ready for the Fall delivery. But Iran is not about to
engage in some huge shopping spree.
The editor-in-chief of a major Chinese tabloid slammed Mike Pompeo for
comparing his country to Nazi Germany, likening his words to those of Hitler's propaganda chief
and reminding the secretary of state of America's endless wars.
Hu Xijin took to Twitter on Sunday venting his anger about Mike Pompeo's remarks.
"You are inciting radical hostility and ripping the world apart. You aren't like a top
diplomat, instead, you talk like Goebbels of Nazi Germany. I'm worried that world peace will
eventually be destroyed by extreme politicians like you," he wrote.
In Chicago the looting that centered on the high-end Miracle Mile Michigan Avenue shopping
area was so bad that that part of the city had to be closed off by raising the city's bridges.
Twelve policemen were injured and more than a hundred looters were arrested. U-Haul trucks were
even brought in by the rioters and stolen cars were used to smash open shop windows. It was the
second major trashing of the area in the past three months.
Illinois Retail Merchants Association president Rob Karr
released a statement on the following day which included: "There's a limit to how many
times retailers are willing to be kicked. It will be difficult after retailers who have
invested millions in reopening to have to do it again. There has to be a lot of confidence that
they can be protected and, so far, that confidence is lacking."
Chicago's flagship Macy's outlet on the avenue has already indicated that it is
considering closing due to the shoplifting, looting and general lack of security. In short,
many American cities are no longer able to make even an effort to protect the
persons and property of their citizens and taxpayers. Was the Chicago story important
enough to report by the New York Times ? Yes, but only late in the day on a back
page.
Chicago is reportedly responding to the crisis by creating
a special task force on looting , but
the follow-up coverage in the national media was predictably pretty toothless. On the day
after Michigan Avenue was laid waste, Black Lives Matter (BLM) held a rally outside the police
station where some of the arrested rioters were being held. Fox News alone among
national media covered the story, reporting how one BLM organizer Ariel Atkins described the
estimated $60 million dollars-worth of looting as really just "reparations." She said "I don't
care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy's or a Nike store, because that makes sure
that person eats That is reparations. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because
these businesses have insurance." Presumably the rioters, who did not on this occasion loot
supermarkets for food and instead chose to steal luxury items will be able to eat their Gucci
loafers.
In a similar vein, the New York Times did have something to say about businesses
shutting down or leaving Manhattan. A long article
entitled "Retail Chains Abandon Manhattan: 'It's Unsustainable'" described how many restaurants
and shops, including major chains and department stores, are closing due to unaffordable high
rents that can no longer be paid due to a lack of tourists and office workers' business as a
result of the pandemonium. The article does not mention a lack of security due to the city
government's permissive attitude towards demonstrations that sometimes turn violent, a curious
omission as friends of mine who live in Manhattan have observed the results of random looting
and arson in many parts of the city, leading to boarded-up shops and sharply diminishing retail
activity. Some long-time residents describe it as a "return to the '70s" when the city became
unlivable for many.
America's newspaper of record the Washington Post promotes its product with a phrase
"Democracy dies in darkness." In reality, the darkness is created by the media itself, which no
longer reports what is taking place in an objective fashion. What does appear in the papers,
online and on television and radio, no matter what the political orientation, is a product that
is engineered to send a certain message. That message is itself disinformation, not
substantially different than what takes place in the controlled media put out by so-called
totalitarian regimes. In fact, news sources like Russia Today are likely to be much more
reliable than CNN or FOX on many issues.
Opinion polls suggest that the American public has largely figured things out and reveal
that few trust the media to do its job in an objective fashion. In that light, articles like
the recent
Politico piece have appeared that have questioned how it can be that the Trump White
House is optimistic over the prospects for the November election when opinion polls suggest a
large margin of victory for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If journalists were doing their jobs
and were actually getting out on the streets and talking to people, they would discover that
people are really worried about the future of the country and what it all will mean for their
children and grandchildren. And many of them blame the unrest on the Democratic Party coddling
of radical groups that are actively fomenting ethnic and racial divisions for political gain,
not on the Republicans. Trump's playing on those fears might well have a great impact when it
comes time to vote. Someone who responded to an opinion poll the week before saying he or she
would vote for a safe choice Biden might well go into the voters' booth and instead pull the
lever for Trump.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
He [Bezos] and people like him are more concerned with maintaining the Dollar as reserve
currency in order to facilitate the continued sell-out of Americans for cheap foreign
manufactured goods, technology sells to China, and their own personal enrichment.
In both cases, the "beef" with Trump is that he's rocking the boat -- both in terms of his
criticism of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama wars for Israel and the Petrodollar, and in terms of
the America First noises he's made. While he's proven to be a fairly reliable Zionist stooge
(although he hasn't started any new wars in the Mideast, and been more of a placeholder), he's
edging a little too close to America First (with his domestic rhetoric and some of his
policies) for comfort.
Former Congressman Ron Paul and his colleague Dan McAdams recently conducted a fascinating interview with
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which focused in part on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
who was Kennedy Jr.'s uncle. The interview took place on their program the Ron Paul Liberty
Report.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_kJdOtnBUcw
Owing to the many federal records that have been released over the years relating to the
Kennedy assassination, especially through the efforts of the Assassination Records Review Board
in the 1990s, many Americans are now aware of the war that was being waged between President
Kennedy and the CIA throughout his presidency . The details of this war are set forth in FFF's
book
JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas
Horne.
In the interview, Robert Kennedy Jr. revealed a fascinating aspect of this war with which I
was unfamiliar. He stated that the deep animosity that the CIA had for the Kennedy family
actually stretched back to something the family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy, did in the 1950s
that incurred the wrath of Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.
Kennedy Jr. stated that his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, had served on a commission that
was charged with examining and analyzing CIA covert activities, or "dirty tricks" as Kennedy
Jr. put them. As part of that commission, Kennedy Jr stated, Joseph Kennedy (John Kennedy and
Bobby Kennedy's father) had determined that the CIA had done bad things with its regime-change
operations that were destroying democracies, such as in Iran and Guatemala.
Consequently, Joseph Kennedy recommended that the CIA's power to engage in covert activities
be terminated and that the CIA be strictly limited to collecting intelligence and empowered to
do nothing else.
According to Kennedy Jr.,
"Allen Dulles never forgave him -- never forgave my family -- for that."
I assumed that the war between President Kennedy and the CIA had begun with the CIA's
invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. The additional information added by Kennedy Jr. places
things in a much more fascinating and revealing context.
Upon doing a bit of research on the Internet, I found that the commission that Kennedy Jr.
must have been referring to was the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence
Activities, which President Eisenhower had established in 1956 through
Executive Order 10656 . Eisenhower appointed Joseph Kennedy to serve on that
commission.
That year was three years after the CIA's 1953 regime change operation in Iran which
destroyed that country's democratic system. It was two years after the CIA's regime-change
operation in Guatemala that destroyed that country's democratic system.
Keep in mind that the ostensible reason that the CIA engaged in these regime-change
operations was to protect "national security," which over time has become the most important
term in the American political lexicon. Although no one has ever come up with an objective
definition for the term, the CIA's power to address threats to "national security," including
through coups and assassinations, became omnipotent.
Yet, here was Joseph P. Kennedy declaring that the CIA's power to exercise such powers
should be terminated and recommending that the CIA's power be strictly limited to intelligence
gathering.
It is not difficult to imagine how livid CIA Director Dulles and his cohorts must have been
at Kennedy. No bureaucrat likes to have his power limited. More important, for Dulles and his
cohorts, it would have been clear that if Kennedy got his way, "national security" would be
gravely threatened given the Cold War that the United States was engaged in with the Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and other communist nations.
Now consider what happened with the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's plan for a regime-change invasion
of Cuba, was conceived under President Eisenhower. Believing that Vice President Nixon would be
elected president in 1960, the CIA was quite surprised that Kennedy was elected instead. To
ensure that the invasion would go forth anyway, the CIA assured Kennedy that the invasion would
succeed without U.S. air support. It was a lie. The CIA assumed that once the invasion was
going to go down in defeat at the hands of the communists, Kennedy would have to provide the
air support in order to "save face."
But Kennedy refused to be played by the CIA. When the CIA's army of Cuban exiles was going
down in defeat, the CIA requested the air support, convinced that their plan to manipulate the
new president would work. It didn't. Kennedy refused to provide the air support and the CIA's
invasion went down in defeat.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Now consider what happened after the Bay of Pigs: Knowing that the CIA had played him and
double-crossed him, John Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as CIA director, along with his chief
deputy, Charles Cabell. He then put his younger brother Bobby Kennedy in charge of monitoring
the CIA, which infuriated the CIA.
Now jump ahead to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy resolved by promising that the
United States would not invade Cuba for a regime-change operation. That necessarily would leave
a permanent communist regime in Cuba, something that the CIA steadfastly maintained was a grave
threat to "national security" -- a much bigger threat, in fact, than the threats supposedly
posed by the regimes in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.
And then Kennedy did the unforgivable, at least insofar as the CIA was concerned . In his
famous Peace Speech at American University in June 1963, he declared an end to the entire Cold
War and announced that the United States was going to establish friendly and peaceful relations
with the communist world.
Kennedy had thrown the gauntlet down in front of the CIA. It was either going to be his way
or the CIA's way. There was no room for compromise, and both sides knew it.
In the minds of former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the people still at the CIA, what
Kennedy was doing was anathema and, even worse, the gravest threat to "national security" the
United States had ever faced, a much bigger threat than even that posed by the democratic
regimes in Iran and Guatemala. At that point, the CIA's animosity toward President Kennedy far
exceeded the animosity it had borne toward his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, several years
before.
Joe A , 2 hours ago
And Allen Dulles, the CIA director that Kennedy fired, was on the Warren Commission that
concluded that Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin who was a poor marksman using a crappy
rifle.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
The Warren Commission exhibits show that the Carcano after the scope was shimmed to make
it usable, shot about 10 inches to the right and high at 25 yards with terrible accuracy.
Presumably this was one of the carbines whose barrel was cut down from rifle length taking
much of the progressive rifling with it. The cartridges placed on the 6th floor were
clearly reloads not the supposed new Western cartridges of circa 1953. As reloads then the
question arises where were .267 bullets to be obtained since only .264 were manufactured at
the time which would make accuracy suffer.
Joe A , 1 hour ago
Yes, but these bullets were magic bullets according to the Warren Commission. There was
one bullet that entered Kennedy's throat and left it, then traversed through air, changing
course, hanged suspended in mid air for about a second or so and then continued to hit the
governor that was sitting in front to the left of Kennedy. That bullet traversed 15 layers
of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, struck a
necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone and was found virtually
intact. Some bullet!
USGrant , 1 hour ago
And the found bullet changed from a spitzer according to the first hospital worker who
was alerted to it, to a round nose.
WingedMessenger , 19 minutes ago
You have missed several TV episodes that have successfully recreated the magic bullet
scenario, including Myth Busters. The bullet is not magic, the actual seating geometry and
sight line of the shooter all contribute to the bullet path being actually very straight.
The 6.5mm 150-160 grain bullets have a very high sectional density that gives them a lot of
penetration. In one test the spent bullet was found resting on the leg of the second ("John
Connally") dummy just like it did in real life.
They used the same Cacarno rifle for the tests. The shot is not difficult. The car is
moving directly away from the shooter at the time of this shot, so no real lead is
required. The range is less than a 100 yards so you just aim dead on and shoot. Hunters do
it all the time.
ThirteenthFloor , 1 hour ago
When Allen Dulles passed away, the CIA sent someone to Dulles' Georgetown home to get
'missing' and incriminating JFK autopsy photos from his safe and destroy them. That person
was James Jesus Angleton, who admitted late in his life. Read last chapter in "Devils
Chessboard" - David Talbot.
USGrant , 1 hour ago
If I recall, he was the one found searching in her studio for Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary
after she was killed . (Cord Meyer's ex-wife)
cornflakesdisease , 10 minutes ago
He also had a huge hand in the political beginings of the UN.
Bay of Pigs , 2 hours ago
Allen Dulles, LBJ and the CIA murdered JFK. It's that fu#king simple.
MontCar , 1 hour ago
LBJ likely abetted the cover up. Placing Allen Dulles, recently fired from the CIA
directorship by JFK, on the since disgraced Warren Commission. Mossad may have partnered
with CIA in the assassination. JFK evidently opposed Israel's nuclear weapons acquisition
efforts - an existential issue for Israel. Clear motive.
USGrant , 1 hour ago
Allan Dulles then danced on JFK's grave.
Angular Momentum , 1 hour ago
Kennedy also supported the right of return for the Palestinians refugees who left Israel
for Jordan. Also an existential issue for Israel. I think in Ben Gurian's mind either
Kennedy lived or Israel survived as a Jewish state. It was one or the other. I have no
doubt the CIA covered for Israel because they had their own beef with Kennedy.
Yen Cross , 1 hour ago
It wasn't some flunkie Soviet reject from the bell tower.
There's no way Oswald could bounce a high velocity round of lead off a light post, in
front of the Limousine, still carrying enough muzzle velocity to cave in the back side of
POTUS cranium.
There were other players, at the very least.
WingedMessenger , 5 minutes ago
I have been to the 6th floor museum in Dallas several times and reviewed the various
theories on where other shooters might have been located. All of the them are worse than
the 6th floor of the Book Depository. Some are down right stupid, like the one supposed in
the sewer by the curb. It would be impossible to shoot a rifle in there at the angle needed
to hit above the wheel well of the limo, much less be able to see the limo before it was
right on you. You could not even see Kennedy from there, You would have to shoot through
the bottom of a door or the floor boards just to hit him in the leg or foot.
The 6th floor is the only location that allows the shooter to see the limos coming
before they arrive in the target zone and allow him to prepare to shoot. All the other
locations give only a tiny window to ID the target and loose off a round before the limo
disappears out of view. A competent assassin would have chosen the 6th floor window. If
Oswald was not the best shot, there is always the possibility that he just got lucky on
some easy shots, or maybe someone else was in the 6th floor window. We don't have any
evidence for either case.
NewDarwin , 3 hours ago
The CIA has it in for anyone who tries to dismantle the deep state...
sj warrior , 2 hours ago
jfk tried to stop izzy from getting nuclear bombs
rfk tried to force the forerunner to aipac to register as foreign agent, thus subject to
gov monitoring
both of these stances failed after the assassinations
Pandelis , 26 minutes ago
plus the Secret Societies speech ... that was a biggie showing he was into them (cia was
just one of octopus arms)....
and the executive order issued by Kennedy on using silver as currency ... that was
really going after the owners ... in all fairness, not sure he knew what he was up against
... his son was killed without giving him a chance to shine yet ...
desertboy , 2 hours ago
The CIA is the direct product of, and works directly for, the same parties that own the
Fed (the primary shareholders of its shareholders).
The CIA is even typically headed by bankers.
This is simply the history.
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Nope, Trump is an insider. Should be pretty obvious given his behavior toward Syria,
Iran, and Israel. He's no different than all those in the long line since after
Kennedy.
Dzerzhhinsky , 2 hours ago
The CIA Versus The Kennedys
We all know who won that fight. Not a single American President has dared to disobey the
CIA since.
revjimbeam , 2 hours ago
Nixon ended Viet nam and opened China- liddy(FBI) and hunt(CIA) set the administration
up by breaking into the watergate then finished him of with anonymous leaks to the
Washington post by felt (deepthroat) the no.2 at fbi....sound familar?
Impeachment doesn't leave agency fingerprints and is less messy than Dallas Memphis and
LA
Gospel According To Me , 2 hours ago
Interesting theory and very plausible.
That is why to this day the Deep State poses such a grave danger to our democracy. They
want Trump out of their way, period. If Trump pardons Snowden he better head for his WH
bomb shelter. They will really go after him with everything they have. And they still have
plenty of sick like-minded people in place in every agency. They spy on Trump and work to
sabotage every good idea he has to Make America Great Again. Pray he prevails and the USA
survives.
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Please. Snowden is a feeble US analog of Baryshnikov et al and Russia knows it.
Moreover, the contrived Trump v. Deep State narrative reads like a Hardy Boys novel, soft
and weak. If 'deep state' wants someone gone, they don't dilly dally. What are you, 13
years old?
2hangmen , 2 hours ago
Well, that explains the CIA involvement with the Deep State in trying to take down
candidate Trump, then President Trump. Whether someone can bring them into line will
determine if we keep our nation as founded.
ComradePuff , 22 minutes ago
Kennedy didn't even make one full term, let alone stand for re-election. In the
meantime, the CIA has only gotten stronger and spun off into a dozen other agencies. You're
deluding yourself.
FlKeysFisherman , 2 hours ago
WTF, I like a Kennedy now!!!
Earth Ling , 2 hours ago
Then you'll love this!
RFK JR's org Children's Health Defense is suing Zuckerberg and Facebook:
I fear for RFK Jr, to be perfectly honest. It's amazing he can even walk with balls that
big.
Eastern Whale , 2 hours ago
shows that politicians are all rotten to the core even in a "democratically" elected
government
communism in 20th century is a joke, Oligarch from Russia is buying soccer teams in UK,
Chinese is lined up at Chanel and LV in every city. communism is just a concept and name
now.
anyhow, all politicians should be at the bottom of the ocean
presterjohn1198 , 2 hours ago
The cia has always been the shadow government of the USSA. Those clever Ivy League boys
think that they always knew better about screwing up world affairs than our elected
government. Pretty much the same kind of club as the legacy media, whom the cia frequently
collaborates with.
Fools!
Arising , 1 hour ago
... the CIA's 1953 regime change operation in Iran which destroyed that country's
democratic system.
There's one for all the Republican fan boys that hate Iran because their leaders tell
them to.
buckboy , 1 hour ago
Pres. Trump are well aware of these facts. Main reason why he has his own private
security. Amazing he is getting this far. This man knows how to win than anyone else.
He made Brennan, Clapper, Comey Clintons like real clowns instead.
Call it conspiracy, the terrorism, blm antifa racism and non sense chaos are supported
by the cia. CIA is the main and most dangerous enemy of the world. To control is the main
objective.
Like the JFK family and now Trump, if you are against them, they'll discredit you
through the history.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
Listen to Douglas Horne's interview of Dino Brugioni and how the Zupruder film was
doctored to make it seem that the head shot came from the back. No surprise with the head
movement-it came from the front.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
Those frames were cut out which not only exaggerated the head movement but it made it
impossible for 3 shots to come from the crappy Carcano in the shortened time as gauged from
the film. So there is only one frame of the head shot but Dino remembered several as he was
the one charged with making the briefing board on Saturday night prior to the film being
altered on Sunday at the Kodak Hawkeye Works.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
Richard
Dolan has a nice set of interviews with Phillip Lavelle (a walking JFK encyclopedia) on
the topic at his youtube channel. ...
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
And Tracey too, being that smart and good looking is almost unfair
fucking truth , 1 hour ago
And yet trump promised and reneged on releasing all the Kennedy docs, it's a big swamp
and i think Trump's in it, ribbit.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
It's like trying to drain an ocean. Eventually you fall in
mcmich , 1 hour ago
The people in power now is the people behind JFK's murder..
Soloamber , 38 minutes ago
So does everyone else . Jackie Kennedy knew too . She said they finally got him . Johnson told his mistress the same day .
DEDA CVETKO , 1 hour ago
The only worthwhile human beings in the entire Kennedy clan were JFK and Jr.
(notwithstanding Jackie, whom I count as Onassis). The rest - particularly Bobby Kennedy -
were scum of the earth and sycophants of the Matrix, the lowliest kind of elitist
wire-carrying police informants and apron-wearers. To this day I don't understand how
anyone in the right mind could venerate Bobby Kennedy. The man was three tiers below even
his fuhrer-sucking daddy.
Would United States have been better off had Kennedy survived? Probably, but not by much
and only in the short term. We might have avoided Vietnam (highly questionable - JFK had
already sent our troops there and the whole thing was already on the verge of dangerous
escalation). But as soon as his second term ended, the Deep State would have installed a
more desirable and obedient puppet (most likely Nixon, possibly LBJ) in the White House and
we would have continued where LBJ left off in January 1969.
One of the comments made following Trump's decision to relocate some 12,000 troops from
Germany was made by retired Admiral James ('Zorba') Stavridis, who in 2009-2013 was US Supreme
Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of Nato). He declared
that the action, among other things, "hurts NATO solidarity and is a gift to Putin." This was a
most serious pronouncement, which was echoed
by Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a
rich Republican and
Mormon cleric, who
said the redeployment was a "gift to Russia." These sentiments were well-reported and
endorsed by US media outlets which continue to be relentlessly anti-Russia.
Stavridis is the man who wrote that
the seven-month bombing and rocketing of Libya by the US-Nato military grouping in 2011 "has
rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating
situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive
regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and
space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi."
On June 22 Human Rights Watch noted that
"over the past years" in Libya their investigators have "documented systematic and gross human
rights and humanitarian law violations
by armed groups on all sides, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other acts of
sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced displacement, unlawful killings and
enforced disappearances
." Amnesty International's current Report also
details the chaos in the shattered country where Nato conducted its "model intervention."
The Libya catastrophe illustrates the desperation of Nato in its continuing search for
international situations in which it might be able to intervene, to try to provide some sort of
justification for its existence. And the calibre of its leadership can be judged from the
pronouncements of such as Stavridis, who was unsurprisingly
considered a possibility for the post of Secretary of State by Donald Trump.
It is not explained how relocation of US troops from Germany could hurt Nato's "solidarity"
but Defence Secretary Esper was more revealing about the situation as he sees it, when
interviewed by balanced and
objective Fox News on August 9. He
declared "we basically are moving troops further east, closer to Russia's border to deter
them. Most of the allies I've either spoken to, heard from or my staff has spoken to, see this
as a good move. It will accomplish all of those objectives that have been laid out. And
frankly, look, we still have 24,000 plus troops in Germany, so it will still be the largest
recipient of US troops. The bottom line is the border has shifted as the alliance has grown."
(It is intriguing that this important policy statement was not covered by US mainstream media
and cannot be found on the Pentagon's Newsroom website -- the "one-stop shop for Defense
Department news and information.")
No matter the spin from the Pentagon and what is now appearing in the US media, Trump's July
29 decision to move troops from Germany had no basis in strategy. It was not the result of a
reappraisal of the regional or wider international situation. And it was not discussed with any
of Washington's allies, causing Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg
to say plaintively that it was "not yet decided how and when this decision will be
implemented."
The BBC reported that "President Donald Trump
said the move was a response to Germany failing to meet Nato targets on defence spending."
Trump was quoted as telling reporters that "We don't want to be the suckers anymore. We're
reducing the force because they're not paying their bills; it's very simple." It could not have
been made clearer than that. The whole charade is the result of Trumpian petulance and has
nothing to do with military strategy, no matter what is belatedly claimed by the Pentagon's
Esper.
The German government was not consulted before Trump's contemptuous announcement, and
defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer
criticised Washington, saying "Nato is not a trade organisation, and security is not a
commodity." But so far as Trump is concerned, security is indeed a commodity that can be traded
as he sees fit, irrespective of relevance to national policy or anything other than his
ego.
In trying to pick up the pieces following Trump's candid explanation of his orders to
"reduce the force" in Germany, the Pentagon has conjured up a jumbled but confrontational plan
intended to convince those who are interested (who do not
include the German public), that it is all part of a grand scheme to extend the power of
the US-Nato alliance. To this end, Esper
announced he is "confident that the alliance will be all the better and stronger for it,"
because the redeployment involves reinforcement of the US military in Poland. He is moving 200
staff of the army's 5 corps to Krakow where, as reported by
Military.com on August 5, "In a ceremony Army Chief of Staff General James McConville
promoted John Kolasheski, the Army's V Corps commander, to the rank of lieutenant general and
officially unfurled the headquarters' flag for the first time on Polish soil."
In addition to Washington's move of the advance HQ of V Corps to Krakow, there is a
agreement that Poland will engage in what the Military Times
reports as "a host of construction projects designed to support more US troops in that
country" and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Campbell said that the Warsaw government "has
agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to US forces," which should please the
White House.
These initiatives are part of the US-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
completed on August 3, which Esper
stated "will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and
our forward presence in Poland on NATO's eastern flank will improve our strategic and
operational flexibility." Then on August 15 Secretary of State Pompeo visited Poland to
formally
ink the accord which was warmly welcomed by Polish President Duda who recently visited
Trump in Washington.
Duda's declaration
that "our soldiers are going to stand arm-in-arm" is consistent with the existing situation in
Poland, where the Pentagon has other elements already deployed,
including in Redzikowo, where a base is being built for
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence systems, and the Air Force's 52nd Fighter Wing
detachments at Polish Air Force bases at Lask and Miroslawiec, where there is a unit
operating MQ-9
attack drones.
Defence Secretary Esper has emphasised that "the border has shifted as the alliance has
grown" -- and the border to which he refers is that of US-Nato as it moves more menacingly
eastwards. That's the gift that Trump has given Russia.
Some Americans continue to believe that when they go to the internet they will get a free
flow of useful information that will guide them in making decisions or coming to conclusions
about the state of the world. That conceit might have been true to an extent twenty years ago,
but the growth and consolidation of corporate information management firms has instead limited
access to material that it does not approve of, thereby successfully shaping the political and
economic environment to conform with their own interests. Facebook, Google and other news and
social networking sites now all have advisory panels that are authorized to ban content and
limit access by members. This de facto censorship is particularly evident when using the
internet information "search" sites themselves, a "service" that is dominated by Google. Ron
Unz has observed how when the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai faced congressional scrutiny on July
29 th together with other high-tech executives, the questioning was hardly
rigorous and no one even asked how the sites are regulated to promote certain information
that is approved of while suppressing views or sources that are considered to be
undesirable.
The "information" sites generally get a free pass from government scrutiny because they are
useful to those who run the country from Washington and Wall Street. That the internet is a
national security issue was clearly demonstrated when the Barack Obama Administration sought to
develop a switch that could be used to "kill it" in the event of a national crisis. No
politician or corporate chief executive wants to get on the bad side of Big Tech and find his
or her name largely eliminated from online searches, or, alternatively, coming up all too
frequently with negative connotations.
Google, for example, ranks the information that it displays so it can favor certain points
of view and dismiss others. Generally speaking, progressive sites are favored and conservative
sites are relegated to the bottom of the search with the expectation that they will not be
visited. In late July,
investigative journalists noted that Google was apparently testing its technical ability to
blacklist conservative media on its search engine which processes more than 3.5 billion online
searches every day, comprising 94
percent of internet searching. Sites targeted and made to effectively disappear from
results included NewsBusters, the Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze, Townhall, The Daily Wire,
PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent, Breitbart, Drudge, Unz, the
Media Research Center and CNSNews. All the sites affected are considered to be politically
conservative and no progressive or liberal sites were included.
One has to suspect that the tech companies like Google are working hand-in-hand with some
regulators within the Trump administration to "purge" the internet, primarily by removing
foreign competition both in hardware and software from countries like China. This will give the
ostensibly U.S. companies monopoly status and will also allow the government to have sufficient
leverage to control the message. If this process continues, the internet itself will become
nationally or regionally controlled and will inevitably cease to be a vehicle for free exchange
of views. Recent steps taken by the U.S. to block Huawei 5G technology and also force the sale
of sites like TikTok
have been explained as "national security" issues, but they are more likely designed to control
aspects of the internet.
Washington is also again beating the familiar drum that Russia is interfering in American
politics, with an eye on the upcoming election. Last week saw the released of
a 77 page report produced by the State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC) on
Russian internet based news and opinion sources that allegedly are guilty of spreading
disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Kremlin. It is entitled "Understanding Russia's
Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem" and has a lead paragraph asserting that "Russia's
disinformation and propaganda ecosystem is the collection of official, proxy, and unattributed
communication channels and platforms that Russia uses to create and amplify false
narratives."
Perhaps not surprisingly, The New York Times is hot on the trail of Russian
malfeasance, describing the report and its conclusions in a
lengthy article "State Dept. Traces Russian Disinformation Links" that appeared on August 5
th .
The government report identifies a number of online sites that it claims are actively
involved in the "disinformation" effort. The Times article focuses on one site in
particular, describing how "The report states that the Strategic Culture Foundation [website] is directed by Russia's
foreign intelligence service, the S.V.R., and stands as 'a prime example of longstanding
Russian tactics to conceal direct state involvement in disinformation and propaganda outlets.'
The organization publishes a wide variety of fringe voices and conspiracy theories in English,
while trying to obscure its Russian government sponsorship." It also quotes Lea Gabrielle, the
GEC Director, who explained that "The Kremlin bears direct responsibility for cultivating these
tactics and platforms as part of its approach of using information and disinformation as a
weapon."
As Russia has been falsely accused of supporting the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and
the existence of alternative news sites funded wholly or in part by a foreign government is not
ipso facto an act of war, it is interesting to note the "evidence" that The Times
provides based on its own investigation to suggest that Moscow is about to disrupt the upcoming
election. It is: "Absent from the report is any mention of how one of the writers for the
Strategic Culture Foundation weighed in this spring on a Democratic primary race in New York.
The writer, Michael Averko, published articles on the foundation's website and in a local
publication in Westchester County, N.Y., attacking Evelyn N. Farkas, a former Obama
administration official who was running for Congress. In recent weeks, the F.B.I. questioned
Mr. Averko about the Strategic Culture Foundation and its ties to Russia. While those attacks
did not have a decisive effect on the election, they showed Moscow's continuing efforts to
influence votes in the United States "
Excuse me, but someone writing for an alternative website with relatively low readership
criticizing a candidate for congress does not equate to the Kremlin's interfering in an
American election. Also, the claim that the Strategic Culture Foundation is a disinformation
mechanism is overwrought. Yes, the site is located in Moscow and it may have some government
support but it features numerous American and European contributors in addition to Russians. I
have been writing for the site for nearly three years and I know many of the other Americans
who also do so. We are generally speaking antiwar and often critical of U.S. foreign policy but
the contributors include conservatives like myself, libertarians and progressives and we write
on all kinds of subjects.
And here is the interesting part: not one of us has ever been told what to write. Not one of
us has ever even had a suggestion coming from Moscow on a good topic for an article. Not one of
us has ever had an article or headline changed or altered by an editor. Putting on my
ex-intelligence officer hat for a moment, that is no way to run an influencing or
disinformation operation intended to subvert an election. Sure, Russia has a point of view on
the upcoming election and its managed media outlets will reflect that bias but the sweeping
allegations are nonsense, particularly in an election that will include billions of dollars in
real disinformation coming from the Democratic and Republican parties.
Putting together what you no longer can find when you search the internet with government
attempts to suppress alternative news sites one has to conclude that we Americans are in the
middle of an information war. Who controls the narrative controls the people, or so it seems.
It is a dangerous development, particularly at a time when no one knows whom to trust and what
to believe. How it will play out between now and the November election is anyone's guess.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
One has to suspect that the tech companies like Google are working hand-in-hand with
some regulators within the Trump administration to "purge" the internet
Direct quote from Donald Trump EXPOSED – Israel, Zionism
DJT: And we have kids that are watching the internet and they want to be masterminds.
And then you wonder why do we lose all these kids. They go over there. They're young and
they're impressionable. They go over there. They want to join ISIS. We're losing a lot of
people because of the internet. And we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to
them maybe in certain areas closing that internet up in some way . Somebody will say
"oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech" These are foolish people. We have a lot of
foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We've gotta maybe do something with the
internet , because they are recruiting by the thousands .
It's true. Knowledge of evidence based reality is a threat to US National Security.
Those who value US National Security are right to fear general access to evidence based
reality.
Their suggestion that Russia is the sole source of knowledge of evidence based reality,
though flattering to Russia, merely illustrates an entertaining cartoon mindset.
russia-gate etc. has been a criminal conspiracy from the beginning. who didn't know this?
the US is led by psychopaths, evil people. not ignorant, misguided, etc. evil! why are people
so reluctant to use that word?
business, media, government, education, military, etc. it doesn't matter. the top brass
are monsters.
if you want a picture of the future winston, imagine psychopaths commanding armies of
autists.
eventually what will happen is something like "the troubles". and this will not be stopped
by government action. there will have to be something like the good friday accords, a second
constituional convention, and partition.
There we go again! Mr Giraldi along with his friend Larry Romanoff, reframing the
narrative into China vs US, to deflect attention away from the Deep State common to both.
If 'liberal' dogs can't bark at Jews and Deep State, they bark at Russia.
The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind
Many years ago, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that
political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation
and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but
also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. This was the beginning
of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all
manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since. Lippmann created
these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated "facts" deeply
insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story. An
Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of
Lippmann's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann's theories into practice.
Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more
accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass
manipulation of the public mind.
Bernays claimed "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind" it will be
possible "to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing
about it". He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of
consent', and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical
ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud. [10] [11]
Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a "herd instinct", and that if the
multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European
elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites,
massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary. These elites, "invisible people", would
have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the
power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry. His conviction was that this
group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to
"engineer" the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them. According to Bernays,
this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of
false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of "democracy". Bernays wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested,
largely by men they have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
. In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number
of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they
who pull the wires which control the public mind."[12]
In his main work titled 'Propaganda', [13] which he
wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of
democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the
elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.
He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy
to accomplish. He wrote further that:
"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any
wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up
for it by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of
inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by
the leaders. Fortunately, the politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold
and form the will of the people. So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented,
and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure
before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. "
And it wasn't only the public masses that were 'inherently dangerous', but a nation's
leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.
Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without
their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is
precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:
"In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are
ruled by dictators exercising great power. There are invisible rulers who control the
destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions
of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the
scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits
are modified by authorities. The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the
hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which
controls the opinions and habits of the masses."
And in this case, the "few" are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker
friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.
Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based
on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but
the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the
possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters. The "shrewd" designers
of Bernays' "invisible government" developed a standard technique for what was essentially
propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US
government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians. Coincident with
this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal,
religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect
their supporters.
Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America. Much of the blame must
be laid on Bernays' propaganda methods. Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce
rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was
limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary
mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world –
which is precisely what we see in the US today. This isn't difficult to understand. When
Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of
potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps
a blocking of the information. In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either
an 'on' or 'off' position , with no other reasonable choices.
The elite few, as Bernays called them, realised early on the potential for control of
governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff,
the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this
same disease of shrewd manipulation. Roosevelt's "intense desire for war" in 1939 [14] [15]
[16] was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course
approved of the infection of the entire American population. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays
succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Bernays – Marketing War
In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war
marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war
effort. At the time, the European Zionists had made an agreement with England to bring the US
into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant
them the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. [19]
Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal
or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.
US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the
US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the
European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating. To facilitate the desired
result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), [20] to
propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the 'front' of a
group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie
industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology. The two most important members
were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays
who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this
game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology
blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. It
was Bernays' vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea
that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe", that
proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war. Thanks to Edward Bernays,
American war marketing was born and would never die.
Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the
specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was
extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original
source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that
information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.
"Wilson's creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly
scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire
population." With Wilson's authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work
their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual
possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out "a program of
psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and
with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about".
Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to
"lead the public mind into war"[21] and,
with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men
determined to engineer what Lippman called "the manufacture of consent" . The committee
assumed the task to "examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and
to flood these channels with pro-war material". Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and
sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and
withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it
nationally through all channels. In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough
organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature,
movies, songs, media articles and much more.
... ... ...
Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two
World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. That template
has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers' Private Army) since the Second
World War, 'engineering consent and ignorance' in the American and Western populations to mask
almost seven decades of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation
for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or 'wars of liberation' fought exclusively
for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military
as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of
millions of innocent civilians.
... ... ...
We can easily think of George W. Bush's demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass
slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons
ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of
incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents. We can
think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications –
typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and
invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war
launched only for political and commercial objectives.
Fast Forward to 2020
We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same "anger campaign"
against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me , evidenced in
his recent article "Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now." [43] And so
does Gordon Duff . [44] The
signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need
for an 'anger campaign' as opposed to a 'hate campaign'. We are not moved to action from hate,
but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing. It is only if
I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so
clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well
against Germany and being so well used against China today. Since we need atrocity propaganda
to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.
... ... ...
Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, "The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China's
failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it."[55] Further,
that (due to COVID-19) China "caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life," and the
"Chinese Communist Party will pay a price". [56] Of
course, we all know that "China" stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then
released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof [57] , and
even "A Chinese virologist has proof" that "China" engaged in a massive cover-up while
contaminating the world [58] and then
"fleeing Hong Kong" because "I know how they treat whistle-blowers." [59] And of
course, "China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19's destruction"[60] which is
why everyone in the US wants to sue "China". "Australia" demands an international criminal
investigation of China's role in COVID-19. [61] What a
surprise.
And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations , from Hong
Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters,
students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope
of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.
The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a
continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what
was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.
And it's working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India,
Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow. The
Global Times reported "Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low". [62]
"Boycott China" T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned
from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan
Adams recently slammed all Chinese as "Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making,
greedy bastards".[63] [64] In
a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way
Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in
Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.
About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been " threatened or intimidated in some
way", fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced
. . . "some kind of physical altercation", and 60% said the abuse was so bad "they had to
reorganise their daily routine to avoid it". One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her
daughter "Every day I pray that you people die".[65]
... ... ...
Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the
newscasts. CNN won the case. They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense
was based simply on the position that American news media have "no obligation to tell the
truth". And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a "medium or
high" bias in all media coverage,[65] yet, as
we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many
nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that
would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information
work by outlets such as Voice of America.
"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's
and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said
Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.
Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources
of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70
years."
Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the
dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent
organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they
"be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and
"provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises
abroad."
The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being
broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.
The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents"
in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last
month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to
"intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they
are in danger when they watch or read our materials."
Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network
(CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) condemned as
an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated
outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.
US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian-
and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that
descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the
French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double
standard.
jangosimba 10 August, 2020
He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin
William Johnson 1 hour ago
Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to
follow any order...
The New York Timesreports on the
resignation of Brian Hook, who will be replaced by none other than Elliott Abrams:
Mr. Hook will be succeeded by Elliott Abrams, a conservative foreign policy veteran and
Iran hard-liner who is currently the State Department's special representative for
Venezuela.
As the administration's special envoy, Hook had no success in gaining support from other
governments for the "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. His brief stint as a negotiator
with our European allies yielded nothing, and when he was trying to negotiate with them Trump
famously had no idea who
he was . He mostly served as one of the administration's leading
propagandists .
Last year he came under fire from the State Department's Inspector General for his role in
the
mistreatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh , who was the target of political retaliation at the
department on account of her support for the JCPOA and at least partly because of her Iranian
heritage.
Hook is described in the Times ' report as a "survivor," but they neglect to
mention that the reason he has survived so long in the Trump administration is his cowardice
.
Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the coverage of Hook·s resignation is that it
is framed as somehow undermining the chances of diplomacy with Iran.
America's actions have already caused Beijing and Moscow to put aside historic enmity and
increase its partnership on economic issues and increasingly frequent joint
military drills . China and Iran recently completed the basics of an energy and military
cooperation agreement. Moreover, President Xi Jinping has become increasingly effective at
deepening ties with European, African, and Latin American states.
Today, Washington is saturated with China hawks. Unfortunately, andy voices that champion
keeping America strong by avoiding conflict with China are reflexively smeared as
"appeasement." I fear America may one day find out to its harm that rejecting sober diplomatic
engagement, which could have extended its security and prosperity well into the future, was
dismissed in favor of an unnecessary military-first tactic of coercing China.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat
deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy,
just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the
results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this
goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget
money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia
Continues Interfering' statement:
Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence
officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to
interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in
November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading
carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.
The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the
intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it
up.
When one reads the
statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the
U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:
For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about
corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine
former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors
are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.
After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian
parliamentarian published Ukrainian
evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV
show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in
U.S. elections?
The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences",
"increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?
The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a
long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the
United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the
flames.
But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often
mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring
down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?
Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any
evidence.
Even the NYT writers have to
admit that there is nothing there:
The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...
and
Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer
clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a
secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the
United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S.
people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?
If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?
Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making
wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off
their budget.
Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.
Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC |
Permalink
"There's no difference between John Bolton, Brian Hook or Elliott Abrams," Iranian Foreign
Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said in
a tweet with the hashtag #BankruptUSPolicy on Friday.
"When U.S. policy concerns Iran, American officials have been biting off more than they can
chew. This applies to Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump and their successors," Mousavi added.
Indeed in perhaps one of the greatest symbols or representations of the contradictions and
absurdity inherent in US foreign policy of the past few decades, and a supreme irony that can't
be emphasized enough: the new US envoy to Iran who will oversee Pompeo's 'maximum pressure'
campaign remains the most publicly visible face of the 1980's Iran-Contra affair .
Elliott Abrams has been named to the position after Brian Hook stepping down. This means the
man who will continue to push for the extension of a UN arms embargo against Iran once himself
was deeply involved in illegally selling weapons to Iran and covering it up .
Most famously, or we should say infamously, Abrams pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in
1991 following years of the Iran-Contra scandal engulfing the Reagan administration; however,
he was also pardoned by outgoing president George H.W. Bush at around the same time.
"Pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1992, Abrams was a pivotal figure in the foreign-policy
scandal that shook the Reagan administration, lying to Congress about his knowledge of the plot
to covertly sell weapons to the Khomeini government and use the proceeds to illegally fund the
right-wing Contras rebel group in Nicaragua ,"
NY Mag reviews.
Some are noting this heightens the chances that Washington could get dragged into a war
involving Israel and Iran.
Recall too that Abrams has been Trump's point man for ousting Maduro from Venezuela, and it
appears he'll remain in the post of special envoy for Venezuela as well.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291783763945574402&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Grayzone journalist, Anya Parampil, who has frequently reported from Venezuela, alleged
this week that Abrams will "try and destroy Venezuela and Iran at the same time".
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm Wild Bill Steamcock , 14 hours ago
Abrams is a disgrace. This Administration should be dying in it's own shame bringing this
swine back into government.
He's a leach. He's about lining his own pockets. He can't even own a .22 single shot, yet
he's shaping international policy.
This country is dead. And the fact Trump has democrat and zionist Kushner as advisor,
bringing in guys like Bolton and Abrams, Reince Priebus, H.R. McMaster and that Ukranian pet
goblin of his, in not firing Comey et. al day 1 means he's not the answer. Face it.
And to be fair, it doesn't matter anymore who is POTUS. It hasn't really mattered in quite
some time. The Plan rolls along.
Kinskian , 15 hours ago
Trump is a clumsy and transparent Zionist stooge.
PT , 14 hours ago
Gotta admit, if you're going to have a Zionist stooge then you are better off having a
clumsy and transparent one.
Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago
Elliott Abrams is a moron. He's been running the exact same stupid coup strategy for
decades, and can't conceive of a world where the enemy has worked out how to defeat that.
Venezuela was set to be US foreign policies most embarrassing failure--but maybe Iran will
be worse.
Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago
Let's predict what Abrams will attempt:
Running out of the US/UK embassies, Abrams will attempt to identify a potential
alternative leader who is corrupt and controllable. They'll throw political support behind
this false leader, and try and find enough military to support him. Then, protests in the
streets, and the small faction of the military--supported by foreign forces--will attempt to
establish control.
Counter: China and Russia will import anti-coup specialists. Individuals in the Iranian
military will pretend to be on board claiming to have thousands at call, and when the false
leader gives the call, they won't answer. All the conspirators will be caught out on the
street, and have to flee to embassies for political asylum. Like what happened in Venezuela
recently, and Turkey in 2016. This will allow Iran to do a purge of all the real threats
(remembering that Iran has the death penalty for sedition), and give them enough
justification to end diplomatic missions in the country that are being used as launch
pads.
The United States national election is now only three months away and it should be expected
that the out-and-out lies emanating from both parties will increase geometrically as the
polling date nears. One of the more interesting claims regarding the election itself is the
White House assertion that large scale voting by mail will permit fraud, so much so that the
result of the voting will be unreliable or challenged. To be sure, it is not as if voter fraud
is unknown in the United States. The victory of John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential election has
often been credited to all the graveyards in Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago voting to swing
Illinois into the Democratic camp.
The Democrats are insisting that voting by mail is perfectly safe and reliable, witness the
use of absentee ballots for many years. The assertions by Democratic Party-affiliated voting
officials in several states and also from friends on the federal level have been played in the
media to confirm that fraud in elections has been insignificant recently. That may be true, up
until now.
The Democrats, of course, have an agenda. For reasons that are not altogether clear, they
believe that voting by mail would benefit them primarily, so they are pushing hard for their
supporters to register in their respective states and cast their ballots at the local mail box.
Nevertheless, there should be some skepticism whenever a major American political party wants
something. In this case, the Democrats are likely assuming that people at lower income levels
who will most likely vote for them cannot be bothered to register and vote if it requires
actually going somewhere to do it. They have spoken of "expansion of voting," presumably to
their benefit. The mail is a much easier option.
A Fox News host
has rejected the impelling logic behind the mail option, saying "Can't we just have this
one moment to vote for one candidate every four years, and show up and put a ballot in without
licking an envelope or pressing on a stamp? If you can shop for food, if you can buy liquor,
you can vote once every four years."
The fundamental problem with the arguments coming from both sides is that there is no
national system in the United States for registering and voting. Elections are run at state
level and the individual states have their own procedures. The actual ballots also differ from
voting district to voting district. To determine what safeguards are actually built into the
system is difficult as how electoral offices actually function is considered sensitive
information by many, precisely because it might reveal vulnerabilities in the process.
To determine how one might actually vote illegally, I reviewed the process required for
registering and voting by mail in my own state of Virginia. In Virginia one can both register
and vote without any human contact at all. The registration process can be accomplished by
filling out an online form, which is
linked here . Note particularly the following: the form requires one to check the box
indicating U.S. citizenship. It then asks for name and address as well as social security
number, date of birth and whether one has a criminal record or is otherwise disqualified to
vote. You then have to sign and date the document and mail it off. Within ten days, you should
receive a voter's registration card for Virginia which you can present if you vote in person,
though even that is not required.
But also note the following: no documents have to presented to support the application,
which means that all the information can be false. You can even opt out of providing a social
security number by indicating that you have never been issued one, even though the form
indicates that you must have one to be registered, and you can also submit a temporary address
by claiming you are "homeless." Even date of birth information is useless as the form does not
ask where you were born, which is how birth records are filed by state and local governments.
Ultimately, it is only the social security number that validates the document and that is what
also appears on the Voter's ID Card, but even that can be false or completely fabricated, as
many illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. have discovered.
In a state like Virginia, the actual mail-in ballot requires your signature and that of a
witness, who can be anyone. That is also true in six other states. Thirty-one states only
require your own signature while only three states require that the document be notarized, a
good safeguard since it requires the voter to actually produce some documentation. Seven states
require your additional signature on the ballot envelope and two states require that a
photocopy of the voter ID accompany the ballot. In other words, the safeguards in the system
vary from state to state but in most cases, fraud would be relatively easy.
And then there is the issue of how the election commissions in the states will be
overwhelmed by tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that they might be receiving in November.
That overload would minimize whatever manual checking of names, addresses and social security
numbers might otherwise take place. Jim Bovard has speculated how
:
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"The American political system may be on the eve of its worst legitimacy crisis since the
Civil War. Early warning signals indicate that many states could suffer catastrophic failures
in counting votes in November Because of the pandemic, many states are switching primarily to
mail-in voting even though experiences with recent primaries were a disaster. In New York
City, officials are
still struggling to count mail-in ballots from the June primary. Up to 20% of ballots
'were declared
invalid before even being opened , based on mistakes with their exterior envelopes,' the
Washington Post noted, thanks largely to missing postmarks or signatures. In Wisconsin, more
than 20,000 '
primary ballots were thrown out because voters missed at least one line on the form,
rendering them invalid.' Some states are mailing ballots to all the names on the voting
lists, providing thousands of dead people the chance to vote from the grave."
Add into the witch's cauldron the continued use of easily hacked antiquated voting machines
as well as confusing ballots in many districts, and the question of whether an election can
even be run with expectations of a credible result becomes paramount. President Trump has
several times claimed that the expected surge in mail-in voting could result in "
the most corrupt vote in our nation's history ." Trump is often wrong when he speaks or
tweets spontaneously, but this time he just might be right. gcjohns1971 , 8 hours
ago
This was why the founders required voters to be property owners. You have to have a stake
in the system to have a vote in the system or you will only vote for the property owners'
wealth to be given to you.
joego1 , 8 hours ago
Pretty soon that would mean only Black Rock could vote.
rent slave , 7 hours ago
Some people pay taxes and have wealth without owning property.Plus ,some property owners are nearly indigent and
dependent on government handouts.
Chocura750 , 7 hours ago
Voting by mail gives the elderly and shutins the ability to vote. These are usually
Republican leaning which makes me wonder why the Republicans oppose it. Mail in voting has
been done for years without any problems.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 8 hours ago
I had recently come to the conclusion, and in hind sight its a fairly obvious one that
mail-in voting is no more prone to fraud than the electronic voting machines. Hell, it's
easier to manipulate those, at least with the mail in ballots there is a paper trail.
Glad to see the article points this out.
But, the election outcome will be what TPTB want it to be. Voting and elections are too
important to be left to us commoners. ay_arrow
Billy the Poet , 8 hours ago
One would have to have access to electronic voting equipment in order to manipulate the
data. Mail in voter fraud involves nothing more than getting ahold of ballots and sending
them in which sounds like a lower bar. No special access or skills necessary. It could end up
like "we found a box of ballots in the truck of my car" on steroids.
NoDebt , 8 hours ago
Any system run by the corrupt will be compromised.
Let me explain how I see this going down with new mail-in voting this cycle:
Lots of mail-in ballots will come in that are rejected for one reason or another (arrived
too late, had no postmark, signature didn't match, whatever). The Ds will already have
favorable judges lined up ready to overturn those rulings. While those rulings are waiting to
be overturned, thousands more in a similar circumstance will keep mysteriously piling up. The
hand-picked judge will rule them all valid and they will be counted.
HERE IS THE TRICK WHICH WILL BE EXPLOITED:
Remember when Trump won in '16 they simply stopped reporting results for about 6 hours
from any state anywhere in the US? Went on from about 10pm (when it became obvious Trump was
about to pull off his upset) to about 4am, give or take.
What were they doing in those hours? LOOKING FOR MORE VOTES FOR HILLARY. They couldn't
find or manufacture enough in that time period.
But what if you were to stretch that period of time out not just for hours, but days or
even weeks? Plenty of time to "find" the votes needed to tip the election so that once the
judge rules in their favor, all of the rejected mail-in ballots, plus the number needed to
tip the outcome are in. And once the judge rules, they are ALL in. Not just the technically
questionable ones, but the outright fraudulent ones that were added after the fact.
ALL THEY NEED IS TIME. AND MAIL-IN VOTING GIVES THEM THAT TIME.
Billy the Poet , 8 hours ago
It would also be easier to make sure that your loyal constituents remained loyal by
watching them fill out ballots (or filling out ballots for them), rewarding them on the spot
and mailing in the votes.
Much easier than dragging people to the polls and hoping that they stick around long
enough and manage to pull the right lever.
You could go door to door and buy blank ballots and do the same thing. If people are
willing to sell EBT cards they'd probably be willing to sell their ballot.
bIlluminati , 5 hours ago
Even easier. See that ballots from known Republican strongholds don't get postmarked, or,
if postmarked, never make it to their destination. Or Demonrat votes. Or open envelopes to
see how they voted, and replace the ones that voted "the wrong way". President Trump could
get as few as 50 million votes if the Dims want a landslide, and blame it on corona.
GoozieCharlie , 6 hours ago
In 2016 I was amazed (but not surprised) at the school buses full of adult coloreds
tooling around on secondary roads near the triple point where OH, MI, and IN come together,
on the Monday before election day. Also, i'd never seen so many coloreds in the convenience
stores in that very lily white area.
NeitherStirredNorShaken , 8 hours ago
The entire voting process including electorate is one massive fraud. Are people that vote
and participate pretending they live in some kind of Democracy really believing the
delusion?
And you're making fun of the of so called woke retards?
Here's what happens in a rigged vote when a recount is ordered. 10,000 voting machines
burn in a warehouse fire the same night the recount is court ordered.
Anyone who militates against the integrity of the electoral process is a traitor, nothing
less.
The disloyal opposition's efforts to render this nation's electoral system a Third World
burlesque, by qualifying to vote millions, if not tens of millions, of illegals and by
advocating the wanton distribution of mail in ballots, constitutes the felonious
disenfranchisement of natural born citizens - an act of treason.
CatInTheHat , 6 hours ago
Blatant election fraud in Broward county Florida..
Paolo Roberto, 50, a native of Sweden (his father was an Italian), had made a name for
himself: a well-known boxer, he had his own TV show, he appeared in many programmes; Swedish
girls loved to dance with him in Dancing with the Stars ; he also had a profitable
business: he imported Italian olive oil and gastronomic products sold in the large Swedish
supermarket chain CO-OP. All that glory vanished in a moment. Swedish police trapped him as he
visited a girl of dubious character and then paid her for her services. It was a honey-trap.
The policemen appeared from their hiding places and whisked Roberto off to the local precinct
where he was booked and the nation alerted. He didn't deny a thing; he expressed extreme
remorse.
In Sweden, it is perfectly legal to be engaged in prostitution. Today no one in Sweden can
tell a woman what to do with her own body, be it abortion, sex change or prostitution. Yet it
is a crime for a man to pay a woman for sex.
It is not sane; it is as though selling crack were legal while buying crack is the only
crime. Usually it is other way around, a casual user goes free while the pusher is arrested.
But it does not matter; Sweden is not the only country in the world with such a strange law on
her books.
Roberto was charged for this crime. It could be worse: Sweden has some extraordinary crimes
in its law book, one of them is Rape by Misadventure or Careless Rape which is
committed by a man who has sex with a woman who ostensibly agrees to or even solicits sex but
inwardly she is not willing. She may be doing it for money, or boredom, but not for pleasure,
and the man carelessly overlooked her conflicting emotions. It is Swedish Rape. Pity they never
apply the same logic to working people; we often do even less pleasant things for money, to buy
food or pay rent, but the landlord is not punished for raping his tenants.
This new definition of rape deserves Victor Hugo's pen. It is Swedish Rape to have sex
without a condom. It is Swedish Rape if the next day, or a few days later, the woman feels she
may have been raped. Or cheated, or underpaid, or mistreated. For this ill-defined offence,
Julian Assange has already spent ten years in various detention halls. If he would have killed
the girl he would be free by now. Note that you may be guilty of Swedish Rape if you claim to
be infertile and your partner becomes pregnant. Are you guilty of rape if you claim to be a Jew
but aren't? This is an Israeli contribution to the concept of rape. But I digress.
Paolo Roberto is charged with paying a woman for sex, the crime Judah, son of Jacob,
committed with Tamar (Genesis 38). The 25-year-old girl consented, but that does not matter.
She came from a rather poor South European country, so probably her consent doesn't mean much.
Or perhaps she consented just in order to entrap the guy and this is how Swedish justice works.
Swedish prisons would be empty if police weren't allowed to entice and entrap Swedes.
The consequences for Paolo were terrible: he hasn't been tried yet; he hasn't been found
guilty; his likely punishment is little more than a fine; but he was dropped like a hot potato
by Swedish TV, by Swedish sports, by the Swedish chain that marketed his olive oil. His company
was bankrupted overnight. The man was crushed like a bug. It was not Swedish law that crushed
him. In the eyes of Swedish law he is still innocent until proven guilty. Swedish law did not
force the supermarkets to remove his olive oil (actually, a very good one, I used to buy it)
from its shelves. Paolo was lynched by the New Puritan spirit that is part and parcel of the
New Normal.
Once upon a time, Sweden was an extremely liberal and free country. Swedes were known, or
even notorious for free sexual mores. Independent and brave Swedish girls weren't shy, and they
were comfortable with very unorthodox 'family' unions. But, while the US has always espoused
its own brand of politically-correct Puritanism, the global media is now dragging along the
other Western states in its wake. France and even Sweden participated in their own renditions
of the American BLM protests, called for #MeToo, and seem eager to trade in their own cultures
for the New Puritanism.
This rising Puritanism is a contrarian response to the personal freedom we enjoyed since the
1960's, and a jaded weariness with the excessive commercial sexuality of the mass media. The
media sells everything with a lot of sex. You cannot turn a TV on, daytime or night, without
seeing an implied or explicit act of copulation. They sell cars, snacks and sneakers by
displaying naked bodies. This flood of pornography is turning the public mood against sex. Who
should we blame for this blatant exploitation of sex? Men.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were evicted
from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men. Men are being taught that hanky-panky can
have serious consequences. On the site of one of their destroyed statues of Jefferson, the
Americans should erect a statue of Andrea Dworkin, the obese lying feminist who famously
said that every intercourse is rape, and Penetration is Violation . She is an icon
of New Puritan America.
They could not outlaw sex per se, so they invent sordid stories of incestuous sex, of
paedophilia, of abusing priests, each storyteller trying to outdo the last. The vast majority
of these stories are sheer inventions, like the witchcraft stories of the 17 th
century in Old Puritan New England. We are in the midst of a global media campaign, and men are
the targets. The Patriarchy will be diminished by the systematic demonization of boys and
men.
In the current media frenzy I cannot trust any story, any accusation of a man involved in a
sordid sexual crime: these media campaigns are too often employed to unseat a commercial
competitor or destroy the popularity of a political rival. Often the man is not even accused of
any crime, but only of frivolous behaviour: a touch, or an immodest proposal; natural acts
celebrated in the days of my youth. Yes, my young readers, in the 1970's you could touch a
woman's knee and suggest she accompany you on a passionate weekend at a seaside resort, and she
would often agree. This libertine era is over completely. Even to me, it now seems mythical,
like Atlantis. It is gone.
The US is the media's inspirational model of the New Puritanism. Remember the women who
lined up to claim that the future Supreme Court
judge tried to kiss or even rape them when they were kids in college? The most credible of
them would not even allege he behaved criminally; just immorally according to New Puritan
standards. Now every relationship must be re-evaluated in the light of the New Puritanical
historical revisionism. Women who pose for a picture with a presidential candidate now have a
certain amount of power over him. During a media campaign the allegations come fast and
furious, but upon investigation they turn out to be spurious and motivated by self-interest or
politics.
It is good to see that sometimes, quite rarely, a man can still escape a close encounter
with his life intact. Former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond had been accused of all
the usual sexual sins and was fully cleared by the court . No less than
ten women were recruited (apparently with the knowledge of Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond's
successor); they came forward and claimed that they were sexually attacked by Salmond. They
were rather sloppy with their proofs, and it turns out that they claimed they were attacked at
times and places where Salmond could not have been present. The case was dismissed and Salmond
was found not guilty . Scottish prosecutors had spent years of labour trying to condemn
Salmond, and it spectacularly failed.
You might ask, why have these perjurers (who are well-connected women close to the centre of
power of the ruling SNP party) not been prosecuted for their attempt to frame the man? Well,
the very idea of these trials is that the accusing woman can't lose. If she wins, she can
collect millions, and if she loses, even her name remains secret. These ten perjurers are
exempt from legal consequence; nor are they required pay expenses and damages. The women are
protected. Who pays? Our colleague, the excellent writer and former HM Ambassador Craig Murray , that's who. Murray was
reporting on the trial of Alex Salmond for the public's benefit, published onto his own blog,
when he was charged with disclosing the identities of some of the perjuring women. A
conscientious man, Craig wasn't guilty of naming names, but even his vague description of "an
SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil
servants and officials" was considered by the court to be a monstrous breach of
confidentiality.
The public was well prepared for this onslaught on mankind by the poisonous #MeToo culture,
a massive wave of carefully coordinated media hysteria. Women in communes and nunneries are
known to menstruate at the same time when living in close proximity. #MeToo was a similar mass
event. It was designed to push women's buttons. They even offered up an appropriately grotesque
scapegoat: Harvey Weinstein, a movie producer with 386 Hollywood production credits under his belt.
The actresses that accused Weinstein (over eighty women) would still be unknowns if he had
not given them parts in his movies. And they repaid him with such cruel ingratitude. Actresses
have a certain psychological setup that makes them extremely untrustworthy. They have many
other qualities to offset this deficiency, but you can't just accept the words of a lady who
plays today Lady Macbeth and tomorrow Madam Butterfly as solid truth. They are acting, in life
as well as in their line of work.
Consider the beautiful Angelina Jolie. She is mad as a hatter. Even her own father said that
she had "serious mental problems." Her long history of violent self-abuse culminated with her
choice to cut off her breasts because of a DNA test that indicated risk for breast cancer. She
has had a long line of boyfriends and husbands, and a lot of kids adopted out of Africa, taken
away from their natural parents. Is she a reliable witness? She would say anything that is
fashionable. The woman wants to be adored as the model of an excellent person; this is a
honourable goal, but she is extremely unsuitable for it.
Weinstein's eighty accusers collected millions; the great producer went to a life-long jail
sentence. The public, the great American public was eager to lynch the man who gave them
True Romance and Pulp Fiction . Was he guilty as charged? Even the charges were a
travesty of justice. Men of his generation (and of mine, too) routinely propositioned women. We
are all guilty, though not many of us racked up Weinstein's numbers. Yet every woman was free
to refuse. No
police reports against Weinstein appeared until the #MeToo media campaign was in full
swing. Did he harass them? You and me are harassed daily by offers to take another credit card
or bank loan; we are free to refuse this definitely harassing offer. Every unsolicited proposal
is harassment; and we receive daily hundreds of proposals of various nature. What is so
different about a sexual proposal to a woman? Weinstein may or may not have committed a crime,
but in the poisonous air of #MeToo there is no need to prove any accusation, and the man was
lynched.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the allegations
against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on Prince Andrew is
similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy to Ms Maxwell. This
was an act of incredible bravery, to step out of line and to say a few kind words to her and
about her. The cowardly Clinton and Obama, who were close friends with Epstein and Maxwell,
were mum. Trump who was not particularly close to the couple, spoke up for them. He really
deserves being re-elected, despite his many faults. Such a man is a master of his own mind, and
this is a very rare quality.
I may mull over a proposal to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, but how possibly can one believe the
stories of the disturbed woman who claims that she had to be forced to have sex with fabulously
wealthy Mr Epstein or to meet glamorous Prince Andrew, let alone that she suffered "extreme
distress, humiliation, fear, psychological trauma, loss of dignity and self esteem and invasion
of her privacy" on his island retreat? The complete absence of evidence and the complete lack
of objectivity could only prevail in the midst of a media campaign. It is believable what Ms
Maxwell said in a deposition, that Ms Giuffre was "totally lying." Indeed all these gold
diggers are totally lying.
Like this one : An
anonymous accuser says she'll testify that 'evil' Ghislaine Maxwell raped her '20-30 times'
starting from when she was 14 and claims she was forced to abort Jeffrey Epstein's baby. Honest
and reputable men like Prince Andrew are forced into the demeaning and impossible position of
having to argue and justify themselves against wild accusations. There are no reasonably
believable accusations of crime against these people. A woman had a photo of her taken with
Prince Andrew. She was at least 17; at this age girls in England are perfectly entitled to have
an affair with a man. Other girls in other photos were apparently of age, too. Young, yes, but
not criminally young. Furthermore, a posed photo does not always indicate a sexual
relationship. Some women claim they were babies and they were raped, but there are no proofs of
anything except their greed.
Mike Robeson who investigated the claims came to conclusion that they were often initiated
by big business to rip off rich Jews. New Puritanism is the Joker card that can trump the
antisemitism ace. He wrote:
I've read Whitney Webb's investigative articles on Epstein, which are often cited by the
alternative and leftist crowd as evidence of his Mossad connections and blackmailing
activities. But Webb's articles are actually full of unsubstantiated rumors, possible immoral
or illegal activities between high level people based on coincidental social or business
connections and potentially damning rumors corroborated mainly by her previous articles and
posts. She has done some fine reporting on other issues. But on the Epstein case, she is part
of what Israel rightly refers to as the New Puritanism.
Supposed evidence of Frau Maxwell's salacious involvement is the famous photo of Prince
Andrew below. This is all the New Puritans need to justify believing the rumors and drawing
their "I told ya' so!" conclusions. But hobnobbing has long been a sport played by the
wannabes with the tacit collusion of the rich and/or famous.
Take a look at the fun couple under Prince Andrew and his alleged squeeze. You may
recognize Rosalynn Carter, then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than
William Gacy , a
few months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered.
Are we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?
Below Rosalynn Carter is another photo, this one showing then President George Bush being
hobnobbed by political has-been George Wallace and by young political wannabe Bill Clinton.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? Was George already then grooming Billy Boy for
higher things in life? Or is it merely more photographic evidence of how wannabes crawl up
the ladder of personal and career advancement? For it is clear that the rich and/or famous,
like Rosalynn Carter and Prince Andrew, have to put up with photo ops, sometimes to their
later discredit.
Very little about the Epstein case makes sense – not his social and financial
connections and especially not his alleged links with the Mossad. Every rich Jew in the US is
sayanim, but that doesn't mean they are running blackmail ops. And the pedo accusations are
ridiculous. His 'victims', none of whom were less than 16 (legal to marry in most European
countries and many American states) were willing, well paid and well taken care of gals who
got lucky to catch a good-looking sugar daddy. Whatever he knew about his rich and famous
clients that may have gotten him killed may have had something to do with what he knew about
them, sure. He probably shared his largesse with his friends and possible donors and
contributors. But if he had been sexually blackmailing them over the years, why did they keep
going back to him?
The blackmail angle doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that a lot of famous people
may have preferred him dead to testifying about his activities. Who, famous or not famous,
would want to get dragged through the mud by the overzealous New Puritan prosecution teams
that had already destroyed the lives of innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry
Sandusky and Larry Nasser, as well as hundreds of others in the past decades of America's
sexual abuse/devil worship hysteria. The Pizzagate fiasco is a demonstration of how mobs can
be raised, aimed and defused by an orchestrated media campaign.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Another motivation for the liquidation of Epstein's empire is the collaboration between
the media and the unknown figures behind the scenes who are likely to walk away with
Epstein's millions. Are you familiar with the story of Howard Hughes and the destruction of
his Las Vegas empire? It happened to him. Something similar has happened in the past few
years to other wealthy Jews like Donald Sterling , who was first falsely
accused of being a racist and then forced to relinquish his ownership of an NBA team. Other
examples? Richard Fuld of Lehmann Bros. and Bernie Madoff were taken down by their Wall
Street rivals and then used as scapegoats to expiate the sins of corporate raiders. Harvey
Weinstein was the sacrificial schwein to absolve the sick Hollywood culture. Now that
Weinstein has been destroyed, Hollywood can go back to business as usual.
But what about the intimidation faced by hundreds of girls victimized on Epstein's private
island? Why do they claim to be afraid of retribution even after his death? The girls were
treated well. They admit that they cooperated in finding more girls who would massage
Epstein, even supposedly knowing that they too would be 'horribly abused' by the 'monster'.
The reporters and the interviewed women are perfect examples of New Puritans. I feel dirty
after watching them perform. None of their emotional anecdotes reach evidentiary standards
and any court would dismiss their cases out of hand.
As for the source of Epstein's fortune, here is a plausible
investigation . It is interesting that no one can really agree on the amount nor the
source of his millions.
Justice, or what is passing under that name, gets screwed whenever the law is used to
empower a person with a personal grudge, either on his own behalf or to benefit a media
consortium. Emotional appeals could never been considered in the better world of Jefferson,
Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they had slaves, but they would not have condemned a man, free
or slave, on the basis of empty accusations. Physical evidence is still required in the legal
courts. Only on TV can people be destroyed by edited testimony.
I am very tolerant of anti-Jewish rhetoric. So tolerant that I am often accused of it
myself. Still, the accusations against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and let's not forget
poor Mr Harvey Weinstein, are often marked by cliché characters such as the crass
foul-mouthed Jew and the innocent girl he despoils. Meanwhile, the facts of each case are
monotonously repeated: one man's career is destroyed while dozens of girls become famous;
millions of dollars are suddenly difficult to track and soon begin to evaporate; the man is
demonized and the women are sainted.
Can the New Puritanism overturn the Jews and their unstoppable juggernaut cry of
antisemitism? Leo Frank was lynched by the mob and the ADL was formed to make sure it never
happened again, no matter what the crime. Is New Puritanism the new mob violence? Perhaps mob
violence is the only way our rulers can overwhelm the paralyzing effects of being called
antisemitic. Perhaps the New Puritanism is an opening salvo in a larger war between shadow
forces.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney
Webb , there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection. Conjecture, yes;
evidence, no. Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, who was not a saintly person
by any means, might be with better evidence accused of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence,
the KGB, than with the Israelis. A person of his standing probably connected with Israelis,
too, but he was no Mossad agent.
I can understand my American friends. There never was a time worse for American men, when
the statues and memorials of their great ancestors have been uprooted, when their wives and
daughters are queuing to press their pink lips upon the boots of black ghetto dwellers, when
their manhood is defined as "toxic" and their sons are dreaming of a same-sex union with a
glorious black buck. If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad as what
you've got now. You have been humiliated thoroughly. I understand that in such a situation you
might jump at the chance to break the bones of rich Liberal Jews like Epstein and Weinstein. I
wouldn't refuse you this comfort. They are anyway already lynched.
However, if you want ever to walk free, you'd better deal with the New Puritan takeover.
Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are asked to
do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. Men are more independent and
solitary by nature; that is why our Masters want to suppress masculinity. It is easier to
shepherd a flock of cows than so many bulls. Women love to be the victims, to blame men for
their failings; add social distance and fear of viral infection; add the mask (the New Western
Burka); add lockdown, and the problem of how to send the children to school might just solve
itself. No
children. The New Puritans are currently purging Hollywood of the most relentlessly
heterosexual men, but when they run out of rich Jews, they just might come after you.
The New Normal is the New Puritan. The pandemic fit into it tight as a glove. Under millions
of cameras and tracing applications, privacy shrinks and disappears. New Puritanism erases the
gap between public and private realms. In the world we knew, there was a difference between the
twain. A man having an affair with a woman (or with another man) was in a private realm. Do
whatever you wish in privacy of your home; just don't frighten the horses, Victorians once
said. Now there can be no privacy. Sex is already more of a political opinion than a physical
act. You might be lionized as a homosexual or despised as a breeder, your choice. Any affair,
or even the attempt to start an affair could be deadly in the post #MeToo world. In an era of
socialized medicine, sex is seen as a dangerous weakness that might endanger lives and imperil
the global healthcare system.
Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture. America
was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been subject
to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares. Nowhere has the use of sex for advertising
and commerce been so widely spread as in the US. As the US has become the model for the world,
an epidemic of American hysteria is starting to infect countries all around the world. #MeToo
reached even Russia, but it is still only a minor phenomenon, mainly to be found among only the
most woke of hipsters.
Orwell imagined a future of "state-enforced repression and celibacy" while Huxley predicted
"deliberate, narcotising promiscuity". The New Puritans have chosen Orwell's world. I grew up
in something more akin to Huxley's, and I can tell you which one is better. Communist Russia
was very permissive in the private sphere. People had a lot of sex, with their girl/boy
friends, with spouses, with neighbours, with wives of their friends, with their colleagues,
with their teachers and students. The Soviets had none of the restrictions we have now against
sexual relations in the University between teachers and students; in fact, no restrictions
against sex with coworkers, something that now we would call abusive and then call the police.
As religion had little influence in Soviet society, adultery was frequent, and unless connected
with a public scandal, had no consequences.
Russians as well as the French could not understand why Clinton's affair with Monica
Lewinsky made waves in the US that blew into an impeachment trial and ended with the
bombardment of Belgrade. Bill was unfaithful to Hillary? That's not nice, but it is their
private affair. President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth. Traditional
religions, be it Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, are quite tolerant of venial sin. Puritanism,
the Old as well as its New offspring are deadly serious in everything, and are unafraid of
killing or bullying a sinner to death. They may have begun with witches, but they are ending up
targeting ordinary folk.
Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a person for no
material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet. But it might be wise
to save society before the New Puritans bring down disaster onto all of us. In my opinion,
America's influence on the world should be reversed, or at least limited. Let America get
influenced by Europe for a change. Mercifully, Europe is suffering from a very light case of
New Puritanism that may be entirely cured with a healthy dose of Anti-Americanism. I hear the
vaccine is under development.
Picture two is not proof, it's illustration. In fact Cord Meyer recruited Clinton as a
Rhodes scholar at Oxford, feathered his wife's nest with a ridiculous bonanza of commodity
trading top-ticks, then appointed Bill to run the CIA covert ops slush fund at Mena airfield.
That picture is junior secret agent Bill Clinton at the office picnic with his big boss the
DCI.
As for picture number one, I'll be forever grateful for the heartwarming thought that
Rosalyn also puts on a clown costume, handcuffs boys, buttfucks them, strangles them, and
buries them in the crawlspace.
Virtually all you wrote is true but with "Very little about the Epstein case makes sense
– not his social and financial connections and especially not his alleged links with
the Mossad" you seem to have quite deliberately blown your cover as another lying judaizer to
those who think Jews are normally incapable of true conversion and that your role in creation
is to show what bad is compared to good.
Indeed, it appears so: a very incisive first half of the article, describing a real
phenomenon (used to manipulate public opinion and society) seems designed to drop the Epstein
turd into.
Epstein is no Puritan witch hunt: Robert Maxwell gets something akin to a state funeral in
Israel, his daughter pimps for guy who uses lavish Wexner money for beehives of celebrities
into which a steady supply of young female flesh is injected and this guy is telling us we
just need to relax a bit.
" then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than William Gacy, a few
months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered. Are
we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?"
Thanks, Israel. Well reasoned and well presented. Although some or many may not agree with
you, it's refreshing to read a straight forward exposition. At least you're laying it out
there for others to take a crack at it.
"Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are
asked to do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. "
I've never met a woman who wasn't a bald-faced liar about anything that concerned her
personally. (And no, I'm not an Incel. Far from it)
"Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture.
America was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been
subject to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares."
So true. The country was settled by all manner of religious zealots, each and every one of
them forming some sort of utopian colony here–almost all of which went down in
flames.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were
evicted from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men.
Well, it is particularly hard on "beta" men. Their idea is basically to let "alphas" have
harems but all other men to become incels or worse. Just look at this guy, punished for
visiting a whore (in their view anyone who pays for sex is by definition not an alpha, so it
makes sense to punish johns but allow or even celebrate whores)
Yes, Feminism is a kind of inverted puritanism. But being hard on sluts and whore makes
sense if you want to preserve society's order and families. Feminist rules against men only
help to destroy society.
So there's a very big difference between the Old Puritanism and the New Puritanism.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Come on. No one knows how this guy made money. For all purposes he was a nobody. Yet he
was seen with Elon Musk, Woody Allen, Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, anyone who
was "someone" dined with him and maybe one of his girls. There's something very fishy about
this. I don't know, maybe he and Maxwell were just the preferred pimp of the elites, or maybe
there's something else. Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine's dad) was an Israeli spy and a media
magnate, just that is very suspicious.
I mean, of course I don't trust the little whore Giuffre (whoever trusts whores or
actresses, but I repeat myself, is an idiot). But there is something very strange and rotten
about Epstein and the fact that he met with almost everybody in the so-called elite.
Much of this article makes sense, though I can't buy the defense of Epstein and Maxwell.
It's absurd to call him a "pedophile" as many journalists do. He was a pimp for the Deep
State's extortion racket.
Thanks for this. I have been criticized by many for observing holes in the narrative and
objecting to trial by media.
I have, since the start of the last Epstein narrative questioned the "intelligence"
connection. Not because it wasn't possible, rather that Virginia Roberts narrative about
escaping was implausible. If Epstein was doing his alleged blackmail routine for Mossad or
any other intelligence service, Roberts would have been suicided long ago. Loose ends like
that are a danger to the operation.
That doesn't mean that Epstein wasn't diddling underage girls nor does it mean that Maxwell
wasn't recruiting girls to massage Epstein. In Maxwell's case, she may, or may not have known
Epstein was diddling them as alleged. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how these
underage girls got passports without parental consent, and if they did, who was the
guarantor? Apparently, all of these accusers had parents who were uninterested in their
underage daughters traveling with a male more than twice their age, on his private jet.
As for Weinstein, Shirley Temple's mother complained people in the studio were trying to get
into her daughter's pants and she had to be vigilant. Marilyn Monroe, on marrying Joe
DiMaggio, is reported to have said that she`d never have to suck another cock. The casting
couch stories have been rampant for as long as I have been alive, yet I am supposed to
believe that none of Weinstein`s accusers knew that it was the price of admission. That does
not mean I approve of taking advantage of women, that has always been done in many ways. Post
war turned millions of German and Italian women into prostitutes, for occupying soldiers, in
order to feed themselves and their families. Apparently that was ok, but young actresses
being turned into millionaires is not.
Not true at all, the majority of people who settled the USA were regular Anglos,
especially in the South.
And Anglo DNA is something like 25% of the USA. This country is full of immigrants from
other stocks, and you know what? They are far more likely to be Democrat-voting liberals,
while the Anglo Americans are more likely to be rural Republicans who think things like MeToo
and BLM are crazy.
What a total crock of shit. I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend
convert to Christianity. This is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that
Muslims did not do 9/11 are depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's
nevertheless surprising to see him cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way. It's
in fact so stupid that it brings to mind Gordon Duff, himself an intelligence figure,
alerting me to the hugely disparate quality of Shamir emissions with the explanation that the
persona "Israel Shamir" is the work of a committee. It looks like desperate times for the big
Jews. The big satanic game -- implicating the Rothschilds, the British royals, and a whole
gaggle of Jews and crypto-Jews including Trump and Bill Gates, and all their attendant goys
such as the Clintons -- could all fall apart.
Israel Adam pretend-Christian Shamir, who is Moloch and why was there a temple to him on
Epstein's island?
Anyone who finds Shamir's protestations of Jewish innocence plausible need look no farther
than Maria Farmer's interview with Whitney Webb. Maria doesn't mention Moloch, but she keeps
wondering what happened to all those girls. Thousands seem to have just disappeared.
innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser,
I agree with most of the article, but do you have any proof that Jerry Sandusky and Larry
Nasser are innocent?
Prince Andrew fooling around with a consenting 17 year old does not compare with what
Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser were accused and convicted of doing.
How much have you seen, first hand, of America? The East Coast and Midwest is littered
with former religious communes. Okay, I may have indulged in a little hyperbole, but
nevertheless, there were a lot of them. And I don't know what you're going on about
Democrats, Anglos and such. Seems off topic to me.
I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend convert to Christianity. This
is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that Muslims did not do 9/11 are
depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's nevertheless surprising to see him
cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way.
It's hard to imagine an authentic Christian would defend the deep state and Zionist Hebrew
pedophile operative Epstein. Hebrew-supremacist blood is thicker than any ideology, I guess.
His big Hebrew ego just can't let go of it's delusions of being forged by sacred, primeval
forces. I'm sure a rat would have a huge ego if it could speak, too.
Yes, the anti-Semitic trope of the Jew despoiling the innocent. The only stereotype I can
read here is that of the eternal victim. So Madoff didn't steal millions from elderly
pensioners. And Epstein wasn't linked to the former head of Israeli intelligence or invest in
security companies run by former Unit 8200 types. And Wexner (of Mega Group) didn't gift him
a multimillion dollar surveillance lair. And Maxwell was trolling the parking lot of Groton
School and Philips Andover after the kiddies got released from their chemistry AP test, not
preying on broken girls from broken homes. F#ck you Shamir.
He had murdered the girl, don't forget, and had been convicted by the courts,
despite a protracted and lavishly financed Jewish effort to pin the crime on a Black man who
had not committed it. The mob dragged Frank out of prison and lynched him only after his
death sentence had been commuted by the Governor of Georgia.
All of us regulars at Unz Review know fully well that speaking of Leo Frank being lynched
by the mob as the main story just won't do. Whoever is handling the Israel Shamir persona at
Herzliya these days doesn't have all that much interest in what Ron and others here have been
discussing.
Here is additional support for Shamir's take on Epstein's primary accuser –
"Virginia Roberts . claimed to have met him when she was fifteen and to have been forced to
work as his sex slave. In reality, she was seventeen, which is still below the age of consent
in Florida, but does materially alter her claim that she had sex with Prince Andrew when she
was under age because the age of consent in England is sixteen, something of which she was
almost certainly unaware .
Edward J.Epstein, a long time investigative journalist including on the JFK assassination,
recently published his own angle on the sources of Jeffrey Epstein's riches, and they have
nothing to do with sexual blackmail –
"An extremely savvy financier and philanthropist told me after Epstein's death about a
proposition Epstein had once made him: that he could save more than $40 million in US taxes
if he gave him $100 million to manage.
Epstein claimed the money would be concealed in a maze of offshore non-profits he
controlled so that part of the profits would be transferred to the financier's own
philanthropic foundation, with the balance retained offshore and out of the reach of the
taxman.
When the financier told him that the scheme amounted to illicit tax evasion, Epstein said
it was highly unlikely the Internal Revenue Service would unravel it, and, if it did, he
would protect the financier from any criminal exposure.
The financier asked him how? Epstein said the financier would have to sign over the funds
to him, thus giving him total discretion over where and how the money was invested. This
piece of paper, he said, would provide an alibi to the US tax authorities.
The financier turned down Epstein's proposition, but others – Arab princes, Russian
oligarchs and those interested in hiding some part of their wealth – might have
accepted it.
Indeed, shortly before his arrest last year, Epstein told an associate that he was going
into the business of hiding funds for billionaires who were contemplating divorcing their
wives – for a hefty commission, of course.
He also claimed to be in the final stages of buying a property in Morocco, one of four
countries in the world not to have an extradition treaty with the US.
So perhaps the mystery of Epstein's fortune is not how he made his millions, but to whom
the money ultimately belongs.
Many very powerful people may have had cause to rue Epstein's incarceration on sex charges
– and, given the fact that they were hiding their assets from the authorities, it's
highly unlikely they will ever publicly come forward to try to recover their
investments."
The column seems intended to discomfit and/or discredit as many different people around
here as possible. (I just checked Wikipedia to see how Mr. Multiname is being curated these
days, and noticed that the first of the "RELATED ARTICLES" is Gilad Atzmon.) The oddest yet
from this website's oddest writer.
" Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, might be with better evidence accused
of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence, the KGB, than with the Israelis. "
Of course. This makes perfect sense. It explains why the Israeli's gave him a state
funeral attended by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli President Chaim Herzog,
and "no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence" .. because, after
all, he was KGB Right.
@Anonymous in the Nasser
case, a number of public figures have come forward in Sandusky's defence. The most active is
John Ziegler who maintains a website full of articles showing that the case against Sandusky
and Penn State was and is a sham and money grab. ( http://johnziegler.com/ )
There is also the well known author Mark Pendergrast who wrote a book on the case. Here are
links to two video interviews of both –
@Anonymous likely that
Nassar was sacrificed to atone for all the sex abuse that happens in kids sports. Now that he
is destroyed then child sporting can go back to business as usual because the monster was
vanquished. Note that the Nassar story could have been spun to criticize the families who
hand their children over to strangers, or to attack child sports in general. But it wasn't.
It was aimed directly at one man, and when he was gone the story was gone. That makes him the
sacrificial lamb.
On the other hand, the Sandusky story was immediately expanded into the Pedo Rings story,
indicating it was part of this long term project.
This use of "Puritan" as a swear-word looks simplistic, beyond simplistic, to me. Like
brain-washed Americans using "Socialist" as a swear-word in just the same way.
They might have been bible-fundamentalists, they might have been creationists, they might
have thought the world was flat, but was every witch ever burned in Germany burned by
Puritans? Was witchcraft a solely Puritan fantasy? The first ever mention of a witch was by
them?
But thanks for reminding me of the mad hatter. I'll get a copy of Alice In Wonderland and
compare it with what you write.
PS PC has a very different origin, a different so-called religion.
And this excuses Prince Andrew for fucking teenagers how? A man born into royalty with
every advantage but apparently unable to handle actual mature women. So that makes it cool
for him to partake of sleazy Jeff's procured girls?
No decent guy thinks of doing stuff like that. If that's what having money does to men,
I'll happily remain relatively poor.
Thanks Mr Shamir. What you wrote sounds about right. I do not like the fact that rich and
powerful men got their way with young girls. But this has been the way of the world since
time immemorial. It was all done in the open, and for decades, right under the noses of the
NYT. But neither they nor the New Puritans thought it fit to investigate, since their focus
was elsewhere, namely to tame the Catholic Church through grinding it in the pedophile mill
over alleged crimes largely committed in the 70s. Only now that the Pavlovian Dog known as
Public Opinion can't get any further stimulus from allegations concerning the Papists, they
have turned to Epstein and the Jews with a Royal thrown in instead. But at the end of it, it
would make no difference to the men, women and children trafficked for sex, since the New
Puritans would have turned their focus elsewhere. And for what it is worth I don't think this
a Mossad operation either. I mean how good are these guys? And is it not the responsibility
of politicians holding or aspiring to high office to keep themselves clear of such people and
places?
You're right, you lost my sympathy with this robust defense of Jeffrey Epstein. I
appreciate that it's good to be skeptical of what is reported as well as of the mob mentality
but there is no real defense of this guy based on what I've seen and heard over the past two
years.
All of his residences with surveillance cameras covering every room.
The source of his money being very murky.
His willingness to share his paid-for harem with the most powerful and connected. Out of
the goodness of his heart? No.
The 100% implausible jail suicide.
Isn't that enough red flags?
Even swine like Bret Kavanaugh deserve to not be lynched but Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaineare in a whole other rarefied class of scum. Why bother to make excuses for them? Do
you really believe that Trump wished Maxwell well out of magnanimity? More like he's hoping
that none of their dirt on him will see daylight.
Xymphora is also having none of it. (It's an indication of Ron Unz's good editorial
judgment that Shamir's article is not listed on the main page.)
Xymphora (from the website) :
"The New Puritans" (Shamir). Besides being completely clueless about #metoo – it's
about power relationships, not flirting – he has a list of completely innocent
people: Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser, Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of
course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim. Then he tell us that the Mossad has nothing to do with
Epstein-Maxwell. I'm starting to think Shamir's history of being an 'anti-Semite' was just
producing credibility for this important career-defining moment when the operations of the
Mossad and the MEGA Group required protection.
As clear and intelligent as ever. "It is easier to shepherd a flock of cows than so many
bulls".
I suspect the Epstein ring may be linked to Mossad. It is clearly some sort of Jewish
influencing network so seems like an Israeli soft power operation. Having said that Shamir is
spot on about all the pearl-clutching even by sensible alt-right figures.
President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth.
Clinton lied under oath in a deposition submitted in a judicial proceeding. He also
coached other witnesses to support his story. These were crimes more serious than any that
could have been charged against Nixon, who was hounded out of office. Clinton took serious
charges and spun them into a story of a harmless peccadillo. Utter brilliance. And while the
Judge in the case tried to sweep these actual crimes under the rug as immaterial to the case,
it nevertheless cost the President his law licence.
How a society views sexuality has a tremendous influence on it's long-term structure and
stability.
I do not agree that the Epstein/MOSSAD-blackmail angle makes no sense, but I think that
Mr. Shamir makes some good points. Excessively strict public morals is a ripe breeding ground
for sanctimonious hypocrisy, and hidden rot, and can have frigthening consequences, and it
would not surprise me to learn that the damnable Jesuit Order has a hidden yet decisive
influence on this "New Puritanism" that the article traces the tentative outlines of.
On the other hand, too loose sexual morals fosters dissipation – as seen in the
lives of highly promiscuous people, or on a larger scale, societies such as Soviet Russia, or
various empires after they lost their moral vigour – such as much of contemporary
America. Some amount of discipline and self-restraint is needed – this seems to be a
moral law of nature.
These waters call for good personal judgment, fairness and balance, and wisdom.
Today, more of the same in Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/30/former-tory-mp-charlie-elphicke-guilty-sexually-assaulting-two/
The woman complained that Elphicke sexually assaulted her after inviting her for a drink at
his London home in 2007.
She was in her early 30s and said Elphicke – who had recently become a father for the
second time – proceeded to kiss her, grope her breast and then chase her round his
house trying to slap her bottom, chanting: "I'm a naughty Tory".
The woman came close to selling her story to The Mirror newspaper for £30,000 around a
decade later, but instead went to police.
She broke down as she gave evidence to the court. She cannot be identified for legal reasons.
END QUOTE.
Is not it typical. The guy had a try 14 years ago. Why didn't she report it to police same
day? Why wait for so long? Act now, or forget. She tried to make money of this allegation.
Still she can't be identified for legal reasons. So she can try it again, with another victim
who made a pass at her some time or another during last thirty years. This is incredible!
I haven't read the entire article yet, so this comment applies only to its initial
part.
Shamir is not very persuasive. He has the merit of explaining the situation clearly, but,
by doing so, he makes his criticism of Swedish law somewhat misdirected. As he explains it,
the legal punishment is very mild. The biggest punishment, he tells us, comes from private
entities. But doesn't that imply that, even if that law did not exist, things would happen
almost exactly as they did?
So, the problem, if it exists, is one of societal codes of moral. I, for one, think that
Sweden is autonomous to decide which codes of moral are best to itself. It's not society
which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which reflects the wish of
the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
I don't find Shamir persuasive either. He has a point, women are not particularly more
moral or ethical than men, they need to be watched just like anybody, but OTOH regular
witch-hunts for politicians and plutocrats of both genders who cannot resist exploiting their
positions financially or keep their hands off the staff could be a good thing, overall.
He comes across as somebody with skin in the game here too.
This is stated in the quote from Mike Robeson, so it is better he will respond to the
items mentioned in his quote (signposted on the webpage). I have too little knowledge about
these details.
Sure, but Americans especially American Presidents are exempted from international laws
governing war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's why they can sanction entire
populations with impunity.
The irony of America bombing an aspirin factory in another country, however, is that much
of America's asprin needs are met with imports.
I commented on Xymphora: Regarding the New Puritans: " Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser,
Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim."
– these are words of Mike Robeson I quote. It is even signposted as the quote. I hardly
know these names (excepting Weinstein). So I think you may correct your post.
Yes. I'm not sure how it is puritanical to not want middle aged rich men to buy the
services of even one minor girl for any sexual purposes. I thought that was just a civilized
notion of protecting the young.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the
allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on
Prince Andrew is similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy
to Ms Maxwell.
Trump's "sympathy" to Maxmossad was political noncommitment. Being a gentleman.
"It's not society which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which
reflects the wish of the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
"
One of us is an idiot.
@Jefferson Temple Unless
you have inside information, his apparent inability to handle actual mature women is
conjecture, and open ended. Some women are mature at 20, others are not mature at 50.
Jeff's procured girls, beyond them having been employed by him, are unproven allegations.
Curious the parents were seemingly disinterested in their daughters traveling with a male
more than twice the age of their daughter.
That does not mean girls were not procured for illicit purposes or that Andrew may be
morally bankrupt, regardless of whatever happened between him and Giuffre.
@Chris Moore That said, I
disagree with the two main points of the article. One, this is not a "new puritanism", it's
something else, the comparison is patently false. How "puritan" is modern society if there's
porn everywhere?
Two, there's no way to defend Epstein and say that he was just a "normal, rich,
intelligent guy". The guy was, at best, a pervert and a well-connected pimp for politicians
(but how did he get there?). At worst , well, there are many theories and I won't dwell into
that. No way to defend that Jewish scum (sorry, but, he was Jewish, and he was scum).
If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad
as what you've got now.
And that's the horrifying truth. For non-rich white Americans, Stalinism, as evil as it
was, would not have been as bad as what we now have under Anglo-Zionist Capitalist
Globalism.
In my Catholic family, putting your hands on a female relatives' body in any unwanted way,
would result in a visit from one of her brothers or cousins and a serious beating. It's also
interesting to see that my old parish priests were right when they spoke about the immorality
of the godless communists in that apparently adultery was common and accepted in the Soviet
Union.
The older I get, the more respect I gain for the moral teachings of the Christian Faith,
adhering to it will keep any young man out of the trouble Mr Shamir writes about.
Using Mick Jagger as a yardstick for acceptable behavior? Is that really what you
meant?
I'm thinking that at least some of those girls actually were responsible for their choices
but under the law, I don't think they can be held responsible. No character flaw or selfish
motive changes the fact that they were minors. A full grown man and woman is a different
story. They get the full advantages that society affords to adults as well as the
accountability. I don't care who rich guys want to fuck. If they target my daughter, they're
going to need an ambulance.
You quoted a big passage from Mike Robeson without reservation. So what if it's signposted
as a quote? One assumes from the context that you are endorsing his views. It does make you
look ridiculous, and I can understand your subsequent eagerness to dissociate yourself from
the quote. But there it is.
I don't think you quite understand Catholics if you think we have a healthy and casual
outlook on sex
("We" in my case is cultural and geographic history. I haven't been actually practicing
nor even much of a believer for a long time. But the culture tends to stick with you for
life, no matter what you do)
For one thing, we are probably only second to Jews when it comes to being guilt-ridden
from birth about sex (among most other things). The jury is still out whether this drives
more of us toward sin than away from it. Catholics are infamously indiscriminately
promiscuous (Zappa wrote a song about it) and somewhat less good at learning from their
mistakes as many others
The incidence of priestly abuse may be exaggerated for Puritanical effect, but it's by no
means an unfounded myth; we were joking about altar boys at least as far back as the 70s when
I took First Communion. BTW we had a Father Chester and, whatever the truth was, his nickname
rhymed
@anon a, Arkansas to run
drugs into the USA. Must of have had some local pull.
An early image of William Jefferson Clinton seated next to George Herbert Walker Bush may
shed light on the Intelligence connections of Bill, besides the two spook schools Yale and
Oxford.
Then there is Hillary's lesbianism. Why would a supposed hetero male marry a lesbian? Bill
did not need her political connections, nor her family connections. Chelsea looks like Bill,
not. Possible that Bill's taste was never a Monica, nor a Hillary, nor a 16 year old Lolita.
Bill and Hill, a match made in Langley.
Israel Shamir: "Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a
person for no material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet."
This isn't true at all, at least in America, and I suspect it's the same elsewhere. Here,
so-called sexual harassment has been a cause of action since at least the 1980s. As someone
who was metooed way back then, before it became a thing, I can tell you that poverty is no
guarantee you won't be targeted. People are scum and really get a kick out of victimizing
each other. They'll do it just for the fun of it. Financial incentives aren't the cause of
this; it's just the icing on the cake for the so-called victim. Also, there is an absurd
culture of chivalry toward women in the matriarchal West that has lingered long past its
expiration date, such that a certain type of man enjoys "white knighting" for women who make
such claims. For such men, and they are very numerous, all a woman has to do is turn on the
water works, start crying and acting hysterical, and she'll be believed. Often it won't even
take that. From my point of view, when I see guys at the top, like Weinstein and Epstein,
having now to deal with it too, I have to confess to a certain degree of shadenfreude. During
my own tribulations with this, they were the ones getting away with it, and often even the
enforcers and enablers of it.
I see it as yet another unintended side effect of two fundamental, revolutionary
technological changes. These changes were first thought by almost everyone concerned to be
wonderful, a sign of Progress at last, but nobody was looking down the road far enough.
First, due to the advent and widespread use of scientific birth control and abortion, women
were given for the first time in history complete control over their own fertility. This led
directly to sexual liberation and modern feminism, both of which would be impossible without
this development. Second, a change in the political technology, namely the extension of the
vote to women. Why, you might ask, did an all-male government ever pass such laws, or in
America, empower its enforcement arm, the EEOC? Because of the woman's vote, of course. No
politician today can hope to succeed without it.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney Webb, there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection.
Is this one of C.J. Hopkins "I'm a Russian Asset" parodies? Are you serious?
How many Mossad heads attended "Robert Maxwell's" funeral, Shamir?
Weinstein did nothing wrong?
What do they have on you, Izzy? Blink three times fast in your next video appearance to
let us know they got to you.
No one with their head north of their colon believes anything you just said here. So
that's a plus.
Thanks. I didn't take it personally. But it seems that Kavanaugh is dirty, and so is
Trump. Makes me wonder about the operations to take them down. Russia gate for Trump and
Blasey Ford gate for Kavanaugh. Both so ridiculous that it is almost as if their foes
couldn't use the real dirt without self-incriminating.
@Sollipsist l, impossible
for little children to doubt what the big person says, whether Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy,
Easter Rabbit, anything. So easy to indoctrinate. And it's continued to the present day, the
only denomination that has it's own elementary schools everywhere. Everywhere. All about
capturing the children.
But going back to "Puritan", Wikipedia on Savonarola, in 1494 "he instituted an extreme
puritanical campaign "
So, Ha! Ha!, Roman "Catholic" Puritans of the Fifteenth Century! Didn't molest
children back then, but have ever since!
Feel free to check out how these egalitarian English men have in 10 min permanently banned
my 6 year old Wikipedia account over a comment I made three years ago – proclaiming
that marriage is between a man and a woman is considered homophobic now. (It's a self-plug,
but it's also Christian psychology in real-time, you might appreciate it.)
Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too? The most industrialized nations
on the planet are not sodomitic at all. It all seems to me like an American cultural
thing.
Adûnâi: "Are you not confusing the cause and effect?"
Certainly there is an interplay between the two factors I mentioned that magnifies their
societal effects. They strengthen and support each other.
Adûnâi: "But why did women get the vote to begin with? You don't explain.
From what I know, they were first employed in WW1, and it was a "symbol of gratitude"?
Sounds quite cucked and Christian."
Technology develops according to its own internal logic, often with unpredictable and
sometimes even catastrophic effects on human societies. It is deeply hostile to natural
distinctions of race, sex, and culture that impede its efficient operation. Technological
change drives cultural change, and war stimulates technological change.
Adûnâi: "Why then have the Eastern countries not faced it? Neither the USSR nor
modern China?"
I'd say they have, in their own way. There are, for example, plenty of female
professionals in both countries, who function in their jobs as the equivalent of men. This
would be impossible if they were constantly pregnant and caring for children. Then too, there
is the low birth rate, which is only possible with scientific birth control. They also
participate equally with men in politics, AFAIK, and have equal rights as citizens. N.b. too
that in China, at least, this happened without Christianity -- although, as has been said by
Spengler and others, Marxism can itself be regarded as a form of Christianity.
Adûnâi: "Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too?"
Efficiency is the god of technology, and that is unquestionably true all over the world.
To the extent that cultural factors impede the efficient operation of technology, they have
to change, or all that results is inferior technology. Man's increasing dependence on
technology is why a kind of global culture is emerging now, instead of earlier in history.
Cultural distinctions are being destroyed at an accelerating pace, and also races are being
mixed as an unintended and unforeseen consequence of this dependence.
Because of this, I suspect the decadence you notice today in the West will eventually show
up in the East as well. It's just that because they were relative late comers to technology
and industrialization, it may take a little longer, that's all. There's a certain cultural
inertia that needs to be overcome.
Russian method
In a far away Russian village, gals have heard of the Western way to deal with men, and they
brought their rape complaints to local police. Police checked the claims, found them without
merit, and both ladies were fined 5000 ruble ($80) each. How neat! https://pervo.info/v-achite-eshhyo-odno-lozhnoe-iznasilovanie/
Even without technology, give humans enough time, and one race will emerge triumphant.
Whereas the high tide of Islam failed to conquer Anatolia, the Seljuks came to the Aegean,
and the Ottomans reached Vienna. Failures are weeded out, and those remain who are strong,
not who can make money most efficiently.
@Israel Shamir
And yet, the rural folk of Russia is dying out. Natural change (2018): -3 per 1000 rural
vs -1 per 1000 urban.
Adûnâi: "Everything indeed will be shown in due time. What else are we doing
here but trying to predict the future?"
Yes, I agree with most of what you wrote in this comment. All I'm doing is pointing to the
trend, the way the technological system tends to grind away cultural differences. Of course,
some cultural differences may not affect the efficiency of the system, and those might
remain. Western "decadence" might or might not be one of those things. Ted Kaczynski says
something relevant about this in ISAIF:
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his
real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in
rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools;
the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to
integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist
just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they
want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve
African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture
consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to
black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque.
In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects
more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white,
middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a
scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good
as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become
nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The
system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears
or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job,
climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect,
however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into
the system and make him adopt its values.
A corollary of this would seem to be that only trivial differences will remain between
cultures as different cultures fully adapt themselves to the global technological system. The
urging of "oversocialized leftists" isn't actually necessary, as the system itself contains
its own rewards for compliance and punishments for failure to comply. There's also nothing
particularly tied to naturally-occurring races in that system of values; at least, not
obviously so. The system is hostile to natural race distinctions precisely because it is
necessarily race-neutral. Might it create its own artificial race of genetically engineered
humans in order to maximize efficiency? That could be. Certainly, genetic changes to man have
been a side effect of civilization itself. E.g., human beings are much less violent than they
used to be. Obedience, non-violence (at least on a personal level), and conformity has been
bred into us modern humans.
Adûnâi: "Are you of the view that collapse is imminent, even without Unabombers?
And if it is, there will be no going back to high technology?"
It's probably a mistake to underestimate the resilience of the system. Anyone interested
in trying to preserve the status quo as to race will have to act fast to bring the system
down, or it will be too late. Whether high tech can be rebuilt after a global collapse would
depend on a lot of factors impossible to know without knowing at least the method used to
cause the collapse, as that would have an effect on how long any ensuing "Dark Age" would
last.
Yes its kind of strange. Kavanaugh is not an ideological conservative in the mould of
Scalia or Thomas. Makes one wonder what the fuss was all about. I must revisit what you wrote
about earlier on his earlier judgements.
I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget it was 19th Century "Great Awakening" Protestants
who were responsible for creating the public school system in the US. Can we question their
motives?
In England, a struggle to dismiss a parliamentarian because of a vague complaint
Chief whip Mark Spencer today stood by his decision not to suspend the senior Tory MP
arrested on suspicion of rape.
The party is under mounting pressure, including from the alleged victim, to strip the
ex-minister of the Conservative whip.
But Mr Spencer said it was right to allow the police to conclude their investigation before
taking any action, while also stressing the need to protect the identity of the accuser.
The former parliamentary researcher in her 20s has alleged she was assaulted and forced to
have sex.
What does "forced to have sex" means?
@Dr.
Robert Morgan , it's "a triumph of the Natural, Racial Order" that confuses the plans of
the globo. The very globohomo is contingent upon the qualities of the Nordic race. It has
evolved to seek efficiency, and now – under the guidance of Christianity – it is
employing it in its own self-destruction. But as they near the end, their efforts become
discordant, muffled, inefficient.
> "Ted Kaczynski"
By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the Unabomber"? "Ted"
is so much more boring, and the in "Kaczynski" is mispronounced as by Americans while it
should be in Polish. The Unabomber has a ring to it.
Shamir now confesses to be a Mossad Psyop who pretended to be a hero of the Goyim. The
choosen ones raping and pimping gentile children and women is nothing to him. Criticism is
New Puretanism. A surrogate for the word Antisemitism as Derschowitz uses it for his accuser?
Calling Robert Maxell a KGB Agent i and other are struggling to understand if you are
trolling or trutly a Mossad apologet. The worst is you are friends with Gilad Atzmon
hopefully he is as bluffed by your (new?) behaviour and views as we are.
Anyway, just noticed more ammo lying on the ground right here at UR. Andy Flick-Chick, his
2020-02-13 article, The Philippines Are Choosing New Allies: Pres. Duterte, hugely
popular there, "sexually molested by a priest when he was a child, he holds a grudge against
Christianity."
@Dr.
Robert Morgan he principle of the pursuit of individual happiness trumps any search for
the efficiency of the collective.
I would concede that the history of technological intelligent life on this planet has been
aimed at the discovery of the correct proportion between efficiency and race. But not more.
Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists in the Occident and
the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient, too.
A little video celebrating the unity of the Man and the Machine. Those visions are not
Checharian and not bucolic.
Adûnâi: "If it were indeed calculating the most efficient society, it would
probably try to mix and match, and as homosexualism is not exactly important, it would be
discounted as a Western obstacle." I would say, if there is no reason ruling the system, it
turns into idiocracy."
You have to keep in mind that the focus of technique when evaluating efficiency is
necessarily quite narrow. For instance, having a horse is more efficient (in some ways) than
walking, while having an automobile is still more efficient than having a horse. So an
evaluation of efficiency is both relative and contextual. Someone might object, for example,
that automobiles aren't really more efficient than walking, because by using automobiles, you
have to accept that tens of thousands of people are going to die annually in car accidents.
That's true, but still, the judgement of society (i.e., the "group mind" that I've referred
to) has been that using automobiles is worth it, i.e., more "efficient". And there can be
little doubt that, overall, a society that has the technology necessary to produce and use
automobiles would defeat a society at a more primitive technological level in the contest of
survival between them.
But generally, one cannot determine in advance "the most efficient society" any more than
one can determine in advance "the fittest animal". Whatever form of social organization is
most efficient must emerge gradually, as man does his dance of death with technology.
Humanity is like a blind man groping his way down a corridor. Nobody knows where
technological development will lead, and its development cannot be steered. Attempts to allow
ideology to steer technology only result in inferior technology.
As for "homosexualism", thinking about it some more, I'd say it's just another side effect
of female empowerment. Due to the development of scientific birth control methods women are
now participating in work and politics on equal footing with men, and there are social
consequences that weren't foreseen: e.g., more men are raised without a father in the home;
more men who, in their work life, will necessarily have a woman as their "boss"; decoupling
sex from its natural function of reproduction leads to regarding sexuality as a matter of
"lifestyle choice". Given basic human psychology, I'd say these trends favor an increase in
"homosexualism". Certainly they are quite destructive of patriarchy.
Adûnâi: "A lack of will is a lack of life. I emphasise the role of the
individual in history. If the system is so smart, why does it allow the vector to turn
towards disorder* for a period?"
Individual will has nothing to do with technique. It can't control it. Just to stick with
the example of birth control technologies, you cannot "will" away the fact that they empower
women, and at the same time disempower men. To use the technique at all, you just have to
accept this, just as with the use of automobiles, a society accepts that the cost is tens of
thousands of lives every year.
Disorder arises, and empires fall, precisely because all the consequences of a given
technological configuration aren't foreseen; in fact, they're not even foreseeable. Shit
happens, as the saying goes.
Adûnâi: "By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the
Unabomber"? "
Because it's his ideas that are important, not his relatively ineffectual bombs.
Adûnâi: "Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists
in the Occident and the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient,
too."
This is the question to be decided in the future, by the result. I agree that the West,
precisely because of its Christian worldview, tends to confuse what it regards as moral
superiority with technological superiority. But then, if the prize is survival itself, morals
can change. Also, there's a time honored Christian tradition of hypocrisy that must be taken
into account. Only the event of the matter will show which form of technological organization
is more efficient.
Kinda sad that people are so often especially motivated by childhood trauma; the
simplicity, irrationality and disproportionate responses that are understandable in the
childish mind are unnaturally preserved throughout adulthood. A little girl gets abused by a
pervert uncle, and years later her supposed reason and free will convinces her that men are
evil, old men especially, traditional families and patriarchal society are the enemy, and she
was "born" a lesbian. So pretty much everybody in her sphere of influence ends up paying for
the act of one degenerate.
Up to this article, I took him to be honest, regardless of how muddy his background was.
Maybe he's testing his audience, but this is laughable.
Of course, if you're opposed to a superficially feminized, #metoo, gotcha culture, you may
sympathize at first.
But he's covering up for a zio-criminal entity that hasn't yet been unraveled. He's
actually trying the line that Epstein was some cavalier 70s Don Juan simply born a bit too
late.
Whores will be whores. Don't care about them, as they squirmed around Weinstein and
Epstein. Pretending Epstein is all about whores however, just turned Israel Shamir into a
whore in his own right. Pat yourself on the back, but we still don't know shit about Epstein,
the intelligence angle that is.
Maybe Israel can get his friend Assange on the ball?
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming
louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the
international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea
imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into
Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the
horizon.
Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor
to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19
is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for
biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for
the world's healthcare systems.
In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of
Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a
mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.
"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for
biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by
humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's
biological defense."
In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed
location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and
not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on
Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus
came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a
decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.
Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with
the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous.
Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and
Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J
entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They
have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military
conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted
their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the
CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei
got going by stealing cisco source code and design. https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best
to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have
an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict
with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their
rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever
the CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye.
Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their
best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News,
and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but
certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one
aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in
Economic power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want
any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare
is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This
means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in
the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the
US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in
Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing
proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western
Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and
the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly
purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect -
China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic
power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars
want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of
warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics.
This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights
in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and
submarines the US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central
Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a
losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific,
western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to
'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq,
Afghanistan and Syria.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students
to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the
U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
Hillary is a co-founder of Onward
Together , a Democratic Party front group that is affiliated to other activist
organizations. In a recent e-mail she played the race card in a bid to solidify the black vote
behind the Democratic Party, writing "Friend, George Floyd's life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and
Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter. Against a backdrop of a pandemic that has
disproportionately ravaged communities of color, we are being painfully reminded right now that
we are long overdue for honest reckoning and meaningful action to dismantle systemic
racism."
It is, of course, a not-so-subtle bid to buy votes using the currently popular code words
"systemic racism" as a pledge that the Democrats will take steps to materially benefit blacks
if the party wins the White House and a majority in the Senate. She ends her e-mail with an odd
commitment, "I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place
where all men and all women are treated as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to
be." The comment is odd because she is on one hand promising to promote the interests of one
group based on skin color while also stating that everyone should be "treated as equals."
Someone should tip her off to the fact that employment and educational racial preferences and
reparations are not the hallmarks of a government that treats everyone the same.
But if one really wants to dig into the depths of the Democratic Party soul, or lack
thereof, there is no one who is better than former U.N. Ambassador and Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, the estimable Madeleine Albright. She too has written an e-mail that recently
went out to Democratic Party supporters, saying:
"I'm deeply concerned. Donald Trump poses an existential threat to our standing in the world
and continues to threaten the decades of diplomatic progress we had made. It is easy to forget
from the comfort of our homes that for many people, America is a beacon of hope and
opportunity. We're known as a country that keeps our promises and upholds justice and
democracy, and that didn't just happen overnight. We've spent decades building our
nation's reputation on the world stage through careful, strategic diplomacy -- but in just
under four years, Trump has done unspeakable damage to those relationships and has insulted
even our closest allies."
Albright, who is perhaps most famous for having stated that she thought that the deaths of
500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. imposed sanctions was "worth it," is living in a fantasy
bubble that many politicians and high government officials seem to inhabit. She embraces the
America the "Essential Nation" concept because it makes her and her former boss Bill Clinton
look like great statesmen. She once enthused
nonsensically that "If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the
indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future,
and we see the danger here to all of us."
Madeleine Albright's view that "America is a beacon of hope and opportunity known as a
country that keeps our promises and upholds justice and democracy" is also, of course,
completely delusional, as opinion polls regularly indicate that nearly the entire world
considers the U.S. to be extremely dangerous and virtually a rogue state in its blind pursuit
of narrow self-interest combined with an unwillingness to uphold international law. And that
has been true under both Democratic and Republican recent presidents, including Clinton. It is
not just Trump.
Albright is clearly on a roll and has also submitted to a New York Times
interview , further enlightening that paper's readership on why the Trump administration is
failing in its job of protecting the American people. The questions and answers are singularly,
perhaps deliberately, unexciting and are largely focused on coronavirus and the new world order
that it is shaping. Albright faults Trump for not promoting an international effort to defeat
the virus, which is perhaps a bridge too far for most Americans who are not even very receptive
to a nationally mandated pandemic response, let alone one requiring cooperation with
"foreigners."
Albright's persistence as a go-to media "expert" on international relations is befuddling
given her own history as an integral part of the inept foreign policy promoted by the Clinton
Administration. She and Bill Clinton became cheerleaders for an unnecessary Balkan war that
still resonates and were responsible for what was possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder
(with the possible exception of the Iraq War) since the Second World War. That consisted of
ignoring the commitment to post-Soviet Russia to not take advantage of the 1991 end of
Communism by expanding U.S. or NATO military presence into Eastern Europe. Clinton/Albright
reneged on that understanding and opened the door for many of the former Soviet allied states
to enter NATO, thereby introducing a hostile military presence right up to Russia's border.
Simultaneously, the U.S. enabled the election as Russian president of the hapless drunk
Boris Yeltsin, who, guided by advisers sent by the White House, oversaw the western looting of
his country's natural resources. The bad decision-making under the Clintons led inevitably to
the rise of Vladimir Putin as a corrective, which, exacerbated by Hillary Clinton as Secretary
of State and a maladroit Donald Trump, has in turn produced the poisoned bilateral relationship
between Washington and Moscow that currently prevails.
So, one might reasonably suggest to Joe Biden that if he really wants to get elected in
November it would be a good idea to keep the Clintons, Albright and maybe even Obama carefully
hidden away somewhere. Albright's interview characteristically concludes with her plan for an
"Avengers style dream team" to "fix the world right now." She said that "Well, it certainly
would be a female team. Without naming names, I would really try to look for women who are in
office, both in the executive and legislative branch. I would try to have a female C.E.O., but
also somebody who heads up a nongovernmental organization. You don't want everybody that's
exactly the same. Oh, and I'm about to do a program for the National Democratic Institute with
Angelina Jolie, and she made the most amazing movie about what was going on in Bosnia, so I
would want her on my team."
No men allowed and a Hollywood actress who is regarded as somewhat odd? Right.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
<a://councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/"
title="https://councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/"
href="https://councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/">https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
<a:[email protected]" title="mailto:[email protected]"
href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected].
Hillary and Barack were also complicit in unnecessary wars against Libya and Syria that
have devastated both countries.
Most Americans remain unaware of their destruction of Libya, Africa's most prosperous
nation, which claimed 40,000 black lives. Thousands more were killed as they destroyed
Somalia and Sudan as part of the neocon plan from the Bush era to destroy "seven countries in
five years" as General Wesley Clark told the world. Thousands more died as they attempted to
destroy Syria. Here is a short summary of their destruction of Libya:
Take a close look at the visage of Mad Albright. What do you see beyond the simple ravages
of the aging process on a life misspent? Check out those eyes, unmasked by the rouge. Take a
close look. What do you see? Can you discern the sociopathic evidence, the haunting by the
scores of thousands of Iraqi children who starved to death under the tender mercies of United
$tates of America Corporation's foreign policy on behalf of the agenda of the elite crime
clans of highest international finance.
Maddie is a minion, a minion for genocide and for a total lack of elementary human
empathy. She is an ambulatory exemplar of Kali Yuga, the age of devolution, which in polar
opposition to the Celestial Kingdom which reigned in China as recently as the Ming Dynasty.
During that era where administrative positions were based as much as possible on merit, the
contrast is vivid versus the current reality in our ruptured republic where instead of the
cream, the scum rises to the top.
Remove that pic of know nothing old owl from this site – some children might see
it!
We need updates on Biden's mega corruption in Ukraine investigation. Trump was impeached
for talking to Ukraine president about Biden's corruption and that lifetime taxpayers leech
is Democrats front runner for the highest office – pathetic.
During the days of her power and glory (Yeltsin years) Albright had made nine maps of the
countries that would be created by the dissolution of Russia. Somebody walked in the poker
game room and said "Let's play a different game". Enter the Putin era.
The democrats are just snake skins laying on the asphalt. The new sheriff in town (Syria,
Libya) is laying out a different plan. Good by NWO , halo multipolar world.
Trump declared on many occasions " we are there because we want the oil"; crude? Yes but
honest at least. For those who prefer smooth talkers like the Clintons and the Obamas, I
state that the legacy of those two administrations has done more harm to the foreign
perception of US power In the Middle East and Eastern Europe than any vulgar language
pronounced by Trump who, so far, can be credited with not having started any foreign
wars.
At least Trump tried to withdraw American troops from Syria only to be kept in check by
the reality of the American Deep state power structure. Had he succeeded in his endeavour, US
Russia relations would have better than they are today.
Three months to the election and what is on the main menu? Two old white men, neither fit
to serve the office of the Presidency. The nation is a tired old whore, spent from all those
wars for Zion, and it seems to me the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons is better than Trump
or Biden. Both candidates are loony tune, both are completely unacceptable. We are looking at
Weimar in the mirror. The nation has run it's course, the Republic is dead.
(Weimar Germany, of course, collapsed. Weimar is also the prelude democratic state before
the rise of the authoritarian state. All those who thought Trump was a new Hitler are fools,
Trump is the slavish whore of the Jews, not the opposing force, not the charismatic leader
who restores sanity to the nation wrecked by Jews. What Trump is, is the final wrecking ball,
not the savior.)
Gone are the glory days of imperial dreams, Amerika is not longer fit to wage another big
war in the Middle East for Israel. So what is Bibi to do, Israel is in corona crazy lockdown,
and his influence on Amerikan politics seems to me slipping badly. How much longer will AIPAC
be allowed to influence our politicians if we go into a hyper deflationary crash? It seems to
me the Greater Israel project is about to get the rug pulled out, because if the USA crashes
and burns no one will tolerate one more cent going to that god forsaken shithole.
"If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation.
We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see
the danger here to all of us."
Whom the gods would destroy they first make Madeleine.
The main difference between the reps and dems is their party names. Both represent the
same oligarch interests. Most of the dem objections to trump are psywar manipulations for
public consumption, not serious policy differences. Pretty much all fluff. The reps also do
the same about influencial dems, they endlessly talk nonsense about inconsequential things
about them.
The drama queenery is to manipulate the public into thinking their votes for either party
actually matter in some way. As of late, that psywar has been failing since most people don't
see much difference between the two and believe both parties don't represent them and are
lying scum. Trying to neutralize this view by the people is part of the reason the psywar
critters have ramped up the hysterics.
Barack's mother, Madeleine's father and Chelsea's husband all have one thing in common and
that something is without which sleepy Joe can't be elected so the author's advice to keep
Obamas, Clintons and Albright at bay is moot at best!
Her statement about Iraqi children should not come as a surprise to any. She was is from
that part of Europe which is famous for being racist.
I came across with an interesting story during Balkan "peace" negotiations in a Paris in
90s. The Bosnian and Serbian delegates were negotiating in Paris hotel where American
delegate was staying. One time, at 4 O'clock in the morning out curiosity sMadeline went and
knocked on the negotiators door. One of them opened the door and failed to recognize her and
thought her to be the cleaning lady. Told her to come back later.
That role suits her perfectly.
Set everything else aside and consider the relationship of each POTUS to the
sovereign.
The terminology I use is that they fall somewhere on the spectrum from figurehead to real
POTUS.
Obama and Trump are opposites in this respect. Obama took office having gifted the
national security state a globally appealing front-man. While he had campaigned and started
his presidency looking like he wanted to use his power to move the needle in the right
direction, he was quickly snapped like a butter bean, retreating into the presidential safe
space offered, at least up until that point, to a POTUS that accepted the constrained role to
which the American presidency had been consigned in the modern era.
There were signs almost immediately with Obama. After decisively winning election and
becoming our first black president, he was house-trained early on over a single comment
defending his Harvard professor friend after a silly arrest.
Does anyone other than me even remember this incident? Or how it completely emasculated
the new POTUS, with him retreating behind a teleprompter for everything other than occasional
unscripted remarks that, if unwittingly notable or problematic, were quickly corrected by
some handler.
Now consider Trump. Both as candidate and POTUS he's Obama's opposite. Where Obama had the
establishment wind at his back, writ large those same forces tried to destroy Trump's
candidacy and presidency.
Rather than belabor any particulars I'll just note that the psychological driver for the
ruling and governing classes, regardless of their ideological and programmatic preferences,
is boundless resentment toward him.
After all, it isn't an overstatement to note that more than any other president, Trump got
there on his own, with a near complete array of establishment forces, domestic and foreign,
against him, including his own party.
Who would have thought such a thing possible before Trump did it?
Little has changed since 2016. We're in our current moment because destroying Trump
remains as close to a dues ex machina as any of us have or will see in our lifetimes. There
are real, monumental interests at stake but when you get right down to it most personalities
in the ruling and governing classes -- who to a one grew up with mama telling them they
should be POTUS someday, need him gone so they can go back to feeling better about
themselves.
@RoatanBill pointees he has to placate some truly awful people, such as Mitt Romney. Some
personnel selections that appear to be made by the President are actually part of package
deals where key Senators get to pick their names. That is why certain parts of the
administration are out of touch with Trump's agenda.
Trump has been 100% successful preventing NeoConDemocrats from starting new wars.
Unwinding the messes he inherited from prior administrations is much more complicated.
Hopefully Trump's now inevitable second term will include a friendlier Senate. That will
help him get more done than his first term which was impeded by the ObamaGate deception.
I don't care about all the political backstabbing and massaging. If he had any balls he'd
use the same New York English I grew up with and tell the entire Congress, the Supreme Court
and the intel agencies to go F themselves and do so on national TV. The silent majority in
the country would back up his play.
But he doesn't do that because he's a bought and paid for politico just like the rest of
them. The deep state probably has dirt on him like everyone else in the District of Criminals
and they tell him how to behave. He backs off and allows more deaths to occur to save his
sorry ass from some exposure.
@RoatanBill asking the wrong question . Let me Fix That For You.
As Impeachment Jury, the Senate has final say on whether Trump stays in
office.
Is that true or isn't it? Yes or no?
Are you leading a movement to:
-- Jettison the Constitution
-- Dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court
-- Proclaim Trump as God Emperor of the Golden Throne
When you finish this task, I will back your position that Trump can act unilaterally with
regard to foreign troop deployments.
Until then, I strongly recommend a more realistic and nuanced view on what a President can
accomplish.
complicit in unnecessary wars against Libya and Syria
That's putting it in polite terms. In reality it's massive war criminality, wars of
aggression that killed, maimed and uprooted millions of people in other countries. Not that
it caused as much of a stir domestically as the death of Floyd but there you have it, the
order of priorities of the American people and their supposed leaders. During the Vietnam war
a common chant was "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?". This is true for the
Clintons, Obama, Albright and all the rest of them yet somehow they still have their fans.
They're past their expiration dates yet are still kicking around since the Dem party is
sclerotic with no new blood, no new ideas, just the same old parasites. Their presidential
candidate is way past retirement age and has been obviously faltering in public. This is
their champion, a lifelong mediocrity who is entering senility? US no longer has any wind in
its sails.
O think out move in the Balkans was essentially correct. Even Russia scolded their allies
for their behavior as over the top in brutality. If Russia your closest ally says you are
over the top -- then there's a good chance the genocide claim has merit.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
But I see no reason for Dr. Giraldo to be tepid here. somalia is the a complete
embarssment. The admin took a feed and water operation and turned into a "warloard" hunt
without any clue began interfering into the internal affairs of a complex former colonized
region left bankrupt to reconfigure itself and began a failed bid to set aright -- ohhh that
should sound familiar.
1. They turned a mess into a "warlord" victory for the leader they thought most
dangerous(and I hate that word and its connotations -- a civil conflict) and then to top it
off
2. ran away with their tail between their legs -- it was in my mind the second sign of US
vulnerability to asymmetric warefare
counter balance that against not intervening in the genocide in Africa's Rwanda. The deep
level hypocrisy here or complete bankrupt moral efficacy -- intervening in Bosnia-Herzegovina
but completely ignoring the a worse case in Africa.
All of which occurred under the foreign policy headship of Mrs Albright. Ahhh they are
women hear them roar . . . Let's get it straight.
Women wanted us in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, they want to intervene . . . in the name
of humanity for any host of issues, in a bid to appear tough they will on occasion say the
incedulous -- but the bottom lie
female leadership has demonstrated to be no more effective, astute, or beneficial than
that of the men.
And allow me to get this out of the way before it starts though start it will,
In fact, it appears that not even white skin is not road to effective political leadership
or governance as all of the key players have been predominately and by that I mean near all
white. But here the test cases about femininity alone being a key qualifier just does not pan
out. And no personal offense Dr. Giraldi neither is an elite education.
@A123 ght as the dollar keeps declining in importance and the whole world is sick of the
sanctions and bullying.
So, Yes, I'm in favor of ending the Constitution as it has shown to be a useless piece of
paper except to deceive those that think it's worth something. Yes, I'm in favor of getting
rid of the criminals in DC including the asshat president, all of congress and the absolutely
useless supreme court. I'm in favor of 50 new countries once the empire expires offering 50
experiments on how to govern and let the best idea win.
Your more nuanced approach is exactly what Trump is doing – exactly nothing. He's
the most do nothing president in decades.
If a primary principle, supposedly justifying the Nuremburg Trials, that initiating wars
of aggression is a criminal act against humanity, then the Clintons, Bush II, Albright,
essentially all the USA's senior foreign policy and military bureaucrats over the last thirty
years, and all the Zionist/neocons urging them on and aiding and abetting their criminal
acts, would end their lives in Spandau Prison or dangling at the end of a rope.
In the following years I've been shocked again and again to observe Trump's ignorance of
government and politics and, even more disturbing, his apparent unwillingness to recover and
learn from his mistakes. I'm not sure whether this is due to stupidity, laziness, or
sociopathic levels of grandiosity. Whatever the cause, the result has been an inability on
the part of Trump to fill many campaign promises. (A less sympathetic interpretation of
events might be that Trump's campaign promises were deliberate lies.)
@A123 ng out of the country. The Chinese were eager to comply to get access to the
processes involved. The Chinese didn't have to steal anything, as the US corporations
voluntarily gave them the tech as part of the deal to be in China. The reason to move out of
the US is due to the high labor rate and regulations costs. Those costs are high because the
Fed Gov that you apparently like is sucking the life out of the population with high taxes,
an oversize and out of control military and intelligence services, a financial sector that
repeatedly rapes the country and gets away with it, etc, etc, etc.
@A123 a rel="nofollow"
href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy">
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy
In other words, the Democrats and their Allied Media's malefactions against Trump
forestalled them suffering what Republicans did post-Watergate in the House and Senate
midterms in 1974, but all of that negative energy didn't go away.
Either they will get their comeuppance in 2020, or it will remain and grow, biting them in
ass soon enough.
We Americans are kinda attached to our constitutional republic thingie, including our
right to choose the POTUS.
It really is stunning that the dimo crats have learned nothing from their decades of
disaster after disaster after disaster!
From regime change to financial debacles to the looting of the break up of the Soviet
Union: the cretins are now once again being trotted out as part of the biden farcial
"campaign."
A case in point is the odious Larry Summers: This article goes far in summarizing this
pending disaster with the prominent placement of summers:
@Joe Levantine could be behind the lines calling the shots) and the other, representing
the Marianas Trench of the Deep $tate (CIA) and also the Rushdoony loonies of the
Dispensationalist "Great Rupture" Christian-Zionist ambulatory oxymorons are THEIR reeking
heinies.
Trump is merely a girlie-lusting ram compared with those two prowling lobos, sporting
images of blood in their eyes and hatred in their hearts. Suburban soccer-moms detest the
Dumpster, mainly because he exacerbates their emotional radar-screens. They totally overlook
the deep danger lurking beneath the surface in the likes of Bolton and Pomposity, because
they are adroit at masking their totally psychopathic sociopathy.
No men allowed and a Hollywood actress who is regarded as somewhat odd? Right.
Almost 40 years ago my late aunt (in her mid 70s) opined that more women leaders were
needed to stop all of the wars. I asked her if she thought Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike,
and Margaret Thatcher were really women, and if so, how were they any different than the
men?
In a Foreword to Christopher Bollyn's book, "The War on Terror; The Plot to Rule the
Middle East," USMC vet, Alan Sabrosky wrote:
"The book provides a way for even informed readers to better appreciate the origins,
evolution, and extent to which Israel has driven a process by which the United States and
other countries have systematically destroyed Israel's enemies, at no cost to itself. As we
have torn up or assailed a long list of countries -- only Iran has not yet been openly
attacked."
A less known fact is how the US is undergoing systematic Israel attack, and I suggest that
the best outcome is our being "Balkanized," as described by vagabond, Linh Dinh, who now
describes the resilient life in Serbia.
The Process continues even if Trumpstein does or does not consent to leave the Blue &
White House.
Thank you, Friends.
The Cato article in May on her "new book" gives her the right treatment. Even if you are a
long way from libertarian, well worth a read. The first paragraph:
"Madeleine Albright is back with a new book to sell. Interviewed in by the New York
Times magazine, she reminds us how she continues to live in the past. Unfortunately, that's
what made her advice as UN ambassador and secretary of state so uniformly bad."
@BL culate faceman which the shotcallers running the Deep $tate tend to prefer as their
podium images.
The failure of the Wicked Witch of the West to achieve her 2017 coronation was a total
shock to the system for the DNC, FBI, CIA, Chew Pork Slymes and other major institutional
minions for the ruling plutocratic oligarchy. Even before Trump's Inauguration, they set out
to destroy his presidency. After all, it had been decreed from on high that our ruptured
republic would be blessed by our first female (more or less) chief executive and that she
would be totally on-message and not some small (d) Democrat the likes of Tulsi
Gabbard–an irrepressible anti-imperialist.
President issues executive order at 4 PM. Liberals electronically file for a court order
at 5 PM. 8AM next day some judge, county, state or federal, issues an injunction forbidding
carrying out the executive order. The executive order is tied up in the courts for
months.
Last President to successfully defy the courts was Lincoln. The judiciary overturns laws
passed by legislators and referendums. The judiciary's orders create new laws.
@Ray Caruso who looks cross eyed at terrorist states Israel or Saudi Arabia , it takes
some pretty rancid balls to call those defending their nations from an illegal
aggressor, 'terrorists'.
What, if not massive and collective terror, is the murder by drone of villagers and
leaders? When their children look at the sky, they don't see wonder and beauty, but terror of
an arbitrary death.
The only thing we Americans should be feeling these days, is an excruciating shame for the
mass-murder and nation destructions our government has perpetrated in our name.
'The exceptional people'. If only we understood just how true that is.
Dr. Phil is sound on this issue. Democrat nomenklatura must impute some cultic authority
to the quivering rhytides of their living-dead mummies.
A gerontocracy is the appropriate government for this degenerate state. The interview
excerpt is priceless with Albright's senile brain fart: "let's hire Angelina Jolie, she made
an amazing movie!" about how those crispies fucked the Balkans up for shits & grins. You
can just see her masticating bon-bons in her slow-motion catapult chair, watching the
genocide she caused like it's Star Wars, feeling transient stirrings in her crepey loins at
the more romantic rape scenes. Just give that rank old downer cow the bolt gun.
One cavil on the rhetorical devices of the piece: even in jest it makes no sense to
suggest ideas to Vegetable-in-Chief Joe Biden. CIA is going to hook him up to a teleprompter
or some brain electrodes or whatever and make him talk and nod and gesture like
audio-animatronic Lincoln at Disneyland. He's gonna say we have to blow shit up. And MBNA
needs privatized debtors' prisons. It's pointless to offer friendly advice to the captive
parties of this failed state. It's like telling NAMBLA they should fuck adults. Wipe out this
roach motel of a party. The Greens have signed on to BAP's demilitarization pledge. Or write
in your Grammy's moldering corpse. Or that big wet floater dump you took this morning. Fuck
the USA and its fake democracy.
OK, now to be serious. This article and most of the responses to it thus far, however
erudite and with good intention seem to have fallen into a trap before they realized it was a
trap namely that everything depends on the result of Dems vs Repubs version 2020. Will Mr.
Giraldi write an article to show how it makes even in the slightest way a difference who is
the President at this late stage ( or any stage) of decay in the US? I know he knows better
to especially on this site. So has he really shed his roots?
I have recently entered into cash bets with almost all of my friends of all dispositions
and mental acuity on the prospect of Trump being re-elected. They think that I am crazy. I
may be but not on this topic. They are all infected with a mental disease called "normiesm".
It is immensely frustrating for me to put any kind of 'out of the box' thinking into
conversations regarding Trump because they react like women going through hormonal flushes.
All verbal reactions seemingly in lockstep.
So with the monetary challenges shoved in their faces they all seemed to pause briefly to
wonder if it was decent to take money from a fool such as I. After a few profanities and
insults as to their inter-cranial pressure from me they gladly accepted to a one and some
doubled down.
Taking their money, as I will, is the only way that they can be brought to bear to hear me
out about my logic. Funny, but it always seems to come down to money.
Now lookie here. What have we had since the Trump inauguration? Four years of 24/7/365
vilification, right versus left, grabbing P ***** , Putin, Stormy Daniels, impeachment (a 24
hour respite when he sent 77 missiles into Syria) and then back to 24/7 of Trump foibles.
Do you see what is/was happening? TDS was the precursor of Covid. And like a charm it
worked and still works. Divide and conquer, bread and circuses rolled onto one tasty bagel.
Look around you. Would you recognize main-street 4 months ago? I would not. Why would the PTB
want to remove Trump? He is a major cog in their satanic wheel whether he knows it or
not.
So with the powerful combination of TDS, COVID, BLM and antifa backed by MSM effectively
scaring the normies from even uttering a peep , I would say that things are going swimmingly
in some power's interests.
Mr Giraldi, "New Dummies, Same Ventriloquist" should be your next article for the sake of
your own credibility not digging up another corpse (living or not) like that of of Madeleine
Halfbright.
Your use of the ad hominem 'hopium addict' slur shows your frustration. You can't come up
with an actual retort, so you lash out.
I notice that you intentionally came out against me personally, because you are unable to
defeat my ideas. Your sad & pathetic attempt to paint you submission to Biden as a virtue
has failed. And, your personal attacks are simply shameless.
@Alden ferson's administration. But as Leo the Lip Durocher insisted, "nice guys finish
last."
Jefferson should have had his fellow Virginian arrested and imprisoned for overstepping
his constitutional powers. Didn't happen. Marshall (the darling of the Kavanaugh-cloned
Federalist Society of statist lawyers) had set a bad precedent, much to the dismay of the
president and all freedom-loving elements of WE THE PEOPLE. The very root concept of small
(r) republicanism, that of popular sovereignty ,was promptly derailed by that closet
monarchist.
Well, at least his fellow Federalist (and London bankster tool) Alexander Hamilton got his
just desserts.
Simultaneously, the U.S. enabled the election as Russian president of the hapless drunk
Boris Yeltsin, who, guided by advisers sent by the White House, oversaw the western looting
of his country's natural resources.
False. But Giraldi knows most readers won't know the truth. It wasn't "western looting,"
it was looting by a group inside Russia, "the oligarchs". Eight out of the twelve were Jews,
among them the top oligarch, Berezovsky.
Philip Giraldi also doesn't mention that Madeleine Albright is a Jew. It's as if her lust
for war springs from being pro-American to a fault. Right? Except it's all about destroying
Israel's targets, the few Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations that support the
Palestinians. And Russia, for giving some support to pro-Palestinian Iran and Syria. The
Israeli Lobby always gets what it wants.
Both in Russia and in the Middle East it's about race, not "the West". Of course, ask a
communist like "Eric Striker" who writes for Unz Review, and he'll do everything he can to
make you believe it's "the Right," "capitalists," "the West" who are behind it all, while
conveniently forgetting the Left's domination of media, universities and politics. The lies
flow freely.
'Steal of the Century' (Part 2), filmed in occupied #Palestine is now out! (The first part
is being censored on Youtube.) Find out what Donald Trump's plan has paved the way for and
what's happening right now in Palestine. •Premiered Aug 2, 2020
'Steal Of The Century': Trump's Palestine-Israel Catastrophe (Documentary) | Episode
2/2
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
I have no expertise in this field. This post will not be cluttered with links, because I
will write from memory and not link to anything. I suppose in a way, this post is a slap in the
face of Tom
Nichols , who is a subset of the topic, is
supposed to be an expert on the topic, and is the author of " The Death
of Expertise ". I will attempt to explain how his errors are due to envy and neurosis.
Honestly, my trigger was lest nasty (and less based on envy). Someone asked in a Tweet what
is the consensus on the old domino theory which lead to US involvement in the war in Vietnam
(which is also called "the American war" by the Vietnamese). I will put my anti Nichols spite
after the jump (note I advertised his book). His alleged field of expertise is preventive war . There,
that's another advertisement. Actually I think I will just post a separate post sniping at
him.
OK so the Domino theory.
The logic was as follows. In 1938, France, the British Empire, and Czechoslovakia could have
stopped Hitler. But all he demanded was the Sudetenland which was predominately inhabited by
ethnic Germans. Neville Chamberlain insisted on reaching an agreement. Benes and Daladier had
to go along, so the chance to defeat Nazism with heavy but not immense losses was lost.
Heeeyyy wait a minute, wasn't I supposed to be talking about the 1960s not 1938 ? Yes, but
the first problem is that there are influential people in the USA for whom all years are 1938
(note I use the present tense -- they are still around and are very dangerous).
The first key methodological assumption of the Domino theory is that all years are 1938 and
all negotiations are held in Munich. The second is that Neville Chamberlain made every possible
error, so, as long as one did the opposite of what he would have done, everything will be fine.
The rest is commentary.
I now invite historians, experts in international relations and political scientists to
contest my analysis (knowing that not very many read Angry Bear).
The domino theory maintained that the USA had to stop the Communists in Vietnam or else they
would move on to Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, East Pakistan, and India. The logic was
exactly (and only) that it would have been better to fight Hitler at the old fortified border
between Germany and Czechoslovakia than to let him take the Sudetenland, then the rest of
Czechoslovakia, and then fight him in Poland. Notably, Hitler was surprised when France and
Britain declared war on September 1 1939. The theory was that, restraint, compromise, or the
most dreaded retreat would be perceived as weakness and make further aggression inevitable. One
detail was overlooked. Hitler was one person, Khrushchev, Mao and Ho Chi Minh were three
different people. The USSR had advanced weapons, the PRC had huge armies, North Vietnam had no
fear of either and knew how to play one off the other.
Then Khrushchev was overthrown by the Red Army. The communist Soviet Union had not reached
the advanced stage of Communist development which made a Communist military dictatorship
possible later in Poland, so the generals gave power to a troika (sleigh pulled by 3 horses).
The first among equals was Leonid Brezhnev. The USA still faced 3 adversaries lead by men
incapable of pity. Brezhnev was incapable of pity or any other higher mental functioning. He
liked clowns. The one key qualification for being Khrushchev's second in command was being a
total idiot (preferably lacking in ambition) and therefore being no threat. From then on, the
analogy should have been negotiating with Rudolf Hesse in Munich (Hesse was similarly chosen
for his total idiocy).
Notably one of the challenges for the US war effort in South Vietnam was the fact that the
Communist Pathet Lao effectively controlled Laos and Communist friendly (and superhumanly vain)
Prince Norodom Sihanouk) controlled Cambodia. Notably this is a problem for the domino theory.
The dominoes which were supposed to be knocked down by the fall of South Vietnam had it already
fallen. Their impact on Thailand was fairly minor (it might not have seemed that way to the
Thai communists who fought and died in the jungle, but there were never many of them and almost
no one noticed when they gave up and made peace (I forget the date)).
In contrast, US firm resoluteness in Vietnam made a large fraction of the world (and a
substantial minority in the USA) hate the US government. It is also estimated to have caused 3
million deaths (from surveys decades later asking people if they had lost relatives).
During the resolute effort against the Hitler like world Communist movement, the USSR and
the PRC fought a border war. They became each others' most bitter enemies -- the USA was not
even number one on their enemies list. Soon after the final victory of the Vietnamese
Communists, there was a brief war between Vietnam and the PRC. The enemy was the enemy of the
enemy. The Soviet Chinese war occurred some time during the US war in Vietnam. It should have
changed everything. But to completely reverse US policy, US policymakers would have to admit
that they had made a mistake, and that is not possible.
The after aftermath is that Communist China became more capitalist than the USA and the USSR
collapsed. Impressively right up to the collapse, US hawks insisted that there was a high risk
of Soviet conquest of the world. Also impressively the people who clearly demonstrated that
they were clueless gained status from the collapse, because it (coincidentally) occurred while
Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Oddly, some sincere people including Max Boot and Anne
Applebaum took seriously Reagan's claim to be a principled supporter of freedom around the
world. I am not much older than they are and remember the distinction between acceptable
authoritarians and unacceptable totalitarians (in other words our sons of bitches and sons of
bitches who weren't ours). I remember the mockery of Carter's human rights campaign. I remember
the US alliance with Argentine fascist mass murderers in opposition to the fascists non mass
murdering Sandinistas (currently in power to remind us of the utter worthlessness of the domino
theory).
So how can we assess the scientific standing of the domino theory ? How does it compare with
the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, the phlogiston theory of burning, the caloric theory
of heat, and the four humors theory of health and disease ? Digressions after the jump.
Obviously it does not reach the standing of the Ptolemaic model which is an
astounding scientific accomplishment . Ptolemy's model as written in Almagest gave useful
predictions over a thousand years after it was published. This record remains unequaled. It
happens not to be true, but it is excellent science. In particular it is often said that while
Ptolemy was a great scientist, the medieval Ptolemaic astronomers were the epitome of a sort of
bad science -- the degenerative research program (google Lakatos). It is often asserted as a
known historical fact that, when the model didn't fit the data, they added fiddle factors in
the form of additional epicycles. It is asserted that this lead nowhere useful and never would
have, so a scientific revolution was needed. One problem with this story is that there is no
historical evidence at all that any Ptolemaic astronomer after Ptolemy added even one epicycle.
It is frequently stated as fact, but no archival evidence has ever been presented. In fact, it
is pretty clear that Ptolemy's model with no modifications was used by a Ptolemaic astronomer
during Copernicus's lifetime. The astronomer was named Copernicus (who was Ptolemaic before he
wasn't). He reports the differences between forecasts and measurements. We believe we know what
he saw (as we have great confidence in Newton's model and (irrelevantly in this case) more in
Einstein's. So one can infer the forecasts from the reported forecast errors. They are exactly
the forecasts Ptolemy would have made.
So the Ptolemaic model of the solar system and the domino theory are like night and day --
roughly tied for best effort ever and in the running for worst human idiocy.
OK Phlogiston. The phlogiston theory of burning asserted that burning was a process of
release of a substance called phlogiston. The modern theory of oxidation asserts that burning
was the process of adding or combining with a substance called oxygen. Each is reasonable. The
phlogiston theory is more intuitive (and unsurprisingly older) because with most burning the
ashes weigh less than the burned object. It makes perfect sense. Even when Priestly produced
pure oxygen, he quite reasonably described it as air without phlogiston in it (dephlogistonized
air). Lavoisier was, for some reason, obsessed with mercury which oxidizes to cinnabar (which
is solid but soft and red). He got the money for his research by marrying a tax farmer and then
becoming as ruthless as his father in law. (In tax farming the state sold the right to tax
revenues to an individual for a fixed amount, then that individual collected taxes for
himself). Another of Lavoisier's inventions was the tariff wall around Paris -- people had to
pay to enter or leave. He lived just before the French revolution. It isn't really surprising
that he was guillotined). But his obsessive focus on mercury allowed him to notice that the
cinnabar weighed more -- that the amount of air in a closed system declined as the mercury
oxidized, and that the process stopped when the volume of air (under one atmosphere of
pressure) decreased by 20%. He noticed more generally that chemical reactions involve constant
(complicated) proportions by weight. He invented modern chemistry. But he didn't show that
there was anything wrong with the Phlogiston model except that it didn't happen to correspond
to what was happening on earth (with mercury and a few other elements or, it was later learned,
anything). The phlogiston theory is not like the domino theory. It fit some facts. It was
reasonable given available evidence.
The caloric theory of heat held that heat is a substance which is released when things cool.
It has the defect that it assumes that, because heat has a name, it has an independent
existence (and weight and location and such). It's an OK theory. It's fault is that it isn't
true. It fits some facts about conservation of heat in closed systems without chemical or
nuclear reactions. It's OK, just not true.
The four humors theory of disease. Bingo. Total nonsense. Also highly profitable nonsense
for physicians. It survived a long time. I have no idea of where to find a hint of a clue of
any useful application.
Kaleberg , August 2, 2020 2:17 pm
It's not a bad analysis. You can think of Korea as Vietnam: The Prequel. The Domino Theory
was pretty bogus and ignored the actual political situation, but foreign relations theory was
pretty polarized by then. The great European powers were multilateral, with shifting
alliances, for centuries. Now and then there was polarization as with Napoleon and Hitler.
Domino Theory was, as you noted, a left over from World War II.
A major difference between the Ptolemaic theory and Domino theory is that the former stood
for over a thousand years and was remarkably useful. It was only better observations and
longer term data collection that revealed the problems in the geocentric theory. It would be
centuries again before anyone noticed the precession of Mercury. One big selling point for
the heliocentric theory was that it solved a standing problem in astrology concerning the
strength of influence of Mercury and Venus on human fate. Domino theory lasted from the 1950s
into the 1980s and was never particularly accurate or useful.
Phlogiston is a better comparison, though it had a longer useful life.
"... Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. ..."
"... Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. ..."
"... That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does. ..."
"... The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings . ..."
"... But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. ..."
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how
America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its
opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its
broader context will be discussed briefly:
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves,
their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and
the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional
proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea
what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and
reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes -
overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the
debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the
business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the
Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump
up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and
internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of
the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B
annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's
Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a
consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed
Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military
spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their
coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are
almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all
corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters,
such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the
'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing
how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about
than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine,
and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela
and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings
of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to
vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other
profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most
corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as
those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is
profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no
relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but
the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to
keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage
from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith
mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy
approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign
donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the
voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in
the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated
a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from
selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better
education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and
everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a
fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more
important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah
Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish
voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually
had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them
of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same
way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different
priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and
atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples,
this and
this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want
"bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does
have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In
fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's
Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media
don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its
billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the
public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil
their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they
actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's
hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the
billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives'
filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can
function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours ago
Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
And now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
Question_Mark , 1 hour ago
Klaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42
to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context,
consider its contents, and comment:
Vot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy
us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours ago
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to
think.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago
Money is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are
not behind the scenes' *
- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS
Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Judy Woodruff, and Jim
Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator
from Arizona , 2008
Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr
(commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein
(financier)
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment
and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at
the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ).
Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There
operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who
one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth.
The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every
Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform
the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American
People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members
of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on
the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International
Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets
include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the
identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They
surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
KuriousKat , 8 hours ago
there are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat
instead of theirs.
jmNZ , 3 hours ago
This is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours ago
Let me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should
suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the
conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd
understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours ago
The very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our
Republic is the problem.
Eastern Whale , 8 hours ago
all the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
MartinG , 5 hours ago
Tell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets
clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
Xena fobe , 4 hours ago
It isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
quikwit , 3 hours ago
I'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours ago
Am I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he
used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
BTCtroll , 7 hours ago
Confirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a
color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
freedommusic , 4 hours ago
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people,
inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret
proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not
headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No
rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime
discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country
to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the
present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us
all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and
understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the
choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help
in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete
confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully
informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in
America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it
wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to
indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger,
public opinion.
"... A striking example of philosophical messiness and confusion is that the conservative movement even incorporated clearly anti-conservative ideas, specifically, the anti-historicism advanced by Leo Strauss and his followers. Strauss championed what he called "natural right," which he saw as sharply opposed to tradition. He called the latter "the ancestral" or "convention." To look to them for guidance was to be guilty of the great offense of "historicism," by which he meant moral relativism or nihilism. History, Strauss insisted, is irrelevant to understanding what is right. Only ahistorical, purely abstract reason is normative. ..."
"... The Jaffaite notion that America rejected the past and was founded on revolutionary, abstract, universal ideas contributed to what this writer has termed "the new Jacobinism." According to this ideology, America is "exceptional" by virtue of its founding principles. Since these principles belong to all humanity, America must help remake societies around the world. "Moral clarity" demands uncompromising adherence to the principles. The forces of good must defeat the forces of evil. Inherently monopolistic and imperial, American principles justify foreign policy hawkishness and interventionism. ..."
"... These contrasting views of America entail wholly different nationalisms. The moralistic universalism of American exceptionalism, with its demand that all respect its dictates runs counter to the American constitutional spirit of compromise, deliberation, and respect for minorities. Exceptionalism does not defuse or restrain the will to power, but feeds it, justifying arrogance, assertiveness, and even belligerence. ..."
"... In a speech in the spring of 2019, Pompeo declared that America is "exceptional." America is, he said, "a place and history apart from normal human experience." It has a mission to oppose evil in the world. America is entitled to "respect." It should dictate terms to "rogue" powers like Iran and confront countries like China and Russia that are "intent on eroding American power." This speech was given and loudly cheered at the 40th anniversary gala of the Claremont Institute in California, whose intellectual founder was -- Harry Jaffa. ..."
"... American exceptionalism is in important ways the opposite of a conservatism or a nationalism that defends the moral and cultural heritage that generated American constitutionalism. Exceptionalism fans imperial designs. ..."
"... the phony opposition between nationalism and American exceptionalism on the one hand, and globalism. Any nationalism is only one step removed from globalism, but the nationalism of small countries is usually fairly harmless because the countries themselves are weak. But American nationalism and exceptionalism is in practice indistinguishable from globalism. It simply makes explicit from which location the globe will be ruled. ..."
"... The original idea behind American Exceptionalism is that we are the "Shining City on the Hill". In other words, we were a good example to others. There was nothing in there about the residents of that Shining City going out and invading its neighbors to force them to follow its good example. ..."
"... Sociopaths respect no limits on their power. ..."
"... Actually, according to Kurt Vonnegut, it was neither nationalism nor liberty - but piracy! One group of pirates trying to break away from another. Then again, perhaps that is what you mean by the heralded "liberty"? ..."
A child waves the United States flag from the crown of Liberty Enlightening the World, less formally known as The Statue of Liberty,
on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. | Detail of: 'Statue of Liberty' by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi.
Reactions to globalization, the Trump presidency, and the coronavirus pandemic have turned discussions of American conservatism
increasingly into discussions of "nationalism." Regrettably, terminological confusion is rampant. Both "conservatism" and "nationalism"
are words of many and even contradictory meanings.
The strengths of post-World War II American intellectual conservatism have been widely heralded. As for its weaknesses, one trait
stands out that has greatly impeded intellectual stringency: a deep-seated impatience with the supposedly "finer points" of philosophy.
Making do with loosely defined terms has made conservatism susceptible to intellectual flabbiness, contradiction, and manipulation.
This deficiency is connected to a virtual obsession with electoral politics. William F. Buckley's path-breaking National Review
was an intellectual magazine, but its primary purpose was to prepare the ground for political victories, most of all for capturing
the presidency. The desire to forge a political alliance among diverse groups pushed deep intellectual fissures into the background.
Having a rather narrowly political understanding of what shapes the future, most conservatives thought that the election and presidency
of Ronald Reagan signified the "triumph" of conservatism; but the triumph was hollow. The reason is that in the long run politicians
have less power than those who shape our view of reality, our innermost hopes and fears, and our deeper sensibilities. A crucial
role is here played by "the culture" -- universities, schools, churches, the arts, media, book publishing, advertising, Hollywood,
and the rest of the entertainment industry -- which is why America kept moving leftward.
For post-war so-called "movement" conservatives, conservatism meant chiefly limited government, a free market, anti-communism,
and a strong defense. These tenets were all focused on politics, and vastly different motives hid behind each of them. Why were these
tenets called "conservatism"? Rather than point to a few policy preferences, should that term not refer to a general attitude to
life, a wish to conserve something, the best of a heritage? One thinks of the moral and cultural sources of American liberty
and constitutionalism. But, outside of ceremonial occasions, most movement conservatives placed their emphasis elsewhere.
A striking example of philosophical messiness and confusion is that the conservative movement even incorporated clearly anti-conservative
ideas, specifically, the anti-historicism advanced by Leo Strauss and his followers. Strauss championed what he called "natural right,"
which he saw as sharply opposed to tradition. He called the latter "the ancestral" or "convention." To look to them for guidance
was to be guilty of the great offense of "historicism," by which he meant moral relativism or nihilism. History, Strauss insisted,
is irrelevant to understanding what is right. Only ahistorical, purely abstract reason is normative.
Hampered by a lack of philosophical education, many Straussians have been oblivious to the far-reaching and harmful ramifications
of this anti-historicism. By blithely combining it with ideas of very different origin, they have concealed, even from themselves,
its animosity to tradition.
One of Strauss's most influential disciples, Harry Jaffa, made the radical implications of Straussian anti-historicism explicit.
In his view, America's Founders did not build on a heritage. They deliberately turned their backs on the past. Jaffa wrote:
"To celebrate the American Founding is to celebrate revolution." America's revolution belonged among the other modern revolutions.
It is mild "as compared with subsequent revolutions in France, Russia, China, Cuba, or elsewhere," he wrote, but "it nonetheless
embodied the greatest attempt at innovation that human history had recorded." The U.S. Constitution did not grow out of the achievements
of ancestors. On the contrary, radical innovators gave America a fresh start. What is distinctive and noble about America is that,
in the name of ahistorical, abstract, universal principles, it broke with the past.
This view flies in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. The reason the Founders were upset with the British government
is that it was acting in a radical, arbitrary manner that violated the old British constitution. John Adams spoke of "grievous
innovation." John Dickinson protested "dreadful novelty." What the colonists wanted, Adams wrote, was "nothing new," but respect
for traditional rights and the common law. The Constitution of the Framers reaffirmed and creatively developed an ancient heritage.
The Jaffaite notion that America rejected the past and was founded on revolutionary, abstract, universal ideas contributed
to what this writer has termed "the new Jacobinism." According to this ideology, America is "exceptional" by virtue of its founding
principles. Since these principles belong to all humanity, America must help remake societies around the world. "Moral clarity" demands
uncompromising adherence to the principles. The forces of good must defeat the forces of evil. Inherently monopolistic and imperial,
American principles justify foreign policy hawkishness and interventionism.
Compare this notion of America to what is implied in Benjamin Franklin's famous phrase about what the Constitutional Convention
had produced -- "a republic, if you can keep it." To sustain the Constitution, Americans would have to cultivate the moral and cultural
traits that had given rise to it in the first place. To be an American is to defend an historically evolved inheritance, to live
up to what may be called the "constitutional personality." Only such people are capable of the kind of conduct that the Constitution
values and requires. Americans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the
law, rise above the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities. Whether applied to
domestic or foreign affairs, the temperament of American constitutionalism is modesty and restraint. There is no place for unilateral
dictates.
These contrasting views of America entail wholly different nationalisms. The moralistic universalism of American exceptionalism,
with its demand that all respect its dictates runs counter to the American constitutional spirit of compromise, deliberation, and
respect for minorities. Exceptionalism does not defuse or restrain the will to power, but feeds it, justifying arrogance, assertiveness,
and even belligerence.
During the presidency of Donald Trump many proponents of American exceptionalism who want preferment have recast their anti-historical
universalism as "nationalism," showing that the term can mean almost anything. It is now "nationalist" to demand that American principles
be everywhere respected. For example, Mike Pompeo, a person of strong appetites and great ambition, has put this belief behind his
campaign of assertiveness and "maximum pressure."
In a speech in the spring of 2019, Pompeo declared that America is "exceptional." America is, he said, "a place and history
apart from normal human experience." It has a mission to oppose evil in the world. America is entitled to "respect." It should dictate
terms to "rogue" powers like Iran and confront countries like China and Russia that are "intent on eroding American power." This
speech was given and loudly cheered at the 40th anniversary gala of the Claremont Institute in California, whose intellectual founder
was -- Harry Jaffa.
What may seem to political practitioners and political intellectuals to be hair-splitting philosophical distinctions can, on the
contrary, have enormous practical significance. American exceptionalism is in important ways the opposite of a conservatism or
a nationalism that defends the moral and cultural heritage that generated American constitutionalism. Exceptionalism fans imperial
designs. The culture of constitutionalism opposes them.
Claes G. Ryn is professor of politics and founding director of the new Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic
University of America. His many books include America the Virtuous and A Common Human Ground , now in a new paperback edition.
Americans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the law, rise above
the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities.
All lovely ideas. Too bad our "conservative" president is capable of none of these.
Great essay by Professor Ryn in exposing again, as he has done so often before, the phony opposition between nationalism
and American exceptionalism on the one hand, and globalism. Any nationalism is only one step removed from globalism, but the nationalism
of small countries is usually fairly harmless because the countries themselves are weak. But American nationalism and exceptionalism
is in practice indistinguishable from globalism. It simply makes explicit from which location the globe will be ruled.
All true, every word, but the problem with American exceptionalism isn't a matter of semantics or clever arguments but a matter
of power.
This is why the definition of exceptionalism keeps shifting, because as a practical matter it means "whatever is in the interests
of empire" at this particular moment in this particular case.
The original idea behind American Exceptionalism is that we are the "Shining City on the Hill". In other words, we were
a good example to others. There was nothing in there about the residents of that Shining City going out and invading its neighbors
to force them to follow its good example.
These days we are trying to force others to follow good ideals and high standards that we are ourselves following less and
less.
Exactly. The author twists words and creates strawmen and red herrings and argues with dead men.
Washington and Hamilton set forth an idea of country separate from all others and different. Yes, America is and was exceptional.
Friend to all, ally to none, an example to all the world, based in English heritage and culture. It was founded by conservative
revolutionaries, who attempted to claw back freedoms taken away by those in London, who were becoming overlords of an empire.
There was "year zero", and early America could draw on all of English history, plus the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, ancient
Greece and Rome, as well as religious traditions going back to antiquity.
It was always the Jeffersonian impulse towards revolution that was different. Jefferson loved the Year Zero France. But Jefferson
at his core was an idealist.
The problem was that idealists like Jefferson gradually gained power a little over a hundred years ago. Their idealism was
used by those who wanted to exploit America's power to further their own goals contrary to the ideals of American exceptionalism
and American tradition. Greed and idealism went together and America used the cover of American exceptionalism to create an empire.
As to Buckley, his goal seems more like controlled opposition than anything else. He was a gatekeeper for the powerful, defining
acceptable conservatism, keeping conservatism on the plantation. Conservativism Inc continues to try to do so.
Trump is a return to classic American traditionalism and exceptionalism. He is attempting to reshape the world along nationalistic
lines, which is why AMLO in Mexico praised him so much. Globalists don't want to lose their power. Oligarchs don't want to give
up their exploitation and extraction systems. Pundits don't want to give up their money train and status. Bureaucrats don't want
actual democracy.
On Wikipedia's list of the 50 cities with the world's highest homicide rates (per 100,000 population), the US has 4, South
Africa has 4 and the rest are in Latin America. It hardly makes us the shining city on a hill or exceptional, unless you think
a high crime rate is good.
Mark Twain said, "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." Today I would modify
Twain a bit; when conservatives adopt some radical idea, the radicals respond by declaring that idea worn out. Exhibit A would
be the idea of "American exceptionalism."
The historical fact is that American exceptionalism is a Communist concept, devised by Stalin in 1929 to describe --
and to dismiss -- what his American agents told him about the huge differences between American society and European societies,
both of which Soviet-sponsored parties were trying to control. These differences included far lesser class distinctions, greater
racial animosities, a labor movement much more concerned with economic bargaining than fielding political candidates, vastly weaker
political parties, much more ethnic and religious diversity, and more hostility to centralized government. Today, we would have
to add far more imprisonment of criminals, more approval of the death penalty, and a jealous passion for the right to have guns,
although those differences weren't nearly as wide in 1929 as now. American exceptionalism exists. You can argue about whether
it is good or bad, and certainly some of the differences between America and Europe are better or worse than others, but it's
pure pretense to claim that America is an ordinary, unexceptional Western country. And no one on the left made any such pretense,
until people on the right started talking about and glorifying (or at least not denigrating) "American exceptionalism," which
had previously been solely a term of contempt. The radicals invented the views, then declared them worn out when the conservatives
adopted them.
The truth that America is an exceptional country does not, of course, mean that its foreign policy has always been wise, and
certainly it does not mean that America's catastrophic blundering in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were either morally right
or good for Americans. It merely means that we can't correct those mistakes by pretending that the country we're trying to rescue
is unexceptional, that it is no different from other societies, and thus that foreign policies accepted by European or Asian voters
will necessarily be winners here too.
I don't know why you think any of this is even relevant to my point: that American exceptionalism is real, and that desperately
needed foreign policy reforms won't work if we ignore that fact. Worse, the points you raise all distort the real nature of America's
differences from other Western countries.
American and European laws on abortion are very little different; in most of Europe, as in America, abortion is legal and accepted,
Poland being one of the very few exceptions. We're probably closest to Ireland, where abortion has been recently legalized but
remains socially frowned on. Again, whether you or I think that's a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter; it's simply not
one of the major points of difference between America and Europe.
Explaining the difference in imprisonment between Europe and America solely by America's greater black and Hispanic population
is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to begin. First, the difference in imprisonment is very recent, starting in the early
1990s and largely devised by a centrist Democratic US president; America's black and Hispanic population has always been much
larger than Europe's, so it can't explain the difference in imprisonment. Second, America imprisons whites as well as blacks much
more than Europe does. Third, poor blacks and Hispanics commit crimes at the same rate as poor whites of the same economic status;
poor people of whatever race or color choose to commit crimes more often, because they have more incentive to make that choice.
The higher black and Hispanic crime rate simply reflects the fact that far more of them are poor. As long ago as the 19th century,
the British poor were called by the upper class "the criminal classes," and that reflected the undeniable truth that the British
poor, like poor people everywhere, committed more crime than anyone else.
I thank you for the BBC link; I had long suspected that Europe's ban on the death penalty often didn't reflect popular opinion
at first, but I didn't have the data proving it. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that considerably more Americans
than Europeans support the death penalty, and long have, which is why European elites were able to get away with banning it without
losing elections, and American elites have not.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether any of these differences between America and the rest of the West are good or
bad.. My point is that they exist, and it's no good pretending that they don't merely because America's foreign policy isn't working
very well.
I'll say it over and over, but GOP is Right Wing Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. DNC is Left Wing
Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. We use these words wrong in our USA. Traditionalist Conservatives have
NEVER enjoyed political party representation here. We are to-date completely a-historical and delusionally racist "Novum Organum"
conquistadors with English accents. Good News? Better futures lie ahead of us. Start with agrarianism, potable water, and arable
land. North America is underpopulated. I worked for State Dept. I witnessed the World Bank's destruction of Ukraine. Ask me a
real question. I'll answer honestly. We suffer post-WW2 legacy Daddy and Mommy Warbucks here, writing checks to their own kids.
We can, must and will do better. Those without pasts are without futures. To Survive is to Sur Vivre, Live Above. Hold tight.
Have faith.
There is the wish for what definitions should do in political and religious discussion, and then there is the reality of what
they actually do. The wish is that, by using the word "definition," I am referring to something like the definition of a mathematical
concept. We can define precisely what addition means. The problem is, we cannot do that with terms like conservatism. Ryn's argument
illustrates the failure of that attempt: we have "wholly different nationalisms"; we have something that calls itself conservatism
but it's wrong, because Ryn says so.
Definitionism leads to abstruse dispute, as scholars tussle over what is really nationalistic or conservative. The rest
of us look on askance. Most people are not interested in a discussion filled with labels, like, "I'm a cisgender vegetarian transsexual
white socialistic vegetarian Capricorn with subclinical mental disabilities." For most people, that sort of definition-oriented
declaration comes across as hostile to discussion. Like, "I'm here in my castle. I dare you to try to penetrate it." The intrepid
soul who attempts to start an actual friendly conversation, in response to that sort of statement, is likely to move away from
definitionism. Not "You cannot be white: your skin is brown," but rather, "Really! My sister is a Capricorn!"
Definitionism (in some ways a/k/a labeling) is more likely to destroy dialogue than to create it. "Oh, you're a [fill in the
blank]: you can't be good." It is possible to be a Nazi, a Bolshevik, or anything in between -- and still, in various regards,
to be smart, friendly, successful, etc. Political dialogue is like dipping a ladle into a soup kettle: you may pull out some beans,
some meat, some corn -- but possibly no one knows what else lurks in there. The attempt to define is is not merely a lost cause
-- it basically misses the point.
Ah but the revolution was not based at all on nationalism. It was for liberty. The Articles, as the war, were not based on
ideas of nationalism but more libertarian than not. Lest we forget, the convention was called to improve the Articles. That the
federalists (nationalists) hijacked the convention required quashing liberty in favor of a cleverly designed campaign masking
the future.
Patrick Henry was on to it early:
"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object
.But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a
powerful and mighty empire .Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real
balances, in this government..."
In the end the anti federalists have been proven right.
Actually, according to Kurt Vonnegut, it was neither nationalism nor liberty - but piracy! One group of pirates trying to break
away from another. Then again, perhaps that is what you mean by the heralded "liberty"?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams, October 11, 1798.).
Are we still "a moral and religious people"? Well, are we?
Mayhap we are in deep trouble? Well, are we?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be"
(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816.)
No comment.
"I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, that I ought to do. And what I
ought to do, By the grace of God, I shall do."
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
USA's shift to the Western Pacific (Australia) is taking shape. This withdrawal of
American troops and personnel from Germany points to the direction of European long-term
decline in importance, as it seems the USA is opting for a more aggressive, less in-depth
model against the Russian Federation. Either it believes the Russian Federation will fall
soon (after Putin's death) or it is giving up Europe altogether. Both scenarios imply in
Germany's (the EU) decline.
For months the US has been in a full court diplomatic press on fellow UN Security Council
members in an attempt to ensure that a UN arms embargo against Iran does not expire.
The embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran is set to end October 18, and is
ironically enough part of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under Obama, which the Trump
administration in May 2018 pulled out of.
But now Pompeo vows
the US will "take necessary action" -- no doubt meaning more sanctions at the very least,
and likely military action at worst. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week
that "in the near future... we hope will be met with approval from other members of the
P5."
"In the event it's not, we're going to take the action necessary to ensure that this arms
embargo does not expire," he said.
"We have the capacity to execute snapback and we're going to use it in a way that protects
and defends America," Pompeo told the committee further.
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued
to call on the world to accept extending the UN arms embargo against Iran. The embargo is
scheduled to expire on October 18.
But it's clear at this point that the UN is not intent on extending the embargo . Russia for
one has promised as much. Both Russia and China also have recent weapons deals in the works
with the Islamic Republic.
LibertarianMenace , 55 minutes ago
"protects and defends America"
Nothing is farther from the truth, fat man. We know (((who))) it is we're
"protecting".
bumboo , 37 minutes ago
Is this fat guy being blackmailed to saying stupid things all the time
monty42 , 35 minutes ago
He works for the Council on Foreign Relations who have been bankrupting the States with
perpetual war since they fomented WW2.
LibertarianMenace , 30 minutes ago
Yes, him and the rest of the USG. When you can assassinate a U.S. President in broad
daylight and get away with it, you can get away with more extravagant illusions, like 09/11,
or if people are finally catching on, throw in just a smidgen of reality like CV-19. Sky is
the limit.
This is Trump's redeeming value: he's showing all, including the densest among us
(((who))) it is that runs the country. Whether he does it intentionally or not, as in
kowtowing to (((them))), is ultimately irrelevant. (((They))) have to be a bit uncomfortable
from the unaccustomed exposure. The censoring just proves it.
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 36 minutes ago
This pneumatic bull frog is a deep state sock puppet with a Zionist hand way up his
***.
When his lips move, Satanyahoo's voice comes out
This has zero to do with the interests of real Americans.
**building 7 didn't kill itself**
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 23 minutes ago
TRUMP: "Larry Silverstein is a great guy, he's a good guy, he's a friend of mine."
The reason that the US government are trying to get Iran is because Epstein/Mossad has
blackmailed them all into doing their bidding.
Why don't you cover that in the news, huh?
El Chapo Read , 31 minutes ago
"Necessary Action" = Call Israel and ask what they want him to do.
jaser , 43 minutes ago
Protect America? Protect corrupt Netanyahu more like it. Your nation is about to implode
and you just cut off the $600 welfare payment to your citizens hey but let's ban TikTok and
protect America from Iran.
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
rwe2late , 43 minutes ago
Embargo Iran to make them as desperate as possible.
Then accuse them of being "aggressive" while one attacks and bombs Iran's near neighbors
(Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen).
Sounds like a plan of aggressive war if done by any but an "exceptional" nation.
If Russia and China want to trade with Iran, how in the world is it the US Government's
right to tell them not to? If we want to put sanctions on Iran, go for it. But at this point,
the dollar is collapsing as world reserve currency. Iran should well be able to buy anything
they need, from China/Russia and the rest of the world which doesn't respect US sanctions, or
so I would think.
My point - there's really getting nothing that the US even can do about Iran. So
maybe...we should just stop and give it a rest.
Einstein101 , 13 minutes ago
Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia
Fact is Russia and China sell almost nothing to Iran, fearing US sanctions.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 minutes ago
Don't forget Turkey, Azerbaijan and Europe! Turkish stream is not only bypassing Ukrain
but it is connected to Azeri pipeline that is 10km from Iranians border.
monty42 , 15 minutes ago
"Obviously the Iranian army has a bunch of non thinkers..."
Hypocrisy much? The US regime employs paid mercenaries who swore to uphold and defend the
Constitution, yet lie and unthinkingly "just follow orders" and believe that absolves them of
their oathbreaking and actions.
"Dude, I am FREE. I have firearms that are deadly." Heh, only a very limited arsenal
permitted by the Central Committee in D.C., to maintain firepower supremacy in the empire's
favor. Your firearms may be deadly, but the empire mercenary can take you out without you
ever seeing their face.
Clearly having firearms and ammo alone do not prevent tyranny, the States under the D.C.
regime prove that.
vipervenom , 17 minutes ago
pompass the fat boy coward sending our troops to die while he hides behind his own extra
large rear end.
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.
...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in
East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push
comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump
and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality
the speech was.
... ... ...
The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking
about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism."
Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily
in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that
they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its
own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue
and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.
... ... ...
Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference
from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for
a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But,
of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran
or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S.
has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help.
Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies
look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.
Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration
is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an
intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the
behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...
I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word
"China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts
in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".
I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and
Pelosi..) out of their minds government.
We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of
foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not
again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.
It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions
to benefit our citizens.
Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the
Korean Conflict as I recall...
The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they
don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...
You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that
form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations
for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow
been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.
All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems
you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost
the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.
Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy
- this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.
The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign.
Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten
rid of soon enough.
I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads.
Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...
Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will
be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more
of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs
and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any
country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the
Navy or superiority in space yet.
Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar
and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of
trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.
Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting
that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will
change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest
risk possible.
That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the
US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US.
Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with
the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority
of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to
avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.
Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any
other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.
The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was
design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent
the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob
voting for re-distribution...
The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble
wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the
world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening
with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing
economic war that ruins them.
Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.
It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way
of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation
and input is halted.
And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods
we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!
Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and
then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens
to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States
from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie
Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.
Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold.
Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider
conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national
security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our
civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the
Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been
deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new
culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These
facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.
I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.
New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be
a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism,
Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?
During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II,
is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke
political correctness run amok up to the task?
While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All
I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions
of the Han Chinese.
We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic
sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have
been better than this.
I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?
A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we
know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China.
He is just that stupid and evil.
President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China
thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with
that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion:
today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis
is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of
history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Ambassador John Bolton hinted that he doesn't like being called a hawk, since foreign policy labels are simplistic.
But first of all, he labeled libertarian Sen. Rand Paul an isolationist, rather than say, a non- interventionist. And after
nearly 500 pages (all but the epilogue), what you will absorb is absolutely the worldview of a geopolitical hawk. He is not technically
a neoconservative (like, say, Paul Wolfowitz) because the latter were more focused on nation building and spreading democracy.
Bolton sees what he's promoting as defense, but it requires a constant offense.
Bolton is very bright, as Jim Baker noted decades ago, and very well-read, even endorsing his fellow Baltimorean and my teacher
Steve Vicchio's book on Lincoln's faith. But his intelligence is all put into an ideological reading of situations. As Aristotle
would put it, the problem is not lack of theoretical wisdom, but the deficiency in practical wisdom and prudential judgment. Certainly
there are bad actors in the world, and vigilance is required. But when is aggressive action called for, and when is it better
to go with diplomacy? In this book, I find few cases of such restraint. For Bolton, it seems that the goal of peace and security
requires the constant threat of war and presence on every continent. All this intervention around the world requires troops, soldiers,
real men and women and their lives and those of their families, requiring lots of sacrifice. At times, his theorizing seems distant
from these realities on the ground.
So Bolton is critical of the "axis of adults" in the Trump administration, the "generals", but not Kelly and not much on his
predecessor McMaster, much less the eccentric Flynn. So his beef is with Mattis, another fine student of history. Bolton says
he went by the rules, as James Baker had said that Bush 41 was "the one who got the votes". He tried to influence Trump within
the rules, while Mattis, Tillerson and Haley pursued their own foreign policy. I'm sure that Mattis was sometimes right and sometimes
wrong, but I would trust his prudential judgment above that of the equally bright Bolton, because of his life experience, being
the one on the ground and knowing what war is like.
When Bolton was considered for secretary state right after the 2016 election, I said, well I don't care for the guy, but at
least I've heard of him and we know what we're dealing with. His opponent in GOP foreign policy is the libertarian and non-interventionist
Sen. Rand Paul. What does Bolton say about the big players in the Trump administration? Nikki Haley is dismissed as a lightweight
who was posing for her political future. Well, that's basically what Trump, "the one that got the votes", put her there for. But
it's interesting that Bolton is so anti-Haley, when she was for Rubio and the more hawkish platform.
Tillerson's successor Mike Pompeo had sort of a love-hate relationship with Bolton.
Steve Mnuchin is the epitome of the globalist establishment, along with Javanka. Jared Kushner is dismissed as no Kissinger,
but when it comes to China, his soft stance is blamed on Kissinger! While Bolton didn't testify in the impeachment, Fiona Hill
is mentioned only with respect in this book.
Everybody's flaw, from Bolton's point of view, is being less belligerent than Bolton. (Even in the Bush administration, the
only name I can think of would be Michael Ledeen). He even defends the concept of Middle Eastern "endless wars" on the grounds
that we didn't start them and can't dictate when they end. Obama was a dove, but in 2016 the GOP marked a shift, with Trump, Paul,
Ben Carson and even Ted Cruz opposing the "invade every country on earth" philosophy that this book promotes. It's true that Trump
is not an ideologue and thinks in terms of individual transactions. But the movement I see is a dialectic of alternating between
aggression and diplomacy, or as he sees it, friendly relationship among leaders.
Bolton is a superhawk on North Korea and Iran throughout, while China and Russia are our hostile rivals. Other matters are
Syria, Iraq and ISIS, Venezuela, Afghanistan and finally Ukraine, which by the end of the book I had almost forgotten. If Bolton
is dovish anywhere, it's on the Saudis, the rivals with Iran in the Sunni-Shiite dispute chronicled recently in the book "Black
Wave".
You can learn a lot from this book, but just keep in mind that it's filtered through the mind of a strong ideologue, so other
people's faults are seen through that lens. But he has great knowledge of the details of policy. Bolton would like to be an inter-generational
guru like Henry Kissinger or Dean Acheson, but both parties have turned away from the "endless wars" philosophy.
If you are looking for anti-Trump material, I don't really see the point of investing this time and intellectual effort. The
more sensational parts have been reported-the exchanges involving Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, and to a lesser extent Erdogan.
As most reviewers have said, it's about 100 pages too long, but Bolton is looking for a scholarly work like Kissinger's Diplomacy
or World Order, and this is the one that he hopes people will read.
John Bolton, on some fundamental level, is a brilliant, dedicated conservative intent on improving the future of the country
he and I love. THAT similarity is probably the only point we share.
I wanted to love this book, because I knew it would be jam-packed with juicy tidbits that justify me derision of the biggest
failure ever to assume the office of POTUS. Instead, quite early on, I realized the reason Trump became President was the enormous
ineptitude of those otherwise brilliant people who, in short, simply felt that somebody opposing those the person they despise,
on principle, was better for America than the other guy or gal.
Throughout this book, Bolton reminds us of Trump's inability to focus attention on the information provided by his handlers.
Yes, Trump is naive and intellectually lazy. Yes, so, too, are many of those aiding and abetting Mr. Trump. But, yes, Mr. Bolton
also suffers from gross naïveté, and, is just plain foolish. His ego led him to join the Trump Administration, as he admits in
"The Room Where It Happened."
Bolton's greatest error, however, was in refusing to tell the country what he chose to sell to the public through this book.
The writing is, mechanically, quite good. But, Bolton comes across as thinking he is the only person of intelligence. That
becomes clear by page two, and never changes, except for his insight that he was wrong about Trump.
Unfortunately, Bolton also was wrong about Bolton.
Whoa. Hold on. Just about everyone in both political parties is no better than Bolton. A few exceptions would be Former governor
John Kasick and Utah Senator Mitt Romney. Oh, and former Vice President Joe Biden, I believe. Yet, to be honest, I need to see
him prove me right. I would hate to make the same mistake regarding Biden as Bolton did regarding Trump.
Americans need to take a good, hard look at how we are governed and at those whom we support.
BOTTOM LINE
Writing quality, passable. But don't expect to gain a great deal of new knowledge.
"... The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it, even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control, contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global strike missions, continue to spread across the globe. ..."
"... To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire, becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure. ..."
"... Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma. But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills us. In other words, it's truly time to defund that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless war. ..."
...as Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed
out in 1967 during the Vietnam War, the United States remains the world's greatest
purveyor of violence -- and nothing in this century, the one he didn't live to see, has
faintly proved him wrong. Considered another way, Washington should be classified as the
planet's most committed arsonist, regularly setting or fanning the flames of fires globally
from Libya to Iraq, Somalia to Afghanistan, Syria to -- dare I say it -- in some quite
imaginable future Iran, even as our leaders invariably boast of having the world's greatest
firefighters (also known as
the U.S. military ).
Scenarios of perpetual war haunt my thoughts. For a healthy democracy, there should be few
things more unthinkable than never-ending conflict, that steady drip-drip of death and
destruction that drives
militarism , reinforces authoritarianism, and facilitates disaster capitalism .
In 1795, James Madison
warned Americans that war of that sort would presage the slow death of freedom and
representative government. His prediction seems all too relevant in a world in which, year
after year, this country continues to engage in needless wars that have nothing to do with
national defense.
You Wage War Long, You Wage It Wrong
U.S. helicopters on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) during the
evacuation of Saigon, April 1975. (DanMS, Wikimedia Commons)
To cite one example of needless war from the last century, consider America's horrendous
years of fighting in Vietnam and a critical lesson drawn firsthand from that conflict by
reporter Jonathan Schell. "In Vietnam," he noted , "I learned about the capacity of the
human mind to build a model of experience that screens out even very dramatic and obvious
realities." As a young journalist covering the war, Schell saw that the U.S. was losing, even
as its military was destroying startlingly large areas of South Vietnam in the name of saving
it from communism. Yet America's leaders, the " best and brightest "
of the era, almost to a man refused to see that all of what passed for realism in their world,
when it came to that war, was nothing short of a first-class lie.
Why? Because believing is seeing and they desperately wanted to believe that they were the
good guys, as well as the most powerful guys on the planet. America was winning, it practically
went without saying, because it had to be. They were infected by their own version of an
all-American victory culture ,
blinded by a sense of this country's obvious destiny: to be the most exceptional and
exceptionally triumphant nation on this planet.
As it happened, it was far more difficult for grunts on the ground to deny the reality of
what was happening -- that they were fighting and dying in a senseless war. As a result,
especially after the shock of the enemy's Tet Offensive early in 1968, escalating protests
within the military (and among veterans at home) together with massive antiwar demonstrations
finally helped put the brakes on that war. Not before, however, more than 58,000 American
troops died, along with
millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.
In the end, the war in Indochina was arguably too costly, messy, and futile to continue. But
never underestimate the
military-industrial complex , especially when it comes to editing or denying reality, while
being eternally over-funded for that very reality. It's a trait the complex has shared with
politicians of both parties. Don't forget, for instance, the way President Ronald Reagan
reedited that disastrous conflict into a "
noble cause " in the 1980s. And give him credit! That was no small thing to sell to an
American public that had already lived through such a war. By the way, tell me something about
that Reaganesque moment doesn't sound vaguely familiar almost four decades later when our very
own "
wartime president " long ago
declared victory in the "war" on Covid-19, even as the death toll from that virus
approaches 150,000 in the homeland.
President Donald Trump during briefing on Covid-19 testing capacity May 11, 2020. (White
House, Shealah Craighead)
In the meantime, the military-industrial complex has mastered the long con of the
no-win forever war in a genuinely impressive fashion. Consider the war in Afghanistan. In
2021 it will enter its third decade without an end in sight. Even when President Donald Trump
makes noises
about withdrawing troops from that country, Congress approves an amendment to another massive,
record-setting military budget with broad
bipartisan support that effectively obstructs any efforts to do so (while the Pentagon
continues to bargain Trump down on the
subject).
The Vietnam War, which was destroying the U.S. military, finally ended in an ignominious
withdrawal. Almost two decades later, after the 2001 invasion, the war in Afghanistan can now
be -- the dream of the Vietnam era -- fought in a "limited" fashion, at least from the point of
view of Congress, the Pentagon, and most Americans (who ignore it), even if not the Afghans.
The number of American troops being killed is, at this point, acceptably
low , almost imperceptible in fact (even if not to Americans who have lost loved ones over
there).
More and more, the U.S. military is relying on air power ,
unmanned drones, mercenaries, local militias, paramilitaries, and private contractors.
Minimizing American casualties is an effective way of minimizing negative media coverage here;
so, too, are efforts by the Trump administration to classify nearly everything related to that
war while
denying or downplaying " collateral
damage " -- that is, dead civilians -- from it.
Their efforts boil down to a harsh truth: America just plain
lies about its forever wars, so that it can keep on killing in lands far from home.
When we as Americans refuse to take in the destruction we cause, we come to passively accept
the belief system of the ruling class that what's still bizarrely called "defense" is a "must
have" and that we collectively must spend
significantly more than a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Department of
Homeland Security, and a sprawling network of intelligence agencies, all justified as necessary
defenders of America's freedom. Rarely does the public put much thought into the dangers
inherent in a sprawling "defense" network that increasingly invades and dominates our
lives.
Unmanned MQ-9 Reaper taxis after a mission in Afghanistan, Oct. 1, 2007. (Wikimedia)
Meanwhile, it's clear that low-cost
wars , at least in terms of U.S. troops killed and wounded in action, can essentially be
prolonged indefinitely, even when they never result in anything faintly like victory or fulfill
any faintly useful American goal. The Afghan War remains the case in point. "Progress" is a
concept that only ever fits
the enemy -- the Taliban continues to gain ground -- yet, in these years, figures like
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus have continued to call for a "
generational
" commitment of troops and resources there, akin to U.S. support for South Korea.
Who says the Pentagon leadership learned nothing from Vietnam? They learned how to wage
open-ended wars basically forever, which has proved useful indeed when it comes to justifying
and sustaining
epic military budgets and the political authority that goes with them. But here's the
thing: in a democracy, if you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Athens and the historian
Thucydides learned this the hard way in the struggle against Sparta more than two millennia
ago. Why do we insist on forgetting such an obvious lesson?
'We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us'
Sept. 11, 2001: Firefighters battling fire in portion of the Pentagon damaged by attack.
(U.S. Navy/Bob Houlihan)
World War II was arguably the last war Americans truly had to fight. My Uncle Freddie was in
the Army and stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. The country then
came together and won a global conflict (with lots of help) in 44 months, emerging as the
planetary superpower to boot. Now, that superpower is very much on the wane, as Trump
recognized in running successfully as a
declinist candidate for president in 2016. (Make America Great Again !) And yet,
though he ran against this country's forever wars and is now president, we're approaching the
third decade of a war on terror that has yielded little, spread radical Islamist terror outfits
across an expanse of the planet, and still seemingly has no end.
"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump
himself claimed only last year. Yet that's exactly what this country has been doing,
regardless of which party ruled the roost in Washington. And here's where, to give him credit,
Trump actually had a certain insight. America is no longer great precisely because of the
endless wars we wage and all the largely hidden but associated costs that go with them,
including the recently much publicized
militarization of the police here at home. Yet, in promising to make America great again,
President Trump has
failed to end those wars, even as he's fed the military-industrial complex with even
greater piles of cash.
There's a twisted logic to all this. As the leading purveyor of violence and terror, with
its leaders committed to fighting Islamist terrorism across the planet until the phenomenon is
vanquished, the U.S. inevitably becomes its own opponent, conducting a perpetual war on itself.
Of course, in the process, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, and Yemenis, among other
peoples on this embattled planet of ours, pay big time, but Americans pay, too. (Have you even
noticed that high-speed railroad that's unbuilt
, that dam in increasing
disrepair , those bridges that need fixing, while money continues to
pour into the national security state?) As the cartoon possum Pogo once so classically
said , "We
have met the enemy and he is us."
Early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked a question that
was relevant indeed: "Tell me how this [war] ends." The answer, obvious to so many who had
protested in the global streets
over the invasion to come in 2003, was "not well." Today, another answer should be obvious:
never, if the Pentagon and America's political and national security elite have anything to do
with it. In thermodynamics class, I learned that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to
create due to entropy. The Pentagon never took that in and has instead been hard at work
proving that a perpetual military machine is possible until, that is, the empire it feeds off
of collapses and takes us with it.
America's Military Complex as a Cytokine Storm
U.S. Air Force basic military graduation on April 16, 2020, on Joint Base San
Antonio-Lackland, Texas. (U.S. Air Force, Johnny Saldivar)
In the era of Covid-19, as cases and deaths from the pandemic continue to soar in America, it's astonishing that
military spending is also soaring to record
levels despite a medical emergency and a major recession.
The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first
is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective
vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as
next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it,
even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even
if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in
the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control,
contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global
strike missions, continue to spread across the globe.
Sadly, it's a reasonable bet that in the long run, even with Trump as president, America has
a better chance of defeating Covid-19 than the virus of forever war. At least, the first is
generally seen as a serious threat (even
if not by a president blind to anything but his chances for reelection); the second is,
however, still largely seen as evidence of our strength and exceptionalism. Indeed, Americans
tend to imagine "our" military not as a dangerous virus but as a set of benevolent antibodies,
defending us from global evildoers.
When it comes to America's many wars, perhaps there's something to be learned from the way
certain people's immune systems respond to Covid-19. In some cases, the virus sparks an
exaggerated immune response that drives the body into a severe inflammatory state known as a
cytokine storm . That "storm" can lead to multiple organ failure followed by death, yet it
occurs in the cause of defending the body from a viral attack.
In a similar fashion, America's exaggerated response to 19 hijackers on 9/11 and then to
perceived threats around the globe, especially the nebulous threat of terror, has led to an
analogous (if little noticed) cytokine storm in the American system. Military (and
militarized police ) antibodies have been sapping our resources, inflaming our body
politic, and slowly strangling the vital organs of democracy. Left unchecked, this "storm" of
inflammatory militarism
will be the death of democracy in America.
To put this country right, what's needed is not only an effective vaccine for Covid-19 but a
way to control the "antibodies" produced by America's forever wars abroad and, as the years
have gone by, at home -- and the ways they've attacked and inflamed the collective U.S.
political, social, and economic body. Only when we find ways to vaccinate ourselves against the
destructive violence of those wars, whether on foreign streets or our own, can we begin to heal
as a democratic society.
To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire,
becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble
deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a
ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure.
Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma.
But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills
us. In other words, it's truly time to defund
that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink
how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless
war.
So many years later, it's time to think the unthinkable. For the U.S. government that means
-- gasp! -- peace. Such a peace would start with imperial retrenchment (bring our troops
home!), much reduced military (and police) budgets, and complete
withdrawal from Afghanistan and any other place associated with that "generational" war on
terror. The alternative is a cytokine storm that will, in the end, tear us apart from
within.
A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, William J. Astore is
a
TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is " Bracing Views ."
To understand what enables all the absurdity noted, try identifying what made short shrift
of Tulsi Gabbard’s run for the democrat nomination. She clearly was raising the wrong
questions about war, and some one like Biden and Hillary were providing the narratives that
enable what is happening to continue.
evelync , July 27, 2020 at 17:26
Why do we live a different public from private life?
The public – American Dream; American Exceptionalism;
The private – CIA Director approved in spite of overseeing torture; secretive paranoid
cold warriors approved to run CIA. Coups/Wars
– The secretive State Dept and Intelligence agencies adopt policies that serve short
term financial interests of MICIMATT
NOT the long term public interest.
Trump was elected in part because people are sick of endless regime change wars and
reckless financial deregulation and unfair trade.
He made promises (which he lied about) because in spite of his glaring flaws he’s a
clever manipulator of peoples’ feelings and he knows what people worry about.
Aaron , July 27, 2020 at 13:48
The war on terror is an Israeli construct, it’s a perpetual war, an impossible kind
of war for our military to win in any conventional sense, whereby we could then pack up and
go home, which is exactly the way the Zionists want it to be played out. The goal has been to
Balkanize all of the countries that Israel feels threatened by and break them apart into
ethnic statelets, and thereby hugely weakening their overall power.
Not unlike what happened
to the former Yugoslavia. Remember that after the war in Afghanistan started, a person in the
Pentagon told Wesley Clark that we were going to war in 7 Middle East countries, and he said
he asked the person “Why?” and they didn’t give him an answer other than
that was the plan.
Sure, there are always the war profiteers and all that, but the particular
mission that our military is serving in that overall region is a Zionist plan.
The American
people have bought this for the most part because the Zionist mainstream media has
successfully conflated the goals of the state of Israel with our own goals, and that we must
equate any and all things Israeli with “The West”, and so whatever antipathy is
directed at them, we are to construe that they are attacking America also. And not only have
many thousands of American troops been killed, tens of thousands injured, the p.t.s.d. and
suicides will go on, as Petraeus seems to imply, for generations. This is a like a terrible,
persistent sickness.
Will there be a modern day Alexander to cut this Gordian Knot? The
financial, emotional, spiritual, moral toll of this forever war is indeed killing our
democracy.
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
T he majority of House Democrats joined with the Republican colleagues yesterday in voting
down progressive legislation that would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent ($74
billion) and used the money to fund healthcare, housing, and education for the poorest
Americans.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee
(D–CA) and Mark Pocan (D–WI) was soundly defeated 93-324 , with 139
Democrats joining all 185 voting Republicans in rejecting the idea. Despite the defeat, Pocan
vowed to continue pushing an anti-war agenda. "We will keep fighting for pro-peace, pro-people
budgets until it becomes a reality," he said . Democrats who voted
against the military budget cuts received
over three times the contributions from the defense industry as those who voted for the
reduction. Earlier today, the Senate also voted down the proposal.
The result will no doubt disappoint the majority of Americans as well. A poll
conducted last week by Data for Progress found that 56 percent of the country supported the
idea to defund the military and use the money to fight COVID-19 alleviate the growing housing
crisis. Democrat-voters supported the plan by 69 to 19 percent, with Republicans also backing
it, by 50 to 37 percent. The proposal is hardly a radical shift; the military's budget has
increased by around 20 percent under President Trump alone, reaching near-historic highs.
Housing every one of the United States' over half a
million homeless people.
Creating more than one million infrastructure jobs across America, especially in many of
the most economically depressed locations.
Conduct two billion COVID-19 tests, or six tests per person (44 times as many as has
already been done).
Easily close the $23 billion funding gap between majority-white and majority non-white
public schools.
Fund free college programs for more than two million of the poorest American
students.
A revolution in clean energy. $74 billion could create enough solar and/or wind energy to
meet the needs of virtually every American household.
One million well-paid clean energy jobs, enough to transition most dirty industry workers
into renewables.
Hire 900,000 new elementary school teachers, or nine per school, creating a golden age of
education.
Send a $2,300 check to the more than 32 million currently unemployed people across the
country.
Purchase enough N95 masks for all 55 million essential workers to use, one per day, every
day for a year, with change to spare.
Ashik Siddique of the National Priorities Project told MintPress that he was
disappointed with the results, but that he was hopeful for the future:
It's important to note how quickly the political landscape is shifting around this issue.
This is the first time in decades that Congress has seriously considered reinvesting away
from Pentagon spending. Just a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine getting even
93 votes in the House and 23 in the Senate -- or nearly 40 to 50 percent of the Democratic
Caucus -- to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent, as they did this time.
That sets up a much stronger baseline to work from next year -- especially since the
budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will expire, giving Americans the
chance to more deeply transform this country's militarized agenda in a way that has not been
on the table for decades."
Siddique's figures demonstrate just how much money is spent on war and what could be
possible in the United States if there was a paradigm shift away from bloated military
spending. The U.S. military budget is by far the largest in the world, rivaling that of all
other countries combined. More than half of all discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon,
with the U.S. spending far more per capita on weaponry than comparable countries. Yet even the
$740 billion defense bill does not tell the full story, as it does not include the costs of
nuclear weapons (borne by the Department of Energy), nor many veterans' pensions.
In February the Pentagon announced its fiscal year 2021 budget request, in which it signaled
a move away from the Middle East as its primary focus, towards that of Russia and China.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared the Asian
Pacific region to be the U.S.' new "priority theater." There appears to be no partisan split in
foreign policy, with both Democrats and Republicans viewing China as an increasing nemesis. In
recent weeks Donald Trump and Joe Biden have accused each other of being in Beijing's pockets
while ratcheting up the tensions with the world's most populous country.
Like with the cut to military spending, however, the political elite's opinion varies
radically with that of the general public. When polling group Pew
asked what was the number one international threat to America, the spread of infectious
disease was by some way the top answer. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been
cutting health budgets, including attempting to
slash funding for the Center for Disease control. Internationally, he has also
committed the U.S. to leaving the World Health Organization, a move that is sure to wreak
havoc internationally and undermine cooperation against future worldwide health threats.
Feature photo | President Donald Trump, right, looks over a helicopter with United States
Military Academy Lt. Gen. Darryl Williams, prior to a commencement ceremony on the parade
field, at the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., June 13, 2020. Alex Brandon |
AP
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the
course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global
Times says :
"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on
its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing
needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November
US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump
administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they
said."
Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,
"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's
failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese
observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan
consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward
China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare
itself for a long fight."
Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get
a link for. Here's GT's summation:
"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual
meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that
'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world
peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'
"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain,
India, Russia and Canada.
"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from
this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged
in.
"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that
they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by
dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.
"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the
common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now,
the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration
received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said
Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on
Sunday."
Today's Global Timeslead editorial asked most of the
questions everyone else's asking:
"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new
cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve
into large-scale military confrontation between the two?
"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war.
But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how
wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international
societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."
IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:
"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its
relations with China.
"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether
the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must
not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be
repeated again ."
Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is
now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well
illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't
capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the
Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made
from the first article:
"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan
University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the
international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the
world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation,
the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its
successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .
"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the
Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen
said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse
the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the
virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst
situation .'
Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media
saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which
means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so
they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]
Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people,
especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies
recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You
don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional
structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.
Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:
"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our
own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is
afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]
My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to
read them fully.
Sputnik offers
this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from
"Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security,
Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":
"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power,
increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership.
Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising
China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy .
Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries.
Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity.
That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the
pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world
for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for
the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to
look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My
Emphasis]
That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are
provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being
motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.
Neocons are by nature paranoid. It's their 'circle the wagons', 'build walls' mentality.
In their simple view, the world is neatly divided into friends/toadies who obey you and
enemies who don't. And they LOVE big government
Naturally compromise, 'give-and-take' and free trade is OUT with that
ParkAveFlasher , 1 hour ago
I disagree that it's paranoia. It's an overt power grab on a global scale.
meditate_vigorously , 50 minutes ago
Neocons AKA Trotskyites only care about making war. Perpetual state of war is how they
keep generations weak.
Wars take the best and strongest men and
-kill them
-leave them changed or damaged
-impair them from making strong families
This is probably more important in destroying the family unit than all the efforts of
feminism and the Frankfort school combined. Generation after generation is damaged and
crippled by one war after another.
War lowers the birth rate, which is why (((Neocons))) are all too happy to make up the
deficit with immigrants of different races and ethnicity to further weaken their host nations
so that they can fill the power vacuum. The "baby boom" was less about a birthrate rebound
from WW2 and everything about improvements in agriculture and a booming economy due to no
competition, while women were still in their traditional and natural roles.
joyful-feet , 59 minutes ago
The world is finally waking up to taking steps to address to shine light on and address
the relentless systematic Chinese espionage network. While this should have happened 20 years
ago, the only question is will the world do enough to shatter it completely and take steps to
ensure it doesn't happen again.
Just read some of the page after page of convictions and prison sentences of Chinese
nationals committing espionage against the USA and these are just the fraction of those who
got caught.
But you're wrong about Marines. They kill people for a living. Innocent people. Like
Iraqis. And Afghans. Anyone who thinks that murdering Iraqis and Afghans, who never did
nothing to Americans, nor Vietnamese, who also did nothing to Americans, or, as Cassius Clay
said, "I ain't got nothing against no Vietcong." And he didn't. Because he was an American.
So, I thank the service of conscientious objectors, draft dodgers, and deserters. They are
the real heroes. Takes much more bravery to go against the dumbass belligerent society you
are unfortunately born into. Oh, fuck it, you'll never understand.
@obwandiyag ompletely object to our whole response to 911 as it was indeed a false flag.
If so many people were so easily fooled in the US by our "American Pravda" including
myself, how can I hold it against an 18 year old or some other kid who hasn't even gone to
college that he too cannot see through the dense haze of lies bellowed by those who rule over
us? So yes, I admire their bravery but I want desperately for the US military to withdraw
from the Middle East (and most everywhere else) and return home to protect us and only us
from any real invasion should it ever occur.
We need a) a good military and b) honest leadership. We have the former but not the
latter.
Not a chance. Too many people's livelihood depends on war. From billionaires to the person
who putting bullets in boxes. Anyone who advocate no war will end up in prison for colluding
with the Russians.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Colluding with the Reds, Terrorists, Chicoms, Covid...pick an enemy. That's how it works.
They roll out their psyops and make sure to inform you up front that those who question the
narrative are in the enemy column.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
They've done it with us since 1970.
A_Huxley , 15 hours ago
Contractors like their world travel and over time.
Too many US camps, forts, bases around the world to keep working.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
The single most powerful voice against the wars in the last two years has been Tucker
Carlson - and look at what they're doing to him.
optimator , 8 hours ago
A vibrant economy can't tell the difference between manufacturing a submarine or a
refrigerator.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Honor your oath and the wars for empire will stop. A standing army is only viable through
the Constitution for a short term defense of the States, not for endless wars of aggression
and invasion for the spread of a military empire.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
Correct. Lt. Ehren Watada refused his illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. His case was
dismissed, and he was simply discharged. Today he co-owns a restaurant in Vegas.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PENALTY FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW.
alexcojones , 16 hours ago
As an old veteran, I've spent 50 years atoning some how, some way, myself.
"Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien wrote: "There should be a law . . . If you support a war, if
you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on
the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the
blood." As every old veteran knows, the day that happens is the day warfare ends forever,
when bullets are fattening rather than fatal to your health.
Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers - that only combat troops be given the franchise
to vote - is a concept with merit
ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 hours ago
I don't know that we have to make atonement. The official government position that we were
invited there to help the legitimate government of South VietNam still holds water. The
Nguyen and Tranh had been at war with each other for centuries until the French took over,
and the war was simply a continuation that the Dogpile Democrats of the day didn't see as
anything other than a way to make money. Just because you reject rightwing propaganda, don't
fall for the leftwing either.
Atlana99 , 16 hours ago
We need thousands of hardcore street activists to print these fliers out and place them on
car windshields all across America:
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
Senate has passed a bill calling for the removal of Confederate names from US bases, but it'd
be more truthful for them to continue to be named after racists, killers & oppressors, as
they embody the values of the US war machine.
"JUST IN: Senate Passes $740 Billion Defense Bill With Provision To Remove Confederate
Names Off Military Bases" reads a
headline from the digital news site Mediaite , which could also serve as a perfect
diagnosis for everything that is sick about mainstream liberal orthodoxy.
The Democrat-led House and Republican-led Senate have now both passed versions of this
bill authorizing three-quarters of a trillion dollars for a single year of military
spending, both by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, on the condition that the names of
Confederate Civil War leaders be removed from military bases.
Unsurprisingly, the Security Policy Reform Institute's Stephen Semler found a direct
relationship
between how much a House Democrat has been paid by the war industry and how likely they were to
have voted for the bloated military budget, which also obstructs any attempts to scale down
troop presence
in Afghanistan.
This is everything that is horrible about the Democratic Party and the ideological position
of mainstream liberals. Their leaders have figured out a way to trade hard objects for empty
narrative. To get people to consent to almost limitless amounts of thievery, murder and
exploitation in exchange for words and stories.
They'll get rid of Confederate names on bases, but they won't even slightly reduce the vast
fortunes they're stealing from an impoverished populace and pouring into global slaughter and
oppression. They'll kneel wearing Kente
cloth , but they won't even think about dismantling the US police state. They'll say "I
hear you, and that's something we're looking at," but they'll never intervene against
plutocrats funnelling money away from the needful to add to their unfathomably vast fortunes.
They'll call you whatever gender pronoun you like, but they'll never do anything to
inconvenience the oligarchs and warmongers.
They'll still make you fight tooth and claw for each empty concession, because otherwise
they'd be devaluing the empty, imaginary currency they're trading you in exchange for the
concrete things they want. But in the end there is no amount of narrative the powerful won't
swap out for actual policy changes of substance, because narrative in and of itself has no
value. Manipulators understand this distinction with crystal clear lucidity. Their victims do
not.
In reality, it would be a lot more truthful and authentic for bases within the US war
machine to continue to bear the names of racists, killers and oppressors, since these embody
the values of that war machine far better than anything with a more pleasant ring to it. As
long as you're robbing the American people to murder brown-skinned foreigners for corporate
interests and geostrategic resource control, you might as well have names which reflect such
values on your war machinery.
So I say keep the Confederate names on the bases. Hell, add more of them. Add the names of
Nazis, genocidal warlords, and serial killers too while you're at it. It'd certainly be a lot
more honest and accurate to have a Fort Jeffrey Dahmer as part of America's murder machine than
a Fort Colin Kaepernick.
War is the single worst thing in the world. It is the most evil, insane, counter-productive,
wasteful, damaging, kleptocratic and unsustainable thing that human beings do, by a very wide
margin. If Americans could viscerally experience all of the horrors that are inflicted by the
war machine their wealth and resources are being funneled into, with their perception
unfiltered by propaganda and government secrecy, they would fall to their knees screaming with
abject rage. They would be in the streets immediately forcing an end to this unforgivable
savagery. Which is exactly why America has so much government secrecy and propaganda.
If Americans could see with their perceptions unmanipulated, their response to the news that
$740 billion is being stolen from the American people by a sociopathic murder machine in
exchange for removing the names of Confederate leaders from its bases would not be "Oh good,
maybe we'll get a Fort Harriet Tubman!" It would be rage. Unmitigated, unforgiving rage.
Which is all the status quo deserves. Which is all the Democratic Party exists to prevent.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Steele's "Primary Subsource" Was Alcoholic Russian National Who Worked With Trump
Impeachment Witness At Brookings by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
The mysterious "Primary Subsource" that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend
his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor "Iggy"
Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal
baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele , according to
congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use
the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under
counter-espionage surveillance.
The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to
dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and
convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the
Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according
to criminal records.
Fiona Hill: She worked at the Brookings Institution with dossier "Primary Subsource" Igor
"Iggy" Danchenko (top photo), and testified against President Trump last year during
impeachment hearings. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney
Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy
attorney general in 2017.
Danchenko first ran into trouble with the law as he began working for Brookings - the
preeminent Democratic think tank in Washington - where he struck up a friendship with Fiona
Hill, the White House adviser who testified against Trump during last year's impeachment
hearings. Danchenko has described Hill as a mentor, while Hill has sung his praises as a
"creative" researcher.
Hill is also close to his boss Steele, who she'd known since 2006 . She met with the former
British intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign and later received a raw, unpublished
copy of the now-debunked dossier.
It does not appear the FBI asked Danchenko about his criminal past or state of sobriety when
agents interviewed him in January 2017 in a failed attempt to verify the accuracy of the
dossier, which the bureau did only after agents used it to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page. The opposition research was farmed out by Steele, working for
Clinton's campaign, to Danchenko, who was paid for the information he provided.
A newly declassified FBI summary of the FBI-Danchenko meeting reveals agents learned that
key allegations in the dossier, which claimed Trump engaged in a "well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation" with the Kremlin against Clinton, were largely inspired by gossip and bar talk
among Danchenko and his drinking buddies, most of whom were childhood friends from Russia.
The FBI memo is heavily redacted and blacks out the name of Steele's Primary Subsource. But
public records and congressional sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirm the
identity of the source as Danchenko.
In the memo, the FBI notes that Danchenko said that he and one of his dossier sources "drink
heavily together." But there is no apparent indication the FBI followed up by asking Danchenko
if he had an alcohol problem, which would cast further doubt on his reliability as a source for
one of the most important and sensitive investigations in FBI history.
The FBI declined comment. Attempts to reach Danchenko by both email and phone were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department's watchdog recently debunked the dossier's most outrageous
accusations against Trump, and faulted the FBI for relying on it to obtain secret wiretaps. The
bureau's actions, which originated under the Obama administration, are now the subject of a
sprawling criminal investigation led by special prosecutor John Durham.
Rod Rosenstein: In an odd twist, a 2013 drunkenness case against Danchenko was prosecuted by
then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap
warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
One of the wiretap warrants was signed in 2017 by Rosenstein, who also that year appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and signed a "scope" memo giving him wide latitude to
investigate Trump and his surrogates. Mueller relied on the dossier too. As it happens,
Rosenstein also signed motions filed in one of Danchenko's public intoxication cases, according
to the documents obtained by RCI.
In March 2013 -- three years before Danchenko began working on the dossier -- federal
authorities in Greenbelt, Md., arrested and charged him with several misdemeanors, including
"drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and failure to have his [2-year-old] child in a safety
seat," according to a court
filing . The U.S. prosecutor for Maryland at the time was Rosenstein, whose name
appears in the docket filings .
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
Talbott's brother-in-law is Cody Shearer, another old Clinton hand who disseminated his own
dossier in 2016 that echoed many of the same lurid and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
Through a mutual friend at the State Department, Steele obtained a copy of Shearer's dossier
and reportedly submitted it to the FBI to help corroborate his own.
In August 2016, Talbott personally called Steele, based in London, to offer his own input on
the dossier he was compiling from Danchenko's feeds. Steele phoned Talbott just before the
November election, during which Talbott asked for the latest dossier memos to distribute to top
officials at the State Department. After Trump's surprise win, the mood at Brookings turned
funereal and Talbott and
Steele strategized about how they "should handle" the dossier going forward.
During the Trump transition, Talbott encouraged Hill to leave Brookings and take
a job in the White House so she could be "one of the adults in the room" when Russia and
Putin came up. She served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.
She left the White House just before a National Security Council detailee who'd worked with
her, Eric Ciaramella, secretly huddled with Democrats in Congress and
alleged Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of Biden and
his son in exchange for military aid. Democrats soon held hearings to impeach Trump, calling
Hill as one of their star witnesses.
Congressional investigators are taking a closer look at tax-exempt Brookings, which has
emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is
prohibited from lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Gryffindor/Wikimedia
Under questioning by Republican staff, Hill disclosed that Steele reached out to her for
information about a mysterious individual, but she claimed she could not recall his name. She
also said she couldn't remember the month she and Steele met.
"He had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other
individual, who actually I don't even recall now, who he could approach about some business
issues," Hill told the House
last year in an Oct. 14 deposition taken behind closed doors.
Congressional investigators are reviewing her testimony, while taking a closer look at
tax-exempt Brookings, which has emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal.
Registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is prohibited from
lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Specifically, investigators want to know if
Brookings played any role in the development of the dossier.
"Their 501(c)(3) status should be audited, because they are a major player in the dossier
deal," said a congressional staffer who has worked on the investigation into alleged Russian
influence.
Hill, who returned to Brookings as a senior fellow in January, could not be reached for
comment. Brookings did not respond to inquiries.
Ghost Employee
As a former member of Britain's secret intelligence service, Steele hadn't traveled to
Russia in decades and apparently had no useful sources there . So he relied entirely on
Danchenko and his supposed "network of subsources," which to its chagrin, the FBI discovered
was nothing more than a "social circle."
It soon became clear over their three days of debriefing him at the FBI's Washington field
office - held just days after Trump was sworn into office - that any Russian insights he may
have had were strictly academic.
Danchenko confessed he had no inside line to the Kremlin and was "clueless" when Steele
hired him in March 2016 to investigate ties between Russia and Trump and his campaign
manager.
Christopher Steele, former British spy, leaving a London court this week in a libel case
brought against him by a Russian businessman. Dossier source Danchenko's drinking pals fed him
a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" for pay -- which Steele, in turn, further embellished
with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence." (Victoria Jones/PA via
AP)
Desperate for leads, he turned to a ragtag group of Russian and American journalists,
drinking buddies (including one who'd been arrested on pornography charges) and even an old
girlfriend to scare up information for his London paymaster, according to the FBI's January
2017 interview memo, which runs 57 pages. Like him, his friends made a living hustling gossip
for cash, and they fed him a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" -- which Steele, in turn,
further embellished with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence."
Instead of closing its case against Trump, however, the FBI continued to rely on the
information Danchenko dictated to Steele for the dossier, even swearing to a secret court that
it was credible enough to renew wiretaps for another nine months.
One of Danchenko's sources was nothing more than an anonymous voice on the other end of a
phone call that lasted 10-15 minutes.
Danchenko told the FBI he figured out later that the call-in tipster, who he said did not
identify himself, was Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-born realtor in New York. In the dossier,
Steele labeled this source "an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. presidential
candidate Donald Trump," and attributed Trump-Russia conspiracy revelations to him that the FBI
relied on to support probable cause in all four FISA applications for warrants to spy on Trump
adviser Carter Page -- including the Mueller-debunked myth that he and the campaign were
involved in "the DNC email hacking operation."
Danchenko explained to agents the call came after he solicited Millian by email in late July
2016 for information for his assignment from Steele. Millian told RCI that though he did
receive an email from Danchenko on July 21, he ignored the message and never called him.
"There was not any verbal communications with him," he insisted. "I'm positive, 100%,
nothing what is claimed in whatever call they invented I could have said."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Millian provided RCI part of the email, which was written mostly in Russian. Contact
information at the bottom of the email reads:
Igor Danchenko
Business Analyst
Target Labs Inc.
8320 Old Courthouse Rd, Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182
+1-202-679-5323
At the time, Danchenko listed Target Labs, an IT recruiter run by ethnic-Russians, as an
employer on his resumé. But technically, he was not a paid employee there. Thanks to a
highly unusual deal Steele arranged with the company, Danchenko was able to use Target Labs as
an employment front.
It turns out that in 2014, when Danchenko first started freelancing regularly for Steele
after losing his job at a Washington strategic advisory firm, he set out to get a security
clearance to start his own company. But drawing income from a foreign entity like Steele's
London-based company, Orbis Business Intelligence, would hurt his chances.
So Steele agreed to help him broker a special "arrangement" with Target Labs, where a
Russian friend of Danchenko's worked as an executive, in which the company would bring
Danchenko on board as an employee but not put him officially on the payroll. Danchenko would
continue working for Steele and getting paid by Orbis with payments funneled through Target
Labs. In effect, Target Labs served as the "contract vehicle" through which Danchenko was paid
a monthly salary for his work for Orbis, the FBI memo reveals.
Though Danchenko had a desk available to use at Target Labs, he did most of his work for
Orbis from home and did not take direction from the firm. Steele continued to give him
assignments and direct his travel. Danchenko essentially worked as a ghost employee at Target
Labs.
Asked about it, a Target Labs spokesman would only say that Danchenko "does not work with us
anymore."
Brian Auten: He wrote the memo on the FBI's interview with the Primary Subsource, which is
silent about Danchenko's criminal record. Patrick Henry College
Some veteran FBI officials worry Moscow's foreign intelligence service may have planted
disinformation with Danchenko and his network of sources in Russia. At least one of them,
identified only as "Source 5" in the FBI memo, was described as having a Russian "kurator," or
handler.
"There are legions of 'connected' Russians purveying second- and third-hand -- and often
made-up -- due diligence reports and private intelligence," said former FBI assistant
director Chris Swecker. "Putin's intelligence minions use these people well to plant
information."
Danchenko has scrubbed his social media account. He told the FBI he deleted all his
dossier-related electronic communications, including texts and emails, and threw out his
handwritten notes from conversations with his subsources.
In the end, Steele walked away from the dossier debacle with at least $168,000, and
Danchenko earned a large undisclosed sum.
The FBI interview memo, which is silent about Danchenko's criminal record, was written by
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was called out in the Justice inspector
general report for ignoring inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and outright falsehoods in
the dossier he was supposed to verify.
It was also Auten's duty to vet Steele and his sources. Auten sat in on the meetings with
Danchenko and also separate ones with Steele. He witnessed firsthand the countless red flags
that popped up from their testimony. Yet Auten continued to tout their reliability as sources,
and give his blessing to agents to use their dossier as probable cause to renew FISA
surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
As RCI first reported, Auten teaches a national security course at a Washington-area college
on the ethics of such spying .
Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just
starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more
leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china
diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the
same rake again.
Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the
geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish
mafia.
QABubba , 8 hours ago
Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.
It serves no purpose.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile
behavior.
Salisarsims , 7 hours ago
We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest
destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they
are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand
this world we are living in far more than we do.
me or you , 9 hours ago
He is right!
The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare
system
To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago
I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy.
Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you
non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow
Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the
state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten
behaviour.
Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago
No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.
What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,
You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own
rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital,
that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a
stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.
While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists,
and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average
USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.
Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred
years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you
on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so.
To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest
hypocrites ever.
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
"And USA's propaganda is second to none. That's important because winning a war, whether
Cold or Hot, requires a populace that will accept sacrifices. Blaming the other side for
the need for such sacrifices is an art as much as a science."
Was causing the death of two million Iraqi's is one of the scarifies you talk about that
the populace had to accept?
Sometimes I have a problem to understand the way the so called "western people" behave.
I am almost reaching a conclusion that the art of media is to give the populous an excuse
to themselves why they appear to be accepting scarifies.
We should stop lying to ourselves that we care about others. As long suffering is not at
your doorsteps, human race as individuals, is as bad as our governments.
The more money a member of Congress accepts from the defense industry, the higher the
probability that they'll vote how the defense industry wants them to vote. (So probably what
you expected.)
... ... ...
If you order the members of Congress based on the amount each of them accepted from the
defense sector (2020 cycle) with their respective votes then break your list down (roughly)
into fourths, you'll get something that looks like this:
Amount member accepts from
defense
industry Likelihood that member lets us down Less than $3,000 70% $3,000-$9,999 77%
$10,000-$29,999 84% More than $30,000 More than 98% Notes
41 House Democrats didn't let us down (in this case)
These 41 received (on average) $7,005.63 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
179 House Democrats did let us down
These 179 received (on average) $30,075.85 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
Adam Smith , Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has received
$376,650.00 in campaign contributions from the defense industry so far in this election
cycle. (He also named the NDAA after his Republican counterpart.)
Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours
to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This
was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to
have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.
I've complained
before
about
the habit of the intelligence community of inviting evidence from a very narrow group of experts, occupying what can only be
called an extreme position. Well, here we go again.
The long awaited report on the Russian 'threat' by the British parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has finally come
out. Having downloaded it, I immediately turned to the back page to see where the committee had got its information, on the
principle of 'garbage in, garbage out'. Having done so, I am afraid that I let out an expletive so loud that people from the
other side of the house ran over to see what was wrong. For this is what I saw:
Oh, FFS. Applebaum, Browder, Donnelly, Lucas, and Steele. Really??? I'm assuming that most readers know these names, but just in
case you don't, it's like they've pulled in all the most discredited, Russophobic 'experts' they can find, and ignored everybody
else who has any sort of knowledge of the subject. This is
not
a
representative sample of expert opinion about Russia.
I have no objection to one or two such people being summoned as witnesses, but when all you have is representatives of the most
extreme wing of the Russia-watching community, some of whom, most notably Christopher Steele, have been thoroughly discredited,
then what you are not getting is a balanced, all-round picture of what you are studying.
The report thanks these witnesses for the fact that 'they provided us with an invaluable foundation for the classified evidence
sessions'. In short, the five external witnesses mattered. The picture of Russia provided by these people is the ideological rock
on which the rest of the report is built.
Such an extreme, one-sided set of external witnesses not only casts doubt on the value of the information provided to the
committee, but also on the impartiality of the committee itself. It speaks to extreme lack of an open mind, as if experts were
chosen because they conformed to a strong predisposition which the committee was not interested in challenging.
Intelligence work requires a willingness to consider multiple competing hypotheses. Looking at the list of 'experts' makes it
clear that this committee has only been exposed to variations of one – 'Russia is evil', 'Russia is out to get us', 'Russia is
inherently aggressive and dictatorial'. This is no way to do intelligence work.
I'll write something about the content of the report in my next post. But as I said, 'garbage in, garbage out'.
Cutting the defense budget by a modest 10 percent could provide billions to combat the pandemic, provide health
care and take care of neglected communities.
Capitol Souvenir Company, Inc. via Boston Public Library
Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent from Vermont.
▶ Click here for the
conservative
case
for reducing defense spending.
Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: "the
evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war." If there was ever a moment in American history when we
needed to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a "radical revolution of values," now is that
time.
Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than
a hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to
fundamentally change our national priorities.
Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week
vacation. When it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a military spending authorization that
would give the bloated Pentagon $740 billion -- an increase of more than $100 billion since Donald Trump became
president.
Let's be clear: As coronavirus
infections
,
hospitalizations
and
deaths
are
surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million
people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the
Pentagon than the next 11 nations' military budgets combined.
Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when
tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street.
After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of
the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and
health
workers
are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.
Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only
agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are
making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on
Terror will cost some $6 trillion.
Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.
If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot
more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also
means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on
during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark
Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use
that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass
incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds
to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public
hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to
hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at
public colleges, universities or trade schools.
This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on
endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United
States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling
communities in their home states.
In Dr. King's 1967 speech, he warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million
Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when
millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.
At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to
a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to get to a doctor on time, and one
out of five Americans can't afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual
death.
Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to
fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that
money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.
MOST READ
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
ast week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sat down for a teleconference Q&A with Hudson
Institute senior fellow, Marie-Josee Kravis at the Economic Club of New York ; a think tank founded at the start
of the 20th century, which broaches issues surrounding " social, economic and political
questions ." The organization is currently chaired by the President and CEO of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York and counts several corporate leaders from some of the country's most
important institutions on its board of trustees, such as Mastercard, Goldman Sachs, PayPal, and
many others.
On the occasion of the 548th meeting , the top
American diplomat was lobbed a number of canned questions regarding the "state of U.S.-China
relations" by Kravis. He immediately brought up Henry Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in the 1970s when
Nixon's secretary of state set up the eventual 'opening' of China, asserting that the last four
decades of "dialogue-at-all-costs diplomacy" has failed to achieve "the outcome that I think
Dr. Kissinger hoped [for]."
Pompeo, the " official face
of Trump administration thuggery " claimed that China has shown a pattern of persistent
"unilateral aggression" over the years and "thievery" of intellectual property that has
subverted the "good work done by American businesses" and directly blamed the Chinese for the
evisceration of the American middle class; an accusation that rings especially hollow coming
from a Koch-sponsored politician, but
is nothing more than the State Department's chief mouthpiece executing the narrative dictates
of the U.S. National Security Council, which long-ago established a strategic policy to thwart
the PRC's
drive to become a self-reliant economic powerhouse and its inexorable encroachment on the
West's designs over Eurasia.
After a few remarks about the recent policy
change regarding the South China Sea, Pompeo went on talk about the "fairness and
reciprocity and security" that president Trump is ostensibly trying to obtain for "the American
people" via the ongoing trade war with China, but instead of tackling the issue directly,
framed it as a matter of China's disrespect for the "rule of law" and international
institutions in regards to the "virus [that] broke out in Wuhan" and "what they did with
respect to the World Health Organization", regurgitating long-held narratives of China's
supposed interference in the WHO's response.
NATO's shifting role
Once the anti-Xi Jinping stage was set, Kravis turned the conversation to broader
Atlanticist perspectives from the point of view of the U.S. State Department's attempts to
bring the EU into stricter alignment with U.S. goals in the region. She asked about
the call Pompeo held with
recently-installed EU chief diplomat, Borrell, and 27 EU foreign ministers two weeks ago,
in which a "distinct bilateral dialogue focused on China" was suggested.
Pompeo argued that the "tide has turned" on the EU's resistance to take a hardline approach
to China, claiming that Europe was now open to it as a result of the "work that we have done to
demonstrate to the world the threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses to them." He
provided two examples that were meant to buttress his point, but neither were from the EU
itself. One centered around the UK's decision to exclude China from its implementation of 5G
technology, and the other was India's move to excise 50 Chinese information applications that
were operating in that country.
The call with the EU ministers also comes on the heels of big changes at NATO, as Germany
assumes the presidency of the EU and the Chairmanship of NATO's National Reserve Forces
Committee, even as Trump plans to
slash its troop numbers in the pivotal nation – a plan that has garnered some
resistance from both the Pentagon and Congress.
Bipartisan sanctions, unilateral
edicts, and COVID
The subject of China's relationship with Iran and Venezuela was touched on towards the
latter part of the interview, in which Pompeo warned about the end of the JCPOA, known
colloquially as the Iran Nuclear deal; stating that it "would be tragic" and represent the
imminent transformation of Iran into "the world's largest state sponsor of terror." He said
that he hoped the arms embargo could be extended diplomatically and that the UN Security
Council – presently headed by China – could be persuaded to go along with it, but
cited Democrats Kerry, Sherman and former president Obama to express the bipartisan will to
"unilaterally reimpose (sic) all of those sanctions" in case they didn't.
The topic of Venezuela's gasoline sales to Iran was touched on briefly, as was the static
situation with North Korea before returning to China and WHO, specifically. Kravis posed the
question of which "institution or organization or format, process" would be best to "replace
the WHO in terms of sharing of information, sharing of data, sharing of research." Pompeo
touted PEPFAR, President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, as precedent for a U.S. action in
response to the "last time the WHO failed with respect to a pandemic," and praised Deborah Birx
– head of Trump's COVID-19 task force – whose medical license has been
expired for a decade.
The top American diplomat expressed hope that the U.S. would be able to "build a coalition"
around this issue, as they had done when a "Chinese candidate" was about to lead the "World
Intellectual Property Organization" and had successfully built a "coalition" to insert the
State Department's preferred candidate in the position. The softball Q&A ended on an ironic
note when Kravis asked Pompeo about diversity in the State Department. "We don't have enough
Mandarin speakers here." he conceded.
Feature photo | Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at the National Constitution Center
about the Commission on Unalienable Rights, July 16, 2020, in Philadelphia. Brendan Smialowski
| AP
Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher,
writer and documentary filmmaker.
The Congress is serving the interests of the US Oligarchy, at home and abroad. The
strategy is simple: keep allies/vassals in obeisance and non-competitive and destroy
polities that do not subject themselves to a similar system (which ends up to become
subservient to the US interests anyways, in the long run). Thus, all enemies are polities
were Oligarchy doesn't run the roster, and are semi-socialist / socialist countries:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the past Iraq.
Fully fledged democracies, that truly enact the will of the people, would not do
something like this.
For those too young to remember the horrible American war on Yugoslavia in 1999, or
those who have forgot, or were misled with lies about Kosovo, here is a quick summary:
This is a very accurate and honest report what { NATO } the North American Terrorist
Organization did to Yugoslavia . If you Americans wish to know what kind of global
government you are promoting . You only have to find the actual transcripts of Milosevic's
trail . Don't read or listen to any fake news of the trail . You must read the trail
transcripts and judge for yourself The butcher of Balkans has kind of been exonerated after
his death . The world court is something to be very afraid of not at all a instrument of
justice .But the trail transcripts are about 5000 pages so you will have to work to find
out the truth .
WW2 and it's depiction in various films and TV programs has had an unexpected effect on
the military psyche. The US believes it won the war on it's own and the troops came home as
heroes. This is the expectation of the US military even today, unable to accept that it can
be defeated. "Thank you for your service" is a given whatever crimes had been committed
abroad on the innocent who had done them no harm whatsoever. The ICC is opposed on the
theory that US troops cannot commit torture or massacres.
The Joke is that the US has not one a war since WWII, except maybe Granada. As for War
Crimes, the Current President himself committed a War Crime, He gave a Pardon to a
Convicted War Criminal, that is actually breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is US
Treaty Law and as such equal to the Constitution itself in importance. Schedule 4 Article
146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide
effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the
grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged
to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring
such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it
prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons
over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting
Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all
acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches
defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial
and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those
following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August
12, 1949.
Article 147
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present
Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling
a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present
Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 148
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High
Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party
in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
The President has by absolving the Navy Seal of the Liability, Absolved the United
States of the War Crime also, Now I understand that we will hear arguments here of the
Presidents ability to Pardon, but take this as a given, there is no way that During the
Nuremberg Trials the Prosecution of those War Crimes would have accepted the argument that
the Head of State of Germany (Hitler) had the blanket Authority to Pardon German War
Criminals. as such and this is why this was placed in the Geneva Conventions the very act
of Absolving a War Crime is itself a War Crime!
We could care less what the ICC is opposed to. We are not subject to the ICC or
international law. We can enforce it if needed but do not have to abide by it.
The micrograins of ICC jurisdiction and validity require a sharper legal mind than mine
to sift through. But the debate is revelatory of something else -
In general, the current domestic ICC debate reveals part of the true nature of the US
(helped in no small part by the hamfisted and transparent vulgarity of President Trump):
that we are in fact the rogue state that we accuse everyone else in the world of being.
If we are who we say we are we should be straight up supporting the ICC, helping to fund
it and increase its reach and investigative power. Far better than any military
intervention to deal with the truly bad actors in the world would be a legal intervention.
The idea that vicious and violent despots should run scared when they travel or otherwise
face arrest and extradition is exactly right.
But we're not. Why? The answer is obvious at this point - because we have powerful
players in our midst that would face that arrest. And should face that arrest.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
US military spending is certainly much higher than it needs to be for US defense needs. But
the US military is not primarily defending the US. It is defending Asia from China, NATO from
Russia, and a number of countries from Iran, not to speak of Norkland.
IOW, the US military is defending US global hegemony, and is priced accordingly. What you
think of US military spending depends on what you think of the US as a hegemon.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim. Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust? Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam. Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone. A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
Over the last ten years, foreign policy restraint has emerged as the biggest challenger to the U.S. foreign policy status quo.
The persistent failure of policies of endless war and the costly, aggressive pursuit of primacy have left an opening for the alternative
strategy that restraint represents.
As a result, it has also become a natural target for criticism from the defenders of U.S. hegemony. Much of this criticism has
been of the knee-jerk, dismissive variety that critics of American policies are all too familiar with, but there has been some more
serious engagement with the ideas of restrainers as well. Unfortunately, even the more serious engagement with pro-restraint arguments
tends to devolve into polemic.
Michael Mazarr recently wrote an
essay for
the summer issue of The Washington Quarterly in which he identifies what he sees as the failings of the restraint camp. It
is probably the fairest response to arguments for restraint so far, but it does not score any significant hits. It is frustrating
in that it cites the works of leading restrainers, but fails to reckon fully with what they are saying. Mazarr is familiar with restrainers'
arguments, and he makes a number of debaters' points about them, but he doesn't make a persuasive case against restraint.
He identifies what he considers to be restrainers' errors in a few broad categories: 1) a binary definition of the foreign policy
debate; 2) caricaturing U.S. foreign policy as an aggressive drive for primacy; 3) overstating the failures of U.S. post-Cold War
foreign policy; 4) inconsistency in prescription. The first three of these criticisms don't hold up, and the fourth is not a serious
objection to the views of a broad range of writers and analysts.
The first objection is that the restrainers' contrast between primacy/liberal hegemony and restraint is too simplistic. According
to Mazarr, this "overlooks a huge, untidy middle ground where the views of most U.S. national security officials reside and where
most U.S. policies operate." Here he appeals to the diversity of views among foreign policy professionals to counter restrainers'
objections to the current strategy of primacy without actually addressing the pitfalls of primacy that restrainers criticize.
It's not clear that the "huge, untidy middle ground" is as vast or as wild as he suggests. The vast majority of people in that
"middle ground" favor the continued maintenance of U.S. primacy or liberal hegemony. The fact that there is a narrow range of views
among adherents of the current strategy is not surprising. It also isn't terribly relevant to the objections that restrainers have
made against the strategy.
For restrainers, as Mazarr puts it, "the reigning concepts that guide America's role in the world embody a limitless drive for
supremacy and power that has produced an infatuation with militarism and a litany of interventions and wars." That is a fair summary
as far as it goes, but Mazarr never manages to refute this claim.
Consider each part and ask yourself if it rings true. Is the U.S. government guided by a belief that it should pursue supremacy
and power on the world stage? Yes, it is. This is what is euphemistically referred to as American "global leadership." This is as
close to an unquestioned assumption in mainstream foreign policy circles as there is. Has this produced an infatuation with militarism?
Our massive military budget, militarized foreign policy, and intrusive response to many foreign conflicts bear witness that this
is so. Not only is there a bias in favor of action in our debates, but action is almost always defined in terms of military options,
and choosing not to use military options is routinely ridiculed as "doing nothing." Has this infatuation with militarism resulted
in a litany of interventions and wars? We know it has and continues to do so. Mazarr claims that restrainers are using "extreme and
unconditional language" and set up "caricatures and straw people," but, if anything, most pro-restraint arguments are rather mild
in their description of the last few decades of unchecked militarism.
Have restrainers oversold the failure of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy? It's possible, but I don't think it's true. If U.S.
"leadership" is judged on the terms set by its own advocates, how can we judge it as anything but a failure over the last thirty
years? Has it made the world more stable and secure? On the whole, it has not. The U.S. has been one of the most destabilizing actors
in the world for decades with its wars and interference in other nations' affairs. Has it reduced nuclear proliferation? It has not,
and its wars for regime change have made it more difficult to convince would-be nuclear weapons states to dismantle their weapons
programs.
The biggest effort that the U.S. made in the name of counter-proliferation was a terribly costly blunder and an attack on international
law. Has it reduced the incidence of terrorism? On the contrary, the "war on terror" has exacerbated and encouraged the spread of
jihadist terrorism in the world. Has the U.S. deterred great power competition? Far from it. Mazarr's defense of this record amounts
to saying that it was not as ideological and destructive as it might have been, which is not really much of a defense. Are restrainers
too extreme in their indictment of this record of failure? In light of the persistent denial and whitewashing of the disasters unleashed
by our policies, I would say that we have been too diplomatic.
Mazarr writes that "[t]he restraint literature downplays the often-powerful reluctance with which successive US administrations
have grappled with most decisions to intervene." He mentions Libya as an example of this "hesitancy," but neglects to add that the
internal debate over this lasted just a couple weeks before Obama ordered unauthorized military action to help bring down a foreign
government. Obama's reluctance could not have been that powerful if he chose to start a war against another government without Congressional
approval. When we consider how completely unrelated to U.S. vital interests the conflict in Libya was, the fact that the U.S. did
intervene when it had no particular reason to is proof that restrainers' complaints on this score are backed up by the record.
He touts the fact that the U.S. has "shunned" other opportunities for intervention as if the U.S. does not routinely meddle even
in those conflicts where it does not directly act. The U.S. didn't "act" in the Great Lakes crises in the late '90s and early 2000s
because it had outsourced that crisis to its clients in Uganda and Rwanda, who then proceeded to turn Congo into a charnel house.
The U.S. declined to go to WWIII over territorial disputes between Russia and its neighbors, but the escalation of those disputes
grew out of an incessant, U.S.-led drive to expand Euro-Atlantic institutions to Russia's doorstep. Each example Mazarr cites as
proof that the restrainers are overstating their case just reminds us that not all failures of U.S. foreign policy involve our direct
military intervention in a conflict. It doesn't prove that U.S. foreign policy hasn't failed during the last few decades.
In one of the oddest portions of the essay, he informs us that the U.S. has already adopted the restrainers' agenda with respect
to North Korea and Iran. That will come as news to us and to those two governments. It is misleading at best to claim that the Agreed
Framework and the JCPOA amount to "normalizing" relations with North Korea and ending our "grudge match" with Iran. The idea that
strong opposition to these agreements came only from "hawkish factions in two Republican administration" is simply wrong as a matter
of fact. The hawkish factions were just the loudest and most vehement of the opponents. Agreements like these might be helpful for
laying the groundwork for normal relations in the future, but they are just the start of what many restrainers are calling for.
Having failed to land any serious blows thus far, Mazarr turns to restrainers' prescriptions and points out that there is disagreement
about what U.S. policy should be in many places. Since restraint is a strategy that allows for a range of views about specific policies,
this is to be expected, especially when advocates of restraint have not yet been in a position to implement policy.
Earlier in the essay Mazarr complains that restrainers' language is too extreme and unconditional, and then later he disapproves
of restrainers' use of nuance:
Just which military interventions "do not enhance U.S. security"? Which areas are "of little strategic importance"? What is
an "unrealistic"goal, and how big does a defense budget have to become before it is "bloated"? This same adjectival approach to
analysis crops up again and again in the restraint literature.
These are not serious questions. Mazarr can easily learn from the scholars he is citing what they mean when they say these things,
but instead he quibbles about the reasonable qualifications that they are making. When they make unqualified statements, he condemns
them for lacking nuance, and then he accuses them of waffling when they make qualifications. Most restrainers have been very clear
that the U.S. has vital interests in Europe and East Asia, and that most other regions are not that important for our security. The
military budget's bloat is a function of an overly ambitious strategy that commits the U.S. to defend dozens of countries, most of
which do not need protection or could provide for their own defense. Unrealistic goals include, but are not limited to, compelling
North Korea to disarm, forcing Iran to abolish its nuclear program, and using sanctions to coerce other states into abandoning their
core interests.
Mazarr allows that "[p]roponents of restraint have played and continue to play a critical role in highlighting the risks of overweening
ambition," but he does not think the U.S. should significantly scale back its ambitions. He grants that "rethinking of many key assumptions
of U.S. national security policy is overdue, and proponents of restraint have delivered important warnings," but he doesn't rethink
any key assumptions and proceeds to reject many of these warnings as overwrought. He seems to see restrainers as an occasionally
useful check on the excesses of U.S. interventionism, but nothing more than that.
The failures of the last thirty years stem from an excessively ambitious role for the U.S. that no government could competently
execute. If we want to have a more successful and peaceful foreign policy than we have had for at least the last thirty years, we
need to have a much less ambitious and overreaching one. Restraint is the best answer currently available because it accepts that
the U.S. does not have to dominate and shape the world. It is that drive to dominate and dictate terms to other states that has so
often led the U.S. and other countries down the road to ruin. It is time to choose a different path.
Add to all this the US strategic policy of full spectrum dominance and all the economic wars unleashed by the US.
It appears that the US is moving to add North Stream 2 and Turkish Stream going to Europe on CATSAA. How is this not economic
aggression! In what universe is this right? USSR has built pipelines to Western Europe in the middle of the cold war. And the
State Department insists this is due to strategic considerations, having nothing to do with the US trying to sell LNG to Europe....
It is no wonder such news are not really making the news in the US, because that would really sound weird to any Joe 6 pack...
You can win all the intellectual arguments you want (and the arguments are easy to win, at least on any terms other than those
of a full-blown sociopath who isn't even bothering to hide it) - the people of influence and authority still get the wars they
crave.
Unless and until the United States either is utterly humiliated in a major war or faces economic collapse, nothing will change;
the people of influence and authority still are in charge.
Great comment. Given the 'charlie foxtrot' that has become the Middle East in the wake of Iraq II, Afghanistan and the GWOT
and the current economic and political situation in the U.S. in the wake of COVID-19 (whether you accept the MSM version or not),
"utter humiliation" has occurred. The problem is that the establishment will never admit this and the salient lesson is never
learned. You can use the Vietnam experience as an example.
The lesson of Vietnam, in my humble opinion, is that the U.S. is limited in its ability to project power and to engage in nation
building exercises. The narrative changed in the '80s when lack of political will became the primary culprit for U.S. defeat in
South East Asia rather than the more complicated array of factors that made the war unwinnable from the beginning. Regardless,
in the mid-80s Sec. Def. Caspar Weinberger consolidated the Vietnam lessons into a doctrine that fundamentally advocated restraint.
Arguably, the Weinberger doctrine resulted in the U.S. decision to terminate Iraq War I when it did out of recognition that the
U.S. was in no position to prosecute a full-blown invasion of Iraq and to administer the country post-Saddam.
Although it was entirely ignored by the neocons and by the author himself, the Powell Doctrine was based upon similar notions
of restraint. For example, Point 5 emphasizes that the consequences of military action have been thought out as a precondition
to military engagement.
And let us note the recent report that our "it's time we end the wars" leader has given those great peacemakers in the CIA
operations department the green light to effect cyberwar against Iran. Not hard to imagine who in the neighborhood will happily
assist in that.
Its why Trump is so hated by neocons and neoliberals alike. They both want war....particularly if the democrats are the ones
declaring the war and managing it but look at how much the neocons, the neoliberals, the war profiteers, the lobbyists...all work
to keep the federal money flowing toward war where it can easily be spent often without tracking and easily used for undocumented
bribes and payoffs and inside deals between US politicians like Biden and foreign governments like Ukraine or China.
The US is quite good at military destruction but you cant get new sewars, new water mains, new gas lines, new electrical plants,
new mass transit, new airports, new roads, new housing, preservation of wilderness, preservation of wetlands and estuaries, maintenance
of canals, and roads and bridges...etc. All the money is being siphoned off to foreign allies, foreign wars and if money is spent
domestically then it is spent on politicians skimming money off civilian projects and its spent on democratic constituencies like
Black Lives Matters, Planned Parenthood, Diversity, Immigration, Multiculturalism, affirmative action, teachers unions and other
govt unions, etc....its not spent on actual physical infrastructure projects.
For example, in Iraq we were good at destroying Saddam's Republican Guard, blowing up cities, and dismantling the Ba'athist
infrastructure. We weren't good at convincing Iraqis that the U.S. invasion and western paternalism were truly in their best interest.
It's the same reason that Vietnamization ultimately failed and why the ARVN and RVN government quickly collapsed in a matter
of months in 1975 despite the human cost and billions in economic and military aid being poured into the country. It's probably
why most believe that an actual American withdrawal from Afghanistan will inevitably result in a return to Taliban control, again
despite trillions being poured into the country.
So true. Be they Republicans or Democrats neither seems able to end the wars we are in or admit the economic sanctions are
not working. Perhaps the elections of Social Democrats will change the arguments.
Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital and hsot of The Portal podcast, has
gone scorched earth on the New York Times following the Tuesday resignation of journalist
Bari Weiss.
Weinstein describes how The Times has morphed into an activist rag - refusing to cover
"news" unpaletable to their narrative, while ignoring key questions such as whether Jeffrey
Epstein's sex-trafficking ring was "intelligence related."
Jump into Weinstein's Twitter thread by clicking on the below tweet, or scroll down for your
convenience.
At that moment Bari Weiss became all that was left of the "Paper of Record." Why? Because the
existence of Black Racists with the power to hunt professors with Baseball Bats and even
redefine the word 'racism' to make their story impossible to cover ran totally
counter-narrative.
At some point after 2011, the NYT gradually stopped covering the News and became the News
instead. And Bari has been fighting internally from the opinion section to re-establish
Journalism inside tbe the NYT. A total reversal of the Chinese Wall that separates news from
opinion.
This is the paper in 2016 that couldnt be interested in the story that millions of Americans
were likely lying to pollsters about Donald Trump.
The paper refusing to ask the CIA/FBI if Epstein was Intelligence related.
The paper that can't report that it seeks race rioting:
I have had the honor of trying to support both @bariweiss at the New York Times and
@BretWeinstein in their battles simply to stand alone against the internal mob mentality. It is
THE story all over the country. Our courageous individuals are being hunted at work for
dissenting.
Before Bari resigned, I did a podcast with her. It was chilling. I'd make an innocuous
statement of simple fact and ask her about it. She'd reply " That is obviously true but I'm
sorry we can't say that here. It will get me strung up ." That's when I stopped telling her to
hang on.
So what just happened? Let me put it bluntly: What was left of the New York Times just
resigned from the New York Times. The Times canceled itself. As a separate Hong Kong exists in
name only, the New New York Times and affiliated "news" is now the chief threat to our
democracy.
This is the moment when the passengers who have been becoming increasingly alarmed, start to
entertain a new idea: what if the people now in the cockpit are not airline pilots? Well the
Twitter Activists at the @nytimes and elsewhere are not journalists.
What if those calling for empathy have a specific deadness of empathy?
Those calling for justice *are* the unjust?
Those calling "Privilege" are the privileged?
Those calling for equality seek to oppress us?
Those anti-racists are open racists?
The progressives seek regress?
The journalists are covering up the news?
Try the following exercise: put a minus sign in front of nearly every banner claim made by
"the progressives".
Q: Doesn't that make more sense?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Those aren't the pilots you imagine. And we are far closer to revolution than you think.
Bari and I agree on a lot but also disagree fiercely. And so I have learned that she is
tougher than tough. But these university and journalistic workplaces are now unworkable. They
are the antithesis off what they were built to stand for. It is astounding how long she held
out.
Read her letter. I have asked her to do a make-up podcast & she has agreed. Stay tuned
If you don't want to be surprised again by what's coming understand this: just as there has
been no functioning president, there's now no journalism. We're moving towards a 🌎 of
pure activism.
Prepare to lose your ability to call the police & for more autonomous zones where kids
die so that Govenors & Mayors can LARP as Kayfabe revolutionaries . Disagree with Ms Weiss
all you want as she isn't perfect. But Bari is a true patriot who tried to stand alone. Glad
she's out.
We are not finished by a long shot. What the Intellectual Dark Web tried to do MUST now be
given an institutional home.
Podcast with Bari on The Portal to come as soon as she is ready.
Stay tuned. And thanks for reading this. It is of the utmost importance.
Thank you all. 🙏
P.S. Please retweet the lead tweet from this thread if you understand where we are.
Appreciated.
There is no issue in American life about which the mainstream media ignores or distorts
the truth more than Israel/Palestine, and censors or "cancels" the people who could tell
it.
So far, the growing debate over "cancel culture" has understandably focused on individual
cases. Certainly, Israel/Palestine has many examples of courageous thinkers who have suffered
for their views: Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein come immediately to mind. But the
blackout has been so far-reaching for so long that we can say that an entire subject has been
ignored or distorted in the mainstream almost beyond recognition.
Right now, Israel is conducting a violent sabotage campaign against Iran, in an effort to
provoke America into war -- and there is a nearly complete news blackout in the United
States.
Maybe the 153 celebrated signatories to that now famous letter to
Harper's magazine that warned about "cancel culture" could draft another epistle,
one that appeals for an end to suppressing free discussion about Israel and
Palestine.
On July 10, another explosion hit near near Tehran, the latest in a string that have
struck at, among other targets, Iran's nuclear energy program at Natanz. The New York
Times , to its credit, is
reporting on the sabotage campaign, and the paper even said that one of the attacks was
"apparently engineered by Israel." But beyond the basic facts, nothing: no editorials, no
opinion pieces warning about the risk of war, no reminder that Benjamin Netanyahu has been
trying to instigate the U.S. against Iran for at least a decade. There was no effort to
explain that Israel's attacks are meant to goad Iran into retaliating, which will draw in the
U.S., and possibly help Donald Trump's sinking reelection campaign.
At least the Times is doing the bare minimum. So far in the Washington
Post, not a word from its own reporters or commenters; you would think that the paper
could find sources in the D.C. intelligence community to explain the danger of war. On
National Public Radio, one short,
confused report that provided no context at all. Foreign coverage on the U.S. cable
networks continues to be an insignificant joke.
U.S. soldiers, sailors and pilots could soon find themselves in a shooting war that would
stun our citizens with its suddenness.
The mainstream U.S. media's failure to report Israel's effort to provoke fighting with
Iran is happening at the same time as American journalistic malpractice continues over
Netanyahu's plan to illegally annex up to 30 percent of occupied West Bank Palestine. There
has been
very little news coverage of annexation, and Palestinian voices continue to be ignored.
Three members of the New York Times editorial board have extensive experience with
Israel/Palestine: Thomas Friedman, Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. None of them has yet written
a single word about annexation.
Here is a final paradox. "Cancel culture" means that the New York Times and the
rest of the mainstream are nearly closed to the truth about both Israel's instigation over
Iran, and its probable illegal annexation in the West Bank. But Friedman, the most
influential foreign affairs columnist in America, has to, along with his editorial page
colleagues, self cancel -- because he, like them, can't write anything without
sharply criticizing Israel.
The Vatican may be the most influential element on US foreign policy, even more so than
Israel whose interests are not nearly as global. Via the Saker:
In can be argued that the Vatican's interest simply aligns with the "deep state" or it can
be argued that the Vatican is part of the deep state. Indeed the Vatican predates the "deep
state" by centuries and may be the first transational empire.
In any case, the Vatican has been the key player in major international operations from
Poland to Argentina to S Vietnam. Of course, lets not forget their unforgettable role in WW
II and the war against Serbia and the Soviet Union.
The posted article is well worth the long read. The Vatican has gotten a free pass in the
West for far too long with their mass rape of children, organizers of genocide, buddy-buddy
with organized crime and crooked bingo operations. Their role in Ukraine was particularly
eye-opening for me.
I would imagine that the Pope is absolutely fuming about that Russian military cathedral.
My take? That cathedral was built, in part, as a message to the Holy See that if they mess
with Russia or its church, the response will be swift and final.
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
After neocons in Washinton adopted Magnitsky act all bets for US-Russia cooperation are off.
And that in a long run will hurt the USA too.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. ..."
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire
more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by
what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. Sooner or later America's allies are going
to refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose;
it gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and
is something under its control. But that practice causes other countries to gradually
insulate themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than
the cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
The New York Times goes a little further, stressing that the agreement would entail an
economic and military partnership: "It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research
and weapons development and intelligence sharing -- all to fight "the lopsided battle with
terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes." This would give Iran access
to some fairly high-tech systems, perhaps fighter aircraft and training and tech support, but
of that part of the package, I would rate intelligence sharing the highest. It would
potentially give Iran a heads-up on what the USA is planning in the region before it even is
briefed to Congress – Washington leaks like a sieve, and while it is often intentional,
it happens when it is not desired as well.
Washington's policy now consists of little more than frantically papering over cracks as
they appear; its ability to direct the world is gone and its ability to influence it is
deteriorating by the day as it becomes more and more intensely disliked, and everyone's
enemy. Perversely, this brings war closer as a possibility, as threats of it are no longer an
effective deterrent to partnerships and exchanges the USA does not like. More and more of
those threatened are taking the attitude of "Put up or shut up". Trade deals outside
Washington's influence increase those countries' insulation against US sanctions, and perhaps
it is beginning to dawn on the western banking cartel that it is in imminent danger of being
isolated itself, like a fleck of grit that irritates an oyster and finds itself encased in
nacre.
Beijing follows through on its promised retaliation for Washington's move to hold
individuals to account
Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among those facing sanctions in latest tit-for-tat
move
####
More at the link.
What springs to mind is that Groucho Marx quote: "I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member."
That the US sanctions China with an act named after a dodgy Russian book-keeper working
for a thief is all kinds of wrong, but as we all know, the ends justify the means. Hamsters
are happy.
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
"... Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a century ago. ..."
"... And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy'). ..."
Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not
realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a
century ago.
And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted
themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and
unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy').
The ideologies of the Empire are: neoConservativism(a form of aristocracy);neoLiberalism(a form of facism); and Zionism(a form of
colonialism).
In short, a combination of the worst inclinations in the Western tradition.
Danny Sjursen goes undercover in Trumplandia and comes back with this reflection on the U.S.
president's loss of loyalty among soldiers and veterans.
...As both the Covid-19 crisis and the
militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the
imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling
against at home and the two couldn't be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in
part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash
against the pageantry patriots of
Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we'll all face a new and critical
theater in this nation's culture wars. I don't pretend to know whether such protests will last
or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock
star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before
live renditions of his song "Born to Run":
William H Warrick MD , July 10, 2020 at 13:21
oBOMBa destroyed the Anti-War Movement. When he got in the White House all of them began
going to Brunch instead of Peace/Anti-War marches.
P
resident Donald Trump's third National Security Advisor opens his memoir with this quote from the
Duke of Wellington at Waterloo: 'Hard Pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest.' And
pound for pound, that's the (nearly) 500 page memoir in a nutshell. Unremitting pounding is both the theme
and the style. As John Bolton urged the White House to take a 'harder line" on Iran and North Korea, Trump's
chief of staff "urged me to keep pounding away in public, which I assured him I would.' China 'pounded away
during my tenure, sensing weakness at the top.' As with Bolton's mission, so too with America's statecraft,
that must 'keep moving and keep firing, like a big grey battleship.'
From his infamous unsubtle moustache to his bellicosity,
Bolton traffics on a self-image of straight shooter who sprints towards gunfire. He does not set out to
offer a meditation on a complex inner life. This image is also slightly misleading. For all the barrage,
Bolton turns out to be a more conflicted figure, especially when his supporting fire is most called upon.
The Room Where it
Happened
is Bolton's account of his part in
the power struggles within Trump's almost medieval court, his attempt to steer the executive branch towards
the right course, unmasked supremacy everywhere, and his failure and disillusion with Trump's chaotic,
self-serving and showbiz-driven presidency.
The
room where it happened: A White House memoir, by John Bolton
The memoir itself is a non-trivial political event.
Other reviewers have assailed it for being turgid. Bolton, though, has at least done the state some service
by habitually recording and recounting every meeting. This is an important record of an important eighteen
months packed with the escalating brinksmanship with Iran, an impeachment inquest, the return of great power
competition and a fierce struggle to control the policy levers in Washington itself. For that detail,
especially when contrasted with the exhausting melodrama of the era, Bolton deserves a little credit. The
Trump administration's determined effort to suppress it on the grounds of classified information suggests
there is substance to Bolton's allegations of corruption and turmoil at the heart of government.
It is also, though, a work of self-vindication. Bolton's
life is an adversarial one. A former attorney, he became a policy advocate and a Republican Party
institution, consistently taking the hardest of lines. He was ever drawn to aggressive combatants – like
Hillary Clinton, in his formative years he supported Barry Goldwater. He interned for Vice-President Spiro
Agnew, the "number one hawk." As a measure of Bolton's faith that war works and that co-existence with
"rogue states" is impossible, he advocated attacking a heavily (and nuclear)-armed North Korea in 2018, an
adversary that lies in artillery range of Seoul and thousands of Americans as effective hostages, and
offered up a best-case scenario in doing so.
Bolton brought to government a world view that was
dug-in and entrenched. For Bolton, the world is hostile, and to survive America must be strong (wielding and
brandishing overwhelming force) at all times. Enemy regimes cannot be bargained with or even co-existed with
on anything less than maximalist terms dictated by Washington. The US never gives an inch, and must demand
everything. And if those regimes do not capitulate, America must topple or destroy them: Iran, Syria, Libya,
Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea, and must combat them on multiple fronts at once. In doing so,
America
itself must remain unfettered with an absolutely free hand, not nodding even hypocritically to law or custom
or bargaining.
If Bolton's thoughts add up to anything, it is a general
hostility, if not to talking, certainly to diplomacy – the art of giving coherence and shape to different
instruments and activities, above all through compromise and a recognition of limits. The final straw for
Bolton was Trump's cancelling an airstrike on Iran after it shot down a drone. An odd hill to die on, given
the graver acts of corruption he as witness alleges, but fitting that the failure to pull the trigger for
him was Trump's most shocking misdemeanour.
What is intended to be personal strength and clarity
comes over as unreflective bluster
This worldview is as personal as it is geopolitical.
Importantly for Bolton, in the end he fights alone, bravely against the herd. He fights against other
courtiers, even fellow hawks, who Bolton treats with dismissive contempt – Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin, Mike
Pompeo, or James Mattis who like Bolton, champions strategic commitments and views Iran as a dangerous
enemy, but is more selective about when to reach for the gun. The press is little more than an "hysterical"
crowd. Allies like South Korea, who must live as neighbours with one of the regimes Bolton earmarks for
execution, and who try conciliatory diplomacy occasionally, earn slight regard. Critics, opponents or those
who disagree are 'lazy,' 'howling' or 'feckless.'
For a lengthy work that distils a lifetime's experience,
it is remarkably thin regarding the big questions of security, power and order. The hostile world for him
contains few real limits other than failures of will. He embraces every rivalry and every commitment, but
explanations are few and banal. 'While foreign policy labels are unhelpful except to the intellectually
lazy,' he says, 'if pressed, I like to say my policy was "pro-American".' Who is lazy, here?
The purpose of foreign policy, too, is largely absent.
Armed supremacy abroad, and power-maximisation, seems to be the end in itself, regardless of what is has
wrought at home. This makes his disdain for Trump's authoritarian ways especially obtuse: what does he think
made possible an imperial presidency in the first place?
There's little room for principled or reasonable
disagreement. What is intended to be personal strength and clarity comes over as unreflective bluster, in a
town where horse-trading and agility matter. Unintentionally, it is a warning to anyone who seeks to be
effective as well as right, and to those of us who debate these questions.
The most provocative part of the book comes at the end,
and points to a man more conflicted than his self-image of the straight shooter. Bolton issues an extended,
uneasy defence of his decision not to appear as a witness before the House impeachment inquiry against a
president he believed to be corrupt. Having celebrated the need to "pound away" with inexhaustible energy,
it turned out his ammunition was low. 'I was content to bide my time. I believed throughout, as the line in
Hamilton
goes,
that "I am not throwing away my shot".' Drawing on a characteristic claim to certainty, 'it would have made
no significant difference in the Senate outcome.' How can he know this? And even if the odds were long, was
there not – for once – a compelling basis in civic virtue to be that relentless grey battleship, pounding
away? He now hopes "history" will remember Trump as a one-term president. History needs willing agents.
Other reviews have honed in on Bolton's decision to
delay his revelations for a book pay-day. But consider another theme – the war-hawk who is in fact torn and
agonised around combat when it comes to himself. It echoes his retrospective rationale for not fighting in
Vietnam, a war he supported, and (as he has recorded) the detailed efforts he made to avoid service in that
tragic theatre after being drafted. It was, he decided, bound to fail given that the anti-war Democrats
would undermine the cause, a justification he later sheepishly regretted.
So twice the advocate of forceful confrontation refused
the call to show up, generously awarding to himself a rationale for non-intervention that relieves him of
commitment. He refuses to extend that same exonerating, prudential logic to his country, when it debates
whether to wade in to conflict abroad. Neither does he extend it to other Americans who think the nation,
like Bolton, might be better off sometimes holding its fire, biding its time, dividing its enemies, and
keeping its powder dry.
Given that Bolton failed in the end to attend the "room
where it happened", his title is unwittingly ironic. In his favour, Bolton's testy defence of his absence at
least suggests something. In contrast with the front cover of another
forthcoming,
Trump-era memoir
, he retains a modest
capacity for embarrassment.
"... The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. ..."
There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United
States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York
Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to
kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious
Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by
delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks "Why
does Trump put Russia first?" before calling for a "swift and significant U.S. response." Rice,
who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about
swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the
escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening
Syria.
The Times is also titillating
with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of
cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has
been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world's
number one producer of opium and its byproducts.
The cash must be
Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely
tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous
sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin's
GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the "alleged" and consider
for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank
transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and
NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to
justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be
established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a
crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up
that sort of evidence.
Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The
Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably
inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton
observed the media was reporting a "fact" that there was a rumor.
Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got
up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly
and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is "disgusted" by a
"betrayal" of American troops due to Trump's insistence on maintaining "an embarrassing
campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin."
The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed
but are
advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the
"circumstantial details" are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including
crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly
was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.
Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances
around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine
a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in
training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly
need an incentive to kill Americans and as
only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the
year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint
Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been
attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.
The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November
election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did
nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been
verified. For once America's Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the "intelligence
community," but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused
by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a
speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence
assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump
is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are
seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success
and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them
responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee,
currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how
it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that
Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the
Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff's later role in cooking the witnesses
that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.
Schiff predictably
opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying "I find it inexplicable in light
of these very public allegations that the president hasn't come before the country and assured
the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on
American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect
American troops."
Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is
a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it
for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to
their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence
community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed "sources with access,"
which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either
completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation
and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of
bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to
high heaven because it doesn't even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy
Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it's worth, a number of
former genuine intelligence officers including
Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou , Scott Ritter , and
Ray McGovern
have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National
Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no
electronic trail to validate it.
Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the
Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban.
One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels
fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons,
training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers.
Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The
support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently
being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular
regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and
the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort
was delusional from the start.
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a "defensive" U.S. presence in
Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial
Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable
Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is
unpredictable, but America's experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very
encouraging.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest
Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the
same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”. Putin undid all
their hard work in Russia and kicked them out and seized their ill gotten gains: this,
coupled with their congenital hatred of Russia, is the reason for the non-stop, bipartisan
refrain of “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex
(MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars. It is personally humiliating to retreat. The whole country is also worn down by
lost wars and the psychological blow lasts for over 10 years like during the post-Vietnam
era. Keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan permanently won’t win the war but it will
prevent a defeat and potentially humiliating last minute evacuation when the Taliban retake
Kabul.
Also Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan: “Al-Qaeda has 400 to 600 operatives
active in 12 Afghan provinces and is running training camps in the east of the country,
according to the report released Friday. U.N. experts, drawing their research from interviews
with U.N. member states, including their intelligence and security services, plus think tanks
and regional officials, say the Taliban has played a double game with the Trump
Administration, consulting with al-Qaeda senior leaders throughout its 16 months of peace
talks with U.S. officials and reassuring Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, that
the Taliban would “honour their historical ties” to the terrorist group.”
https://time.com/5844865/afghanistan-peace-deal-taliban-al-qaeda/
While the melodrama about trump=pro Russia and dems=anti Russia makes good political
theater to keep folks running in circles chasing their tails, this is not the main reason for
the continuous attacks on Russia by organs of the zpc/nwo. The main reason is Russia is not
owned by them. Not a colony. The main reason for the psywar is not about trump vs dems, it is
about keeping the Russia=bad guys theme seeded in the propaganda. That was the main reason
behind “Russiagate”, as well. And as with that scam, both “sides”
knowingly played their part hyping the theater to keep that Russia=bad guy propaganda theme
in the mind of americans.
I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia. I
completely tune it out the same way I tuned out any news about “CHAZ.”
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on
American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a
“defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a
majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be
played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.”
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true. So what? I don’t
see how it can be used as justification to double down on a pointless war. (Reasonable people
might see it as another reason to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later).
Moreover, I don’t think they’d have to create such drama to get Trump the
imperialist to keep the troops in Afghanistan (if he actually had any intention to withdraw
them in the first place).
This propaganda effort reminds me of the Skripal affair. Perhaps Trump’s handlers
and enablers realize that he’ll lose the election (if we have one) so they’re
trying to manipulate him into escalating tensions with Russia (just as they are with China,
Iran and Venezuela).
The Americans were always very proud and upfront about how they organized, trained,
equipped and financed the Taliban to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. In view of this, why
do they act so surprised should the Russians do something similar on a much smaller
scale?
Obviously, the whole story was concocted in Washington, but so what?
Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the
Americans control the world trade in narcotics. Columbia is the cocaine end of the
business.
I do wish some smart chemists would synthesize heroin and cocaine in a laboratory and put
the CIA out of business.
“and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump”
The demonization of a democratically-elected President by the zionist-owned New York
Times , Washington Post and CNN is somewaht reminiscent of the demonization of a
certain Austrian in the Western media after the 1933 World Jewry’s declaration of war
on Nazi Germany.
“He who controls the narrative controls the consciousness”
With Wolf Blitz’s, Bolton’s, and this week’s release of Trump’s
relative’s book discrediting his mental health. How many books is that now???
But, times have moved on. Trump can ride this wave by learning the dark art of playing
the victim using the mantra ‘look how hard I’m trying’ and appealing to
US voters as their ‘law and order’ president.
Geopolitically speaking, if the US Zio-cons were smart, rather than suffering from
‘Groupthink’, they would be trying to entice Russia away from its partner, China,
and draw Russia into playing a greater role in Europe. Recall that Putin had asked if Russia
could join NATO.
But, alas, they’re still making the same mistake they did in 1991 after the collapse
of Central Industrialism in the former USSR.
The Mujahudeen morphing into Al Qaeda is a new one on me that I have never heard before. I
had read and heard countless times that it was Al Qaeda all along in Afghanistan that the
U.S. assisted to fight against the USSR. It does not make sense either, since the MEK (
Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult.
So, the language and religious differences do not make any sense that one became the
other.
I guess that it makes perfect sense to say anything at all, regardless of the facts, to
the Terrible Trio in the DNC, just to keep the focus on themselves, rather than on Biden.
Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from
former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put
Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S.
response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice
President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of
the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations
directed against a non-threatening Syria.
The pathetic Rice has plenty of company. During a 7/5 CNN puff segment with Dana Bash,
Tammy Duckworth (another potential Biden VP), out of the blue said that the Russians put out
a bounty on US forces. Of course, Bash didn’t challenge Duckworth.
Downplayed in all of this is the fact that Russia was one of the first, if not the first
nation, to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian assistance to the US military
operation in Afghanistan.
“…the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t
even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff
and the New York Times.”
Pelosi is the proud daughter of a shabbos goy father; Schumer is “shomer” or
professed guardian of Israel; Schiff is the decendent of the Internationale Banker who
supported Trotsky’s take down of the Czar; the NYT is what happens when Hebrews learn
to write English. The Jews have been trying to rule Russia for almost 200 years as
Solzhenitsyn would have told us if he could have gotten a publisher in the Jewish American
publishing industry. If Stalin hadn’t thrown the Bolshevik Jews out, there might not
have been a cold war. Watch out Gentiles. These people have taken us into 3 wars for their
interests and they NEVER change.
And, of course, the “conservative” maggots are going along with the obvious
liberal lies once again. There has never been a group of more cowardly and worthless
individuals than American “conservatives”.
Russia
The hope of the world.
Edgar Cayce
Famous US psychic.
As the USA continues its path into a political, moral and military cesspit of pure
corruption, lies, violence, mass murder and sheer evil, it is increasingly difficult to argue
with Cayce.
He was certainly on to something, and that something was like, 80 years ago.
One can even put more belief and trust in a psychic these days – than anything being
claimed or reported by the USA alphabets, government or MSM
Sickening and frightening really.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars
You would have thought by now the American Generals would have got used to ‘losing
wars’.
They haven’t won one other than Grenada in living memory.
The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….
Russia and China would eat them alive today.
So we are now down to sheer bullying, bluster and illegal economic sabotage.
Venezuela springs to mind.
Yes, but they also hate Putin for liberating Russia from its rapacious oligarchs, nearly
all of whom were Jews. The present artificially created hatred for Russia in the US is in
reality the hatred of the frustrated Jewish Mafia.
“I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about
Russia”
Lenny is clapping his hands excitedly.
“Oy believe it, George ! I do – I do – I do !”
George grunts, clears his throat & spits with some force & accuracy at a scrunched up
copy of the NYT.
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true.”
For amusement’s sake, lets wonder what would happen should the Russians offer a bounty
to US & allied troops to kill each other . A kind of cash incentive to bring back
the final years of the Vietnam war.
It sure will be entertaining to watch Joe Biden try to cope with the duties of the
presidency. He makes the fictional President Camacho from the movie “Idiocracy”
look like a statesman with the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. I can
picture his inaugural address in my head, as he inevitably loses his place on the
teleprompter and starts babbling about pony soldiers and you know, the thing. After a grope
fest at his inaugural ball, instead of the Oval Office he will immediately be consigned to
the White House basement for the duration of his term. If you thought an inarticulate
President Donnie made for good reality TV, just wait till a totally incoherent President Joe
has the whole world rollicking with laughter. Plus, Republicans get their turn to amuse with
grid lock of the Congress and the discharge of mass quantities of bog sediment at the
administration every single day for four solid years. It’s a win for comedy no matter
which candidate is elected!
Ann, you’ve got the quote wrong. Here is what he actually wrote:
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian
bounties”
I’m going to assume you didn’t mean “forks” but actually
“faux”.
Using “faux” is here is not incorrect. Giraldi could have meant the NYT article
was “not real, but made to look or seem real” — which goes considerably
further than “false”.
However, that does not necessarily mean that other users of “faux” are not
indulging themselves in a “silly fashion”.
@Emily
to consecrate Russia to the heart of Mother Mary – which still hasn’t fully been
fulfilled, btw – is another indication of Russia’s leadership in a community of a
shared future for humanity, aka Community of Common Destiny (CCD), as advocated by the
Russian President’s ‘double-helix’ partner, China’s President Xi
Jinping.
Compare and contrast that with, then President, Obama’s words to Putin: “The
United States has exclusive rights to anywhere in the world.”
@Alfred
family bankruptcy when every pharmacist knows they re-branded and off-shored their loot
several years ago. Their fine was pocket lint to them.
But that fake allowed the corporate-government axis to make ALL serious painkillers
effectively illegal, including the ones being used safely before Purdue Pharma came
along.
Narcotics are safe when used properly, but where’s the CIA’s take there? So
they killed their competitors and made your family doctor an agent. And sell lots of dope.
Because the nation the CIA protects is in terminal debt, agencies need hard cash from
somewhere .
That’s why the democrats and the left fight to keep the southern border open ,the
hordes of third world peasants are just a “bonus”……look at who the
drugs are destroying i.e. the target
The Democrats have predictably been outdone by the anti-Trump Republicans in this matter.
You can’t sink any lower in Russia-baiting than the Lincoln project’s recent
release, “Fellow Traveler”. Beyond stupid and revolting. Gives you a clue of
their very low opinion of the American voter
There is a dangerous illusion – characterized in part by demonizing rivals –
and that is the developing crisis is merely a re-run of the Cold War. After the Napoleonic
wars the Congress system was established to maintain peace in Europe. It worked reasonably
well, interrupted significantly by the Crimean war, but finally buried with the outbreak of
WWI in 1914; it did not prevent that cataclysmic conflict. Then came the League of Nations
for a short time; it did not stop WWII. The United Nations and other post-war institutions
were established in the 1940s. Now we are in the approaches to WWIII. But very few see. The
apocalyptic conflict feared during the Cold War is nearing. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Russia Hoax 2 is supposed to keep our minds off the Uniparty’s anarcho-tyranny, but
it’s awfully hard to fear Putin with orcs and shitlibs running amok wrecking statues of
racist elks.
@Robert
Dolan olostomy Bag, or were able to steal it on election night, Trump would be spending
the rest of his life in prison right now.
And Russia would have acquiesced to, though more likely quietly assisted, the frame-up.
What we don’t know at this point is what generational geopolitical payoff Russia was
promised by Brennan in March 2016, for its participation. My suspicion is that Nord Stream II
was merely a down payment.
I don’t envy Barr or Durham. How do they resolve this greatest political scandal in
American history when at the center of it you have a former CIA Director who is a Russian
mole.
If you review the New York Times editorial page and its oped pieces you will see more half
of the content each day is anti Trump. The Times has also played up the civil rights aspect
of the BLM movement while playing down the hooliganism of Antifa and the looting by Blacks
which has accompanied it. Many neighborhoods in Manhattan were trashed and looted far beyond
what The Times reported. So promoting the “Russian Bounty” lie doesn’t
surprise me at all. Remember also Times employees went absolutely crazy when the paper
printed an oped by Sen. Tom Cotton. What a bunch of lying flakes and chicken shits.
@tyrone
of more and more of the total of products and services produced in the US economy every year
(GDP) goes to capital, i.e., the holders of wealth, rather than workers, which in turn
creates a drag on further GDP – so eventually it becomes self defeating.
Think: Vicious Cycle of Poverty, as opposed to Virtuous Cycle of Prosperity.
But that explains why neither the Dems / Repubs are determined to do anything about the
1,000,000+ illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border every year.
As said many times by many others: ‘The US has one political party – the
business party, with 2 wings.’
The Soviets actually had to stop the Wehrmacht cold (very cold, indeed) and be ready to
start rolling it back before the USA even dared to join the war.
US Ziocons movement is a family affair. They’re into the second and third
generation, who are still following their daddy’s’ or grandpa’s playbook.
Original ideas are hard to come by with this lot.
The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be
president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt
78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
Good one but what do you mean may be suffering ? (Grin)
Not only replace Trump with Biden but with all the radicals now infesting theDemo’krat
party and manipulating demented, sleepy Joe.
These are all made up stories. By the time one fake story is laboriously dismantled
another one is made up. It’s always a game of playing catch-up. Russia makes a good
boogyman and has served well in that role for three generations now so it’s a tested
formula. It’s a dangerous game since all these idiots could sleepwalk us into an armed
clash with Russia somewhere. Then of course there’ll plenty of problems but perhaps
there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war
inciters.
I know old liberals have ate up all things Russia, Russia, Russia. Have the POBs (people
of brown)? Have all those post ’67 immigrants? They all vote democrats, and are now the
future demographic of America. Its their kids that have to wanna die for the war machine now.
Has the Yiddish propaganda sheet worked its magic on them? The 1619 Project sure did. My
humble guess is no, despite their voting. Most just want money.
Folks, it is time to get your love ones to stop enlisting and re-enlisting in the US
military. It is the only boycott we can do that will actually hurt.
For what it’s worth, Pillar got shitcanned and rusticated by Cofer Black, Kiriakou
got locked up, Ritter got framed as a pedo, and McGovern got the shit beat out of him by my
DoS goons. So shut the fuck up a little, OK?
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish?
To sound like a broken record again , the CABAL hates Russia and specifically Putin
because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother
Russia. They would get The USA into a hot war with Russia if it meant hurting Putin, never
mind what it would do to us. Their hatred is so strong that they could care less what it
would do to America, the snakes that they are.
All Russians would have to do to exploit the current unrest in America would be to knock
out a social media platform or two, or perhaps to leak dirt on the people ginning up war.
Those targets are absolutely hated by the American people outside the Imperial City.
@Zarathustra
and historically illiterate pseudo-intellectual BS about 1619 and Evil America that, because
its evil, should change the names of the military bases where those soldiers trained under
the impression they were going to defend their country!
The Hostile Elite is a rabid dog so totally out of control it needs to be put down
immediately.
Whatever happens, no one should ever take the moral condemnation of psychopaths
seriously.
Battered Wife Syndrome?
I give you Battered Nation Syndrome.
Time to prove to the world it’s possible to recover from it and move into a larger
freedom.
@No
Friend Of The Devil not called al-
Qaeda at this stage but some other name. Apparently the name al-Qaeda was first used by the
FBI to reference this group due to some sort of misunderstanding, but it eventually became
the name they adopted for themselves since that was what everybody was calling them anyway
when they became famous after further adventures.
The above should be taken with a grain of salt since this is only what I have been able to
glean from reading various articles. Presumably what is called al-Qaeda today are the
descendants or associates of personnel from this particular group as opposed to other groups,
but I don’t know.
When Russia was controlled by Marxists, Leftists and Liberals loved Russia, defended
Russia, excused Russia, promoted Russia. Now that Russia has survived Marxist totalitarianism
and begun rediscovering Russian cultural heritage, which features Christianity, Leftists and
Liberals HATE Russia.
Who coulda thunk it possible?
More important is that our Neocons and our old guard Yank ‘conservatives’
– who control foreign policy for both Republicans and Democrats – in the military
and the spy game see Russia today exactly as the Leftists and Liberals see Russia.
Both the Neocons and the Yank WASP Country Club types in the so-called
‘conservative’ arena agree with Leftists and Liberals about Russia.
There’s plenty of meaning there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
The Dem’s election strategists are grasping at straws again.
The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve
in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild
tales and false flags.
The “bounty on American soldiers” is hogwash to gin up what they perceive to
be a voting bloc of gullible whites.
The Dems weakness with working class whites is one they will try to shore up by crassly
fake, flag-waving appeals to bedrock patriotism.
@anonymous
equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men
are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to
this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
– to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base
alloy of hypocrisy.”
With Russia abolishing serfdom and slavery at the time – and much later than Western
Europe – something had to be done to not be outdone by the Russians, of course. The
hypocrisy would indeed have been unbearable. It still is.
@Really
No Shit the mass of whites before the post-WW2 era, then you are ignorant. If you think
the current Deep State is entirely Jewish, or even majority Jewish, you are ignorant.
Without any doubt, Jews now, and for decades, have per capita dominated the American Deep
State. But they did not create it, nor did they create its evil. The Mossad did NOT
create MI6 and the CIA. British Secret Service created the CIA and the Mossad.
America has a Deep State that flowed naturally from the British Deep State. The Brit
Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.
US strategy at the end of WWII included letting Germans and Soviets wear each other down
and kill as many of each other as possible, without US forces involvement. Obviously
“we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much
stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years.
Just more Liberal/Dim/Zio/CCP sponsored horsesh*t, to drive US and Russia apart, to drive
Russia toward China, when US would be better off trying to treat Russia neutrally (hang our
CCP paid dems).
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic
unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917
using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”.
Spot on!
But, a more accurate name than The Deep State is Judeocracy Inc.
followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.
Few people seem to understand the logistics of the war in Afghanistan. The US and their
allies were hugely dependent on the Russian railway system. It is just so ridiculous to
listen to these monkeys who pretend to be statesmen and women.
Susan Rice clearly uses skin whitener and hair straightener to look as much as possible
like those she hates so much.
Unfortunately, the matter with Russia is settled. And while I did not think there was
evidence to support the matter. The current executive sign an intel report that accused the
Russians and Pres. Putin specifically with sabotaging US election and murder and attempted
murder. Unless our executive can reconcile that matter by extracting some manner of penance
for hat behavior — reconciling with Russia is just a flat water tide.
Their actions constituted acts of war and while I may disagree with the assessment
—
that is the US disposition on which nothing Russia says can be taken further than a
pipe.
That intel report which this executive signed locks our posture in place regarding Russia.
We kill people in this country for being suspects.
I don’t think the US citizen would look to kindly on shaking hands with a saboteur
and murderer.
Whether the signing was a matter of political expediency is irrelevant,. The executive
openly cited Russia as an enemy of the US. For me it was one of the most painful memories of
the executives tenure, because
1. destroyed a large portion of our foreign policy agenda of toning down our presence
anywhere
2. demonstrated the executive was not as string as I believed he needed to be.
If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied
states —there’s no reason to doubt that they would support the murder of our
troops in a conflict one.
———————-
It was a devastating moment when the executive agreed to that intel report.
@mike99588
r Germany.
And vastly profiting from both sides – shamelessly.
Britain and the Commonwealth faced Germany alone through dark days indeed until Russia became
our ally – before the USA incidently – conveniently overlooked..
The Americans finally came in Dec 1941 after Russia was already standing with us.
It has not been forgotten in Britain to this day.
The USA bled this country for decades, paying for what was so much crap amongst all
else..
Lend lease – what a scam that was!!!!!
Whilst you traded and supported the nazi war machine against us.
When you work that into the British Empire acting to prevent Russia from forcing the Turks
out of Europe and thereby liberating Constantinople, and acting to harm Russia deeply in
order to win ‘The Great Game,’ you perhaps will then see that back to Oliver
Cromwell and the Puritans that WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Well, unlike the JewSA, Russia isn’t enthralled with the Jews. Putin and company
kicked out Soros and his Open Society as well as the Rothschild bankers. Lastly the four
billionaire Jew oligarchs who were running the Yeltsin economic shitshow were also shown the
door. Perhaps the “Assad must go” flop played into Jewish ire as well.
Amusing to see Democrats so deeply concerned over the “Russian threat”. I was
in the Agency during the Cold War. When the Soviets REALLY were a threat, most of those same
Democrats urged retreat, compromise, submission. It makes my guts churn to see these
“patriots” making hysterical claims against Russia. It is almost as if they
resent the fact that Putin has rejected their entire Globalist plan, re-Christianized Russia,
and locked up at least a few of the so-called “oligarchs” who were looting the
Russian people of their patrimony. The case of Bill Browder deserves some attention. This Red
Diaper baby (his grandfather was Earl Browder, chief of the CPUSA) has been one of the
cheerleaders in the campaign to demonize Russia. Following the family tradition of a lack of
loyalty (he holds British and U.S. passports, just in case!) this weasel used his
granddad’s old Soviet contacts to make hundreds of millions carting off anything of any
value left in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he worked with an equally greasy gang of
former Soviets to do this, including one Sergei Magnitsky, a “tax advisor”
working with Browder who assumed room temperature in a Russian jail after he was nabbed by
the tax police. I really wonder if some of these Democrats and others who so denounce Putin
had visions of sugar plums and hundreds of millions of dollars dancing in their heads, dreams
rudely brought to earth by Putin?
Oct 20, 2009 Taliban Is Getting American Troops Hooked On Heroin
It diminishes the effectiveness of our troops as well as raises money for the Taliban, who
are the ones growing the poppy. How can the US combat this new strategy?
LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that
officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000
pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.
@EliteCommInc.
e accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to
appear in person – three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence
lawyers should withdraw.”
@Emily
t was only done to get into a position to share the spoils. Britain was no more than a vassal
state of the US after WW I, and in no position to defeat Germany. Only Russia could, and they
did, and would have done so with or without the Anglo-Americans. Stop whining about suffering
you brought onto yourself. Besides, Britain suffered very little compared to the continent,
including Germany, and European Jewry, and all of them would have suffered less without the
British arrogance that they had to defend their national honour. Hope they stay out of
European affairs now but it doesn’t look good at this fake Brexit moment
Wisely, Agent76 said, “The CIA Drug Connection is as Old as the Agency.”
Re; above, I suggest Grandfathered by Operation Gladio and it’s Vatican Bank money
laundering component???
Am aware how an England bank, USBC, was caught laundering the Afghanistan drug trade
billions and got a “slap on wrist.”
Linked below is an obscure article on President Putin’s special (on scene)
Afghanistan envoy, Zamir Kabulov, who accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of drug
trafficking.
@No
Friend Of The Devil to attack Iran. They are totally despised by ordinary Iranians. They
are a cult with something in common with the Cambodian Pol Pot way of life. Very dangerous
people. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban who are trying to liberate
their country from the Americans.
@Gidoutahere
ld bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.
“In return, Maxwell’s massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful
Kryuchkov, [Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB] who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB
chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell’s daughter, as a
meeting place between the Russian plotters, Mossad chiefs and Israel’s top politicians.
? Apparently the Rothschilds/Israel Deep State wanted Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Events are so tangled and interconnected, as Ghislaine is still a Israel Deep State
operative.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians hating themselves or other Whites for being proud
of their heritage.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians tearing down monuments and statues or desecrating
their flag.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians wanting their country to be invaded by hordes of
hostile nonwhite WMD.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians apologizing or backing down from identifying
themselves as a Christian nation.
Oh, I get it. This is why the so-called, “Deep State” and “Neo-Cons aka
Neo-Commies” hate Russia so much. I get it now. It burns (((their))) collective asses
that there are actually some largely homogeneous and traditional White nations still around
who aren’t willingly accepting their own genocide or apologizing for being evil White
racists. My gawd, this is my epiphany, this is MY AWAKENING ( shout out to Dr. Duke’s
EXCELLENT BOOK), now I know why Russia is so vilified by (((our media.))) (((Our media))) is
racist against Whites, and (((they))) hate the idea that a traditional White Christian nation
still exists, especially a powerful nation like Russia. Oh dear, how could I be so gullible
not to see this one. I’m Irish American and I am told I must hate the Russkies to be
patriotic by other patriotic Israel Firsters.
It has to do with two things, and only those two things, all other rubbish about
“human rights”, “international law”, blah blah blah, is propaganda
meant for the common man.
1) Russia is white, that means it can easily be demonized and is demonized.
2) The jews that fled Russia are an especially virulent strain of the jew, their hatred for
Russia has few equal.
Maybe someone has already stated the obvious. Regardless of the validity (or lack of) a
bounty program; it’d be real hard to affect US troops if there were no US troops in
Afghanistan.
@Erzberger
ica and the Balkans.
Fourth, had the Admiral Canaris led traitors not been hiding munitions or sending them to the
wrong place, the Soviets may not have recovered even with the US re-supply.
If there is something to yawn about, it is the WWII narrative is tiresome. Stalin
wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. The reality
is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. The Italians were of no help, and
the Japanese were as much a drain as a resource to Germany. Germany was destroyed to allow
the advancement of Marxism, which had already embedded itself in the UK and US.
The zionists are pissed that Russia has saved Syria from the zionist mercenaries aka AL
CIADA aka ISIS, which are creations the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and so the anti
Russian propaganda, pouring out of the zionist owned MSM.
Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the
Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20
years
The Russians paid for all the “giving” with gold. Kindly stop repeating lies.
Even the British went almost bankrupt repaying the Americans for their
“generosity”.
It will be interesting to see how the Russians will treat the Americans when the USA
experiences feudalism. I suspect the Russians will be far more generous than the Americans
deserve.
@neutral
kids.
Hilary Clinton has been a very effective butcher of Libyan and Syrian population at large;
young children and pregnant women were the greatest victims of Clinton’s subhuman
policies.
Susan Rice was good at promoting mass slaughter in Syria, and, along with H. Clinton, S. Rice
should be credited with the slave markets in Libya.
Nuland-Kagan helped to make Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, where zionists and
neo-nazis found a complete mutual understanding. So much for holobiz squealing.
What’s wrong with the US? How come that the US society produced these
monstrosities?
Being that America kills other countries’ soldiers (and civilians) all the time, why
can’t Russia (or any other country) do the same thing? What goes around comes around,
right?
Some things (Russiagate) are just too silly to bother with.
I agree – except that I’m getting quite a chuckle these days at the sheer,
utter desperation of the “Russia did it”, “Saddam did it”, “Bin
Laden did it”, “Assad did it”, etc. etc. etc. noise from the crowd who DID
do it.
Shlomo is cornered and exposed – and that IS worth the subscription fee to watch,
FINALLY.
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” General
(((Wesley Clark)))
Obviously a patriotic “American” General like Mr. Clark has no problem with
the racist state of Israel.
Just another COHENcidence? Nah, after finding about “6 million” COHENcidences
you start thinking for yourself, stop dropping the idea that “conspiracy
theories” are “conspiracies” and start realizing you have been fed a load
of horseshit for a century and counting. We don’t have a Russia problem but Houston, we
do have a problem. Wonder what that problem is?
@Tom
Welsh te Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, at a time when that meant something. He also wrote
(presumably without the assistance a ghost writer) some 40-odd books, as Tucker Carlson
pointed out in a recent monologue.
I think by any standard, these achievements indicate a fairly high level of intellectual
skills.
Whether or not he was a nutcase is another matter, and not mutually exclusive of his
having considerable intellectual skills. A good place to start on this question is to read
what H.L. Mencken wrote about him.
And it is said that Roosevelt is included in the Mt. Rushmore tableau because he was
friends with Borglum the sculptor.
@Trinity
of different nations. But they live in harmony. Their common language is Russian. When Putin
goes to visit the Dagestan, he tells them that their men are brave and their women beautiful.
They love it. And they love Putin for it. Sadly, Google and Youtube seem to have cleaned up
this stuff.
The current news that the Brutish govt has approved new arms sales to Saudia because Saudi
mass killings of Yemeni civilians are all “isolated incidents” so it’s
quite proper to sell them the means seems to prove your point.
“Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the
value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union
is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet
Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy — bloody
Hitlerism.” (here)
The US is in central Asia for much more than that, it’s about blocking China and
Russia, as well as partially cutting off Iran on it’s eastern flank. Iran is almost
surrounded by US bases. The US wants to have more control point/choke point control over
continental transport routes in Asia. (One such prize would be the Dzungarian Gate, but
that’s a little too ambitious for the moment. ) Afghanistan does have resources, but it
would be a target without them, as it is so valuable as a (potential) transit corridor.
@Emily
ulture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism" rel="nofollow"
href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism">Marshall’s
doing all in his power to ensure the victory of Mao over Nationalist forces in 1949
U.S. civilian leaders seem to swoon over enemy sanctuaries for some strange reason. Kill
U.S. troops in theater. No problemo but pinky swear we won’t go after you if you go
back across the border.
God bless Richard Nixon and his destruction of NVA base areas in Cambodia. Thereafter,
enemy activity ceased around my camp and all through MR IV.
Reading your comment, Wally, I find your name extremely apt.
None so blind as those who refuse to even read.
You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
You can put all the proof necessary but if you refuse to check it out – well –
stay a ‘ Wally’.
I guess you subscribe to the philosophy of ‘Ignorance is bliss’.
@Curmudgeon
Wehrmacht, the Warsaw Rising they so strongly encouraged would not have happened, and not
have led to the disaster it was for the city and its inhabitants
“Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or
Roosevelt. “ no objections
“The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. “ Much
of Europe fought on the side of Germany because they realized that Stalin, Churchill and
Roosevelt weren’t good guys, and they had nothing to look forward to but a horrible
peace in case of their victory. Why do you think the EC got together so quickly after the
war?
Also: the sheer idiocy of claiming that poor little “Britain and the
Commonwealth” stood alone against the German monster state! Do you ever look at a map?
at human and natural resources? This should have been a turkey shoot if your side had not
been as lacking in courage as it was, and as incompetent. And if the rest of Europe
wasn’t to a very large extent in the German camp, as it is today
Scott Ritter has a separate article at consortiumnews noting that the Russians have been
giving money to the Taliban (AID) to fight Americans, the CIA and their ISIS proxies since
2014. Surely Obama and/or Biden would have stopped these Russian “bounties” if
they were important.
“Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make
sense.”
The executive in the WH has agreed that Russia sabotaged the US election process and
engaged murder and attempted in states of our allies.
There is no turning the clock bank unless Russia makes some gesture of amelioration
— there behavior constitutes an attack on the US. As such they are active enemies of
the US.
Unfortunately anyone seeking some manner of Russian love fest — should probably
forget it. Whether the executive signed for politically expedient reasons simply
doesn’t matter.
“If you believe any of the Skripals nonsense and the MH-17 false flag, you are
either gullible or a troll.”
Uhhhh, wholly irrelevant. My position in opposition to the contend that Russia sabotaged
the US election was vehemently dubious. My comments at the time make my position abundantly
clear. The evidence for the case against Russia in the US simply no there. But at the end of
the day, the executive choose to go the other direction. That is unfortunate. But it was also
a sign of things to come concerning the executives ability to stand.
And my comments today make that very clear. Your knee-jerk response that I believe what
the executive signed onto is incorrect. I knew that his choice destroyed a good deal of his
foreign poliy admonition to reduce tensions.
But that was his choice mistake or not he made that choice and as I expressed at the time
— we would have to live by it.
——————————————–
In fact, if I were on the opposition, I would like nothing better for the executive to
start behaving as though the intel report doesn’t exist. Because I would pull out that
report with his signature and commence calling him a weakling, indecisive, and a danger to
the US — who is to toothless to hold Russia accountable for her acts of terror in the
US and Europe.
I would then commence a campaign explaining why the executive wants to decrease troops ion
Europe — he wants to cede our allies over to Russian domination —
But then I am not on the opposition. It was a mistake on the facts for the executive to
sign that report for which there was little to no evidence supporting it.
Now if you have a response that gives the president some manner of face saving as he makes
nice with a country that overthrew a US election in the US, and engaged in murder and
attempted murder — have at it.
—————
Minus some kind of amelioration by the Russians or an about face by the current executive
(and tat would really be interesting) no peace and love and understanding can move forward. I
can say with certainty
Russia, Pres. Putin has no intention of apologizing for something they most likely did not
do regarding US elections.
Though I am sure he will once again have reason to chuckle.
Those of you angry, frustrated, irritated . . . and yada I suggest you take that up with
the WH They made that choice.
But by all means name call as opposed to deal with the obvious reality.
The US can not make nice with Russia until Russia makes amends for sabotaging the US
election and engage in acts of murder or attempted in murder in the sovereign states of our
allies. So says the executive in the WH. In fact he says that Pres. Putin ordered the
sabotage and murder.
I think you understand.
There is no way for the current executive to move forward with better relations with
Russia without extracting some admission and compensation for sad acts without reaping
serious political damage — I would say a loss of credibility, but that is already in
question – sadly.
Interestingly, whoever invented this lie about Russia and Taliban not only did not know
the realities of Afghanistan, but was stupid enough not to consult someone who knows. There
is no such thing as a bank transfer in Afghanistan. It exists in the Middle Ages (democracy,
my foot!), so the only form of money that functions there is cash, in hand, in a case, or in
a bag, depending on the amount.
The USA is quickly going to find itself in a corner. There is no realistic path away from
a total confrontation with Russia. No politician will dare dissent. I hope Russia is prepared
for this.
“The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who
serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by
wild tales and false flags.”
Well let’s face it, they usually are. These are the milch cows the MIC relies on to
keep its funding secure.
Everyone knows that Americans are the most dumbfuck stupid people on the planet. It is
more shocking to think that propaganda would NOT affect most of the population.
Anecdotally, when my family lived in England in a village near London in 1957-58 we were
treated like royalty. I’ve always assumed it’s because we were the beloved Yanks
who saved Britain’s behind in the war. That doesn’t undercut what you say about
the underlying resentment, but my clear impression and that of my parents was that the
post-war Brits loved them some Yanks.
Another anecdote, this one not so feel-good. In 1956 we lived on Lakenheath AFB in the UK.
During the Suez crisis the base was on full stand-by alert in case we had to go to war with
Britain. Seriously.
@Patagonia
Man re in Washington is beyond repair. The despicable sinister schemes, backstabbing,
lies, fake facts in a quest for power has nothing to do with democracy but criminality.
It is time to galvanize support for direct voting…enabled by evolving technology.
That process would eliminate:
@ need for electing deceiving proxies that always betray their promises to represent the
public interest.
@ Washington proxies making decisions…should be reduced to debating issues.
@ the special interest groups, lobbies self-serving agenda.
@ sending our young people dying on far away places in unnecessary wars.
When was Paul Craig Roberts last an insider? Do you think him capable of picking cover
stories generically, that is without relevant particular knowledge of inside stuff?
And you seem to claim to have that ability to pick a cover story. So…. how? What
are the generic indicia?
Oh gee, your point would make one think that no other pagan Christian Church has
produced such mass murderers, or in fact, even greater ones… which would be ludicrous as
per history, yeah?
The real source of such satanic evil should be traced to Whitevil (including their Judevil
cousins of course) supremacy and their in-house “niggas,” such as the witch you
mention.
Looks like a lot of the blonds here except the ones here date thugs and run around til
they’re 24ish from dude to dude til they discover the joys of pills & meth and take
the full bath into the toilet….
@Ann
Nonny Mouse political dancing around and inventing another culprit as criminals always do,
successfully disappeared them. Don’t hope they will ever appear again.
And this is the Brutish government that killed another Russian by polonium poisoning and of
course invented another culprit, again as criminals always do.
And is now selling weapons for mass killing to Saudia says mass killings are merely
incidentals.
Consistently, modern Britain makes Nazi Germany look angelic. Consistently.
These are not Christian moral values. What religion or ritual system or control system acts
like this once it takes charge?
@Wizard
of Oz The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter,
the technique known as “sock puppetry.” See under Mr. Derbyshire’s February
15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting
as “Anon[436].”
Over time, Wizard has emerged as sympathetic to the international bureaucracy of the
Establishment of which he may even be a (former?) part, the type of “diplomat”
exemplified by Mrs. Nuland’s Ivy League cookie caddy in Ukraine. He broke character a
while back, showing emotional hostility to China. But who can be sure? Among this
website’s oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
You will find that Roosevelt privately was giving both the UK & France assurances that
if either were attacked, the US would come to their aid well before 1938 – even
tho’ US multinational corporations were still trading with the NSDAP in Germany well into
1941.
As you can’t even get the Julian Assange bit right I don’t suppose it’s
any use asking you to justify your bald assertions or even flesh them our with detail. Let
alone explain when Britain became “modern” and ceased to be the country which is
rightly credited with ending theslave trade and led the way in abolition of slavery.
Yes, several governments have treated Assange contemptibly but he is remanded without bail
pending the resumption of the extradition hearing, not imprisoned for life in cruel or any
conditions. How can you waste readers time with such garbage?
How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist in that
context referring to the equovalent of precision bombing in contrast to area bombing without
precise aiming?
I am really not qualified to comment on the internal wrangling of the various factions in
the USA. I look at their foreign policy actions, not proclamations, with much greater
interest.
@Erzberger
ut down war industry was started by Germany, arguably in Belgium in August 1814 but certainly
in December 1914 when German cruisers indiscriminately shelled three North East England towns.
An aberration? No. It was followed by Zepellin raids on London and the use of Big Bertha
against Paris. Then, what message and implicit set of rules do you find in the destruction of
Guernica? And many civilians were killed in the bombing of Warsaw. Even the virtually symbolic
bombing of Berlin was a response to bombs dropped on London, the only point in your favour
there being the fact that those bombs were probably not meant to be dropped on London.
How intriguing. Not having your obsessive interest in warning about Wizard of Oz I have
failed, at my level of diligence, to find any evidence at all of emotional hostility to China
or indeed, about anything much except perhaps the hypocritical mistreatment of individuals like
Julian Assange by governments. Can you help?
The Germans couldn’t believe how inept the average French, American, and British
soldier really were, even British described how frightened many of the America soldiers, most
barely old enough to shave, appeared. The German was appalled at the physical fitness of the
British soldier as well, describing them as weak and frail for the most part. Here is the
truth, Western Europe and America fought the German B team at best, often these Germans were
little more than schoolboys in some cases. Everyone knows that the bulk of the serious fighting
was done on the Eastern Front. Think if tiny Germany hadn’t had to fight on two fronts
against what must have seemed like half the world. It doesn’t speak well that it took so
many years to defeat a country as small as Germany, a country that was at an extreme
disadvantage. The average Western soldier, be it a Frenchmen, a Brit or an American was nothing
special to say the least. This isn’t a I hate America thing, but merely the truth. The
average German soldier was head and shoulders above the average Brit or America G.I.
Finally, seven days after its ‘scoop’, the NYT ran another story on the
subject, entitled ‘New Administration Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected
Russian Bounties’, which was published on July 3 and buried in the bowels of the
paper.
Its opening paragraphs sought to back up the original story, claiming that an intelligence
memo had said the “… CIA and the National Counterterrorism Centre had
assessed with medium confidence – meaning creditable sources and plausible, but falling
short of near certainty – that a unit of the Russian military service, known as the
GRU, offered the bounties.”
It was only in the last paragraph that the real story – that there was no story
– was revealed: “The agency did intercept data of financial transactions that
provide circumstantial support for the detainee’s account, but the agency does not
have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.”
So the blood libel lasted a week!
One of the greatest things about the Trump Presidency was to carve the ‘Fake
News’ meme on the MSM’s forehead.
Mister/Miss, since when the zionized Congress of the US serves the citizenship of the US?
Thank you for reminding (and you do this regularly) of the unfortunate fact that the US is an
occupied territory and the US Congress is a nest of liars, war profiteers, and rabid
zionists.
Les Wexler, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Clintons have inflicted more harm to the US than
any Maria Butin and such. And don’t forget Dick Cheney and Co, the committed traitors and
profiteers by any means.
In my experience people who are sloppy with language are sloppy with thinking. I thought you
might have had similar relevant experience unlike most commenters here. For example, if you
were employing a director of research or even just a junior researcher for a committee of
inquiry would you not rate their careful use of language as a qualification? You want to be
able to rely on the facts they turn up and their reasoning underlying proposed conclusions do
you not?
I am content to know that you don’t read my comments and are as sloppy and inaccurate
in calling me hasbara as the person who called destroying an Iranian nuclear facility
“terrorist”. To extend my last comment, you wouldn’t even be on the long list
for assisting any inquiry I chaired.
Do you know at least, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? How Vietnam threatened US
shores?
Do not tell me fighting communist ideology, because the same Nixon and Kissinger that bombed
Cambodia civilians embraced that communist ideology in China with grave consequences. We have
lunatics in Washington and it is time for direct voting – majority rules.
@Wizard
of Oz as right in the sense that despite the British and French declaration of war, not
much happened – other than the naval blockade and the lame French invasion of the Saar
region. Neither Britain nor France had the courage to follow up on their war declaration, for
fear of unpopular casualties or further destruction of land and people (France), and both hoped
to gain a cheap victory by starving out the German war effort. Had they actually opened a
second front in the fall of 39, the Germans would have collapsed, and the war would have been
over before Christmas.
The GErman victory over FRance surprised everyone, including the Germans
I think the EC got together so quickly because the US wanted to impose their economic model
on Europe with the illusion of control. The Marshall Plan was unraveling as the swindle it was,
and the EC was the answer to keep up the illusion. While the UK was in on the scam, they were
the front for the Americans, as the idiot Churchill had pissed away the Empire to buy his 15
minutes of fame.
Once the shooting starts there are no good guys. Like all wars, WWII was an economic war. The
German economic system could not be allowed to succeed, it was catching on.
You must must have quite a deteriorated mind when Russia can influence your vote. Tell me
the logistics of the process. You must have equally deteriorated mind believing what CNN,
MSNBC, WP or NYT and others dishonest outfits tell you – they are a propaganda machine
for a small unpatriotic parasitic group.
There is a hierarchy in the blame game . Trump isn’t on the top . If he were, the vile
Democrats would be asking review and discussion by broader media ,Dept of Justice and Treasury
either to discredit or confirm the following story
in–“Venezuela’s interim government wants access to funds confiscated in
the US from corrupt officials, saying it belongs to the Venezuelan people. But US officials
appear to have other plans. The Treasury Department diverted $601 million last year from its
forfeiture fund to help build President Trump’s border wall. (Leer en español)
https://www.univision.com/univision-news/latin-america/legal-battle-over-venezuelas-looted-billions-heats-up
Since the United States initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected leftist
government in January 2019, up to $24 billion worth of Venezuelan public assets have been
seized by foreign countries, primarily by Washington and member states of the European Union.
President Donald Trump’s administration has used at least $601 million of that looted
Venezuelan money to fund construction of its border wall with Mexico, according to government
documents first reviewed by Univision Univision reviewed US congressional records and court
documents and found that the Trump administration tapped into $601 million of the Treasury
Department’s “forfeiture fund” to supplement the wall constructio https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/29/trump-stolen-venezuelan-money-border-wall-mexico/
Reason no-one is doing it is because hating Trump could always be swapped for worshipping
something more sinister and idiotic .
We would have heard a similar story only if Russia extracted something like this from
Ukraine or Libya .
I suggest you seek treatment for you pathological hate. Russia want to be a friend in
peaceful coexistence but it is sinister players in Washington that constantly need/create
enemies to build military industrial complexes instead of consumer goods which are supplied
from China.
I have been a supported of the current executive before he considered running. And his
choice to agree with the intel report and more was a fairly tough pill to swallow. As it turns
it was but one of many.
No I found the intel dubious. And I think the executive could have challenged in a manner
that did not call the CIA and other agencies DIA, etc. or damage his ability to curtail his
policy agenda. But having signed — he essentially states Pres Putin and the Russians are
active enemies of the US given that scenario
one would draw on our behavior in Afghanistan hen we supported the Taliban with weapons to
kill Russian soldiers —-
@Trinity
fought more effectively and efficiently than the novice American soldiers. Then there were
technical factors which were naturally advantageous to the more experienced military. For
example the famous 88mm anti-aircraft gin turned anti-tsnk gun was never matched by the Allies
(I thin) and the German tactics for its use were also superior. Germany, though less than the
Soviet Union had another advantage over Britain and France. It’s population went on
growing fast for a generations beyond the end of high growth in Britain and, especially,
France. For example there were 2 million Germans born in 1913 to provide young men for the army
in the 30s.
Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the ‘sinister players’, the Judaic NEOCON
cabal want to keep America and Russia apart mainly for their hate of Christianity and gentiles,
and try to destroy them both.
@Curmudgeon
uld be a return to what was indeed Hitler’s scheme of continental autarky and a more even
distribution of wealth, and a democratic model much more in line with the Prussian model, the
latter bearing significant resemblance with the Chinese Mandarin system. The Chinese Communists
are really doing nothing different than the old emperors running a meritocracy rather than an
idiocracy. Western democracies, esp the US, with their insane and horrendously expensive
election circuses tend to achieve the latter. I hear Kanye West is running for president now.
The problem with China is not Communism but their adoption of Western state-capitalism.
I am sure President Putin would be delighted to draw international attention to this new
symbol of a Christian resurgence in Russia. President Trump would appreciate the splendor of
such a backdrop for his meeting with another major head of state. Many of the Evangelicals
among Trumps’s base would be gobsmacked to learn that Mr. Putin is not running a godless,
soulless Communist hellstate. And many of people in the US State Department and the rest of the
Swamp would utterly sh*t their pants.
True dat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the exceptionals.
And Cheney’s daughter burns the midnight oil in order to keep the pot boiling in
Afghanistan. MUST have U.S. troops there to oppose “terrorists” with AKs.
NYT is a rental rag that always favored Soviets and now CCP, why cite it anymore?
The Russia distraction distracts from Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Bushes, congress and corps
etc etc being in bed$ with China. With the side benefit of Russian alienation from the US
driving Russian goods into the China slaughter house on the cheap.
@Derer
pants over Assad’s or Gaddafi’s purported authoritarianisms like they’re
skunk pie. Eeeww!
You’re right that we have lunatics in Washington but I don’t think “direct
voting” is the answer. Devolution plus draconian anti-trust enforcement. crucifixion of
the Antifa filth, massive deportations, ending black privilege, brutally honest debate over
black failure, draconian anti-vote fraud operations, and naming and neutralizing the role and
power of organized Jewry and its wealth seem more likely to get us back on track. Please be
more creative then “majority rule.”
Jesus. “Choke points” can be dealt with from afar. It takes a while to rebuild
railroad bridges. The concept of the Russian and Iranian enemies has worn a little thin these
last few days. It’s just assumed that Russia is a malignant force just as it’s
universally assumed that “special sauce” is the way to go on McDonalds’
hamburgers. I accept neither proposition.
I want troops on the U.S. southern border not on the “flanks” of Iran or
policing “transit corridors” here and there but that’s just me.
@Wizard
of Oz a refuses to extradite a woman to Britain for actual homicide. Zero grounds to hold
him.
From their political standpoint the safest way out is for Assange to simply die in the
maximum-security prison, so the extradition proceedings can simply be dropped. All problems
solved.
So, he is in actual fact in prison for life.
Never mind that Britain did something virtuous in the distant past. Today is today. And
notice that serial murderers can be friendly and courteous between murders but that nice
behaviour doesn’t exonerate them for the murders. Nazi Germany looks angelic relative to
the Britain of today.
“The Gulf of Tonkin “event” was a lie, so there’s that.”
No. It in reality, it was a series of confused messages from the patrol boat. But was used
to support a defense of S. Vietnam — the matter is of no consequence. The US was going to
defend S. Vietnamese sovereignty regardless of the Tonkin event.
Today on TruNews Rick interviews Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, a free speech
alternative to the tyrants at Twitter. They discuss how the Silicon Valley elite use their
satanic bias to silence opposition and have a mission to purge Christianity from their
platforms.
FYI while BLM and RG draw our attention and now RABAS have made all other conspiracies
recede into Corona graveyard
( Russia gate and Russia Afghan Bounty American Solider )
Kushner stoke and his DNA repaired the monetary damages back at home of origin .
Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million),
Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing
huge 100% forgivable loans from the CARES Act PPP program.
According to SBA data released on Monday, Israeli’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to
a half billion dollars under the PPP program, despite being called out for operating in the
occupied West Bank.
Leumi has given sweetheart deals to fellow Israeli companies Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded
the US Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the
occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.
This exchange took place today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
This video clip with additional information is available on IRmep’s YouTube
Channel.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book The Israel Lobby Enters State Government. He is
director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy IRmep in Washington, D.C. which
co-organizes IsraelLobbyCon each year at the National Press Club.
@geokat62
– colonial expansion,
– rolling genocide of the Palestinian people, witness 2014 Operation Protective Edge,
– terrorist attacks of neighboring Arab/Muslim states – Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq,
Occupied Territories, Iran & Syria;
– terrorist attacks on Western nations, incl. the UK, the US, & France (since its
Parliament voted to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014), and
– sponsoring of terror organizations e.g, ISIS, to continue its proxy war on
Syria.
– etc, etc
In addition to Constantinople, years later defending Ottoman remnants in Bosnia and Kosovo
against the Christians by “cigar” Clinton and warmonger Blair that introduced the
Islamization of Europe.
@Erzberger
e lines of making distinctions e.g. between deliberate murder of harmless civilians and forcing
choices on them (starve Russian prisoners and ration food to mothers and children e.g.). Of
course the choice to get rid of their government and stop the war is unrealistic even in the
post Cold War world. What did sanctions on Iran produce?? Just civilian deaths.
** it is only recently that I discovered that it made a big contribution to diverting German
effort from the Eastern Front though it is not surprising that Stalin thought the absence of a
Second Front in France was meant to help the Germans savage the USSR.
@Patagonia
Man he approx dozen Israeli dual citizens he alleges are in the Australian Parliament
contrary to the provisions of the Australian constitution.
So, don’t encourage him Geo, by thanking him. That Israeli nonsense is enough to brand
him as a nutter.
As to Quadrant, what does it matter that, in the 50s, and maybe till about 1970, it was
given some financial support by the CIA? Really, what is the point in the 21st century? Does it
matter to current affairs that Robert Maxwell owned the Daily Mirror till the 90s?
If I don’t reply to all the rubbish no one should infer the truth of anything
Patagonia Man alleges.
He takes various commandments of God and distills it into a silly… Debt = Sin.
Indeed, it is true that one can take anything and make it fit their delusional way of thought.
E.g. the 3 in 1, of the pagan Trinity.
Of course, that does not mean, Usury (extortionate moneylending) ≠ Sin, which it most
certainly is.
The Ten Commandments were about debt? A silly interpretation. They are primarily about
Monotheism and a righteous way-of-life, and refraining from usury is just one aspect of it.
Christianity got perverted? Yes, it most certainly is a pagan perversion of True
Monotheism.
“Sure, Poland bears major responsibility for WW 2, and lending themselves to now
hosting US nukes and troops to be moved over from Germany signals that they once again have not
learned a thing from their past.”
— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.
@Ann
Nonny Mouse an associated organisation whose stated objective is to ‘maximise support
for the State of Israel within the British Liberal Democrat Party’…
Spaight claims that drawing the war to the British isles was done in solidarity with the
Soviets. This is nonsense but a timely propaganda move at a time when German defeat was
assured. Stalin did no fall into that trap. He lknew about Operation Pike and Operation
Impossible, and had zero reason to trust the British. Wikipedia has a page on either
Operation
Denialist? A careful textual analysis tells me you are saying WoZ denies what you assert,
which is that there are about a dozen Israeli dual citizens in the Australian Parliament,
contrary to law. Instead of coyly dancing around the issue what about meeting the challenge to
name at least some?
@Erzberger
Thanks. Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany. I gather attacks on London from the start were a
strategic error by Hitler because the Liluftwaffe should have kept up its attacks on Britisk
airfields. Interesting that Albert Speer, in the “World at War” series, said that
four more raids like the 1000 bomber raid on Hamburg (or maybe it was Cologne) would have
finished the war. Why couldn’t Bomber Command do I it? Maybe it was because Eisenhower
won the battle to have bombers diverted to bombing the Pas we Calais (mostly) and Normandie.
“Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany.”
Wrong.
BTW, the Blitz is a misnomer. Blitzkrieg is tactical air support for ground troops. Neither
applies to the air attacks on German cities in May 1940, or the German retaliation, several
months later, that we know as the Blitz.
Richard Overy though has argued that the German Blitz showed the British how it was done
efficiently, so they improved their bombing strategy accordingly afterwards. Whatever
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the
war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to
the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed
Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has
been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the
White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and
Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story.
But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American
soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans,
but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at
least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some
Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign
of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information
according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought
to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but
this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this
week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by
The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know,
capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or
they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story
advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to
escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international
dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence
Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the
Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see
Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys
on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for
nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting
on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban
troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert
operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban
barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who
were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials
to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell
said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this
latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into
the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true
stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in
the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York
Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made
in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the
Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting
one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing
away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19
years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their
country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory.
Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink
this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and,
you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now,
and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember
that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when
US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial
slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been
funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits
to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just
simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing
of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution,
that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent
investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in
the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the
domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or
current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and
mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this
case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties
to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for
nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now
we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The
Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story
was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant,
has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden.
They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former
campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with
it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush
campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the
Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who
hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron,
number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that
are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of
anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more
powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American
peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for
congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden
campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican
operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like
this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its
base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this
Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state
who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you
know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here,
starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My
job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America
seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go
over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as
well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed,
we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned
in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of
you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can
really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are
helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or
want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.
And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able
to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq
in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually
said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So,
this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of
every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later
found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat
al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie
Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy
director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing
Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy
price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL:What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone
like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's
such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just
how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken
hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the
vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's
like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert
Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing?
They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I
mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you
know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the
minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick
Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it,
you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the
Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here
he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being
even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign
policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not
hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about
in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president
do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean,
just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only
pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton
song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any
apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just
watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is
what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous,
bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a
sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is
ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed
on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone
could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will
blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over
the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was
ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety
of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in
reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that
and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the
store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an
unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few
months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling
they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under
banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that
everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and
Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it
gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about
it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media
consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do
something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the
disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was
employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the
sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article
recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her
position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position
in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who
wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd
never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the
Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone
who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which
he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked
with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security
state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately
involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason.
I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer
really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at
The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to
understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any
official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and
I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the
junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on
Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security
state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the
space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more
important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding
of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these
conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management
of Savagery , thanks a lot.
By middle of last week
we observed of the Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story that "at
this point this non-story looks to be dead by the weekend as it's already unraveled."
Indeed by Thursday and Friday, as more Congressional leaders received closed door
intelligence briefings on the allegations which originated with an anonymously sourced NY Times
report claiming Trump supposedly ignored the Russian op to target Americans, the very Democrat
and Republican lawmakers previously hyping it as a 'major scandal' went conspicuously silent
.
Recall too that John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book,
emerged to strongly suggest he had personal knowledge that Trump was briefed on the matter
. The former national security adviser called the Trump denial of being briefed "remarkable".
Well, look who is now appearing to sing a different tune. A week ago Bolton was all too wiling
to voluntarily say Trump had "likely" been briefed and that was a big scandal. The whole story
was indeed dead by the weekend:
Bolton: 'Fickle' Trump would sell out Israel for photo op with Iran's leaders
U.S. should consider sanctions if bounty reports true: Bolton
Bolton book hits shelves, bruises Trump's ego
Viral Finland PM quote about US being under Russian control 'not true' | #TheCube
Bolton's New Claims
Bolton Claims Trump Asked China's XI to Help Win Re-Election
Bolton book creates shockwaves
Senator Who Voted Against Bolton Testifying Is Now Angry Bolton Didn't Testify
Other reports said Bolton has been telling people he had personally
briefed the president :
Former national security adviser John Bolton told colleagues that he personally briefed
President Donald Trump about intelligence that Russia offered Afghan militants bounties to
kill American troops , U.S. officials told the Associated Press .
Bolton briefed Trump on the matter in March of 2019, according to the report, a year
earlier than previously
reported by The New York Times . The information was also included in at least one
presidential Daily Brief, according to the AP,
CNN and
The Times . The AP earlier reported that it was also
included in a second presidential Daily Brief earlier this year and that current national
security adviser Robert O'Brien discussed the matter with Trump.
His Sunday refusal to even address the question - again after he was all too willing to
speak to the issue a week ago when it was driving headlines - speaks volumes.
Now that even The Washington Post
awkwardly walked back the substance of much of its reporting on the 'Russian bounties'
story, Bolton has conveniently gone silent .
There is not much "real" left in the the USA. Usually what we see is just different flavors
of far right and right.
Money quote: "Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a vanguard party of
globalist imperialists. pl"
Notable quotes:
"... As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination program." ..."
"... In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats (Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and by the angry Trumpists. ..."
"... Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she never has had US citizenship. ..."
"... WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why did we let these halfwits in the country? ..."
"... Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical ‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!! ..."
"... The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement ..."
"... The New York Times is not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM. ..."
"... America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and conservative-nationalist options. ..."
"... The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC) nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject. ..."
"... Way too hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit) and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with #MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate / employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions disappeared long ago and now this. ..."
"... Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion. It's very peculiar. ..."
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends.
A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and
Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process
throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what
was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination
program."
This is a serious article addressing a serious problem. If the "left" sells out on war
issues as they have done the last 20 years or so, there is no pushback against the permanent
war system. Those one-time leftists who have sold out are no longer really leftists,
especially once they are relying on the corrupt permanent spy state for their information and
support.
Interesting and correct observation. Allow me to throw in my own two cents with regards to
the rise of what is defined as the "anti-Anti War left". I should note that there are eerily
similar parallels between the rise of the New Left in the 60s that was the mix of socialist
democrats, sexual revolutionaries, flower-power hippies, anti-imperialist/anti-war activists,
and identitarianists (Huey Netwon, Cesar Chavez, MLK) etc. and today's BLM, Antifa, 'woke'
types, third-gen feminists, broke millennials.
While the former's rise in the Democratic
Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to
the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the
problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these
New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard
place and a rock.
In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats
(Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and
by the angry Trumpists.
Just to give you one example, last week a prototype New Democrat and long time congressman
(since 89) Elliot Engel of NY who fits well into this definition was defeated handily in the
NY-16 primaries by the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed candidate, Jamal Bowman. Mr.
Bowman, an African American is ideologically very similar to AOC, Tlaib, and Omar.
He won on
a platform of foreign policy endorsed by the left-zionists (ex-labor zionists) against the
likudnik right-wing zionist of Engles' which is very interesting since, Engel has been known
for his hawkish views on foreign policy and extremely pro-Israel and chaired the House
Foreign Affairs Committee recently.
Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's
planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to
cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan.
Domestically, there are several seats up for re-election and especially two in Georgia and
Arizona Senate whose ppointed Republican candidates are in very shaky grounds versus their
democratic challengers. What is clear is that the New Democrat platforms are no longer
popular by the Democratic base and given recent events, it can be safely said that either the
most law and order and Trumpian candidates will win or the Democratic socialists endorsed
ones. So another problem for the New Dems.
Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers
(The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the
Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and
80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the
RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+
years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post
2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with
one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats
in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats.
And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class
in D.C. will see business as usual as the Democratic Socialists will be "persuaded" to team
up with the New Democrats with regards to sending Troops to conduct humanitarian intervention
abroad (i.e. the Powell Doctrine) in exchange for domestic welfare programs, the
NeverTrumpers and the Republican hawks (Cotton, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) will have war
plans already written for them at AEI, Hudson and Heritage that focuses on China with the
help of the New Democrats and probably the Far-left.
Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother
emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she
never has had US citizenship. Christopher Hitchens is English born, never visited America
unti he was 32. And even then kept his British citizenship for another 26 years, only
becoming a US citizen in 2007. Probably to take advantage of favorable US income tax on his
book earnings.
WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why
did we let these halfwits in the country?
Seems to me we are better off by letting in a few more Sikh farmers from India or more
wannabee restaurant owners from Ethiopia. Or maybe even more wannabee bodega empresarios from
south of our border.
Anyone remember John Kerry, who criticized the anti-war movement and enlisted and served
in Vietnam, only to opportunistically turn against the war. As long as the winds blew
anti-war, he continued to posture that way. Then he reversed course, maybe sensing an SOS
opportunity, and voted for the War in Iraq, meanwhile posturing against it on the grounds
that it wasn’t being fought right!
Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical
‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was
the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the
party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have
taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!!
The "anti-antiwar left" is of course an oxymoron. In reality, they are neo-McCarthyites,
neocons, and Israel-firsters. Nothing new. They were never leftists to begin with and
certainly never will be.
To add onto the comments by Polish Janitor regarding Jamaal Bowman, I have this to say.
Just like AOC, he'll cuck out to Israel. He'll take the money and he'll probably take that
"educational" trip to Israel as well. While he's there, would anyone be surprised if he had a
hot time with some honey pie and they got him on Kodak? They'll only drop hints about the
stick, in the meantime, they'll be stuffing his face with carrots as he comes around to the
Zionist agenda.
The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of
statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement, if only conservatives weren't
afraid of being called 'racist' by people who hate them anyway.
To better get one's bearings regarding what's going on I highly recommend this Spectator
article to the committee. Although BLM and other nefarious types referred to as Antifa
certainly do pass the anarchist test and Marxist test it's critical the committee understand
that the whole thing is being managed by a wing of the establishment.
The New York Times is
not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and
foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM.
Editorial talents at NYT
instigated the wholesale rewriting of American history over a year ago with their fraudulent
1619 project which says American history began in that year with the importation of African
slaves.
But it's real thesis is that the revolution of 1776 (an inspiration to people
everywhere), was not undertaken to free the thirteen colonies from the tyranny of King
George - no - it was done for the sole reason of perpetuation of slavery because Washington
and other colonial land owners feared that the institution of slavery would be made illegal
by their then British overlords. I kid you not.
The NY Times. Pure revisionism of the worst
sort. But the ends which this revisionism serve, as do the subsequent BLM riots and mindless
iconoclasms, are revealed in this piece:
(This Revolution isn't What it Looks Like). Here's a brief excerpt - it's a management
device. Matt Taibbi has a treatment nearly as good but too diffuse and witty for these
purposes, under the title "Year Zero" on his blog, but it is behind a paywall. Many
illustrative exames though.
Spectator first few paragraphs..
Bear with this. What they're doing is designed to infuriate and disable critical
understanding as they proceed to carry the day in real time.
QUOTE:
America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About
four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of
globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror
as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and
conservative-nationalist options.
This deposition explains the storm of unrest battering American cities from coast to coast
and making waves in Europe as well. The storm’s ferocity — the looting, the mobs,
the mass lawlessness, the zealous iconoclasm, the deranged slogans like #DefundPolice —
terrifies ordinary Americans. Many conservatives, especially, believe they are facing a
revolution targeting the very foundations of American order.
But when national institutions bow (or kneel) to the street fighters’ demands, it
should tell us that something else is going on. We aren’t dealing with a Maoist or
Marxist revolt, even if some protagonists spout hard-leftish rhetoric. Rather, what’s
playing out is a counter-revolution of the neoliberal class — academe, media, large
corporations, ‘experts’, Big Tech — against the nationalist revolution
launched in 2016. The supposed insurgents and the elites are marching in the streets
together, taking the knee together.
They do not seek a radically new arrangement, but a return to the pre-Trump, pre-Brexit
status quo ante which was working out very well for them. It was, of course, working out less
well for the working class of all races, who bore the brunt of their preferred policy mix:
open borders, free trade without limits, an aggressive cultural liberalism that corroded
tradition and community, technocratic ‘global governance’ that neutered democracy
and politics as such.
When national institutions bow to the street fighters’ demands, it tells us
something else is going on
...Did you realize that the Black Lives Matter group only has 14 local chapters in America
and 3 in Canada? I don't think there are many actual Antifa members out there either. Now of
course a few determined troublemakers can cause a lot of problems but still I can't see how
the country is in real danger.
Probably the real danger here is that these groups get moral support from nonradical
people for radical actions and policies. Right now there are a lot more people against
getting rid of the police than are for it. Now if that changed I would get worried. I have to
admit that I don't like the fact that we do not know who's funding the radicals and that many
are anonymous but I am not afraid of them. I can't imagine a situation in which they would
win and we would lose over time.
No it doesn't, not that I know of. It was the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones working
since 2015 for the times, who received a 2020 Pulitzer prize for the project which initially
was presented in the Times magazine for the 400th anniversary of 1619 when it is claimed that
enslaved Africans first arrived to the American colonies. However it mushroomed into
something much larger and won the award. It was to investigate the legacy of slavery but with
its claim that the true founding of the United States was in 1619 rather than 1776, it drew
criticism from several historians. The controversy was conducted in Politico and on the pages
of the World Socialist Web Site. See here:
You will find links to several of the articles of the project, including: "America Wasn't
a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones and "American
Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond.
I prefaced the intro to the Spectator article with mention of the Times award winning
project because it is vital cultural- historical background to what's transpired since George
Floyd incident of May 25.
My purpose was not to focus on that revisionist project though one
may investigate it at leisure, but the reactionary establishment counter coup to the 2016
election of which the events of May 25 et seq are the most recent chapter - chapters one and
two being Russiagate and impeachment.
Taibbi, in his latest which parallels the Spectator
piece, does think to mention it. The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the
American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC)
nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject.
Way too
hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south
of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will
discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on
wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit)
and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory
workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with
#MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate /
employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions
disappeared long ago and now this.
From Taibbi:
It’s the Fourth of July, and revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look
like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose
canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New
York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong.
Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on
an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate
general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a
little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with “Fuck Cops” and set on
fire, or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg,
“Forward,” (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress), the
Portland, Oregon “Elk statue,” or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel
de Cervantes, whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken
for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco.
Was a What the Fuck? too much to ask? It was! In the space of a few weeks the level of
discourse in the news media dropped so low, the fear of being shamed as a deviationist so
high, that most of the weirder incidents went uncovered. Leading press organs engaged in
real-time Soviet-style airbrushing. Here’s how the Washington Post described a movement
that targeted Spanish missionary Junipero Serra, Abraham Lincoln (a “single-handed
symbol of white supremacy,” according to UW-Madison students), an apple cider press
sculpture, abolitionist Mathias Baldwin, and the first all-Black volunteer regiment in the
Civil War, among others:
Across the country, protesters have toppled statues of figures from America’s sordid
past — including Confederate generals — as part of demonstrations against racism
and police violence.
The New York Times, once the dictionary definition of “unprovocative,”
suddenly reads like Pol Pot’s Sayings of Angkar. Heading into the Fourth of July
weekend, the morning read for upscale white Manhattanites was denouncing Mount Rushmore,
urging Black America to arm itself, and re-positioning America alongside more deserving
historical parallels in a feature about caste systems:
For 150 years the US treated its defeated internal enemy with respect in the interest of
re-unification and reconciliation. Now that is gone destroyed by Marxist vanguard
conspiratorial parties like antifa and BLM and the the power hungry Democrat Party pols who
have made a deal with their soul mate extremists. Well, laissez les bon temps roulez!
Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion.
It's very peculiar. Maybe they think oh well, there's been plenty of riots over the years.
What ever happened? Didn't we get OJ freed? Didn't they pass civil rights legislation back in
the day? And as for right now - aren't all the big people taking the knee - aren't
corporations endorsing us? Isn't Twitter censoring in our favor? The mayor of New York City -
wasn't he all set to paint a black lives matter mural onto 5th avenue opposite Trump tower
before postponing it to paint one in Harlem instead?
Yes, all true. I don't think they've detected how furious people are getting with their
behavior though. The tide is turning - CHAZ is gone, the conventions loom.
Long term I see nothing to be optimistic about. If Trump wins the counter coups will
continue. If Biden, with a female minority VP who may become President -- good luck. Remember
the Tea Party reaction ensuing on the heels of the first African American President? Reaction
will be quite as bad at least with Trump, his family and his base still very much on the
scene and infuriated.
But the oligarchs have seen their assets rise by hundreds of billions of dollars in a few
short months. The surviving owners consolidate. People will be forced to work for peanuts.
Evictions and repossessions are coming soon.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint
Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal
incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make
up its mind.
For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's
attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated
concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his
administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.
The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish
but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in
Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy
and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.
Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his
first term with a difficult
reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence
suggesting Russia
was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on
their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.
The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but
his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been
aware.
The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe
meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning
former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe
and the United States with disinformation and election interference .
Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including
Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO
alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the
continent.
But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential
friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may
share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.
Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between
pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have
raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national
security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level
officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their
positions.
Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his
opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be
friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of
impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the
campaign illegally conspired with Russia.
Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with
the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those
findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in
Helsinki .
Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most
significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.
Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control
treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine
despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to
prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties
believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.
At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or
redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance
defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that
Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in
Afghanistan.
On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated,
he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the
objections of the other members.
White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious
inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed
demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in
its ability to create chaos.
... CIA's demonstrated command and execution of the coup d'état against JFK, as
comprehensively summarized by Douglass (and Salandria and Prouty and Valentine and many
others:)
This is a common tactic among domestic CIA propagandists: skate over unsupported
assertions on the way to a separate topic, leaving core CIA doctrine as an unexamined notion
picked while you were pondering something else (in this case, the evident verity that George
Soros is fulla shit.)
I will testify as to my hypothesis Allan Dulles was the organizer of the hit on JFK, and
that CIA operatives took out RFK five years later, if I get deposed as an "expert witness"
after all our history has been memory holed, and truther books have been banned. (Coming to a
country formerly known as a Western democracy)
Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act
– Albert Einstein
As much as I like Giraldi calling out Zionist sins, he obfuscates the nature and
insidiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and tries to blame JFK's murder on Cuba & Israel.
Comment #5 calls out his error by omission of CIA's role in the November 22 assassination.
As I always say, Whom does the CIA serve??? The Dulles Bros have been serving multinational
corporations (United Fruit in central America, for example, and rich banksters) since the
1920's and Allan may have been a channel to pass financial support to Hitler via Swiss banks
during WWII.
The Zionist and Saudi connections to 9/11 are many and worthy of lengthy investigations I
think Giraldi might have done better sticking to false pretenses that got us into Vietnam and
Iraq
@Vidalus
Ruby, LBJ's association with Jews in TX and with supreme court jewish judge . One has to look
into the demands made by Kennedy on Israel's Ben Gurion . One has to bring in the designation
battle around Jewish agencies around same time – foreign lobby or not .
Mossad used the troubled waters to fish big . Kennedy was thertaenin g banks CIA and
burgeoning military industrial complex . They did not kill CIA couldn't have done it without
Mossad . CIA knew it . James Angleton was working with Mossad
Past contact with Hitler or Nazi was no barrier for either Mossad or CIA to work together
or agisnt each other . Those kind of barriers matter in personal friendships and for scoring
points on TV or in Town Hall debates .
Looks like Liz Cheney words for Russians. Her action suggest growing alliance between Bush
repoblicans and neolibral interventionaistsof the Democratic Party. The alliance directed against
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy them: ..."
"... The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives other states another incentive to do more of this. ..."
"... Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for many years to come. ..."
The immediate response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to keep fighting a
losing conflict.
Barbara Boland
reported yesterday on the House Armed Services Committee's vote to impede withdrawal of
U.S. from Afghanistan:
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar
bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
It speaks volumes about Congress' abdication of its responsibilities that one of the few
times that most members want to challenge the president over a war is when they think he might
bring it to an end. Many of the members that want to block withdrawals from other countries
have no problem when the president wants to use U.S. forces illegally and to keep them in other
countries without authorization for years at a time. The role of hard-liner Liz Cheney in
pushing the measure passed yesterday is a good example of what I mean. The hawkish outrage in
Congress is only triggered when the president entertains the possibility of taking troops out
of harm's way. When he takes reckless and illegal action that puts them at risk, as he did when
he ordered the illegal assassination of Soleimani, the same members that are crying foul today
applauded the action. As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday
sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy
them:
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear
in the Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of
the mission in Afghanistan, and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
The immediate Congressional response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to
make it much more difficult to pull them out of a war that cannot be won. Congressional hawks
bemoan "micromanaging" presidential decisions and mock the idea of having "535
commanders-in-chief," but when it comes to prolonging pointless wars they are only too happy to
meddle and tie the president's hands. When it comes to defending Congress' proper role in
matters of war, these members are typically on the other side of the argument. They are content
to let the president get us into as many wars as he might want, but they are horrified at the
thought that any of those wars might one day be concluded. Yesterday's vote confirmed that
there is an endless war caucus in the House, and it is bipartisan.
The original reporting of the bounty story is questionable for the reasons that Boland has
pointed out before, but for the sake of argument let's assume that Russia has been offering
bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When the U.S. keeps its troops at war in a country for
almost twenty years, it is setting them up as targets for other governments. Just as the U.S.
has armed and supported forces hostile to Russia and its clients in Syria, it should not come
as a shock when they do to the same elsewhere. If Russia has been doing this, refusing to
withdraw U.S. forces ensures that they will continue to have someone that they can target.
The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states
will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction
in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives
other states another incentive to do more of this.
Because the current state of debate about Russia is so toxic and irrational, our political
leaders seem incapable of responding carefully to Russian actions. It doesn't seem to occur to
the war hawks that Russia might prefer that the U.S. remains preoccupied and tied down in
Afghanistan indefinitely.
Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of
their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and
irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with
the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for
many years to come.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico
Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a
columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides
in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
One needs to mention the democratic deficit in the US. All the members voting yes are
representatives, they represent the people in their constituencies, and presumably vote for
what the majority in those constituencies would want, or past promises.
Any poll shows that Americans would rather have the troops brought back home, thank you very
much. But this is not what their representatives are voting for. Talk about democracy!
And what's the logic, if you make an accusation against someone you don't like it must be
true. Okay well then let's drone strike Putin. If you are going to be Exceptional and
consistent, Putin did everything Soleimani did so how can Liz Cotton argue for a different
punishment?
1. Killed U.S. troops in a war zone, 2. planning attacks on U.S. troops.
The entire Russian military plans for attacks all the time just like ours does but the
Neocons have declared that we are the only ones allowed to do that. Verdict, death penalty for
Putin.
Interesting, well reasoned article as usual from Mr. Larison. However, I have to say that I
don't see why Russia would want the US in Afghanistan indefinitely. In primis, they have a
strategic partnership with China (even though we've got to see how Russia will behave now when
there is the India-China rift), and China has been championing the idea of rebuilding the Silk
Road (brilliant idea if you ask me) so in this sense it's more reasonable to assume that they
might be aiming to get stability in the region rather than keep it in a state of unrest (as to
be strategic partners you need to have some kind of common strategy, or at least not a
completely different strategy). In 2018 they (Russia) actually were trying to organise a
mediation process which would have the Afghan Gvt. and the Talibans discuss before the US would
retire the troops, and it was very significative as they managed to get all the parties sitting
around a table for the very first time (even the US participated as an observer).
Secondly, Russia also has pretty decent relations with Iran (at least according to Iranian
press, which seems to be realistic as Russia is compliant to the JCPOA, is not aggressive
towards them, and they're cooperating in the Astana process for a political solution for Syria,
for example), and it wouldn't be so if Russia would pursue a policy which would aim to keep the
US in the Middle East indefinitely, as Iran's WHOLE point is that they want the US out of the
region, so if Russia would be trying to keep the US in the Middle East indefinitely, that would
seriously upset Iran.
Thirdly, Russia is one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now
includes most of the states in Central Asia, China, India and Pakistan. The association never
made overt statements about their stance on the US's presence in the region; yet they've been
hinting that they don't approve of it, which is reasonable, as it is very likely that those
countries would all have different plans for the region, which might include some consideration
for human and economic development rather than constant and never-ending militarisation (of
course Pakistan would be problematic here, as the funds for the Afghan warlords get channeled
through Pakistan, which receives a lot of US money, so I don't know how they're managing this
issue).
Last but not least, I cannot logically believe that the Talibans, who've been coherent in
their message since the late 70's ("we will fight to the death until the invaders are defeated
and out of our national soil") would now need to be "convinced" by the Russians to defeat and
chase out the invader. This is just NOT believable at all. Afghanistan is called the Graveyard
of Empires for a reason, I would argue.
In any case I am pleased to see that at TAC you have been starting debunking the
Russia-narrative, as it is very problematic - most media just systematically misrepresents
Russia in order to justify aggressive military action (Europe, specifically Northern Europe, is
doing this literally CONSTANTLY, I'm so over it, really). The misrepresentation of Russia as an
aggressive wannabe-empire is a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, so it is imperative to get
some actual realism into that.
As if the Afghan freedom fighters need additional incentive to eliminate the invaders? In
case Amerikans don't know, Afghans, except those on the US payroll, intensely despise Amerika
and its 'godless' ways. Amerikans forces have been sadistic, bombing Afghan weddings, funerals,
etc.
Even if the Russians are providing bounties to the Afghans, to take out the invaders, don't
the Amerikans remember the 80s when Washington (rightfully) supported the mujahedin with funds,
arms, Stinger missiles, etc.? Again, the US is on shaky ground because of the neocons.
Afghanistan is known through the ages to be the graveyard of empires. They have done it on
their own shedding blood, sweat, and tears. Also, the Afghan resistance have been principled
about Amerikans getting out before making deals.
What is the best way to debunk a conspiracy theory? Call it a conspiracy theory, a label
which in and of itself implies disbelief. The only problem with that is there have been many
actual conspiracies both historically and currently and many of them are not in the least
theoretical in nature. Conspiracies of several kinds brought about American participation in
both world wars. And however one feels about President Donald Trump, it must be conceded that
he has been the victim of a number of conspiracies, first to deny him the GOP nomination, then
to insure that he be defeated in the presidential election, and subsequently to completely
delegitimize his presidency.
Prior to Trump there have been numerous conspiracy "theories," many of which have been quite
plausible. The "suicide" of Defense Secretary James Forrestal comes to mind, followed by the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has been credibly credited to both Cuba and Israel. And
then there is 9/11, perhaps the greatest conspiracy theory of all. Israel clearly knew it was
coming, witness the Five Dancing Shlomos cavorting and filming themselves in New Jersey as the
twin towers went down. Also the Saudis might have played a role in funding and even directing
the alleged hijackers. And we have also had the conspiracy by the neocons to fabricate
information about Iraq's WMDs and the ongoing conspiracy by the same players to depict Iran as
a threat to the United States.
Given the multiple crises currently being experienced in the United States it is perhaps
inevitable that speculation about conspiracies is at its highest level ever. To the average
American it is incomprehensible how the country has become so screwed up because the political
and economic elite is fundamentally incompetent, so the search for a scapegoat must go on.
There are a number of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus currently making the rounds.
Those libertarians and contrarians who choose to believe that the virus is actually a flu being
exploited to strip them of their liberties are convinced that many in the government and media
have conspired to sell what is essentially a fraud. One such snake oil salesman persists in
using an analogy, that since more Americans are killed in automobile accidents than by the
coronavirus it would be more appropriate to ban cars than to require the wearing of face
masks.
Another theory making the rounds accuses Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates of trying to
take over the world's healthcare system through the introduction of a vaccine to control the
coronavirus, which he presumably created in the first place. The fallacy in many of the virus
"conspiracies" that relate to a totalitarian regime or a crazy billionaire using a faux disease
to generate fear so as to gain control of the citizenry is that it gives far too much credit to
any government's or individual's ability to pull off a fraud of that magnitude. It would
require people a whole lot smarter than the tag team of Trump-Pompeo or even Gates to convince
the world and thousands of doctors and scientists that they should lock down entire countries
over something completely phony.
Other coronavirus theories include that the virus was developed in the U.S., was exported to
China by a traitorous American scientist, weaponized in Wuhan and then unleashed on the West as
part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and democracy. That would mean that we are
already at war with China, or at least we should be. Then there is the largely accepted theory
that the virus was created in Wuhan and escaped from the lab. Since that time Beijing has been
engaging in a cover-up, which is the conspiracy. It is a theme favored by the White House,
which has not yet decided what to do about it beyond assigning funny "Yellow Peril" names to
the disease so everyone in MAGA hats will have something to chuckle about leading up to the
November election.
But all kidding aside, there are some conspiracy theories that are more worth considering
than others. One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations
that he controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States. The
allegations against Soros are admittedly thin on evidence, but conspiracy mongers would point
out that that is the mark of a really well-planned conspiracy, similar to what the 89 year-old
Hungarian Jewish billionaire has been engaging in for a long time. The current round of claims
about Open Society and Soros have generated as many as 500,000 tweets a day as well as nearly
70,000 Facebook posts per month, mostly from political conservatives.
The allegations tend to fall into two broad
categories . First, that Soros hires protester/thugs and transports them to demonstrations
where they are supplied with bricks and incendiaries to turn the gatherings into riots. Second,
that Open Society is funding and otherwise enabling the destabilizing flow of illegal
immigrants into the United States.
Soros and his supporters, many of whom are Jewish because they think they see anti-Semitism
in the attacks on the Hungarian, claim to support democratization and free trade worldwide. He
is, in effect, one of the world's leading globalists. Soros claims to be a "force for good" as
the cliché goes, but is it completely credible that his $32 billion foundation does not
operate behind the scenes to influence developments in ways that are certainly not
democratic?
Indeed, Soros accumulated his vast fortune through vulture capitalism. He made over $1
billion in 1992 by selling short $10 billion in British pounds sterling, leading to the media
dubbing him "the man who broke the bank of England." He has been accused of similar currency
manipulation in both Europe and Asia. In 1999, New York Times economist Paul Krugman wrote of
him that "Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that
these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency
crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."
Far from a passive bystander giving helpful advice to democracy groups, Soros was heavily
involved with the restructuring of former communist regimes in eastern Europe and had a hand in
the so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
both of which were supported by the U.S. government and were intended to threaten Russia's
regional security.
Soros particularly hates President Vladimir Putin and Russia. He revealed that he is far
from a benevolent figure fighting for justice in his March Financial Times op-ed (behind
a pay wall) entitled "Europe Must Stand With Turkey Over Putin's War Crimes in Syria."
The op-ed is full of errors of fact and is basically a call for aggression against a Russia
that he describes as engaged in bombing schools and hospitals. It starts with, "Since the
beginning of its intervention in Syria in September 2015, Russia has not only sought to keep in
place its most faithful Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It has also wanted to
regain the regional and global influence that it lost since the fall of the Soviet Union."
First of all, Russia did not "intervene" in Syria. It was invited there by the country's
legitimate government to provide assistance against various groups, some of which were linked
to al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that were seeking to overthrow President al-Assad.
And apart from Soros, few actual experts on Russia would claim that it is seeking to
recreate the "influence" of the Soviet Union. Moscow does not have the resources to do so and
has evinced no desire to pursue the sort of global agenda that was characteristic of the Soviet
state.
There then follows a complete flight into hyperbole with: "Vladimir Putin has sought to use
the turmoil in the Middle East to erase international norms and advances in international
humanitarian law made since the second world war. In fact, creating the humanitarian disaster
that has turned almost 6 million Syrians into refugees has not been a byproduct of the Russian
president's strategy in Syria. It has been one of his central goals." Note that none of Soros's
assertions are supported by fact.
The Soros op-ed also included a bit of reminiscence, describing how, "In 2014, I urged
Europe to wake up to the threat that Russia was posing to its strategic interests." The op-ed
reveals Soros as neither conciliatory nor "diplomatic," a clear sign that he picks his enemies
based on ideological considerations that also drive his choices on how to frame his ventures.
Given all of that, why is it unimaginable that George Soros is engaged in a conspiracy, that he
is clandestinely behind at least some of the mayhem of Antifa and Black Lives Matter as well as
the flood of illegal immigration that have together perhaps fatally destabilized the United
States?
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations that he
controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States.
Instead of fairly distributing the wealth created by globalisation, Soros argued,
capitalism's "winners" failed to "compensate the losers", which led to a drastic increase
in domestic inequality – and anger.
I know it is just a "conspiracy theory" that people like George Schwartz aka George
(((Soros))) are funding these riots, but if this "conspiracy theory" were indeed true, why
aren't Soros and his (((cohorts))) at least under investigation for treason and murder
charges.
I am not a populist. But the contention (s) you are referring to are no really the
argument -- not by content.
The argument is that the suppose winners were and continue unfairly leverage the economic
system with the help f government to avoid the consequences of their miscalculations,
sometimes innocent, often careless and sometimes deliberate machinations.
That is quite a different argument than the winners should share more --
And as much as a capitalist as I am am -- I admit that there are goings on which violate
the rules of capitalism as well as common decency.
I didn't know that Soros could be so explicit about what he thinks about Putin and Syria
and involve himself so concretely with such questions, about which he probably doesn't know
very much (in the last times there have been very interesting articles about Syria, for
instance, see links below).
Even though, I don't think that he has anything to do with BLM and the protests. Riots and
revolts have happened other times without the coordination of people from outside. It
happened in 1381 in England. A few years ago it happened in the UK and earlier it happened in
the US, (I think when there was a blackout). Now it happened spontaneously in Stuttgart in
Germany (apparently).
Why shouldn't people complain about the militarisation of the police which uses brutal
methods to arrest people, a police which acts as if they had occupaied a country and had to
contain a population of enemies?
The most recent conspiracy was the one to oust Corbyn (the text is relatively short):
The killing of Jeremy Corbyn
Peter Oborne and David Hearst
" Wall Street Journal reported Friday that following the drone strike on Soleimani last
week, Trump told unspecified associates "he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani
from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the
Senate." http://www.commindreams.org
From any angle ,this will look like a conspiracy . But talking about it to portray the
existential crisis of USA politics ,a science of checks and balances, media responsibility
and the mechanism in place to make this sort of events to happen will be labeled as
conspiracy theory .
What is this.?
1 Impeachable offense
2 who will raise the issue? Media, Congress, Government agencies and activist judges .
They don't why ?
3 Who will investigate ? Dept of Justice.
Why they don't ?
4 would it be a conspiracy theory had Trump not shared the quid pro quo? Absolutely .
5 who is keeping quiet on the initiation of war illegal war to gain personal favor by
Trump and who is asking war on Iran ? Same gaggle of smiley faces – Bolton to Kristol
to Cotton to Lindsey to Pelosi to Biden to Sherman Engle , Schumer , Cheney( the cow ) , sage
Bush jr, Hillary and same gallery of rogues like NYT BBC CNN FOX MSNBC .
6 is there a possibility of a war initiated by Trump to make last ditch effort to win
election? Yes.
Bolton recently and , Deniis Ross have suggested to Obama to get out of bad poll number
before ,
Economist Rubiono has suggested before as was shared by zerohedge sometimes back.
7 Why does conspiracy theory keep on returning ? Because the first appearance is never
pushed back exposed and vilified by any body .
8 How do one evaluate and understand the fate accompli ? They don't . They shrug and move on
as they did after Suleimnai killing and wait for next disavowal of any "conspiracy theory
before confidently shrugging off the fait accompli.
9 What do you call them? Zombie human slaving away their lives
to harakiri.
I've often wondered about Soros. Was he a wealthy man before he "broke the Bank of
England"?
I've also wondered how it is possible that someone like Soros would have been allowed to
break the Bank of England. Was it just a set-up to provide him with plausible funds in order
to make him look legit?
He gets written up as some ideological billionaire who acts in accordance with his
conscience, but to me he looks like he's working for the ruling elites and the CIA.
Truly benevolent people (which I'm sure Soros is not) don't go around causing the chaos he
does.
There are many videos about Soros' purported influence on world events but very few books.
An interesting one is "Soros rompiendo España" by an internationalist and academic of
the Universidad Complutense of Madrid.
It badly needs an editor to make it less boring, but it traces and documents Soros
financing and tactics in the case of Cataluña. Basically creating NGOs to mobilize
civil society to a pitch, while providing content and tactics. Creating grass roots pressure
to change policy and break up one of Europes oldest nation-states. Such a network has the
advantage of flexibility, it can ebb and flow as required.
What is different from Europe's 19th Century instability? Well, that one's to ponder. But
it seems to me it is:
1) independent of Perfidious Albion or any central government. Unless it's Bilderberg, of
course.
2) requires no high level assassinations (king and prime minister of Italy, King and Queen of
Serbia, multiple Habsburgs, etc). Orban and Salvini are alive and well. Trump will lose, but
continue playing golf.
3) not about the self-determination of oppressed peoples, that is, not about nationhood.
There seem to be non-stop programming exercises to achieve and direct mass activism across
the West: immigration into Europe and US, Cataluña protests, green St Greta protest,
feminist protests, Covid confinement, BLM. These last four, in the past TWO years. The
generational divide cemented during Covid is something to watch, I've seen videos in French
and Spanish about the "life lessons" of the pandemic that seed this idea.
Some say that Soros is a Rothschild agent, just as Wilbur Ross is claimed to be by others,
and the Bank of England is most likely the Nathan Rothschild agent, therefore, a question
arises: how can an operative of an outfit be the buster of that very outfit? It's like saying
a pizza parlor owned by the mafia was cleaned out of pies by one of its very own goons.
"... As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine's Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a "targeted" assassination program." Carden ..."
"... Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a vanguard party of globalist imperialists. pl ..."
"... . While the former's rise in the Democratic Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard place and a rock. In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats (Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and by the angry Trumpists. ..."
"... Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan. ..."
"... Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers (The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and 80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+ years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post 2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats. ..."
"... And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class in D.C. will see business as usual ..."
"Only "a few decades ago, "the Left" was considered the center of opposition to imperialism,
and champion of the right of peoples to self-determination."
Johnstone is part of a distinguished line of American expatriate writers, who, perhaps
because of an objectivity conferred by distance, saw their country more clearly than many of
their stateside contemporaries.
Members of the club include William Pfaff who for many years
wrote from Paris and the longtime Asia correspondent Patrick Lawrence . The Paris based Johnstone brings a
moral clarity to matters of war and peace that is, alas, too often absent from most
contemporary foreign affairs writing. Its near total absence on the Left during the Trump years
should be cause for reflection, and concern.
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of
waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts
including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would
make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the
process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine's Just War theory on the
trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II,
Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a "targeted" assassination program." Carden
---------------
Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a
vanguard party of globalist imperialists. pl
This is a serious article addressing a serious problem. If the "left" sells out on war
issues as they have done the last 20 years or so, there is no pushback against the permanent
war system. Those one-time leftists who have sold out are no longer really leftists,
especially once they are relying on the corrupt permanent spy state for their information and
support.
Interesting and correct observation. Allow me to throw in my own two cents with regards to
the rise of what is defined as the "anti-Anti War left". I should note that there are eerily
similar parralels between the rise of the New Left in the 60s that was the mix of socialist
democrats, sexual revolutionaries, flower-power hippies, anti-imperialist/anti-war activists,
and identitarianists (Huey Netwon, Cesar Chavez, MLK) etc. and today's BLM, Antifa, 'woke'
types, third-gen feminists, broke millennials\
. While the former's rise in the Democratic
Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to
the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the
problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these
New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard
place and a rock. In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats
(Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and
by the angry Trumpists.
Just to give you one example, last week a prototype New Democrat and long time congressman
(since 89) Elliot Engel of NY who fits well into this definition was defeated handily in the
NY-16 primaries by the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed candidate, Jamal Bowman. Mr.
Bowman, an African American is ideologically very similar to AOC, Tlaib, and Omar. He won on
a platform of foreign policy endorsed by the left-zionists (ex-labor zionists) against the
likudnik right-wing zionist of Engles' which is very interesting since, Engel has been known
for his hawkish views on foreign policy and extremely pro-Israel and chaired the House
Foreign Affairs Committee recently.
Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's
planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to
cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan.
Domestically, there are several seats up for re-election and especially two in Georgia and
Arizona Senate whose pointed Republican candidates are in very shaky grounds versus their
democratic challengers. What is clear is that the New Democrat platforms are no longer
popular by the Democratic base and given recent events, it can be safely said that either the
most law and order and Trumpian candidates will win or the Democratic socialists endorsed
ones. So another problem for the New Dems.
Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers
(The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the
Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and
80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the
RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+
years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post
2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with
one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats
in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats.
And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class
in D.C. will see business as usual as the Democratic Socialists will be "persuaded" to team
up with the New Democrats with regards to sending Troops to conduct humanitarian intervention
abroad (i.e. the Powell Doctrine) in exchange for domestic welfare programs, the
NeverTrumpers and the Republican hawks (Cotton, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) will have war
plans already written for them at AEI, Hudson and Heritage that focuses on China with the
help of the New Democrats and probably the Far-left.
In her recently published memoir, Circle in the
Darkness , the author and journalist Diana Johnstone recalls that only "a few decades
ago, "the Left" was considered the center of opposition to imperialism, and champion of the
right of peoples to self-determination."
Johnstone is part of a distinguished line of American expatriate writers, who, perhaps
because of an objectivity conferred by distance, saw their country more clearly than many of
their stateside contemporaries. Members of the club include William Pfaff who for many years
wrote from Paris and the longtime Asia correspondent Patrick Lawrence . The Paris based Johnstone brings a
moral clarity to matters of war and peace that is, alas, too often absent from most
contemporary foreign affairs writing. Its near total absence on the Left during the Trump years
should be cause for reflection, and concern.
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of
waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts
including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would
make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the
process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine's Just War theory on the
trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II,
Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a "targeted" assassination program.
At the time, Johnstone was one of the few who saw through the ruse, but, as she recalled,
she couldn't get her articles published in the liberal press. According to Johnstone, Hitchens
and Company saw to that. The wisdom of bombing Serbian civilians for 78 days in order to carve
out a Muslim enclave in the middle of Europe (which in short order would be overrun by the
Saudis, Albanian organized crime and human organ traffickers) was rarely questioned.
Indeed, among the bien-pensants , it was impermissible.
Today, skepticism of the mainstream narrative regarding both Russia and the war in Syria is
likewise deemed out of bounds by the Left. It is fair to say that a 3 year non-scandal,
Russiagate, ignited a cold war fever among liberals and self-styled progressives. Indeed,
liberals who once took principled stands against the Iraq war, such as Tom Dispatch and
Nation regular Bob Dreyfuss ,
transmogrified, after Trump's election, into frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists.
By my count, during the course of the three year Russiagate ordeal, Dreyfuss wrote at least
30 articles
promoting the most ludicrous of the Russiagate conspiracies, among them that Russia was " hiding
in your Facebook ," and that, variously, Paul Manafort, Felix Slater and/or General Michael
Flynn would, somehow, bring down Trump. That Dreyfuss would prove so credulous in the face of
what was so clearly an absurd distraction is perhaps not surprising given his
past ties to Lyndon Larouche .
Others, even less discerning than Dreyfuss, but far, far hungrier for attention, have
claimed that skeptics of the now discredited collusion conspiracy theory were themselves
guilty of indulging in, you guessed it, conspiracy theories of their own.
And so, if in the writings of Dreyfuss, TheNew York Times' Michelle Goldberg,
Mother Jones' David Corn, The Atlantic's Franklin Foer, New York
magazine's resident dolt Jonathan Chait, and many more besides, we can see the emergence of the
anti-anti-Cold War Left, there has also reemerged alongside it the very vocal and ravenously
unscrupulous anti-antiwar Left. And it is on the issue of the Syrian war on which the
anti-antiwar Left has coalesced, inexplicably arguing for the wholesale takeover of a secular
police state by the very same Islamist radicals who, if given the chance, would turn around and
immediately kill them on the grounds of apostasy.
In Syria, the protests that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by armed jihadists whose
motto was "Christians to Beirut, Alawis to the grave." Before he was murdered by Syrian rebels,
the Jesuit missionary Father Frans vans der Lugt observed that "From the start the protest
movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in
the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security
forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels."
But many prominent voices in mainstream liberal media outlets such as The New York
Times,TheWashington Post and VICE turned a blind eye to the atrocities
committed by the Islamist opposition in their hunger for a US-led regime change operation
against Bashar al-Assad. And the war fever extended from the mainstream to the progressive
Left.
On the pages and website of the New York Review of Books one searches for genuine
antiwar voices in vain. Instead what you most likely will come across are screeds such as the
one issued by Janine di Giovanni. In her rage for another US-led war in the Middle East, di
Giovanni channelled
the ghost of Joseph McCarthy and baselessly accused the antiwar journalist Max Blumenthal
of, you guessed it, being in league with (who else?) the Russian government.
And then there is The Intercept, funded by a shadowy billionaire with ties to the US Agency
for International Development, Pierre Omyidar. Under the editorship of former Nation
managing editor Betsy Reed, The Intercept has given space to some of the most strident
anti-antiwar voices including those of James Risen, Robert McKay and the British-born Mehdi
Hasan. Hasan's enthusiasm for a jihadi victory over the socialist, multi-confessional Syrian
state is perhaps not surprising given his past views in which he compared
non-believers to "animals."
In an April 2018
column for The Intercept, Hasan penned a hysterical open letter to those he deemed
"al-Assad apologists" for the crime of expressing skepticism regarding the latest round of
accusations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime. "To those of you on the anti-war far
left who have a soft spot for the dictator in Damascus: Have you lost your minds? Or have you
no shame?," cried Hasan. What followed was a lengthy iteration of Assad's crimes and then,
oddly, reassurances from Hasan that he too stands against no fly zones, arming the rebels and
regime change wars.
So what, we might be forgiven to ask, was the point? It was simply a tedious exercise in
moral preening. A speciality of the anti-antiwar Left.
Hasan's, example is instructive because, in his
obvious opportunism and sly fanaticism , he exemplifies everything
that a writer like Diana Johnstone is not and, by extension, much that is seriously wrong with
the anti-antiwar Left.
Worryingly, the anti-antiwar Left is not going away. Indeed, it has some powerful
allies-in-waiting should Joseph R. Biden win in November. In a recent
interview with CBS , Biden protege and former deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken
bemoaned the fact that the Obama administration's regime change efforts in Syria didn't go
nearly far enough.
Indeed, Biden's foreign policy team is stacked from one end to the other with regime change
and new cold war enthusiasts who, alas, will find plenty of support from the growing ranks of
the anti-antiwar Left. Those who find this development more than mildly depressing might do
worse than to take refuge in the work of genuine antiwar voices such as Diana Johnstone's.
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: JAMES W. CARDEN
James W. Carden writes about foreign affairs from Washington, DC. His work has appeared
in The American Conservative, American Affairs, The National Interest, and The
Nation where he is a contributing writer.
"... These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking. McMaster does both in his essay. ..."
"... We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of 2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of American tax dollars to finance permanent failure. ..."
"... our interests are far better served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain way. ..."
"... The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. ..."
In February 1991 I fought as a green 2 nd Lieutenant under then-Captain H.R.
McMaster, who would go on to win combat fame in 2005 Iraq and as Trump's National Security
Advisor. I watched McMaster provide exceptional leadership of our unit prior to war and watched
him perform brilliantly under fire during combat. It gives me no pleasure, therefore, to note
that his most recent work in Foreign Affairs has to be one of the most flawed analyses
I've ever seen.
McMaster's essay, " The
Retrenchment Syndrome ," is an attempted take-down of a growing number of experts who argue
American foreign policy has become addicted to the employment of military power. I, and other
likeminded advocates, argue this military-first foreign policy does not increase America's
security, but perversely undercuts it.
We advocate a foreign policy that elevates diplomacy, promotes the maintenance of a powerful
military that can defend America globally, and seeks to expand U.S. economic opportunity
abroad. This perspective takes the world as it is, soberly assesses America's policy successes
and failures of the past decades, and recommends sane policies going forward that have the best
chance to achieve outcomes beneficial to our country.
Adopting this new foreign policy mentality, however, requires an honest recognition that our
existing approach -- especially since 9/11 -- has at times been catastrophically bad for
America. The status quo has to be jettisoned for us to turn failure into success.
These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for
our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably
lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking.
McMaster does both in his essay.
McMaster grievously mischaracterizes the positions of those who advocate for a sane,
rational foreign policy. He tries to pin a pejorative moniker on restraint-oriented viewpoints
via the term "retrenchment syndrome."
Advocates for a restrained foreign policy, he says, "subscribe to the romantic view that
restraint abroad is almost always an unmitigated good." McMaster claims Obama's 2011
intervention in Libya failed not because it destabilized the country but because Washington
didn't "shape Libya's political environment in the wake of Qaddafi's demise." And he claims
Trump's desire to withdraw from Afghanistan "will allow the Taliban, al Qaeda, and various
other jihadi terrorists to claim victory."
In other words, the only policy option is to keep doing what has manifestly failed
for the past two decades. Just do it harder, faster, and deeper.
But the reality of the situation is rather different.
We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of
2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen
additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of
American tax dollars to finance permanent failure.
We should never have invaded Iraq in 2003. But once we realized the justification for the
war had been wrong, we should have rapidly withdrawn our combat troops and diplomatically
helped facilitate the establishment of an Iraqi-led state. Instead, we refused to acknowledge
our mistake, fought a pointless eight-year insurgency, and then instead of allowing Iraq to
solve its own problems when ISIS arose in 2014, unnecessarily went back to help Baghdad fight
its battles.
Likewise, the U.S. continues to fight or support never-ending combat actions in Syria,
Libya, Somalia, Niger, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and other lesser-known locations. There is no risk
to American national security in any of these locations that engaging in routine and perpetual
combat operations will solve.
Lastly, large portions of the American public -- and even greater percentages of service
members who have served in forever-wars -- are
against the continuation of these wars and do not believe they keep us safer. What would
make the country more secure, however, is adopting a realistic foreign policy that recognizes
the world as it truly is, acknowledges that the reason we maintain a world-class military is to
deter our enemies without having to fight, and recognizing that our interests are far better
served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain
way.
The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly
failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price
continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. It is time to
abandon the status quo and adopt a new policy that is based on a realistic view of the world,
an honest recognition of our genuinely powerful military, and realize that there are better
ways to assure our security and prosperity.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the
U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him
@DanielLDavis1.
Bolton is just "yet another MIC puppet", who has complete vacuum in his head as for morality
and decency. In other words he is a typical Washington psychopath. Like many sociopaths he is a
compulsive liar, undeniable careerist and self-promoter.
This week on Empire Has No Clothes, we spoke with Elizabeth Shackelford, a former Foreign
Service Officer and author of
The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age . Kelley Vlahos, Matt Purple
and I talked about demoralization in the department, the reasons for her resignation, U.S.
policy in South Sudan and Africa, and the need for greater accountability in our foreign
policy. We also covered John Bolton's new book, his outdated foreign policy views, and whether
anything he says can be trusted.
Listen to the episode in the player below, or click the links beneath it to subscribe using
your favorite podcast app. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating or review on
iTunes or Stitcher, which will really help us climb the rankings, allowing more people to find
the show.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s
INDEPENDENT
It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could
possibly justify a clickbait title like that.
I suspect that the rest of the article is just
going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively
say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?
FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no
reinstatement on horizon.
FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large
commercial relationship w/Germany.
What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be
made by just about anyone.
Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia
has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is
'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
William "Bill" Browder has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past
decade. A few months back, Der Spiegel published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky
but the mainstream media completely ignored this report and so aside from Germany few people
are aware of Browder's background and the Magnitsky issue which resulted in sanctions on
Russia.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies
by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow
investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For a time, it was the
largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management was rated as extremely
successful after earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December
2007.
During the corrupt Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US $25 million, Browder
amassed a fortune . Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to
2006 his Hermitage firm eventually grew to $4.5 billion .
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities he portrayed
himself as an anti-corruption activist and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act,
which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However, an examination of
Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveals contradictions with his
statements to the public and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking
corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian
companies to adopt Western-style governance, it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized
companies he was targeting for takeover.
Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in
a company he would resort to lawsuits against this company through shell companies he
controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To
prevent its collapse the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it,
causing its stock market to rise -- with the result that Browder's profits would rise
exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant
Magnitsky acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft
and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5%
instead of the 35% that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign
companies and citizens from purchasing equities in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this
and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in 2008.
Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and
charged by Russian prosecutors with two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in
conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's shell
companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009 Magnitsky died in pre-trial
detention because
of a failure by prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest
and death were a targeted act of revenge by Russian authorities against a heroic
anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was
challenged by the European Court of Human Rights who in its ruling on August 27, 2019
concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable
suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence." And as such "The Russians had good
reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal
proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that
prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable
activities, Browder had been refused entry to Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly
his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities,
accusing them of corruption and violation of human rights. The death of his accountant and
auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch an
international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption
whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky is anything but.
Despite Brower's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic
documents
and testimonies show that Magnitsky
died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a
gallstone condition. It was negligence typical at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a
premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high level functionaries in
the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past ten years Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by
prison guards. Without any verifiable evidence
he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18
minutes. This was never corroborated by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even
denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to
discredit and vilify Russia and its government and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying
beliefs and assumptions are being seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an
American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I
revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei
Magnitsky, William Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he
was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos
were taken the next day.
Later in her report she states:
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen
U.S. media – both allegedly progressive and mainstream -- have refused to publish this
information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was
beaten to death with rubber batons. It's this narrative that has attracted the attention of the
US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists. To further refute his
account, a 2011 analysis by the
Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder
found no evidence he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian
documents. They were compiled immediately after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009.
Recent investigative research has revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The
first document D309 states that shortly before Magnitsky's death: "Handcuffs were used in
connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the
handcuffs were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a
forensic review states that while in the prison hospital "Magnitsky exhibited behavior
diagnosed as "acute psychosis" by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr.
Magnitsky to be restrained with handcuffs."
The second document D310 is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the
preceding sentence. The sentence in D309 has the phrase "special means were" is
changed in D310 to " a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no
sense whatsoever, given the title and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistences,
including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310 was copied from D309 and
that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical
reports to have been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of
knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document forms a major basis for Browder's
claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a
baton attack, combined with forensic photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show
no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long assertions
that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains
mistakes and inconsistencies that distort the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's
death.
Despite Magnitsky's death the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty
of corruption in a posthumous trial. Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate
alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include the accountant
Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case
against Magnitsky was closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign
insisting that his departure from Russia resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However,
the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is that in 2003 a
Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition,
his illegal purchases of shares in
Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies were reportedly valued at another $30
million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went
after Magnitsky, the accountant who carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the USA Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished
his tale by asserting that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one
of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case got more involved, he presented a
convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be
presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007 three shell companies that had once been owned by
Browder were used to claim a $232 million tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses.
Browder has stated that the
companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation organized by a convicted
fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence however that
Magnitsky and Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this
firm were a large number of shell companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some
in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan, owned by Americans, did
the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for
Firestone Duncan and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was
interviewed in 2017 by Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist, who was doing research on
Browder's operations in Russia. In the ensuing report on this , Komisar states:
"According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure
that Russian investigators would later say was used for tax evasion and illegal share
purchases by Hermitage. . .
the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal share purchase schemes.
"He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were "owned" by
Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which, in turn, were "owned" by an HSBC Private Bank
Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. He said the
structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along
the way. Profits could get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and
HSBC.
"Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy
Gazprom shares in the local market, which was restricted for foreign investors.'"
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the
offices of Hermitage and Firestone Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers
and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support Russian charges of
tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a
statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder stated that Russian interior ministry
officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies of
the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest
Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the
purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He
had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have the qualifications to do so. In fact in 2006 when
questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 he claimed Magnitsky was his lawyer, but in 2015 in his
testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative , in December 2012 he presented documents to the New York District
Attorney alleging that a Russian company Prevezon had "benefitted from part of the $230 million
dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number of luxury apartments
in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed
money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based
lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel , Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court
so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to
accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge in the Prevezon
case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later
while in court and under oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally
evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning with the following
exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law
degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible U.S. investigator admitted
during questioning that his findings were based exclusively on statements and documents from
Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his people managed
to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that
launched the court case, Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when
questioned under oath he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact, to almost every question put
forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
The case finally ended in May 2017 when the two sides reached a settlement. Denis Katsyv,
the company's sole shareholder, on a related matter agreed to pay nearly six million dollars to
the US government, but would not have to admit any wrongdoing. Also the settlement contained an
explicit mention that neither Katsyv nor his company Prevezon had anything to do with the
Magnitsky case. Afterwards, one of Katsyv's, lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya, exclaimed: "For
the first time, the U.S. recognized that the Russians were in the right!"
A major exposé of the Browder-Russia story is presented in a film that came out in
June 2016 The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the well-known independent filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov .
Reference to this film will be made later but to provide a summary of the Browder tax evasion
case some critical information can be obtained from
a report by Eric Zuesse , an investigative historian, who managed to get a private viewing
of the film by the film's Production Manager.
In the film Nekrasov proceeds to unravel Browder's story, which was designed to conceal his
own corporate responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted
story collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the
fraud who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his
medical condition. The film cleverly allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight
of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.
Following the raid by tax officials on the Moscow Hermitage office on June 2, 2007, nothing
further on these matters was reported until April 9, 2008 when Ms Rimma Starlova, the
figurehead director of the three supposedly stolen Browder shell companies, filed a criminal
complaint with the Russian Interior Ministry in Kazan accusing representatives of Browder
companies of the theft of state funds, i.e., $232 million in a tax-rebate fraud. Although
Hermitage was aware of this report they kept quiet about it because they claimed it as a false
accusation against themselves.
On September 23, 2008, there was a news report about a theft of USD 232 million from the
Russian state treasury, and the police probe into it. On October 7, 2008, Magnitsky was
questioned by tax investigators about the $232 million fraud because he was the accountant for
Browder's companies.
The central issue was that during September of 2007 three of Browder's shell companies had
changed owners and that afterwards fraud against Russian treasury had been conducted by the new
owners of these companies.
According to Magnitsky the way that ownership changed was through powers of attorney. This
is a matter that Browder never mentioned. The Nekrasov film shows a document: "Purchase
agreement based on this power of attorney, Gasanov represents Glendora Holdings Ltd."
Glendora Holdings is another shell company owned by Browder. This shows that Gasanov, the
middleman, had the power of attorney connecting the new nominees to the real beneficiaries.
However, Gasanov could not be questioned on whose orders he was doing this because shortly
afterwards, he mysteriously died. No one proved that it was murder, but if that death was a
coincidence, it wasn't the only one.
During September 2007 the three Hermitage shell companies, Rilend, Parfenion and Mahaon,
were re-registered by Gasanov to a company called Pluton that was registered in Kazan, and
owned by Viktor Markelov, a Russian citizen with a criminal record. Markelov through a series
of sham arbitration judgments conducted fake lawsuits that demanded damages for alleged
contract violations. Once the damages were paid, in December 2007 the companies filed for tax
refunds that came to $232 million. These were taxes that had been paid by these companies in
2006.
On February 5, 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office
opened a criminal case to investigate the fraud committed by Markelov and other
individuals.
Markelov had hired a Moscow lawyer, Andrey Pavlov, to conduct these complex operations.
Afterwards Pavlov was questioned by Russian authorities and revealed what had happened.
Markelov was convicted and
sentenced to five years for the scam . At his trial Markelov testified that he was not in
possession of the $232 million tax refund and that he did not know the identity of the client
who would benefit from the refund scheme. And till this day no one knows! However, Russian tax
authorities suspect it is William Browder.
At his trial, Markelov testified that one of the people he worked with to secure the
fraudulent tax refund was Sergei Leonidovich. Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich
Magnitsky. Also when questioned by the police, Markelov named Browder's associates Khairetdinov
and Kleiner as people involved in the company's re-registration.
So this provides evidence that Magnitsky and Browder's other officials were involved in the
re-registration scheme – which Browder later called theft. In his film Nekrasov states
that Browder's team had set things up to look as if outsiders -- not Browder's team -- had
transferred the assets.
According to Nekrasov's film documentation, Russian courts have established that it was the
representatives of the Hermitage investment fund who had themselves voluntarily re-registered
the Makhaon, Parfenion and Rilend companies in the name of other individuals, a fact that Mr
Browder is seeking to conceal by shifting the blame, without any foundation, onto the law
enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
Indeed there is cause to be skeptical of the Browder narrative, and that the fraud was in
fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court has
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December 2013 that Browder had
deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. On the basis of this he was
sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.
In the meantime, over all these years, Browder has maintained and convinced the public at
large that the $232 million fraud against the Russian treasury had been perpetrated by
Magnitsky's interrogators and Russian police. With respect to the "theft" of his three
companies (or "vehicles as he refers to them) on September 16, 2008
he stated on his Hermitage website : "The theft of the vehicles was only possible using
the vehicles' original corporate documents seized by the Moscow Interior Ministry in its raid
on Hermitage's law firm in Moscow on 4 June 2007."
As such, Browder is accusing Russian tax authorities and police for conducting this entire
fraudulent operation.
In his film Nekrasov says that the Browder version is: "Yes, the crime took place [$232
million fraud against the public treasury but, according to Browder, actually against Browder's
firm], but somebody else did it -- the police did it."
In this convoluted tale, it should be recalled that the fraud against the Russian treasury
had first been reported to the police by Rimma Starlova on April 9, 2008. This had been
recorded on the Hermitage website. In preparing the material for his film, Nekrasov noted
that
"In March 2009, Starlova's report disappeared from Hermitage's website. . . . This is the
same time that Magnitsky started to be treated as an analyst . . . who discovered the $232
million fraud. Thus the Magnitsky-the-whistleblower story was born, almost a year after the
matter had been reported to the police."
Nekrasov's film also undermines the basis of Browder's case that Magnitsky had been killed
by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov, but this is
questionable since documents show Magnitsky had not accused anyone. As Nekrasov states in the
film: "The problem is, he [Magnitsky] made no accusations. In that testimony, its record
contains no accusations. Mr. Magnitsky did not actually testify against the two officers
[Karpov and Kuznetsov]." So this factual evidence should destroy Browder's accusations.
It should be noted Magnitsky's original interview with authorities was as a suspect, not a
whistleblower. Also contradicting Browder's claims, Nekrasov notes that Magnitsky does not even
mention the names of the police officers in a key statement to authorities.
In his film Nekrasov includes an interview that he had with Browder regarding the issues
about Magnitsky. Nekrasov confronts Browder with the core contradictions of his story.
Incensed, Browder rises up and threatens the filmmaker:
" Anybody who says that Sergei Magnitsky didn't expose the crime before he was arrested
is just trying to whitewash the Russian Government. Are you trying to say that Pavel Karpov is
innocent? I'd really be careful about your going out and saying that Magnitsky wasn't a
whistleblower. That's not going to do well for your credibility." Browder then walks off in
a huff.
Nekrasov claims to be especially struck that the basis of Browder's case -- that Magnitsky
had been killed by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov
-- is a lie because there is documentary evidence that Magnitsky had not accused anyone.
Because of Browder's accusations, Nekrasov interviewed Pavel Karpov, the police officer who
Browder accused of being involved in Magnitsky's alleged murder, despite the fact that Karpov
was not on duty the day Magnitsky died.
Karpov presents Nekrasov with documents that Browder's case was built on. These original
documents are actually fundamentally different from the way Browder had described them. This
documentary evidence further exposes Browder's story for what it is.
Nekrasov asks Karpov why Browder wants to demonize him. Karpov explains that he had pursued
Browder in 2004 for tax evasion, so that seems to be the reason why Browder smears him. And
then Karpov says, "Having made billions here, Browder forgot to tell how he did it. So it
suits him to pose as a victim. He is wanted here, but Interpol is not looking for him."
Afterwards in 2013, Karpov had tried to sue Browder for libel in a London court, but was not
able to on the basis of procedural grounds since he was a resident of Russia and not the UK.
However at the conclusion of the case, set out in his Judgment the presiding judge,
Justice Simon, made some interesting comments.
"The causal link which one would expect from such a serious charge is wholly lacking; and
nothing is said about torture or murder. In my view these are inadequate particulars to
justify the charge that the Claimant was a primary or secondary party to Sergei Magnitsky's
torture and murder, and that he would continue to commit or 'cause' murder, as pleaded in
§60 of the Defence.
The Defendants have not come close to pleading facts which, if proved, would justify the
sting of the libel."
In other words – in plain English – in the judge's view, Karpov was not in any
sense party to Magnitsky's death, and Browder's claim that he was is not valid.
On the basis of the evidence that has been presented, it is undeniable that Browder's case
appears to be a total misrepresentation, not only of Magnitsky's statements, but of just about
everything else that's important in the case .
On a separate matter, on April 15, 2015 in a New York court
case involving the US government and a Russian company, Previzon Holdings, Bill Browder had
been ordered by a judge to give a deposition to Prevezon's lawyers.
Throughout this deposition, Browder (now under oath) contradicted virtually every aspect of
his Magnitsky narrative and stated "I don't recall" when pressed about key portions of his
narrative that he had previously repeated unabashedly in his testimonies to Congress and
interviews with Western media. Browder "remembered nothing" and could not even deny asking
Magnitsky to take responsibility for his (Browder's) crimes.
As a further example of Browder's dishonesty, in one of his publications, he shows a photo
of an alleged employee of Browder's law firm, Firestone Duncan, named "Victor Poryugin" with
vicious facial wounds from allegedly being tortured and beaten by police. However, the person
shown was never with Browder's firm. Instead, this is a photo of "an American human rights
campaigner beaten up during a street protest in 1961." It was Jim Zwerg, civil-rights
demonstrator, during the 1960s, in the American South. Nekrasov was appalled and found it
almost unimaginable that Browder would switch photos like that to demonize Russia and its
police.
Browder
was arrested by the Spanish policein June 2018. Even though Russia has on six occasions
requested Browder's arrest through Interpol for tax fraud, the Spanish national police
determined that Browder had been detained in error because the international warrant was no
longer valid and released him.
A further matter that reflects on his character, William Browder, the American-born
co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management is now a British citizen. The US taxes offshore
earnings, but the UK does not. Highly likely because of this, in 1998 he gave up his American
citizenship and became a British citizen and thereby has avoided paying US taxes on foreign
investments. Nevertheless, he still has his family home in Princeton, NJ and also
owns a $11 million dollar vacation home in Aspen, Colorado.
To put this in political context, Browder's narrative served a strong geopolitical purpose
to demonize Russia at the dawn of the New Cold War. As such, Browder played a major role in
this. In fact, the late celebrated American journalist Robert
Parry thought that Browder single-handedly
deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War.
Browder's campaign was so effective that in December 2012 he exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia, and as a result the US Congress passed a bipartisan bill, the
Magnitsky Act, which was then signed by President Obama. U.S. Senators Ben Cardin and John
McCain were instrumental in pushing through the Magnitsky Act, based on Browder's
presentations.
However, key parts of the argument that passed into law in this act have been shown to be
based on fraud and fabrication of 'evidence.' This bill
blacklisted Russian officials who were accused of being involved in human-rights
abuses.
"A problem with the Magnitsky Act is that there is no due process. The targets are not
told the evidence against them, they cannot challenge accusations or evidence in a court of
law in order to get off the list. This "human rights law" violates the rule of law. There is
an International Court with judges and lawyers to deal with human rights violators, but the
US has not ratified its jurisdiction. Because it does not want to be subject to the rules it
applies to others."
In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enables the U.S. to impose
sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide.
In a move that history will show to be ill-advised, on October 18, 2017 Canada's Parliament
and Senate
unanimously approved Bill 226, a 'Magnitsky Act.' It mimics the US counterpart and targets
Russia for further economic sanctions. Russia
immediately denounced Canada's actions as being counter-productive, pointless and
reprehensible. Actually an act of this type had been opposed by Stéphane Dion while he
was Canada's minister of foreign affairs because he viewed it as a needless provocation against
Russia.
Dion also stated that adoption of a 'Magnitsky Act' would hurt the interests of Canadian
businesses dealing with Russia and would thwart Canada's attempt's to normalize relations with
Russia. However, Dion was replaced by Chrystia Freeland who immediately pushed this through.
This is not surprising considering her well-documented Nazi family
background and who is persona non grata in Russia.
A version of the Magnitsky Act was enacted in the UK and the Baltic republics in 1917.
In early 2020 a proposal to enact a version of the Magnitsky Act was presented to the
Australian parliament and it is still under consideration. There has been considerable
opposition to it including a
detailed report by their Citizens Party, which exposes the full extent of Browder's fraud
and chicanery.
The investigation into Browder's business activities in Russia is still an ongoing
endeavour. On October 24, 2017 the
Russian Prosecutor
General , Yuri Chaika, requested the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a probe
into alleged tax evasion by Bill Browder, who in 2013 had already been sentenced in absentia to
9 years in prison in Russia for a similar crime.
Browder at that time was still being tried in Russia for suspected large-scale money
laundering, also in absentia. Chaika added that Russian law enforcement possesses information
that over $1 billion was illegally transferred from the country into structures
connected with Bill Browder.
The Prosecutor General also asked Sessions to reconsider the Magnitsky Act. As he put
it,
" from our standpoint, the act was adopted for no actual reason, while it was lobbied by
people who had committed crimes in Russia. In our view, there are grounds to claim that this
law lacks real foundation and that its passing was prompted by criminals' actions."
It's not known if Sessions ever responded to the Russian Prosecutor General. In any event,
President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions on November 7, 2018. As such it's evident
that Russia's concerns about Browder's dishonest activities are stymied.
Extensive reference has already been made to the film that came out in June 2016 The
Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the independent filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov . When Nekrasov started the film
he had fully believed Browder's story but as he delved into what really happened, to his
surprise, he discovered that the case documents and other incontrovertible facts revealed
Browder to be a fraud and a liar. The ensuing film presents a powerful deconstruction of the
Magnitsky myth, but because of Browder's political connections and threats of lawsuits, the
film has been
blacklisted in the entire "free world." So much for the "free world's" freedom of the press
and media. This film is not available on YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/oJsWUlkjN6Gf/
The documentary was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016,
but at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians
cancelled the showing.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed.
Despite the frantic attempts by Browder's lawyers to block this documentary film from being
shown anywhere, Washington's Newseum, to its credit, had a one-time showing on June 13, 2016,
including a question-and-answer session with Andrei Nekrasov, moderated by journalist Seymour
Hersh. Except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been
essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth
to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.
Nekrasov's powerful deconstruction of the Magnitsky myth – and the film's subsequent
blacklisting throughout the "free world" – recall other instances in which the West's
propaganda lines don't stand up to scrutiny, so censorship and ad hominem attacks become the
weapons of choice to defend " perception
management ."
Other than the New
York Times that had a lukewarm review , the mainstream media condemned the film and its
showing. As such, with the exception of that one audience, the public in the USA, Canada and
Europe has been shielded from the documentary's discoveries. The censorship of this film has
made it a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we
used to call "the other side of the story."
Andrei Nekrasov is still prepared to go to court to defend the findings of his film, but
Bill Browder has refused to do this and simply keeps maligning the film and Mr. Nekrasov.
Recent Developments
Although for almost the past ten years Browder's self-serving story had been accepted almost
worldwide and served to help vilify Russia, in the past few months there has been an awakening
to the true state of affairs about Browder.
The first such article"The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S.
Sanctions" written by Benjamin Bidder, a German journalist, appeared on November 26, 2019
in Der Spiegel. At the outset Bidder states:
"Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story suggest he may not have
been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him to be. Did the
perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan
whose story the West was too eager to believe? The certainty surrounding the Magnitsky affair
becomes muddled in the documents, particularly the clear division between good and evil. The
Russian authorities' take is questionable, but so is everyone else's -- including Bill
Browder's.
But with the Magnitsky sanctions, it could be that the activist Browder used a noble cause
to manipulate Western governments."
In summation, the article raises serious questions about many aspects of Browder's account.
It concluded that his narrative was riddled with lies and said Western nations have fallen for
a "convenient" story made up by a "fraudster. "
The report provoked Browder's fury, and he swiftly filed a complaint against Der
Spiegel with the German Press Council as well as a complaint to the editor of Der
Spiegel .
On December 17, 2019 Der Spiegel responded : " Why DER SPIEGEL Stands Behind Its Magnitsky
Reporting." In a lengthy detailed response the journal rejects all aspects of Browder's
complaint. They point out the inconsistencies in Browder's version of events and demonstrate
that he is unable to present sufficient proof for his claims. They state: We believe his
complaint has no basis and would like to review why we have considerable doubts about Browder's
story and why we felt it necessary to present those doubts publicly."
Their report is highly enlightening and will have long-term consequences. It is one of the
best refutations of Browder's falsified accounts that led to the Magnitsky Act. It exposes
Browder as a fraud and his Magnitsky story as a fake. Despite all this, this exposé was
ignored in the mainstream media so most people are unaware of these revelations.
A good review of it is presented by Lucy Komisar in her article The Der Spiegel
exposé of Bill Browder, December 6, 2019.
The German Press Council rejected Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel in January
2020 but Browder did not disclose this so it became known only in early May.
Lucy Komisar reported this on May 12 and the main points of the Council's rejection are
presented in her account. Browder had complained that the article had serious factual errors.
The Press Council stated that Browder's position lacks proof and there could be no objection to
Der Spiegel's examination of events leading to Magnitsky's death. All other Browder
objections were rejected as well. In summation the Council stated: "Overall, we could not find
a violation of journalistic principles."
But the action of the press council has not been reported in the Canadian, U.S. or UK media.
Nor was the November Der Spiegel report.
The German Press Council ruling follows a December 2019 Danish Press Board ruling against
another Browder complaint over an article by a Danish financial news outlet, Finans.dk, on
his tax evasion and invented Magnitsky story. Significantly, both the Danish and German cases
involve mainstream media, which usually toe the US-UK-NATO strategic line against Russia, which
Browder's story serves. And these press complaint rulings follow a September 2019
European Court of Human Rights ruling that there was credible evidence that Magnitsky and
Browder were engaged in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud and that Magnitsky was rightfully
charged.
In summation, for ten years or more, no one in the West ever seriously challenged Bill
Browder's account of what happened to his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky and his stories of
corruption and malfeasance in Russia. This is what allowed him to get such influence that the
Magnitsky Act was passed, despite Russia's attempts to clarify matters.
But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals Der Spiegel published an investigative bombshell picking apart
Browder's story about his auditor Sergei Magnitsky's death. Browder immediately lashed out at
Der Spiegel , accusing it of "misrepresenting the facts." However, his outraged
objections backfired and resulted in a further even more damaging Der Spiegel article
and a rebuke from the German Press Council.
At long last, thanks to Der Spiegel , its investigative reports have effectively
rejected and discredited Browder's claim that Magnitsky was a courageous whistleblower who
exposed corruption in Russia and was mercilessly killed by authorities out of revenge.
Despite this important and significant course of events, because of its imbedded
Russophobia, the mainstream media have completely ignored the Der Spiegel exposé
and almost nowhere has this been reported. To some extent this is because Browder has used his
fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively
silencing many critics. Hence aside from people in Germany, this has been a non-event and the
Browder hoax still prevails. Given this, it is important for us to publicize this revelation as
best we can.
John, great article but we know that what you call "large-scale privatizations in Russia "
was a large scale robbery. Even Magnitsky's mother stated that Browder is a fraud. Mr.
Nekrasov whose film has been banned in many countries due to Browder's legal challenges has a
reputation as a Putin critic -- After interviewing Mr. Browder in 2010 Nekrasov says he set
out to make a "Magnitsky the hero" film. But as filming proceeded he "began to have doubts".
More accurate would be that he smelled a rat. John, I have read many of your articles you
never disappoint with your research and evidence.
Outstanding article sir. I remember when Browder popped up in the news a couple of years ago
and made TV appearances on all three big networks in the same day. I was astonished that this
lowlife wielded such influence in America.
Indeed – and very likely more than one! It should be obvious that the ease with
which Browder (a complete nonentity) was able to get away with what he got away with in
Russia and remain a virtually untouchable, protected free man to this day, in spite of the
very significant evidence against him, would very much seem to indicate that he, much like
Paul Bremer later in Iraq, was a tool of higher powers.
Excellent article. There is a misperception that these pathological liars are believed, since
their critics are silenced. It has been my experience that that is not the case. The
pathological liars are not believed. They just keep lying, sabotaging, fining, legal system
stalking, shouting down their oppenents, black listing those who doubt or know that they are
lying as conspiracy theorists. I've been witnessing this for far to long. It is obviously not
limited to the Magnitsky Act. This country is really nothing more than a sick joke at this
point. These individuals do not behave like people. They behave like mercury poisoned
monsters. Maybe they are. There is no logical excuse for this insanity. However, if they were
mercury poisoned monsters, they would not all always have the same insane delusions. They are
extremely corrupt sadistic terrorist criminal psychopaths that have destroyed America and the
rest of the world too.
They are not The Resistance, they are The Persistence! Something has to be done about
them. Freedom of the press does not give people the freedom to deliberately lie. You may
doubt that, however, slander, libel, and defamation of charcter suits will prove you to be
wrong, in addition to providing false information that endangers human life and national
security, in the case of a non person like covid that is being used to deprive people of
every liberty and rights that exists, including life. They are terrorists. They cannot claim
to be news journalists or investigative reporters if they simply say whatever their
advertisers or the government tells them to say. If they are unable to get to the bottom of
the story, when so many in the alternative media are, then they are either unqualified to do
their jobs, or are simply full of shit.
I really believe that the primary intention of covid and the response to it is to get
people to voluntarily give up cell phones, particularly since 5-G is so hazardous. That way,
the industries will never have to admit any wrong doing about the health hazards related to
cell phones and Wi-Fi.That
is what I believe. Also, you can be damn sure that the government and corporations do not
like the fact that they can be embarrassed by people that they cannot prevent from
embarrassing them without being accused of human rights abuses like vault7 technology.
"Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?!" – Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial
Home For Incurable Tyants
@Vuki I had at one time a copy of a book titled "The murder of Bill Browder" by an
Eastern European journalist which I have, unfortunately, misplaced. As well as being an
exposè of the nefarious Mr Browder it also exposes far more serious wrongdoing against
him. This book has vanished from the Google search engine (I wonder why?) so if anyone can
tell me where to get a copy i would really value it
While most American's were distracted by the emerging World Wide Web, our elite were
raping Russia. I'll say it again, America's "elite" raped Russia. In internet time twenty
five years past puts you in prehistoric times. This is critical history that most of us
missed, or more accurately wasn't available -- to the majority of us.
This was the Clinton era -- with just that you know this story can't be good. With Slick
Willie's taste for skanks in a period where there is a story of beautiful impoverished young
Russian women (teens likely) forming a line for one of our "elite" who was peeling off
Benjamins for blowjobs in a club frequented by their foreign "advisors." Yep, I'm sure this
was of no interest to William Jefferson Blythe III.
Harvard University was given a significant role in this "helping" of Russia (pardon the
pun), due to the prestige of this institution, long-gone and unbeknownst to Russian elite,
but hey they weren't "connected" yet. Geez, sorry about your luck. The Harvard you got was
the Harvard we've been getting also, a race privileged hot bed for educating global "rapists"
(or was that Brandeis University I'm thinking of?). Six of one
William Browder is a highly educated Jew (not certain about either) who's grandfather was
Earl Browder, the former General Secretary of the CPUSA (that's the "Communist Party of the
United States of America" for those of you who didn't know we had one). Bill Browder crowed
about the irony in his grandfather being an activist for communism here in the U.S., while HE
was an activist for capitalism in Russia! No, he was doing to Russia what Jews did to Russia
when they hijacked the real Russian's revolution -- fucking them.
Billy Browder's book, "Red Notice," seems at first heartfelt story from a genuine American
do-gooder. Oops! I missed the "A true story " tip-off. It's a self engrandizing fairy tale of
a rapist's plea of innocence because "she didn't say NO."
There is MUCH more to this most interesting, world impacting historical event, that I
believe is the most understated and least understood of the twentieth century, but that said,
who fucked up? Certainly Yeltsin with his alcohol addled brain (likely rooted for by Russian
Jews, who are the MOST notorious criminals world-wide) in trusting and believing America
would help Russia! More significantly I feel America did, big-time, for acting so damn
un-American. Unfortunately the America I'm dreaming of is as long-gone as Harvard and now,
like Harvard has a Zionist occupied governance (if you didn't know what "ZOG" stood for).
Come to think of it, we're acting much like Israel. God save America!
I can tell you one person who did not, Vladimir Ilyich Putin. Yeltsin threw Russia's doors
open to the west and Putin slammed them shut. You can quibble about how he got and keeps his
office, or how he enriched himself through the process, but he had a job to do and he did it
well -- he saved Russia from what the west was going to continue doing to it. You may not
agree with his ideology, but he is the most formidable leader the world has. I pray he leaves
Russia and Russians in a better place than we're headed.
So, here we are today, where Trump is currently in the position to decide whether Russia
should be invited to the next G-whatever summit:
I say we're damn lucky it isn't Putin deciding whether to include Trump and the U.S., as
some day it very well may be.
P.S. This is a rant of mine burning a long time for a window. Thank you John Ryan. Thank
you Billy Browder. Most of all, Thank YOU Mr. Unz!
UNZ has provided a platform for authors, journalists and "knowers" from all over the
world. All converging on the same theme -- there is a "they" and there is a plan. This
seeming runaway train has awakened plain folks with uncommon sense and giants of intellect
alike. Kudos, Ron Unz.
" The western Governments are easily moved or manipulated" and have been Gang Banged –
time and time again by the corrupt mafia corporations, Zionists inc., and a dozen other
international gangs that are in charge of things – today. Not to mention the corrupt,
treasonist nationals that work for the Western Governments. Browder's Hermitage scam just
shows how easily the US Gov and others are bought and paid for – that's why the true
Magnitsky lie , has to be covered up , from the public. PS – notice all the tax money
Browder skimmed off the US – very visible to anyone that can smell a Rat.
I became aware of the Browder case when known controlled asset, Brandon Martinez, used his
claims as a refutation of Putin which he seemed unbelievably obsessed about.
As I perused you-tube for videos on Browder, I saw that he was welcomed into all approved
western media to make his case with the questioners rarely going into the material to dispute
his claims. I determined at that time that Browder was part of a deep state campaign to
demonize Russia under Putin leadership.
It surprises me not to hear no MSM News organization will print these latest findings since
in 2012 I realized the free world and press are anything but free and lie as much or more
than the most demonized communist outlets.
Not mentioned in the article that I recall is the fact that Browder's dad was the head of the
Communist party in the USA before and during WWII which should be enough by itself for a
legitimate news outlet to scrutinize with great vigor any claims made by the man but then we
know WWII was really a war against any country willing to exercise goyim rule independent of
Jewish advisors and that the US was on the side of Jewish power in that war as much as all
the other wars it has engaged in.
(Its interesting that my spell check keeps telling me that there is no such word as "goyem")
"But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals "
Der Spiegel is known as a craven Atlanticist rag. Somebody high up – possibly as a
snub to the Trump admin – must have provided ass cover for it to be upheld.
Useful summary of browder's scam. The man managered to wield a great amount of influence in
american/uk media and government, yet is only a minor player by western oligarch standards.
For that he must have substantial backing. By whom?
Well he definitely is closely defended by these sources:
British Jewish businessman who challenged Putin is put on Interpol wanted list
Bill Browder is a thief, a typical representative of a flock of Western vultures that landed
in 1990s Russia to steal state assets. When his thievery was curbed by Putin, he got angry
and vengeful, like a scorned lover. He manufactured and spread lies to whip up an anti-Putin
campaign in the West. His "narrative" was eagerly supported by the neocons and other scum, as
it was in line with their "narrative". Naturally, the first things about Browder any honest
investigator or journalist would unearth were lies and fraud. Just as naturally, the scum and
scum-controlled Western MSM keep spreading lies supporting their "narrative", and ignoring
numerous facts that contradict it.
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are
protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S
troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.
The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S.
soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for
the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also
linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence
officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.
According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed
on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence
"were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."
On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel
just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday
night on Twitter.
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance
in order to justify his administration's lack of response.
"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.
Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that
he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings.
But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.
The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning
Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before,
only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens
to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.
Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany
then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."
"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."
It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications
malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.
Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:
1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?
The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The
Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous
officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."
Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals."
That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior
al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,"
he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."
Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.
"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they
a captured prisoner?"
If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.
With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the
[CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and
the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."
"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important
enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying
it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."
2. What purpose would bounties serve?
Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.
"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops
if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"
That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year
war there in the 1980s.
The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.
"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing
in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times
. "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."
The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting
"fake news."
While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic
and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they
be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes
sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."
3. Why is this story being leaked now?
According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP,
top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban
for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?
This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.
The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and
our own soldiers lives.
The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective,"
writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"
"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the
polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."
If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.
But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this
now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."
The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia
in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of
the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work
has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into
it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults.
NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill
their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations
as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.
I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing
on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even
posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.
Not only did CIA
et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story),
but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw
from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).
That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story
in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan;
yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.
Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan.
They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?
Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so
why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the
geographical position of the country.
This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.
As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If
Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and
lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.
Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And
let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our
enemy too!
Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of
their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.
The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).
Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason
to believe that this was any different.
1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.
2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.
3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly
stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.
Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies
had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.
I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's
easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.
There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political
appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.
Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others
ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.
These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They
only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.
The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same
confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious
incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".
I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake,
the headlines would be screaming at MSM.
Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who
read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the
latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.
Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest
effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.
The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists
on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia
because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.
The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out,
because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox,
and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return
property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it
western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.
The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.
The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the
Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.
"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you
expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."
Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural.
Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them
Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt,
especially when it comes from the NYT...
Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!
...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates
of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!
"... The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S. policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his rules. ..."
"... The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. ..."
"... While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we ended up having the worst of both worlds ..."
"... just because of Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for Tulsi... ..."
H.R. McMaster looks to be one of those old soldiers with an aversion to following Douglas
MacArthur's advice to "just fade away."
The retired army three-star general who served an abbreviated term as national security
adviser has a memoir due out in September. Perhaps in anticipation of its publication, he has
now contributed a big think-piece to the new issue of Foreign Affairs. The essay is
unlikely to help sell the book.
The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone
advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S.
policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like
referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It
reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very
subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his
rules.
Yet if not madcap militarism, what term or phrase accurately describes post-9/11 U.S.
policy? McMaster never says. It's among the many matters that he passes over in silence. As a
result, his essay amounts to little more than a dodge, carefully designed to ignore the void
between what assertive "American global leadership" was supposed to accomplish back when we
fancied ourselves the sole superpower and what actually ensued.
Here's what McMaster dislikes about restraint: It is based on "emotions" and a "romantic
view" of the world rather than reason and analysis. It is synonymous with "disengagement" --
McMaster uses the terms interchangeably. "Retrenchers ignore the fact that the risks and costs
of inaction are sometimes higher than those of engagement," which, of course, is not a fact,
but an assertion dear to the hearts of interventionists. Retrenchers assume that the "vast
oceans" separating the United States "from the rest of the world" will suffice to "keep
Americans safe." They also believe that "an overly powerful United States is the principal
cause of the world's problems." Perhaps worst of all, "retrenchers are out of step with history
and way behind the times."
Forgive me for saying so, but there is a Trumpian quality to this line of argument: broad
claims supported by virtually no substantiating evidence. Just as President Trump is adamant in
refusing to fess up to mistakes in responding to Covid-19 -- "We've made every decision
correctly" -- so too McMaster avoids reckoning with what actually happened when the
never-retrench crowd was calling the shots in Washington and set out after 9/11 to transform
the Greater Middle East.
What gives the game away is McMaster's apparent aversion to numbers. This is an essay devoid
of stats. McMaster acknowledges the "visceral feelings of war weariness" felt by more than a
few Americans. Yet he refrains from exploring the source of such feelings. So he does not
mention casualties -- the number of Americans killed or wounded in our post-9/11
misadventures. He does not discuss how much those wars have cost , which, of course,
spares him from considering how the trillions expended in Afghanistan and Iraq might have been
better invested at home. He does not even reflect on the duration of those wars, which
by itself suffices to reveal the epic failure of recent U.S. military policy. Instead, McMaster
mocks what he calls the "new mantra" of "ending endless wars."
Well, if not endless, our recent wars have certainly dragged on for far longer than the
proponents of those wars expected. Given the hundreds of billions funneled to the Pentagon each
year -- another data point that McMaster chooses to overlook -- shouldn't Americans expect more
positive outcomes? And, of course, we are still looking for the general who will make good on
the oft-repeated promise of victory.
What is McMaster's alternative to restraint? Anyone looking for the outlines of a new grand
strategy in step with history and keeping up with the times won't find it here. The best
McMaster can come up with is to suggest that policymakers embrace "strategic empathy: an
understanding of the ideology, emotions, and aspirations that drive and constrain other actors"
-- a bit of advice likely to find favor with just about anyone apart from President Trump
himself.
But strategic empathy is not a strategy; it's an attitude. By contrast, a policy of
principled restraint does provide the basis for an alternative strategy, one that implies
neither retrenchment nor disengagement. Indeed, restraint emphasizes engagement, albeit through
other than military means.
Unless I missed it, McMaster's essay contains not a single reference to diplomacy, a
revealing oversight. Let me amend that: A disregard for diplomacy may not be surprising in
someone with decades of schooling in the arts of madcap militarism.
The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced
results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure
that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. Here's the truth: Those who support the
principle of restraint believe in vigorous engagement, emphasizing diplomacy, trade, cultural
exchange, and the promotion of global norms, with war as a last resort. Whether such an
approach to policy is in or out of step with history, I leave for others to divine.
Andrew Bacevich, TAC's writer-at-large, is president of the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft.
Surveys show over and over that the Americans overwhelmingly share Dr. Bacevich's views.
There was even hope that Trump will reign on the US military adventurism.
The fact that all this continues unabated and that the general is given space in the Foreign
Affairs is in our face evidence of the glaring democratic deficit existent in the US, and that
in fact democracy is nonexistent being long ago fully replaced by a de facto Oligarchy.
Doesn't matter what Dr. Bachevich writes or says or does. Unless and until the internal
political issues in the US are not addressed, the world will suffer.
While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so
many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China
and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we
ended up having the worst of both worlds...
and the tragedy is that even if Biden is elected,
that direction will not be reversed, or not likely. While I cannot vote, just because of
Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been
wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for
Tulsi...
Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State University;Yossi Shain, Professor
of Comparative Government and Diaspora Politics, Georgetown University
DATE & TIME
Jun. 23, 2003
3:00pm – 4:00pm
EVENT SPONSORS
AFRICA PROGRAM
ASIA PROGRAM
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
DIASPORA COMMUNITIES: INFLUENCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State University and Yossi Shain,
Professor of Comparative Government and Diaspora Politics, Georgetown University
In an age marked by the greater ease of communication and travel, recent research on ethnic groups and
conflict has begun to examine the influence of diaspora groups. Of particular interest are their efforts
to affect political environments in their "home" and host countries through their remittance of funds,
lobbying and the dissemination of information. Dr. Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor at North Dakota
University presented material from his recent edited volume Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign
Policy. Commentary was provided by Yossi Shain, Professor at Georgetown and Tel Aviv Universities, author
of "Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands" and a contributor to
Ambrosio's book. The meeting marked what moderator Carla Koppell, Interim Director of the Wilson Center's
Conflict Prevention Project called, "a relatively new area of analysis and dialogue for the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars."
Ambrosio, stated that as we seek to understand diaspora groups and their influence on U.S. foreign
policy, the question is not should ethnic groups influence foreign policy but how they effect foreign
policy, what are their goals and why do they mobilize. He began his presentation by defining ethnic
identity groups as "politically relevant social divisions based on a shared sense of cultural
distinctiveness." This would include racial, religious, national and ethnic identities. Ethnic identity
groups often form institutions that effect U.S. foreign policy or ethnic communities abroad, most
commonly in the form of ethnic lobbies.
These ethnic lobbies seek to influence U.S. policy in three ways. First, by framing the issues "they help
set the terms of debate" or "put items on the country's agenda." Second, they are a source of information
and analysis that provide a great deal of information to members of Congress and serve as a resource for
other branches of government and non-governmental organizations, and shaping general perspectives.
Finally, ethnic group lobbies provide policy oversight. "They examine the policies of the U.S.
government, propose policies, write letters and [are] involved in electioneering activities."
Ambrosio cautioned, that we must not believe that the effort by "ethnic groups to influence U.S. foreign
policy is new." It has a long history but "has become increasingly active in recent years." To
illustrate, he presented five periods of ethnic lobbying in the United States--Pre-WWI, WWI, Cold War,
post-Cold war, and post-September 11.
Since before WWI, there has been a "steady rise in the number of ethnic groups in the U.S. mobilizing to
influence the foreign policy process." Both the WWI and Cold War periods saw an explosion in the number
of interest groups affecting domestic and foreign policy. According to Ambrosio, however, it was the
post-Cold War period that gave way to a real increase in American multiculturalism. U.S. interests during
this period were not clearly defined, and the Congress had more influence than the Executive Branch over
policy-making. That balance of power according to Ambrosio allowed ethnic lobbying groups greater access
to policy-makers and potential influence in policy formation. Since September 11 quite the opposite is
true; there is a re-centralization of foreign policy in the White House. That re-centralization is
restricting influence over policy.
Ambrosio concluded by suggesting several areas for future research. First, the question of the legitimacy
of ethnic group influence on foreign policy deserves some attention. Second, more case study analysis is
need. In Ambrosio's view, we need to look at specific groups, and why or how they influence policy. In
particular, greater attention should be paid to the case of Muslim Americans. Third, is the need to
examine the relationship between ethnic and non-ethnic interest groups. For instance, Ambrosio suggested
that a comparison of the influence of "the Oil lobby versus the Armenian lobbies over the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan" could provide some interesting insights. Fourth, the reliance on natives
for intelligence information should be examined more closely. In the case of Iraq, there is the question
of "how Iraq exiles influence U.S. foreign policy." Finally, the export of American values must be better
understood. Further research could help the U.S. government mobilize diaspora groups in the United States
to deal with growing anti-Americanism throughout the world.
Shain, began by commenting that while the topic of diaspora group influence on U.S. foreign policy is
important, "it is perhaps an overblown topic." He agreed with Ambrosio that the idea of transnational
influence on U.S. foreign policy is not new. However, Shain contends that people have always been wary of
such influences. The topic, according to Shain, became more salient in the 1990's with the end of the
Cold War when the "us versus them posture was no longer in existence." It was also a time when more
people began "shuttling back and forth," retaining greater ties to their home country. According to
Professor Shain, the question is "who really speaks [in U.S. foreign policy]?" This was the period of
increasing American multiculturalism; the identity of the U.S. itself was changing. As a result,
attention to issues reflected the makeup of the U.S. For instance, before September 11, relations between
the United States and Mexico in the age of NAFTA, had center stage.
Shain suggested that while ethnic Americans mobilize to influence U.S. foreign policy, their ability to
do so is quite limited. Ethnic lobbies have more often been used to market American ideals in their home
countries or to "democratize their countries of origin." When they do have influence, it has generally
been at the electoral level in connection with a domestic issue, or when an issue is of little importance
to the administration. Professor Shain continued contending that the influence of ethnic lobbies relies
on their ability to advance a message that resonates with the American values and ideals. This is one
reason he believes Arab-Americans have had difficulty influencing U.S. foreign policy; there is a
perception that they are attempting to influence policy in ways that would be contrary to American
values. When issues promoted by an ethnic lobby are priorities, and are in line with the administration,
ethnic lobbies have the greatest influence in policy oversight.
According to Shain there are several issues that warrant future research and understanding. The first is
to understand the explosion of Islam in the United States; rather than lobbying for national country
interests, there is greater mobilization around religious beliefs. According to Shain, this has little to
do with ethnic lobbies; rather it is a question of who is mobilizing communities. This is a difficult
question to examine because, depending on the time period, different people will speak for a community.
Another issue for further study involves tracking and better understanding economic influence. For
example, donations for Israel at the same time support local organizations and Jewish-American issues;
financial support drives diaspora politics. At the same time, many country economies depend on money sent
from abroad; this gives diasporas a greater say in their "home" countries. "When you do any politics in
Haiti, there is the 10th department... the 10th department is here. This is the community that can
mobilize and has money."
The final issue for further study according to Shain is the concept of identity in America. While there
is identity as an American, many still "retain some affinity and memories" of their home country. This is
particularly galvanizing where there is still instability in the country of origin. Shain concluded that
the subject of the influence of diaspora communities in the U.S. was most important in regard to identity
in America. "Identity is critical for America because the American makeup has always been changing." "The
market, democracy and human rights are much more on the minds of ethnic groups as they relate to their
country of origin,"concluded Shain.
Carla Koppell, Conflict Prevention Project, Interim Director, 202-691-4083
Drafted by Channa Threat
HOSTED BY
AFRICA PROGRAM
The Africa Program works to address the most critical issues facing Africa and U.S.-Africa relations, build
mutually beneficial U.S.–Africa relations, and enhance knowledge and understanding about Africa in the United
States. The Program achieves its mission through in-depth research and analyses, including our blog Africa Up
Close, public discussion, working groups, and briefings that bring together policymakers, practitioners, and
subject matter experts to analyze and offer practical options for tackling key challenges in Africa and in
U.S.-Africa relations.
Read
more
ASIA PROGRAM
The Asia Program promotes policy debate and intellectual discussions on U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific as well
as political, economic, security, and social issues relating to the world's most populous and economically dynamic
region.
Read
more
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
The Wilson Center's Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond,
providing analyses and research that helps inform U.S. foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands
knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Read
more
TAGGED
SERIES
EVENT FEEDBACK
"... I concluded that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment, especially through the CIA. ..."
"... I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S. deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination. ..."
"... Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets. ..."
"... Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible? ..."
"... Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S. national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had? ..."
One of the fascinating phenomena in the JFK assassination is the fear of some Americans to
consider the possibility that the assassination was actually a regime-change operation carried
out by the U.S. national-security establishment rather than simply a murder carried out by a
supposed lone-nut assassin.
The mountain of evidence that has surfaced, especially since the 1990s, when the JFK Records
Act mandated the release of top-secret assassination-related records within the
national-security establishment, has been in the nature of circumstantial evidence, as compared
to direct evidence. Thus, I can understand that someone who places little faith in the power of
circumstantial evidence might study and review that evidence and decide to embrace the
"lone-nut theory" of the case.
But many of the people who have embraced the lone-nut theory have never spent any time
studying the evidence in the case and yet have embraced the lone-nut theory. Why? My hunch is
that the reason is that they have a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist," which
is the term the CIA many years ago advised its assets in the mainstream press to employ to
discredit those who were questioning the official narrative in the case.
Like many others, I have studied the evidence in the case. After doing that, I concluded
that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical
mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but
rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle
than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S.
national-security establishment, especially through the CIA.
Interestingly, there are those who have shown no reluctance to study the facts and
circumstances surrounding foreign regime-change operations carried out by the CIA and the
Pentagon. But when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, they run for the hills, exclaiming
that they don't want to be pulled down the "rabbit hole," meaning that they don't want to take
any chances of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
For those who have never delved into the Kennedy assassination but have interest in the
matter, let me set forth just a few of the reasons that the circumstantial evidence points to a
U.S. national-security state regime-change operation. Then, at the end of this article, I'll
point out some books and videos for those who wish to explore the matter more deeply.
I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S.
deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut
theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been
working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination.
Yet, when one examines the evidence in the case objectively, the lone-theory doesn't make
any sense. The only thesis that is consistent with the evidence and, well, common sense, is
that Oswald was an intelligence agent.
Ask yourself: How many communist Marines have you ever encountered or even heard of? My
hunch is none. Not one single communist Marine. Why would a communist join the Marines?
Communists hate the U.S. Marine Corps. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps hates communists. It
kills communists. It tortures them. It invades communist countries. It bombs them. It destroys
them.
What are the chances that the Marine Corps would permit an openly avowed communist to serve
in its ranks? None! There is no such chance. And yet, here was Oswald, whose Marine friends
were calling "Oswaldovitch," being assigned to the Atsugi naval base in Japan, where the U.S.
Air Force was basing its top-secret U-2 spy plane, one that it was using to secretly fly over
the Soviet Union. Why would the Navy and the Air Force permit a self-avowed communist even near
the U-2? Does that make any sense?
While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language. How
is that possible? How many people have you known who have become fluent in a foreign langue all
on their own, especially when they have a full-time job? Even if they are able to study a
foreign language from books, they have to practice conversing with people in that language to
become proficient in speaking it. How did Oswald do that? There is but one reasonable
possibility: Language lessons provided by U.S. military-suppled tutors.
After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S.
embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned
while serving in the military to the Soviet Union. Later, when he stated his desire to return
to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was
given the red-carpet treatment on his return. No grand jury summons. No grand-jury indictment.
No FBI interrogation. No congressional summons to testify.
Remember: This was at the height of the Cold War, when the U.S. national-security
establishment was telling Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy based in
Moscow that was hell-bent on taking over the United States and the rest of the world. The U.S.
had gone to war in Korea because of the supposed communist threat. They would do the same in
Vietnam. They would target Cuba and Fidel Castro with invasion and assassination. They would
pull off regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy assassination: Iran (1953),
Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960s), Congo (1963), and Chile (1973).
During the 1950s, they were targeting any American who had had any connections to communism.
They were subpoenaing people to testify before Congress as to whether they had ever been
members of the Communist Party. They were destroying people's reputations and costing them
their jobs. Remember the case of Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers who were criminally
prosecuted and incarcerated. Recall the Hollywood blacklist. Recall the Rosenbergs, who they
executed for giving national-security state secrets to the Soviets. Think about Jane Fonda.
Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats
suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and
Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those
they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets.
Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One
universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which
Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed
communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative
committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible?
Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He
even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S.
government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a
private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a
supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's
avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S.
national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had?
"... It's is also worth noting that there are still thousands of assassination-related records that the National Archives is keeping secret, owing to a request by the CIA to President Trump early in his administration to continue keeping them secret, a request that Trump granted. The CIA's reason for the continued secrecy? The CIA told Trump that the disclosure of the 56-year-old records to the American people would endanger "national security." ..."
"... Given all these facts and circumstances, a question naturally arises: How can anyone with a critical mind blindly accept the official narrative surrounding the Kennedy assassination? Doing so only goes to show how a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" can influence people's behavior. ..."
Let's now move to the autopsy
that the U.S. military conducted on the President
John F. Kennedy's body on the evening of the assassination, November 22, 1963.
Texas law required the autopsy to be conducted in Texas. Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas Medical
Examiner, insisted on conducting the autopsy immediately upon Kennedy's death. An armed team of
Secret Service agents, brandishing their guns, refused to permit that to happen and forced their
way out of Parkland Hospital. Operating on orders, their objective was to get the president's body
to the airport, where Vice President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. His objective: to put the
autopsy in the hands of the U.S. military.
In the 1970s, the U.S. House of Representatives opened up a new investigation into Kennedy's
assassination. During and after those hearings, a group of Navy enlisted men came forward with a
remarkable story. They stated that they had secretly carried Kennedy's body into the morgue at
Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland about an hour-and-a-half before the body was officially
brought into the morgue.
They also stated that they had all been sworn to secrecy immediately after the autopsy and had
been threatened with severe punishment, including criminal prosecution, if they ever revealed to
anyone the classified secrets about the autopsy that they had acquired.
The Boyajian Report
In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board, which was formed to enforce the JFK
Records Act, uncovered an official document that had been kept secret for more than 30 years. It
became known as the Boyajian Report. It had been created by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian
immediately after the autopsy. Boyajian gave a copy of the report to the ARRB. Boyajian and his
report confirmed that his team carried the president's body into the morgue in a cheap
military-style shipping casket at 6:35 p.m., about 1 and 1/2 hours before 8 p.m., the time that the
body was officially brought into the morgue in the expensive, ornate casket into which it had been
placed in Dallas.
On the night of the autopsy, one of the autopsy physicians, Admiral James Humes, telephoned U.S.
Army Colonel Pierre Finck asking him to come to the morgue and assist with the autopsy. That phone
call was made at 8 p.m. During the conversation, Humes told Finck that they already had some x-rays
made of the president's head. Yet, how could they have x-rays of the president's head, given that
the president's body was being officially brought into the morgue at 8 p.m.? Humes's testimony
inadvertently confirmed the accuracy of the Boyajian Report and the statements of the enlisted men
who had secretly carried the president's body into the morgue an hour-and-a-half before the
official 8 p.m. time that the body was brought into the morgue.
The magic bullet
During the autopsy, Finck began to "dissect" the president's neck wound, a wound that later
became embroiled in what became known as the "magic bullet" controversy. As Finck began the
procedure, he was ordered by some unknown figure to cease and desist and to leave the wound alone.
Finck complied with the order. The order showed that the three autopsy physicians were not in
charge of the autopsy and that there was a higher force within the deep state that was
orchestrating and directing the overall operation.
The brain examinations
It's worth mentioning the brain examinations that took place as part of the autopsy. In an
autopsy, there is only one brain examination. In the Kennedy autopsy, there were two, the second of
which involved a brain that could not possibly have belonged to the president. Rather than detail
the circumstances surrounding that unusual occurrence, I'll simply link to the following two
articles that the mainstream press published about it for those who might be interested in that
aspect of the autopsy:
It is also worth noting that when Congress enacted the JFK Records Act mandating that federal
agencies had to release their long-secret records relating to the assassination, the law that
brought the ARRB into existence to enforce the law expressly prohibited the ARRB from investigating
any aspect of the assassination. It was a provision that the ARRB board strictly enforced on the
ARRB staff, which thereby prevented the staff from investigating the two separate brain
examinations once they were discovered or, for that matter, anything else.
Continued secrecy
It's is also worth noting that there are still thousands of assassination-related records that
the National Archives is keeping secret, owing to a request by the CIA to President Trump early in
his administration to continue keeping them secret, a request that Trump granted. The CIA's reason
for the continued secrecy? The CIA told Trump that the disclosure of the 56-year-old records to the
American people would endanger "national security."
Fraudulent autopsy photos
The ARRB also took the sworn testimony of a woman named Saundra Spencer, a U.S. Navy petty
officer who served the the Navy's photography lab in Washington, D.C. She worked closely with the
White House on both classified and non-classified photographs. The ARRB summoned her to testify,
and she gave a remarkable story. She testified that on the weekend of the assassination, she was
asked to develop, on a top-secret basis, the official autopsy photographs in the Kennedy autopsy.
When the ARRB showed her the autopsy photographs in the official record, she closely examined them
and then testified directly and unequivocally that they were not the photographs she developed on
the weekend of the assassination.
Fear
Given all these facts and circumstances, a question naturally arises: How can anyone
with a critical mind blindly accept the official narrative surrounding the Kennedy assassination?
Doing so only goes to show how a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" can influence
people's behavior.
* * *
For those who wish to delve into the Kennedy regime-change operation more deeply, I
recommend starting with the following books and videos:
1) Allow CIA, corporations, media, to learn to topple nations
2) Use them to achieve geopolitical goals
3) Allow them to become self-directing and do the same to achieve corporate goals
4) They realize instead of your state using them, they can infiltrate and use the state
5) They realize they can topple your nation too for corporate goals
6) PROFIT
"... Once the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI's conduct. Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ's request - instead calling on an outside lawyer to make arguments against the DOJ's move to drop the case. ..."
"... Shortly before the DOJ move to dismiss, former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack suddenly withdrew from the case (and others). Flynn's new attorney, Sidney Powell, said that government documents revealed "further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically." ..."
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/25/2020 - 04:12 Update (2135ET): Missouri appellate attorney John Reeves has weighed in
on today's decision by the US Court of Appeals for DC ordering Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant a
DOJ request to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
The opinion, authored by one of the three judges on the panel, Neomi J. Rao, " thoroughly
demolishes " a dissenting opinion by Judge Robert Wilkins - who Reeves thinks was so off-base
that he " shot himself in the foot " when it comes to any chance of an 'en-banc review' in
which the Flynn decision would be kicked back for a full review by the DC appellate court.
Reeves, who has written filings for US Supreme Court cases, unpacks Rao's "outstanding
opinion" in the below Twitter thread, conveniently adding which page you can find what he's
referring to ( condensed below after the first tweet, emphasis ours ):
THREAD re: Flynn mandamus opinion
1) Judge Rao's opinion--joined by Judge Henderson--granting Flynn mandamus is outstanding not
only for its legal reasoning, but also for how it COMPLETELY EVISCERATES Judge Wilkins'
dissenting opinion. https://t.co/LBqGihkrMH
In all my years of appellate practice, I don't think I've ever seen a non-US Supreme Court
appellate opinion that so thoroughly demolishes a dissenting opinion as this one. Judge Rao
could not have done better in writing the opinion , and it should be required law school
rdg.
In addition, Judge Wilkins' dissenting opinion is so off-the-mark that I believe he has shot
himself in the foot for purposes of en banc review --in other words, he has ensured that
otherwise-sympathetic judges on the DC Circuit will vote against en banc review.
Judge Rao comes out swinging by holding that its earlier opinion in Fokker "foreclose[s] the
district court's proposed scrutiny of the government's motion to dismiss the Flynn
prosecution." p. 7.
In relying on Fokker, Judge Rao explicitly rejects Judge Wilkinson's argument that Fokker's
holding is dicta (that is, non-binding) . She holds Fokker "is directly controlling here." p.
14.
Keep in mind that Fokker was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee. Judge
Srinivasan does NOT want Fokker's legitimacy undermined , no matter his politics.
Judge Wilkins' dissent implies that Fokker was wrongly decided , and that it conflicts with
other federal appellate courts. See p. 23 of 28. Judge Srinivasan will NOT be impressed by this
argument in deciding whether to grant en banc rehearing . Fokker does not create a split.
Judge Rao goes on to emphasize that while judicial inquiry MAY be justified in some
circumstances, Flynn's situation "is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry
is warranted." p. 6.
Rao notes that Flynn agrees with the Govt.'s dismissal motion, so there's no risk of his
rights being violated. In addition, the Government has stated insufficient evidence exists to
convict Flynn . p. 6.
Rao also holds that " a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the
prosecution's charging decisions. " p. 7.
But by appointing amicus and attempting to hold a hearing on these matters, the district
court is inflicting irreparable harm on the Govt. because it is subjecting its prosecutorial
decisions to outside inquiry. p. 8
Thus, Judge Rao holds, it is NOT true that the district court has "yet to act" in this
matter, contrary to Judge Wilkins' assertions. p. 16.
" [T]he district court HAS acted here....[by appointing] one private citizen to argue that
another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is
willing to pursue the charges. " p. 16. This justified mandamus being issued NOW.
Judge Rao also makes short work of Judge Wilkins' argument that the court may not consider
the harm to the Government in deciding whether to grant mandamus bc the Government never filed
a petition for mandamus. p. 17.
Judge Rao notes " [o]ur court has squarely rejected this argument, " and follows with a
plethora of supporting citations. p. 17.
Judge Rao also notes--contrary to what many legal commentators have misled the public to
believe--that it is "black letter law" that the Govt. can seek dismissal even after a guilty
plea is made . This does not justify greater scrutiny by the district court. p. 6, footnote
1.
As to Judge Wilkins' argument that a district court may conduct greater scrutiny where, as
here, the Govt. reverses its position in prosecuting a case, Judge Rao points out that " the
government NECESSARILY reverses its position whenever it moves to dismiss charges.... " p.
13
"Given the absence of any legitimate basis to question the presumption of regularity, there
is no justification to appoint a private citizen to oppose the government's motion to dismiss
Flynn's prosecution. " p. 13.
But Judge Rao saves her most stinging and brutal takedown of Judge Wilkins' dissent for the
end.....(cont)
Judge Rao writes that " the dissent swings for the fences--and misses--by analogizing a Rule
48(a) motion to dismiss with a selective prosecution claim. " p. 17. (cont)
While it is true that the Executive cannot selectively prosecute certain individuals "based
on impermissible considerations," p. 18, " the equal protection remedy is to dismiss the
prosecution, NOT to compel the Executive to bring another prosecution ." p. 18 (emph.
added).
And Judge Rao is just getting warmed up here....She then notes that " unwarranted judicial
scrutiny of a prosecutor's motion to dismiss puts the court in an entirely different position
[than selective prosecution caselaw assigns the court] ." p. 18 (cont)
"Rather than allow the Executive Branch to dismiss a problematic prosecution, the court [as
Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan would have it] assumes the role of inquisitor, prolonging a
prosecution deemed illegitimate by the Executive. " p. 18 (cont).
And now for Judge Rao's KO to Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan: " Judges assume that role in
some countries, but Article III gives no prosecutorial or inquisitional power to federal judges
." p. 18. (cont)
In other words, Judge Rao is likening Judge Wilkins' arguments, and Judge Sullivan's
actions, to what is done in non-democratic, third world countries . p. 18. Outstanding opinion.
No mercy . END
Like a liquid-metal terminator with half its head blown apart, the case against Michael
Flynn just won't die.
Hours after the US Court of Appeals for DC ordered Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant the DOJ's
request to drop the case, the retired 'resistance' judge hired to defend Sullivan's actions has
filed a motion requesting an extension to file his findings against Flynn .
The D.C. Appeals Court today vacated the lawless appointment of a left-wing shadow
prosecutor to go after Flynn.
Gleeson, the Resistance dead-ender hired by Sullivan, is ignoring the order and plowing
ahead with his illegal inquisition against Flynn. https://t.co/bOeG7pRJxv
In a major victory for Michael Flynn, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the Justice Department's request to
dismiss the case against the former Trump National Security Adviser.
"Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto,
and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by
counsel, it is ORDERED that Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the
District Court is directed to grant the government's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; nd the
District Court's order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot , in accordance with the
opinion of the court filed herein this date," reads the order.
In their decision, the appeals court wrote: " Decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges
- no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring - lie
squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion . "
"The Judiciary's role under Rule 48 is thus confined to "extremely limited circumstances in
extraordinary cases.""
Hence, no dice for Judge Sullivan.
Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against
General Michael Flynn!
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with
former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition
following the 2016 US election. He later withdrew his plea after securing new legal counsel,
while evidence emerged which revealed the FBI had laid a '
perjury trap ' - despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him in January, 2017 said
they thought he was telling the truth . Agents persisted hunting Flynn despite the FBI's
recommendation to
close the case.
Once the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case
after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI's conduct.
Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ's request - instead calling on an outside lawyer to make
arguments against the DOJ's move to drop the case.
In their Wednesday decision , the Appeals court noted that "the government's motion includes
an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn's guilt into doubt."
Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn
allegedly made false statements was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's
counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn." -US Court of Appeals
Shortly before the DOJ move to dismiss, former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack suddenly
withdrew from the case (and others). Flynn's new attorney, Sidney Powell, said that government
documents revealed "further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically."
Sullivan urged the federal appeals court to also reject Flynn's bid to bring an end to the
case, which has now ruled against the judge .
An appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that the case against President Trump's one-time
national security adviser, Michael Flynn, must end. The Justice Department had dropped charges
against Flynn, but his case remained open. In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the Washington DC
Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ended the case against Flynn, ordering federal judge Emmet
Sullivan to heed the Justice Department's advice and close the case. Sullivan had attempted to
keep the case active, even though the Justice Department dropped its charges against Flynn last
month.
The appeals battle was a last-ditch showdown between Flynn and the Justice Department on one
side, and Sullivan on the other. Though reporters as recently as last week reckoned the appeals
court would side with Sullivan, they were proven wrong on Wednesday morning.
@Emslander
Hannah Arendt noted the 'banality of evil' long ago. It's pretty common, sad to say.
The military is filled with 'ordinary' people who apparently have no qualms about
murdering anyone their 'superiors' point to and say, "Kill!" They are just following orders,
after all.
The number of 'evil players' is simply staggering, whether we want to admit it or not. And
yes, they DO drink watery beer and watch "Wheel of Fortune" and have bar-b-ques. John Wayne
Gacy comes to mind immediately. Who knows who our neighbors really are, deep down inside?
As for naming names, gosh, I seem to have lost my DARPA personnel directory of evil
geniuses, and my CIA directory of same as well.
(But as for who REALLY controls things and gives the orders, I think you may have nailed
it with Sister Aimee. And she was HOT in her day, and apparently knew how to have a good
time. Hallelujah, brother ..)
The banality of evil is often not known until revisionist historians are able to make
connections post facto. In the moment people do not have enough information to make informed
decisions.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now,
and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --
judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
For example, during the French Revolution most of the participants had no idea of what a
Jacobian was.
Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution, most participants had no idea of who Kuhn and Loeb
was.
Or, before WW1 was the machinations of the Milner Group known?
Or, before WW2, the machinations of Zionists to get Balfour.
Or, how Focus group had gotten to Churchill with loans.
Why the evil? It is usually hidden string pullers who are afraid of losing their vaunted
position in ruling hierarchy. They may actually think they are doing good, because doing good
is defined as "what is good for me, or my in-group."
Pompeo is suggesting that Iran will spend tens of millions on planes, fly them unopposed
through the radar coverage of several countries, to let Iranian Kamikaze pilots crash them into
some temple in Nepal.
This does not make any sense. No foreign politician will be impressed by this 'argument'.
Pompeo's tweet is for consumption at home.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a long-awaited U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) draft resolution extending an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in
October, setting the stage for a great-power clash and likely veto in the U.N.'s principal
security body, according to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy .
...
If passed, the resolution would fall under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, making it legally
binding and enforceable. But the U.S. measure, according to several U.N. Security Council
diplomats, stands little chance of being adopted by the 15-nation council.
...
Some council diplomats and other nonproliferation experts see the U.S. move as a way to score
political points at home , not to do anything about Iran's destabilizing activities in the
region.
"The skeptic in me says that the objective of this exercise is to go through the arms
embargo resolution, and when it fails, to use that as an excuse to get a snapback of the
embargo, and if and when that fails too, to use as a political talking point in the election
campaign ," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department nonproliferation official now at
the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Since China and Russia are almost certain
to ignore any U.N. arms embargo forced by U.S. maneuvers, the practical impact on Iran's
ability to cause mischief will be minimal, he said.
"It's not actually about stopping any arms from China and Russia, it's about winning a
political argument ," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi,
both wrote to the 15-member council and U.N. chief Antonio Guterres as the United States
threatens to spark a so-called sanctions snapback under the Iran nuclear deal, even though
Washington quit the accord in 2018.
Lavrov wrote in the May 27 letter, made public this week, that the United States was being
"ridiculous and irresponsible."
"This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb
about having one's cake and eating it," Lavrov wrote.
Washington has threatened to trigger a return of U.N. sanctions on Iran if the Security
Council does not extend an arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's deal with
world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
...
Lavrov cited a 1971 International Court of Justice opinion, which found that a fundamental
principle governing international relationships was that "a party which disowns or does not
fulfill its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to
derive from the relationship."
Despite the evident failure to convince others the U.S. continues make stupid
arguments :
Russia and China will be isolated at the United Nations if they continue down the "road to
dystopia" by blocking a U.S. bid to extend a weapons ban on Iran, U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook
told Reuters ahead of his formal pitch of the embargo to the U.N. Security Council on
Wednesday.
...
"We see a widening gap between Russia and China and the international community," Hook said
in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday evening.
The U.S. has left the JCPoA deal and can not claim a right under that deal to snap back the
sanctions that the deal has lifted. It is the U.S. that is isolated. Even its allies do not
support the attempt:
"We firmly believe that any unilateral attempt to trigger UN sanctions snapback would have
serious adverse consequences in the UNSC," the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and
Germany said in a statement on June 19. "We would not support such a decision which would be
incompatible with our current efforts to preserve the JCPoA."
The Trump policy against Iran has failed. He has tried a 'maximum pressure' campaign to
blackmail Iran into more concessions. But despite sanctions and economic problems caused by
them Iran is not willing to talk with him. Its conditions for talks
are clear :
"We have no problem with talks with the U.S., but only if Washington fulfils its obligations
under the nuclear deal, apologies and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015
deal," Rouhani said in a televised speech.
The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the new sanctions against Syria under
the 'Ceasar's Law', have been helping Iran to
strengthen its position :
Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a
result of the US's flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the
implementation of "Caesar' Law", Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and
finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.
Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the
needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran
considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before.
With Iran's influence growing and Russia making
inroads even with once staunch U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia it seems that real U.S.
influence in the Middle East is on a decisive downturn.
Whatever Pompous Pompeo says or tweets will not change that. But there's a sucker born every
minute. Some of those may still fall for the stuff he says.
--- Twice a year I ask readers of this blog to support my effort. Please consider contributing
.
Posted by b on June 24, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink
"... It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior." ..."
"... The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps ..."
"... Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. ..."
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. It's goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself. This is an ideological movement Even now, many of us pretend this is about police
brutality. We think we can fix it by regulating chokeholds or spending more on de-escalation
training. We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening. But we have no
idea what we are up against. ..These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political
movement and someone needs to save the country from it." Tucker
Carlson
Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy. The
Black Lives Matter protests are just the tip of the spear, they are an expression of public
outrage that is guaranteed under the first amendment. But don't be deceived, there's more here
than meets the eye. BLM is funded by foundations that seek to overthrow our present form of
government and install an authoritarian regime guided by technocrats, oligarchs and
corporatists all of who believe that Chinese-type despotism is far-more compatible with
capitalism than "inefficient" democracy. The chaos in the streets is merely the beginning of an
excruciating transition from one system to another. This is an excerpt from an article by F.
William Engdahl at Global Research:
"By 2016, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network .. That
year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led
Movement Fund (BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the
Movement for Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros
foundations had already given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement .. ..
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to
the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations." (
"America's Own Color
Revolution ", Global Research)
$100 million is alot of money. How has that funding helped BLM expand its presence in
politics and social media? How many activists and paid employees operate within the network
disseminating information, building new chapters, hosting community outreach programs, and
fine-tuning an emergency notification system that allows them to put tens of thousands of
activists on the streets in cities across the country at a moment's notice? Isn't that what
we've seen for the last three weeks, throngs of angry protestors swarming in more than 400
cities across America all at the beck-and-call of a shadowy group whose political intentions
are still not clear?
And what about the rioting, looting and arson that broke out in numerous cities following
the protests? Was that part of the script too? Why haven't BLM leaders condemned the
destruction of private property or offered a public apology for the downtown areas that have
been turned into wastelands? In my own hometown of Seattle, the downtown corridor– which
once featured Nordstrom, Pottery Barn and other upscale retail shops– is now a
checkerboard of broken glass, plywood covers and empty streets all covered in a thick layer of
garish spray-paint. The protest leaders said they wanted to draw attention to racial injustice
and police brutality. Okay, but how does looting Nordstrom help to achieve that goal?
And what role have the Democrats played in protest movement?
They've been overwhelmingly supportive, that's for sure. In fact, I can't think of even one
Democrat who's mentioned the violence, the looting or the toppling of statues. Why is that?
It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in
the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente
cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see
through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed
through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of
time sentences could be reduced for good behavior."
According to the Black Agenda
Repor t: "Biden and (South Carolina's Strom) Thurmond joined hands to push 1986 and 1988
drug enforcement legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine as well as other draconian measures that implicate him as one of the initiators
of what became mass incarceration. " Biden also spearheaded "the attacks on Anita Hill when she
came forward to testify against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas". All told, Biden's
record on race is much worse than Trump's despite the media's pathetic attempts to portray
Trump as Adolph Hitler. It's just more bunkum from the dissembling media.
Bottom line: The Democrats think they can ride racial division and social unrest all the way
to the White House. That's what they are betting on.
So, yes, the Dems are exploiting the protests for political advantage, but it goes much
deeper than that. After all, we know from evidence that was uncovered during the Russiagate
investigation, that DNC leaders are intimately linked to the Intel agencies, law enforcement
(FBI), and the elite media. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these deep state
agents and assets work together to shape the narrative that they think gives them the best
chance of regaining power. Because, that's what this is really all about, power. Just as
Russiagate was about power (removing the president using disinformation, spies, surveillance
and other skulduggery.), and just as the Covid-19 fiasco was essentially about power
(collapsing the economy while imposing medical martial law on the population.), so too, the BLM
protest movement is also about power, the power to inflict massive damage on the country's main
urban centers with the intention of destabilizing the government, restructuring the economy and
paving the way for a Democratic victory in November. It's all about power, real, unalloyed
political muscle.
Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of what is currently transpiring was written by
Niles Niemuth at the World Socialist Web Site. Here's what he said about the widespread
toppling of statues:
"The attacks on the monuments were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the
Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a
narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. This
campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the
reactionary political interests driving it.
It is worth noting that the one institution seemingly immune from this purge is the
Democratic Party, which served as the political wing of the Confederacy and, subsequently,
the KKK.
This filthy historical legacy is matched only by the Democratic Party's contemporary
record in supporting wars that, as a matter of fact, primarily targeted nonwhites. Democrats
supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and under Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. The
New York Times was a leading champion and propagandist for all of these war." (
"Hands
off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!, WSWS)
What the author is referring to is The 1619 Project, which is a racialized version of
American history that was published by the Times on August 19, 2019. The deliberately-distorted
version of history was cobbled together in anticipation of increasing social unrest and racial
antagonism. The rioting, looting and vast destruction of America's urban core can all be traced
back to a document that postulates that the country was founded on racial hatred and
exploitation. In other words, The 1619 Project provides the perfect ideological justification
for the chaos and violence that has torn the country apart for the last three weeks. This is an
excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Keep in mind, this essay in the WSWS was written a full year before BLM protests broke out
across the country. Was Hannah-Jones enlisted to create a document that would provide the dry
tinder for the massive and coordinated demonstrations that have left the country stunned and
divided?
Probably, after all, (as noted above) the author's theory is that one race is genetically
programed to exploit the other. ( "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. ")
Well, if we assume that whites are genetically and irreversibly "racist", then we must also
assume that the country that these whites founded is racist and evil. Thus, the only logical
remedy for this situation, is to crush the white segment of the population, destroy their
symbols, icons, and history, and replace the system of government with one that better reflects
the values of the emerging non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the
rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent
revolution.
The 1619 Project is a calculated provocation meant to exacerbate racial animosities and pave
the way to open conflagration. And it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. The
nation is split into warring camps while Washington has devolved into fratricidal warfare. Was
that the objective, to destabilize the country in preparation for the dissolution of the
current system followed by a fundamental restructuring of the government consistent with the
identity politics lauded by the Democrats?
The Democrats, the Intel agencies and the media are all in bed together fomenting unrest
with the intention of decimating the economy, crushing the emerging opposition and imposing
their despotic one-party system on all of us. Here's a clip from a piece by Paul Craig Roberts
that sums up the role of the New York Times in inciting race-based violence:
"The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their
anti-white "1619 project," an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in
blacks and guilt in white people.
Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to
brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times fomenting of racial hatred in a multicultural
society?
The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the
President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New
York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled
General Flynn's frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of
white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white
supremacism.
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and
intentionally making a multicultural America impossible . By threatening white people with
the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting
the rise of white supremacy." (
"The New York Times Editorial Board Is a Threat to Multicultural America ", The Unz
Review)
The editors of the Times don't hate whites, they are merely attacking the growing number of
disillusioned white working people who have left the Democratic party in frustration due to
their globalist policies regarding trade, immigration, offshoring, outsourcing and the
relentless hollowing out of the nation's industrial core . The Dems have abandoned these people
altogether and –now that they realize they will never be able to lure them back into
their camp– they've decided to wage a full-blown, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war
on them. They've decided to crush them mercilessly and fill their ranks with multi-ethnic,
bi-racial groups that will work for pennies on the dollar. (which will keep the Dems corporate
supporters happy.) So, no, the Times does not hate white people. What they hate is the growing
populist movement that derailed Hillary Clinton and put anti-globalist Trump in the White
House. That's the real target of this operation, the disillusioned throng of working people who
have washed their hands of the Democrats for good. Here's more background from Paul Craig
Roberts:
"On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times'
employees to refocus the Times' attack on Trump . The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from
Trump-Russia to Trump's racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential
election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. Of course, if Trump is a racist it means
that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet's view, Americans have
always been racist. To establish this narrative, the New York Times has launched the "1619
Project," the purpose of which is "to reframe the country's history."
According to the Washington Examiner, "The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that
everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven
throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It
begins with an overview of race in America -- 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false
when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.'
The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all
sections of the Times -- news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project
intends to take the "reframing" of the United States into the schools where white Americans
are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this
brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says "this project
takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has
shaped their country's history." In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery
the ONLY explanation of America.
At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times' employees to
refocus the Times' attack on President Trump, Baquet said: "Race in the next year is going to
be a huge part of the American story." (
"Is White Genocide Possible? ", The Unz Review)
Repeat: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." Either
Baquet has a crystal ball or he had a pretty good idea of the way in which the 1619 Project was
going to be used . I suspect it was the latter.
For the last 3 and a half years, Democrats and the media have ridiculed anyone who opposes
their globalist policies as racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, Bible-thumping,
gun-toting, flag-waving, Nascar boosting, white nationalist "deplorables". Now they have
decided to intensify the assault on mainly white working people by preemptively destroying the
economy, destabilizing the country, and spreading terror far and wide. It's another vicious
psy-ops campaign designed to thoroughly demoralize and humiliate the enemy who just happen to
be the American people. Here's more form the WSWS:
" It is no coincidence that the promotion of this racial narrative of American history by
the Times, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class
layers it represents, comes amid the growth of class struggle in the US and around the
world.
The 1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into
the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class. The Democrats
think it will be beneficial to shift their focus for the time being from the reactionary,
militarist anti-Russia campaign to equally reactionary racial politics." (" The New York
Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history " WSWS)
Can you see how the protests are being used to promote the political objectives of elites
operating behind the mask of "impartial" reporting? The scheming NY Times has replaced the
enlightenment principles articulated in our founding documents with a sordid tale of racial
hatred and oppression. The editors seek to eliminate everything we believe as Americans so they
can brainwash us into believing that we are evil people deserving of humiliation, repudiation
and punishment. Here's more from the same article:
"In the months preceding these events, the New York Times, speaking for dominant sections
of the Democratic political establishment, launched an effort to discredit both the American
Revolution and the Civil War. In the New York Times' 1619 Project, the American Revolution
was presented as a war to defend slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was cast as a garden variety
racist
The attacks on the monuments to these men were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied
attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to
create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial
struggle . This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes
entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history" , WSWS)
Ideas have consequences, and the incendiary version of events disseminated by the Times has
added fuel to a fire that's spread from one coast to the other. Given the damage that has been
done to cities across the country, it would be nice to know how Dean Baquet knew that "race was
going to play a huge part" in upcoming events? It's all very suspicious. Here's more:
" Given the 1619 Project's black nationalist narrative, it may appear surprising that
nowhere in the issue do the names Malcolm X or Black Panthers appear. Unlike the black
nationalists of the 1960s, Hannah-Jones does not condemn American imperialism. She boasts
that "we [i.e. African-Americans] are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the
United States military," and celebrates the fact that "we" have fought "in every war this
nation has waged." Hannah-Jones does not note this fact in a manner that is at all critical.
She does not condemn the creation of a "volunteer" army whose recruiters prey on
poverty-stricken minority youth. There is no indication that Hannah-Jones opposes the "War on
Terror" and the brutal interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria -- all
supported by the Times -- that have killed and made homeless upwards of 20 million people. On
this issue, Hannah-Jones is remarkably "color-blind." She is unaware of, or simply
indifferent to, the millions of "people of color" butchered and made refugees by the American
war machine in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world histor y", WSWS)
So, black nationalists like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are excluded from the The 1619
Project's narrative, but the author boasts that blacks "are the most likely of all racial
groups to serve in the US military"?? How does that happen unless Hannah-Jones was coached by
Democrat leaders about who should and shouldn't be included in the text? None of this passes
the smell test. It all suggests that the storyline was shaped by people who had a specific goal
in mind. That isn't history, it's fiction written by people who have an ax to grind. The Times
even admitted as much in response to the blistering criticism by five of "the most widely read
and respected authorities on US history." The New York TimesMagazine editor in
chief Jake Silverstein rejected the historians' objections saying:
"The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in
the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American
life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at
current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is?"
WTF! "We are not ourselves historians"? That's the excuse?? Give me a break!
The truth is that there was never any attempt to provide an accurate account of events. From
the very onset, the goal was to create a storyline that fit the politics, the politics of
provocation, incitement, racial hatred, social unrest and violence. That's what the Times and
their allies wanted, and that's what they got.
The Deep State Axis: CIA, DNC, NYT
The three-way alliance between the CIA, the Elite Media, and the Democratic leadership has
clearly strengthened and grown since the failed Russiagate fiasco. All three parties were
likely involved in the maniacal hyping of the faux-Covid pandemic which paved the way for
Depression era unemployment, tens of thousands of bankrupt businesses and a sizable portion of
the US population thrust into destitution. Now, these deep state loyalists are promoting a
"falsified" race-based version of history that pits one group against the other while diverting
attention from the deliberate destruction of the economy and the further consolidation of
wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.
Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace.
Stopped reading the Times after the buildup to the Iraq War, when it was clear they were
lying. Everyone please stop reading the Times, and in particular stop referring to what they
are writing. Act like they don't exist. If enough do, they won't.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates.
They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where
Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40
takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
"Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy."
I am reminded of david horowitz and chrissy hitchens
And how they promoted Israeli interests after first pretending to be independent thinkers
to gain creed for the switch. Standard zionazi-gay psywar tactic.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump
debates.
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
Stupid and planned?
Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for
power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. Why should DNC care if Trump is 're-elected'? And if
they don't care, who not take a stab at installing an intersectional DNC pinnacle fraudster
via the griftiest, most insulting, infuriating way possible? They can't lose.
"... I see Geo has already pointed out the obvious absurdity that any of these criminal were in the least bit worried bout US security. If anything, they were overtly sacrificing US security on behalf of an enemy state. ..."
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security,
I see Geo has already pointed out the obvious absurdity that any of these criminal were in
the least bit worried bout US security. If anything, they were overtly sacrificing US security
on behalf of an enemy state. Not sure why you write stuff like that Mr. G, unless you just
expect people to ignore it as perfunctory tripe, but there are some, no doubt, who read those
words and assume you are actually saying they care about the US. When you and I both know they
don't.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria.
Nope.
They were and are both amoral, opportunistic zio-whores, whose only ideology is what's good
for Clinton and Obama, respectively. Clinton didn't bomb Serbia out of some humanitarian love
of freedom and democracy, and Obama didn't destroy Libya and Syria except to serve his
zio-masters. Duh.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good,
I was telling my gal the other day, that Trump could be The One to End the Fed, by allowing
Goldman Sachs and the rest of them to feast at the Treasury to their heart's content.
I reminded her of Jackson's quote about hurting ten thousand families, in order to save
fifty thousand. And in a similar vein, Trump could be setting up the collapse of the ZUS
economy, which will hurt hundreds of millions, but if he could collapse the dollar, he very
well might save billions of people's lives.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have
used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you
divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me
that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand
families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will
ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.
I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."
– Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European
role
I beg to differ, Mr. G.
I would posit that her most famous utterings were when she imperiously demanded that "Yats
is our guy". IOW, the way she was promoting "democracy" in Ukraine, was by corrupting the
system with 5 billions of tax payer lucre- to the point where she, *personally* could decide
who- (Jewish banker) would be president in a nation thousands of miles away. That's how
the ZUS promotes "democracy" in foreign lands. (and, I suspect that it was the way that call
was leaked, that is the fount of all the rage at Russia, for "Russian hacking', breaking
long-standing diplomatic protocols against exposing other nation's treachery and corruption to
the 'little people').
Nuland's view . Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and
Europe
for Nuland to talk about 'International law and the 'integrity of European elections'.. is
like Jerry Sandusky lecturing people on child welfare.
That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level,
OK, so not only Nuland but also John Bolton is screeching that Trump is the disaster of our
times.
Not since John McCain has a mad dog Zionist insider been so full of hate for Trump.
Hmm..
"... First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich. ..."
"... And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom. ..."
"... Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. ..."
"... The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?) ..."
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
=>
List of Bookmarks ◄► ◄ ► ▲▼ Add
to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next
New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text
Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela
and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something
to bolster his "strong president" credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus
and black lives matter.
Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three
predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out
neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald
Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot
Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice
President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who
believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance
its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where
the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed
Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with
Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the
first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American
citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the
exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who
personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules
when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been
attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, " Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show
the world we mean business. "
One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans,
Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute
and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria
Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and
a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns
primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is
regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions
was "worth it." Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member
of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian
government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt
autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department,
provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to
include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to
interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget , but
Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the
replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating
conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in
Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and
directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration
was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Her use of the word
"frontline" is suggestive.
Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military
capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the
Taliban's Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and
sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable
relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving
in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no
compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to
join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign
Affairs magazine on the proper way for the United States manage
what she sees as the Russian "threat." It is entitled "How a Confident America Should Deal
With Russia." Foreign Affairs , it should be observed, is an establishment house organ
produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both
neocons and liberal interventionists.
Nuland's view is that the United States lost confidence in its own "ability to change the
game" against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play "a weak hand well because the United
States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties,
international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the
United States and Europe Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the
Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent
U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a
shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included
incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about
the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as
Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as
a rogue state threatening the "liberal world." She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a
threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that
Putin might seek " reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from
vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal
democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO
enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO
was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin's
agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms."
Nuland's view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy.
Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat,
particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take
place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin's great fear over the NATO expansion
derives from his having " always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous
states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk
re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations."
Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be
confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a
comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as "Russian troops regularly
test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country's oil fields and
smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from
financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons."
Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired
to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered
too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the
heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of
Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as
expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a
thousand.
Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House's threats against countries that do not
toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of
perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic
activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from
Washington, not from "undemocratic" leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead
the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia -- one that builds
on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a
foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is
precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.
Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current
state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind
of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It
is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while
the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and
armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world's
self-appointed policeman.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
This is a great overview, but Americans cannot understand these truths after hours of
constant propaganda in our media. For example, Hillary Clinton and President Obama destroyed
and looted Africa's most prosperous nation in 2011 that resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths of innocents. This is not in dispute, it is just ignored despite daily stories about
the chaos in Libya. Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and
looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt
by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed
by a $5 billion budget, "
As you yourself have pointed out, more than once, in fact, there actually is a foreign
country which, more than, interferes in U.S. domestic policy, some would estimate,
effectively controls it, and foreign policy, as well.
While it would a bit of an effort to monetize the full amount spent on this effort, I
personally would not be a bit surprised if it were significantly larger than $5 billion, and
despite that, one could imagine, quite a bargain in terms of their ROI; it could in fact be
considerably less than the overt transfer of sovereign U.S. wealth to that foreign government
every year.
The past administrations, either every one, or almost every one, going back as far
as Truman, certainly , but the trend was already well established during the puppet
presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
I'd love to read your rejoinder.
onetribe
being blocked incorrectly from using my usual handle
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
An admirable sentiment, except that the BLM movement appears to be little more than a
vehicle for staged chaos nurtured behind the scenes by more war criminals with a hidden
agenda.
And more's the pity, because there are hordes of high-ranking war criminals in the
Exceptional Nation that richly deserve burning at the stake. In the Libyan context, Muammar
Gaddafi was not only a great leader but also a good man, who was doing great things not only
for his own people but also for the community of African nations.
If you're going to have a dictator, make sure you get a good one. Gaddafi was a good
one.
Trump not so much, but Clinton was and is horrifically evil.
The war against Russia has been going on for centuries. Nothing upsets these nutters more
than the Russians insulating themselves from the mental virus that has proliferated in the
West.
Just read the sour grapes of the usual suspects in this derogatory article. Similar in
tone to the nonsense at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. Nothing amuses me more than to
watch them vomiting on themselves in frustration.
Nuland's views are, as stated in the article, dangerous fantasy-one could almost accuse her
of having psychopathic voices in her head with respect to russia and putin.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that this woman was close to the top level in
state under obama but we can surely see her handiwork in the devastation of the ukraine
nation.
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
My imagination:
An agitator is planted inside BLM, and is armed and equipped to carry out a terrorist attack
on the American people as false flag event – blows up a weight-watchers convention,
next to a Wal-mart, and puts a half-a-dozen fat bodies into orbit circling the
globe(celestial bodies). After said attack BLM is defunded, and disbanded(but the race war
continues).
You forgot to mention that virtually all of the neocon/liberal interventionist
"intellectuals"on your list identify as Jewish, which means they see themselves as having
Hebrew backgrounds, which not only gives them an Israel First/Zionist orientation, but which
means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Russia is pathological and ancestral, which means their
hatred of "anti-Semitic" Europeans is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of
"anti-Semitic" white people is pathological and ancestral, which means their desire for
nuclear war between whites is pathological and ancestral, which means they believe they can
win a nuclear war (perhaps by sheltering in bunker state Israel) and emerge as the anointed
"chosen" intellectual priest class of the world
So there is a kind of internal logic or rationalism to their insanity, in the same way
that any insular, imperious elite suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur can
develop internal, echo chamber "logic" that is (objectively) insane. The difference is, their
insane "logic" is additionally sanctioned by their particular God or their particular History
or their version of God/History.
Hence, with this cult, we not only get insular, echo-chamber imperialism, but we
additionally get quasi-religious, messianic fanaticism that will view any nuclear war as
pre-ordained fate in service of delivering the Chosen Ones to the world.
And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's
so desperate to consign its fate to.
Posturing. What else can this be, coming from the lips of a Jewish woman? It all just sounds
so ridiculous. What authority does she have? Only the threat of force, reckless force
dispensed with abandon. That's not authority. It's insanity.
Another critique of US foreign policy regarding Russia, all referenced under the famous
"cookies and milk" response of Ms. Nuland in Kyiv. Lucky for Russia that she wasn't doling
out scoops of ice cream instead?
For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to
protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western
oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those
of Russia's. It's time for the Giraldis and Cohens of the world to shed their Russian fig
leaf covering and be exposed as the gutless appeasers that they really are.
Victoria Nuland (her family name formerly Nudelman) and her blood-thirsty, thieving zionist
neocon buddies would love nothing more than to tear Russia apart and finish the rape and
plunder of that country first begun under Russia's 'reformer' president, the idiot Yeltsin,
wherein mostly jewish Russian and American oligarchs systematically stole what amounts to
about $330 billion dollars of Russia's wealth.
That these zionist neocon murderers and thieves would put the world at risk to achieve
their goals is no surprise, as one need only look at the 3,000+ innocent American lives,
including many Jews, that were snuffed out on 9/11, all to set the stage for the US and
allies' "War of Terror" against mainly the enemies of Israel, and to line the pockets of the
ever-growing Military-Information-Security Complex. Innocent lives mean absolutely nothing to
these monsters.
The campaign against Russia is simply another necessary link in the chain that binds the
world to the PNAC vision of using the US and the West to establish and maintain what is
essentially a Jewish supremacist movement that barely conceals itself and its nefarious
agenda from the useful idiot goyim so necessary to carry forward the PNAC's plan for world
domination. And the chubby little Ms Nudelman is just another tireless zionist mouthpiece for
this ugly, obnoxious and risky agenda
Giraldi would have us believe that it was all a US sponsored provocation, not the natural
outcry of the Ukrainiain people seeking change from a thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian
regime. Ms.Nuland's cookies must have tasted really good to get the massive outpouring of
support in Kiev that demanded systemic change.
Venezuela? A threat to US national security?? Sounds completely absurd.
But if you consider your 'national security' being threatened whenever any scarce natural
resources in the world are not in your or in your client states' posession, then anthing
which interferes with that is a "threat!" Iran (before 2003), Iraq, and Russia certainly fit
the bill of being enemies.
This explanation, for me, is much more realistic than to think the neocons are solely
driven by cold war mentalities.
The neocons are particularly peeved at Russia because through their oligarchs, they had
the crown jewels in their hand before Putin wrested it out. It was always clear from the
beginning that the overthrow of the Ukraine government was always just a stepping stone to
the overthrow of Putin in Russia.
Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control
China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially.
Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive
people of the world Germany and China then work for you.
Nuland and her ilk will be spewing their dangerous nonsense and banging the drums of war like
homicidal energizer bunnies until hell freezes over. Meanwhile, "from Atlantic to Pacific,
the insanity is terrific," as the nation devolves in an engineered mass hysteria. As things
go down the tubes, the Empire will get ever more desperate, rather than easing back a bit on
the throttle. With Donald Boy and Sec. of State "Plump-piehole" egging on Israeli
expansionist dreams and drone-executing whomever they please–what could possibly go
wrong? I'm waiting for one, just one, European power to call bullshit on the U.S. and put a
stop to this madness. Fat chance of that.
I think we are in the Empire's desperation phase. The Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) report that called for and got another Pearl Harbor also spoke affectionately of
creating bioweapons to target any upstart nation encroaching on U.S. hegemony. If the
bastards could get away with 9/11, a most obvious inside job, what's not to like about the
disruption and confusion of bioweapons? The ruthless evil we are up against is truly
staggering.
It would be super funny, if Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Sudanese, Afghani, and Iranian
diplomats now went out en mass to give out cookies to the US rioters.
Taking PR pictures with the poor oppressed black looters and antifa trannies, lecturing
Washington on human rights, and pledging support to the "moderate terrorists" i.e. the
democrat mayors and governors who decide to not interfere with the looting and autonomous
zones.
I think this would be the most epic troll ever. Especially if Venezuela then paraded some
nervous spook and declared him the "legitimate president of the United States".
Or maybe, kek, just appoint Bernie the real president. "For two elections the corrupt
system has denied this true hero his rightful position. Enough! We support the people's
choice!" etc. Bernie would be all: "I don't know who these people are, honest," and they'd
be: "stay strong, comrade, we shall help you in your fight to become a true people's
president!"
America's most pro-Israel President, the one who moved the embassy to Jerusalem and appointed
a West Bank settler dude as ambassador, has both refrained from starting wars and is
gradually bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, etc.
So much for the Jihadi/leftist smear that Israel's friends promote wars.
Trump: peace through strength and loyalty to America's true friends.
Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that
leaves both sides poorer and less free.
Well said.
It's also really strange to portray Russia in this demonic fashion. When you see it up
close, there are things you don't like or question, things that are bizarre, absurdly
inefficient, and outright abhorrent, but it's far from the big threatening geopolitical beast
they make it out to be. It's more of a joke which even Russians understand.
There's a phrase from the USSR that someone taught me –
аналогов нет, "no
analogues" or nothing comparable, referring to the quality of their military armaments,
specifically rockets. Obvious nonsense pushed by the USSR to bolster faith in the populace,
it lives on today in Kremlin propaganda, but is widely regarded as the bullshit it is, which
is why videos containing the phrase itself are banned on YouTube Russia.
In short Russia, as a meme, is a "paper tiger" propped up largely by Washingtonian
psychodrama and will-to-power. Washington doesn't want Russia out of Crimea because they love
the Ukrainians; they want them out because Ukraine is a major destination for American
corporate venality. Absent interference from Washington, the Kremlin might undertake some
foreign adventures in neighboring countries, but for the most part would continue on its
obvious path of "peacefully" melding with the Chinese economy, like everyone else.
There is no white nation free of the forces of decline set in motion by white success and
the overall technological arc of history. "Russia" is nothing more than a scarecrow for the
Washington establishment – which it could just as well drop, as they no longer need
justifications or approval from the people – and signifies only a livid hunger for the
last major market they've yet to absorb directly.
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that
he has not started any new wars, though
It is difficult to read past an opening sentence such as this one.
I have seen it constantly. I call it the "Back-handed Trump hating fool" approach. The
many writers who employ this method in their articles appear to believe that they literally
have to make it clear to their readers that of course they (the writers) think Trump is a
moron/cad/crook/criminal/mentally ill, BUT!!!
Then they proceed with the rest of their article.
But don't you (the reader) dare think that they think anything good about Trump!
This is childish bullshit and am I the only one who is completely sick of it?
Hey, Phil, how about you leave out the stupid back-handed Trump hating nonsense? You don't
need to write it, but if you do? Have your editors cut it from your writing. It just makes
you look stupid, and many won't even continue reading your article. As they should. No one
deserves to be read who would write such facile, petty nonsense.
ANY country, real or satelite which allows ""diplomats from 5-headed beast or anglo-terrorist
and marauding alliance deserve extinction.
God Bless DPRK!
If we "follow the money", Hillary's campaign was financed by the Israelis. An honest post
mortem on her loss would have focused attention on the huge influence of Israeli money on
American elections. The faked focus on Russian "meddling" could have been to divert any talk
of election "meddling" away from Israel's truly vast "meddling". (The Israelis routinely
distract by accusing others of their own crimes.) The Israelis control both the DNC and the
corporate media, so "Russiagate" could roll on virtually evidence-free. Fox was allowed to
criticize the "Russiagate" attack on Trump, but only to keep the kabuki conflict boiling.
Neither side ever mentioned Israel's "meddling", or in any way criticized Israel. To the
contrary, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity even agreed that Netanyahu would be a great American
president. So why did Israeli asset John Bolton just attack Trump, after Trump has given
Israel so much, including assassinating Soleimani? Maybe it's Trump's refusal to launch
Israel's next war? Maybe they don't really trust Trump? Maybe because on 9/11 Trump said he
didn't believe planes could have brought down the twin towers, and that explosives must have
been involved? Could Trump be in a deadly dance with the Israelis, riding a tiger?
Nuland wrote that Russia did "violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States " But
wait a minute, doesn't she really mean Israel, not Russia?
And in retrospect, America's penchant for throwing little countries against the wall has
never worked all that well. I'm thinking Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the
Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly
corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland might hate Russia, but Obama gave back Crimea to Russia the rightful owner on a
Silver Platter. Russia has now easy access to Mediterranean Sea. Obama then invited Russia
back to Syria, as the USSR was kicked out of Middle East by the Evil Kissinger after the Yom
Kippur War ..
@Mr. Hack Exactly,
it was a US financed provocation with a whole lot of extremely dumb stooges. Six years that
have passed since prove it again and again, every day.
Whatever; "Ukraine" is not a state, "ukrainians" are not a people, "ukraininan" is just
bastardized Russian/Polish mix, so to hell with this joke of a cuntry. Let Russia, Poland and
Hungary partition it.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by
a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by
a $5 billion budget, "
We could chalk this up to a lack of imagination on the part of our intrepid former CIA
scribbler, but anyone paying even cursory attention couldn't help but conclude that the Obama
administration didn't just tolerate, it choreographed, a plot against Trump in league with
foreign intelligence services.
I'm confident that neither a lack of imagination or garden-variety ignorance explains
Giraldi's narrative weaving. However open or obscured, staying on the remove Trump by any
means necessary team remains the smart, if treasonous, play.
You'll note that Russia is included in this no doubt incomplete list. It really is a
fool's errand to try to surmise for any of these foreign participants what of their actions
were opportunism as opposed to resigned self-protectiveness,
But, make no mistake, every single one, foreign powers, whether allies or adversaries, and
individuals and purportedly non-state entities, was promised goodies at the expense of the
American national interest.
That's anyone's guess at this point. We know surveillance state bottom-feeder Glenn
Simpson got at least $6M, and Stefan "Guttman" Halper about $1M. What do you think was
promised to foreign powers for playing ball? In the case of Russia, unless I miss my mark,
Nord Stream II was merely the down payment.
Maybe some day Giraldi will ask Brennan the contours of the deal he made Russia assistance
in throwing the election to Hillary in March, 2016:
" Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you
control China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe
financially. Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level,
the productive people of the world Germany and China then work for you."
Given all that has happened this year, I can unequivocally say that any white person who
joins the US military needs to have their head examined. And a US military bereft of white
people would be pretty much useless.
Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led,
Ok but the main reason 'Dubbya' went into Eye-Raq is because he wanted to 'get' Saddam for
having gone after 'Big Daddy' Bush I. The Neochoens provided the cover.
Bill Jones said:
I too find it appalling that these people move among us.
Yes but Nudelman is also a laughable character now who's shelf life has expired, I
hope.
Ignoring all arguments about who is on the side of the angels here.
There are a lot of countries that could hurt us badly in a shooting war, but we would
survive, and at the end of the day, they would not. However, there is one country, and only
one, that could completely erase us in a few hours, and that is Russia.
Seems insanely suicidal to run around poking the bear with a stick at every possible
opportunity.
For the gullible fans of Mr. Trump, who want so fervently to believe that he's trying to
change anything but the rhetoric:
When I searched to confirm the name of that "diplomat" standing next to Ms. Nuland, I
learned from an official website that he remains employed as such, now the face of Uncle Sam
in Greece.
Geoffrey R. Pyatt, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, was
sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to the Hellenic Republic in September 2016.
He served as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 2013-2016, receiving the State Department's
Robert Frasure Memorial Award in recognition of his commitment to peace and alleviation of
human suffering in eastern Ukraine.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into a
gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
If you can't handle the truth, just hit the Troll or Disagree button.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security , to include invading other
countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed
nearly twenty years later.
Great article, Phil. May I recommend one minor edit:
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance the Jewish State's security, to include invading
other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces
stationed nearly twenty years later.
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
@BL By the way, I
will give you the commanding heights Sad Story in absurdly abridged form.
China won the post-Cold War period hands down. From Tiananmen Square to Ising power on the
cusp of global hegemony in a quarter century. With the US paying the bill.
While there were clear indications to any honest observer years before, Snowden's coming
out signaled the public next phase of a years long operation in which the USG built a global
surveillance apparatus, including not the least of Americans, and then lost the whole shebang
to Russia, China and God Knows Who Else.
My view then -- and I have seen nothing to even suggest my informed speculation was wrong
-- was that the sky was the limit in terms of what the powers that be would gift in terms of
the national interest to protect themselves from exposure and a reckoning.
I would like anyone who disagrees to otherwise explain how USG policy became one of
driving China and Russia into a strategic alliance. To say nothing of putting obviously
compromised individuals, foreign assets, like Brennan at the apex of power.
Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review
a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
Uh huh. Read the NYT article -- Obama is no angel, but Giraldi should explain why
President Obama would set up, much less publicly reveal, weekly sessions in which both he and
the office of the president are grossly debased by the Director of the CIA?
In this article, this is the most important sentence in terms of showing how doomed America
is: Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to
review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
The DOOM is that no Liberal can ever acknowledge that as something a liberal, a sacred
black liberal at that, would do without being forced to do so by white conservatives.
That insanity lies at the heart of America and has since at least the Emancipation
Proclamation. It means that it is totally impossible to have a halfway meaningful 'liberal'
opposition to imperialism, because imperialism is always easily cast as doing good for the
downtrodden blacks and/or browns and/or yellows and/or Jews and/or Moslems.
Too late, too fat, & too ugly! Nuland already lost the beauty contest for Biden's
ventriloquist to Avril Haines, She-wolf of the DO. The rectal feedings will continue till
morale improves!
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair- blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria . . .
More like the Castro District or Seattle, in fact.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration.
Trump fired John Bolton. Pompeo is at most a shadow of Bolton. That is rather the opposite
of resurgence. If the author could let go of his #NeverTrump bias he would be able to see
that Trump has run the NeoCons out of the GOP.
Trump tried to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan and ran into Deep State
obstructionism.
The Globalists tried to trick Trump into a Syria expansion by creating a Turkey/Syria
battle through areas controlled by U.S. Troops. Trump refused to be manipulated and pulled
U.S. Troops out of the kill sack. Does anyone still believe that myth about 'protecting
Syrian oil'? Only the mentally dim accepted that ludicrous cover story. It was flimsy excuse
to relocate out of the Deep State trap.
Prior U.S. administrations created huge problems in the ME by toppling Saddam and
emboldening Iran's theocracy. "Cut and Run" would guarantee a nuclear arms race in the
region. Trump's containment of Iranian colonial expansionism is working, albeit slowly. The
Rial continues to slide (now at ~200,000 to the USD). At some point, the Iranian people will
choose to get rid of their failed leaders and rejoin civilized society. Until then Trump's
containment is better than a Biden invasion.
_____
Trump has fundamentally reshaped the alignment of U.S. Politics. There is only one foreign
interventionist party. The SJW Globalist DNC now owns both the NeoConDemocrats and the R2P
crowd. The choice this November is clear:
-- Trump -- No New Foreign Wars
-- Biden -- Invasion of Ukraine, Iran, Libya, etc.
Nuland is just the tip of the iceberg in the ZUS government, which is infested with zionists
and has been in every administation since Wilson, they are the cause of every war since WWI
right down to the middle east and in the case of the middle east wars, the zionists and
Israel used their attack on the WTC to push America into the slaughter house for the greater
Israel project.
Read The Protocols of Zion and the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, there is
laid out the zionist one world zionist government.
@Larchmonter420 It
is little noticed that those Countries consumed by the evil Soviet Union have fared much
better in conserving their culture and sense of self, after they were upchucked in the early
'90s, than the Champions of Democracy of the West have done under the freedom and tutelage
bestowed by the US.
Funny dat.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a
very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even
immediate consequences of their moves. There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014
in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name
in WWII). There was another joke, that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion
without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand
that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck
with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it.
Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly
as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even
this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Meaning, if you have governments in the first place, sooner or later, you will have
war, either on the people inside a country [eg the war on drugs], or on citizens of another
country, or both at the same time [i.e. what we have now].
Outside of complete dissolution of all states [ preferable in my opinion, but unlikely
given the general mindset of the brainwashed masses worldwide], and given the systemic need
of all states everywhere for evermore wars on their own, and on others populations, the only
[ imperfect, and perhaps temporary], solution I see is to 95% downsize the federal government
and restore the constitution and bill of rights and to thereby restrict the federal
government to its original limits, and to even design new, more effective ways to prevent the
federal governments further expansion beyond those original limits/chains.
"..the very idea of the State itself is poisonous, evil, and intrinsically destructive.
But, like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume it's part of the cosmic firmament,
when it's really just a monstrous scam.
It's a fraud, like your belief that you have a right to free speech because of the First
Amendment, or a right to be armed because of the Second Amendment. No, you don't. The U.S.
Constitution is just an arbitrary piece of paper entirely apart from the fact the whole thing
is now just a dead letter. You have a right to free speech and to be armed because they're
necessary parts of being a free person, not because of what a political document
says.
Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and
respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book.
They think it has something to do with "We the People" electing a Jimmy Stewart character to
represent them.
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so.
February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
@Bill Jones There
is even funnier thing now with covid: the countries that do not toe the imperial line,
Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, are doing a lot better than imperial sidekicks like Brazil,
Colombia, or Peru. Rephrasing old Russian saying, "tell me who is your friend, and I tell you
how stupid you are".
@Rahan To make the
troll work even better, Venezuela could then send 20 guys in zodiacs to motor into DC and NY
harbor to try to take over Dulles and LaGuardia airports, and when they got captured, they
could just trade them for those 2 knuckleheads we sent down there. They could also claim that
they're here to capture Trump; that might just get him handed over.
Rahan, you have to send your brilliant joke to CJ Hopkins and to Caitline Johnstone to get
if more exposure.
@anonymous You
appear to be saying that a career diplomat who served in Ukraine when the US did or supported
bad things there should not have been appointed as Ambassador to Greece. Is that a correct
understanding of what you mean to convey? If so, how does this reflect on Trump when the
appointment was made two months before he was elected?
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance.
That's pretty much it, they just use different rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies.
Might makes right; there is no other law beside bandit law. The Russians have been a barrier
to the US being able to spread itself over the entire globe and rob everyone weaker than
itself. The US was behind all these atrocious jihadi mercenaries even as it's pretended to be
against them. The Russians stopped the US project of terror and overthrow in Syria and that's
outraged the Americans who thought they could act as they pleased. Libya was destroyed by the
wonderful, hip Obama who many stupid Americans still think was a nice person. But with
Russia, they can huff and puff but can't blow their walls down. They have a military that can
deter the Americans unlike all the other smaller victim states.
@AnonFromTN The
second joke should be withdrawn from active service. It is that of the naughty schoolboy who
will say anything for a cheap laugh – in this case "balls. A well bred gelding will win
races, be just as well fed and housed as the entire stallion and much more contentedly
placid.
Right after those two Israeli puppets were dancing and talking on their open lined cell
phones outside on Shitskyia St. in Kyiv, Ukraine, in front of the US Embassy, Ambassador Py
Rat ended up going to the US Embassy in Greece, in order screw the Greek people some more,
and Cookies Nuland ended up -- F n what's left of the island of Cyprus. US Embassies are
nothin more than CIA offices and only idiots would leave them in their country.
"She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of
the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war
crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only
one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand."
I think this is a mistake. I think Miss Nuland knows exactly how large and intense the US
ft print is and belies it should be larger and more intense. There are sincere people who
believe that the US must as duty make the work safe for democracy even the means of getting
there is any and everything bt democratic because in the long run -- the benefits will
outweigh.
and as proof of er sincerity -- it's not just Russia (Though I understand why Dr. Giraldi
would like to tackle one territorial issue at a time makes sense)
@Biff I've heard
another version of this.
Ukrainians are asked:
– If you believe that Crimea belongs to you, why don't you fight for it?
– We are not stupid, Russian troops are there.
– But you say that there are Russian troops in Donbass, yet you fight.
– That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
@chris
Thank you for the kind words, Chris,
You're very welcome to share the gist of the joke anywhere you like, and add to it whatever
you think works:)
I agree that "backing Moscow into a corner with no way out" is a dangerous strategy. This is
not the Cold War: in the Cold War the United States and USSR were able to keep peace, a
balance of power, an equilibrium where neither side's vital interests were threatened. Russia
had a buffer zone: not today. America was at the height of its global economic power: today
it is being overtaken by China. In the Cold War the big powers avoided nuclear Armageddon
– though at times appeared to come close – because they were able to. The
misguided thinking today is: "we got through the Cold War we can get this". This is not a
re-run of 1945-1991: it is the lead-in to the holocaust that period skillfully avoided. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Mr. Hack I was in
Ukraine and was a resident in 2008 even. Yanuk was a thief, but this was SOP in Kyiv –
how do you think they all get rich ? Sure the people were protesting about corruption, but
anyone who was really there know how easy it was to spread the riot when the western neo
nazis are bussed in, the " cookies" end up being money paid to certain groups and out of work
peasants. Yanuk was trying to short sell Ukraine's farmland etc. to many corporations and
countries. He was taking money from Monsanto, Carghill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa Univ. and
even China started to build a deep water port in Crimea , in order to grow on the 200,000
hectares they wanted to lease. Russia always gave the Ukies a decent loan or gaz price { esp.
for Princess Jewish Tymoshenko who up the price for her takings }, not to mention the million
or so that worked in Ru. A Perfect storm , for as far back as when , in 2005, Senator B Obama
, brought 40 million in cash to Donetsk, in order to de- arm the Ukrainian military. This
Maidan and Ukrainian plan was well planned – decade or two earlier – Pravda !
Mr. Giraldi ; do you think Vicky is angling for the Secretary of State position in the
upcoming Biden administration?
Have you given any thought to who Biden will be told to select for the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor slots where they will be leading the
charge for war?
I think it is possible that Bolton may have been angling for one of those spots with his
current book tour, but that has obviously blown up in his face.
@Wizard of Oz OK,
as you give off more than a whiff of effete hack yourself, I'll bite.*
Yes, that's what I mean to convey. It reflects on President Trump -- and, more
particularly, his sham campaign rhetoric -- that the likes of Mr. Pyatt remain in place with
another Exceptional! plaque on his lavish office.
Do you mean to convey that the President can't replace ambassadors at will, or that they
have tenure?
-- --
*Before interacting with this "Wizard of Oz" character, be aware that he/she/they often
draw other commenters in with questions and requests that are seldom resolved to
his/her/their satisfaction, or with cryptic insinuations that distract discussion.
The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter, the
technique known as "sock puppetry." See under Mr. Derbyshire's February 15, 2019, article
comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting as
"Anon[436]."
Among this website's oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
@GMC Let's give
credit where credit is due. Yes, the Empire wanted to buy Ukraine, preferably on the cheap
(considering that the goods were not of the first quality). But for the sale to proceed you
need two sides. You need a fraudster and a sucker. You cannot consider morons who sold their
would-be country for beads blameless. Not to mention that many local thugs got a cut. Smarter
thieves took their loot and ran away, like Yats. Dumber and/or greedier ones, like Porky and
Kolomoisky, remained and kept trying to steal more. The suckers (the rest of the population)
are left holding the bag. Stupidity is always punished in the end, but not always so
severely.
@GMC Although one
has to be careful in dealing with the large multinationals, the only way to obtain large
contracts is through cooperation with them. Opening things up and building ports would have
resulted in large employment opportunities for the masses, adding some stability to the
Ukrainian economy.
I'm not aware of Senator Obama's dealings in Donetsk to "de-arm the Ukrainian military".
Please do tell me more.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and
they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The
Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. Second, our
Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of Trotskyites, but of all
Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For them, Russia always is
the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
So basically, they're Jewish parasites with delusions of grandeur who attached themselves
to the British Empire and American Empire (destroying the US Constitution along the way), and
are using its decaying WASP blood and treasure to set up an Anglo-Zionist Empire, which will
then morph into a Zionist Empire, which will then move its headquarters to Israel, which will
then fulfill "chosen" Zionist Jewish supremacist prophecy and theology of ruling the
world.
In other words, they're not only parasites, but they're insane parasites. Really, could
there be any other kind? The insanity is baked into the parasite.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into
a gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
I am confident that, in my lifetime, the truth about how that unfolded will never be
known. The intel for the hit came from the Israelis through the same people that have been
undermining him from Day 1. Did Trump actually know Soleimani was there on a peace mission?
Did Trump know that an Iraqi leader would be with Solmeimani? Why would de-escalation of
tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia be bad for Trump who has been avoiding staring wars?
Was Mattis in on that game?
Once the hit was done, the rest is creating a narrative for diversion. It was a shit show,
to be sure, but I suspect there is a lot more to this than what we are being fed.
' Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small
crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean
business." '
Now, if that 'small, crappy little country' could be Israel, me 'n Mike could have a real
meeting of minds.
' Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good
policy '
That might well be, but maybe there is a way out.
Think maybe if Russia abandoned its support for a state in Syria and let Israel have her
little way with the place that she might suddenly be left in peace?
Nahhh couldn't possibly be a connection. How could that influence our policy?
' Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War '
This always happens with winners -- be they World War One generals or Cold Warriors.
If, due to other factors entirely, they happen to finally triumph, it all becomes
attributed to their incredible genius.
The oddity is that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. It was a massively
unattractive system with no natural constituency beyond its own bureaucrats. Yes, it had to
be kept at bay, and we did do that -- but we basically merely watched while it collapsed
under the weight of its own internal flaws.
the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years
or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Giraldi's first paragraph is spot on. But after corona dealing the economy a heavy blow, I
don't think Trump will start a war before the election. I don't think he would have done that
otherwise either, though there was some risk. Trump has caved numerous times, he is an idioht
when it comes to hiring his enemies hoping to appease them, but there is no question that he
opposes mass immigration and invasions.
I suppose most people here know this, but let's look at how many of the pro-war names
mentioned belong to the 2.5 % "Chosen":
George Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary Clinton
Michael Ledeen (White, but studied history under *George Mosse, immigrated from Germany)
Reuel Gerecht
Dan Senor
*Richard Perle
*Paul Wolfowitz (The architect of the Afghan-Iraq invasions, who gathered support for them in
Congress and organized the pro-war communication)
*Douglas Feith (would have been the Sec. of Defense if people hadn't objected too much, as he
was infamous after the Iran-Contra affair)
*Eliot Abrams
*Lewish "Scooter" Libby of the dead eyes
*Robert Kagan
*Frederick Kagan
*Victoria Nuland
*Madeleine Albright (Half a million dead Iraqi children from starvation sanctions and bombing
the infrastructure for twelve years was "worth it")
That's six Whites and nine Tribe.
If those nine hadn't existed millions would have been alive today, there would have been
no flood of Somalis, Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians to Europe, and the U.S. and the Middle East
would have been far better off.
@Mr. HackI
applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western oriented
country
You are joking surely? The country is run by Jews from top to bottom – although Jews
are 1% of the population. Since the Maidan putsch, there has only been a string of Jewish
presidents and prime minsters. The guy responsible for investigating corruption was recently
sacked and replaced by a Jew.
Post Maidan, 3 TV stations were shut in Kharkov alone. Everything is controlled and is
lies. Journalists and politicians who don't do as they are told are shot. No one is arrested.
The latest victim was an opposition politician who was executed by a shot in the head in his
parliamentary office a few weeks ago. No Jew ever suffers such a fate.
He was not "found dead". He was killed by a bullet to the head.
It was not in "central Kyiv". It was in the parliament building.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security,
I see Geo has already pointed out the obvious absurdity that any of these criminal were in
the least bit worried bout US security. If anything, they were overtly sacrificing US
security on behalf of an enemy state. Not sure why you write stuff like that Mr. G, unless
you just expect people to ignore it as perfunctory tripe, but there are some, no doubt, who
read those words and assume you are actually saying they care about the US. When you and I
both know they don't.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria.
Nope.
They were and are both amoral, opportunistic zio-whores, whose only ideology is what's
good for Clinton and Obama, respectively. Clinton didn't bomb Serbia out of some humanitarian
love of freedom and democracy, and Obama didn't destroy Libya and Syria except to serve his
zio-masters. Duh.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good,
I was telling my gal the other day, that Trump could be The One to End the Fed, by
allowing Goldman Sachs and the rest of them to feast at the Treasury to their heart's
content.
I reminded her of Jackson's quote about hurting ten thousand families, in order to save
fifty thousand. And in a similar vein, Trump could be setting up the collapse of the ZUS
economy, which will hurt hundreds of millions, but if he could collapse the dollar, he very
well might save billions of people's lives.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have
used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won,
you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You
tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten
thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go
on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of
vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you
out."
– Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European
role
I beg to differ, Mr. G.
I would posit that her most famous utterings were when she imperiously demanded that "Yats
is our guy". IOW, the way she was promoting "democracy" in Ukraine, was by corrupting the
system with 5 billions of tax payer lucre- to the point where she, *personally* could decide
who- (Jewish banker) would be president in a nation thousands of miles away. That's
how the ZUS promotes "democracy" in foreign lands. (and, I suspect that it was the way that
call was leaked, that is the fount of all the rage at Russia, for "Russian hacking', breaking
long-standing diplomatic protocols against exposing other nation's treachery and corruption
to the 'little people').
Nuland's view . Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and
Europe
for Nuland to talk about 'International law and the 'integrity of European elections'.. is
like Jerry Sandusky lecturing people on child welfare.
That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level,
OK, so not only Nuland but also John Bolton is screeching that Trump is the disaster of
our times.
Not since John McCain has a mad dog Zionist insider been so full of hate for Trump.
Hmm..
as Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
the more she talks, the more I like Putin.
And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
.
they think chutzpah, (arr0gent contempt for decency and in-your-face hypocrisy), is a
virtue.
All Americans and Europeans and everyone else, should see that Putin is the world's
remaining statesman. We should all do everything we can to support Putin's earnest efforts to
rein in the murderous, zio-glob menacing the planet today.
Thank you Mr. G. for exposing Nuland's treachery, hypocrisy and J-supremacist agenda.
@Chris Moore
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell made alliance with Jewish bankers, then congregated in the
Netherlands. The deal, which financially was necessary to him securing Puritan rule and to
then wage more war against non-WASP natives of the British Isles, included Jews being allowed
legally live in and own property in England, including to build a synagogue, with Jews
exempted from all requirements that the Puritan government made on al natives of the British
Isles.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. WASP culture is born of a Judaizing heresy, and
Jews therefore have always been partners in WASP culture.
You need to spend a large amount of time learning the rise of Jews with the growth of the
British Empire. Then put that with the rise of Jews as part of the American empire.
And then unless you are brain dead, you will see that WASP culture and Jews go together.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. Jews and WASPs are symbiotic, at the expense of
90-95% of non-WASP whites.
Jun 23, 2020 Online Event: U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East
While prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East
are dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in
a recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.
@Curmudgeon Did you
not hear the recording of President Trump's disgusting speech weeks later at a fundraiser,
recounting the hit to his rapt backers? I'm pretty sure that it was posted in a comment to
one of Dr. Giraldi's columns.
You might also want to review Linh Dinh's June 12, 2016 "Orlando Shooting Means Trump For
President."
Voting for any of these Red/Blue characters merely moves the boot around on your face.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to
lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia --
one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable,
including among his own citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to
interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made
against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
We live in the dark, convinced by our public media and our insincere leaders that we
are heroes and freedom fighters. In reality the opposite is true: we are the plunderers, the
ravagers, deceiving ourselves to do the dirty work of the manipulators who have twisted our
minds with trinkets and false accounts of the people we kill and the countries we ruin in
order to steal their treasures.
And the saddest part -- the punchline that proves how stupid we are -- is that we never
profit from the invasions we are cynically ordered to conduct. The bounty always goes to the
swindlers pulling the strings, and we, as the agents of banditry, time and again, are always
left to suffer the same fate of the people we have robbed when we are robbed ourselves, of
not only our treasures, but of our dignity, shortly before we are robbed of our lives.
It is the way history has always gone. The ignorant masses are persuaded to commit the
crimes of the rich and as the unwitting perpetrators, we ultimately suffer the same fate as
the victims, while the rich snicker in their palaces and plot their next swindle.
@Agent76'While
prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East are
dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in a
recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.'
I'm confused. Iraq is more stable for our intervention?
If we 'did less' in the Middle East, it could only promote regional stability.
Most of our actions there are pretty clearly calculated to promote instability, not
stability. Promoting anarchy in Syria, baiting Iran into a war, acquiescing in a coup in
Egypt, sanctioning Israel's continual bombing raids
The late Michael Collins Piper hosts a call in program and his guest is Jim Condit Jr. The
topic of conversation is Father Mordechi Martin, a Zionist spy who infiltrated and subverted
the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, it indeed seems that Jewish Supremacists have achieved full spectrum
dominance.
@Mr. Hack US
control of the Ukraine will mean that Jews will own almost all of it and the land will be
flooded with blacks and Mohammedans, with gays made another sacred group.
Anglo-Zionist Empire does what Anglo-Zionist Empire does.
I passed your comment on to CJ Hopkins with link to the source. Maybe he can use it in his
column. It needs a much greater audience than in the comment section here.
@Chris Moore The
public does not understand that the system is actually "two party tyranny". This system is
designed to divide and conquer, and it works. Compound this with the fact that many people
get their information from simply "googling" terms and phrases as opposed to actually digging
deep and reading books and other sources for information. Combine this with the sad state of
affairs in our public education system – where students are not taught to think or ask
questions but to behave, conform, and memorize information. With regard to the methods being
used in our foreign policy and now, subsequently, being used here to foment chaos, check out
the following resource. You will see that what is going on is simply UCW –
Unconventional Warfare, and we have perfected the technique abroad.
NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia
Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey
Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les
Wexner.
@Hegar That's three
goyim and twelve "chosen". Ledeen (founder and former member of board of advisors of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs – doesn't look goy to me), Gerecht
(Israelis say he's one of them) and Senor are Jewish.
How can the US "lead democracies" not being one of them?
didn't Vicky Nuland lead the Ukrainian democracy?
it isn't ridiculous, all it takes is shekels, as always, and an understanding of
semantics. Words like 'democracy' are like 'liberated', or 'terrorists'.
The ZUS "liberated" Iraq from the "terrorists" who were ruling it, and imposed
"democracy". Just like we "liberated" Germany, and "liberated" Libya, and so many other
places, where the ZUS leads 'democracies'.
You see how easy it is, once you understand how to interpret the words they use?
America is helping to liberate Palestine from terrorists, so that the Palestinians can
enjoy democracy.
Today the Crimea is suffering under a regime that seized her by aggression and force, and
so America would like to liberate the people of Crimea, and lead them to democracy.
Jewmerica is controlled by Zionists and their operatives like Jew Nuland. Add Trump and Pence
to the list too. The Presidency has been controlled by the Zionist Jews since Woodrow Wilson.
Almost all of Congress is in the pocket of aIPAC and other Jew organizations. The Zionist
Jews drive all the wars and conflicts, foment the false flags like the fake Floyd, Sandy
Hook, Los Vegas etc. The Global Jew Bankers made immune from prosecution by our shabbos goy
Congress have stolen trillions of the the country's wealth. First after 911 (also a false
flag for Greater Israel) then with the bailouts for the super rich in 08 and now the
monumental 6 trillion theft for their Wall St. buddies under cover of the fake Corona virus.
The goyim must be propagandized and the target demonized before the Israeli Foreign Legian
(U.S. military) is sent in to force another extortion for the Jews. this is what they did
twice to Germany and to Japan. Same thing in Iraq and Libya. The Zionists have so far failed
in Syria and Iran. Even after getting Israel's best friend ever in the White House who
abrogated our treaty with the Iranians and has lied constantly about both countries, launched
rockets against the Syrians and accused Assad of gassing his own people.
The Zionsits cannot make progress without war, conflict and hatred. Once the goyim are
whipped up with enough war sentiment against the Russians and Chinese and the two countries
have built up sufficient military capability they will most likely join forces with a nuclear
attack against Jewmerica. this will probably result in a stalemate that can then be used as a
precursor to the global totalitarian NWO.
Serbia deserved it. They were conducting ethic cleansing with concentration camps, rape
camps, etc
idiocy
they were fighting some of the worst scum on the planet; KLA human and narco-traffickers
attempting to murder enough Serbs so they could steal the ancient Serbian land of Kosovo.
Zio-style – by terrorizing the legitimate inhabitants into fleeing for their lives- to
they could simply steal the land for themselves.
The trial against Milosevic was a sham and a fraud. And Milosevic was humiliating the ICC
in open court, so they poisoned/assassinated him in his cell.
But, I suppose the case could be made that if the Serbs deserved it, it was because
they allowed the Albanians to immigrate into Kosovo in transformative numbers in the first
place, and just as the Zi0s know, demographics = destiny.
The whites of South Africa made the same mistake. The whites of Europe are very busy also
making the exact same mistake, just as they are in North America and Oceana.
One day they'll wake up, and discover that now they and they're children are now on
the block, with their school girls being gang-raped wholesale and their lands taken from
them, and like the Serbs, they'll say, 'golly, who'd have ever thunk that inviting in stone
age invaders is of questionable prudence.
@Druid55 That is
the western MSM sugared up version of what happened in Yugoslavia. Western MSM learned their
lesson about being truthful about war when US and friends were in Vietnam.
Lies and lies only come from western MSM these days so wars and regime change games can go
on with anyone noticing or caring.
Western MSM notifies their puppet readers that all the US and friends does is
"humanitarian" stuff these days. Most puppet readers lap up this junk.
March 24, 1999 will go down in history as a day of infamy. US-led NATO raped Yugoslavia.
Doing so was its second major combat operation.
It was lawless aggression. No Security Council resolution authorized it. NATO's
Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.
Washington called it Operation Noble Anvil. Evil best describes it. On June 10,
operations ended.
From March 1991 through mid-June 1999, Balkan wars raged. Yugoslavia "balkanized" into
seven countries. They include Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia.
Enormous human suffering was inflicted. Washington bears most responsibility.
@Druid55 More MSM
Jew propaganda. The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized) so
that the unified Yugoslavia could not oppose their plans. The Zionists intend to control
pipelines running from Middle East into Europe. This would compete against Russia that now
supplies most of the gas. All wars are about money, power and territory, this war was no
exception. The Zionists need to control all energy sources and transportation routes in order
to achieve hegemony.
"It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars"
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The reasons israel's trump colonials
have not started new militsry invasions are mainly two. The trump reime is in the middle of a
military modernization. The american zionazi colony fell behind militarily as they ran proxy
terrorists and drug mafia support/colonial policing ops. Fighting wars againat those who can
actually hurt them back became obsolete, or so the "end of history" neocons figured. Now they
are outclassed and they can't pick on someone capable of shooting back effectively.
As for the second part, the likud colonial trump regime is doing its best to attack
zionazia"s rivals any way they can mimus actually sending in troops. Times have changed, the
oligarchs do war by other means than troop invasion now. The economic, biological and psywar
aspects are being used full tilt by israeloamerica. What they lack the means to do on the
field of battle, israel's war criminals and quislings are more than making up for it by other
means.
The trump quislings have vastly increased international strife across the board and are
decidedly more war mongering than israel's previous american colonial governors.
The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized)
I agree with all your posts.
I'd just add to this one, that by bombing Serbia, (on behalf of Muslim invaders), they
were accomplishing several things.. They were ending the post WWII International Laws against
unilateral military might by strong nations against weaker ones in Europe. With that act,
they declared with bombs that the ZUS is now The Unilateral Power, and that the International
Laws against Aggressive War was now moot.
By bombing a White Christian nation on behalf of Islam, they were also tossing a bone to
Islam, as a trade off for the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Who in our times is going to
complain about bombing white people? And Muslims would cheer it.
Also, as ((Gen. Wesley Clark)) explained about his bombing campaign on Serbia:
"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century
idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with
multi-ethnic states."
– NATO's Supreme Commander, Gen. Wesley Clark
so there were myriad reasons for why ((they)) bombed Serbia into handing over its ancient
and sacred lands.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance."
It's neocons and neolibs, the "liberal interventionists" are as liberal as the neocons are
conservative. Agree about the style and substance, though, think of the disgusting things as
different/somewhat rivals management teams working for the same employer. Like the likud and
labor political blocks in israel. Goals are the same, some differences in how to achieve
them.
One sees this same phony duo-political scam across the capitalist "west" where right wing
political parties dominate wholesale.
Orwell called this "newspeak". That's now the language of libtards.
thanks
and not just shitlibs, but across the entire length and breadth of our culture and society
this Ministry of Truth-imposed doublethink masquerades as language intended to inform and
explain, when it does the opposite.
George Will and Sean Hannity use newspeak with the same alacrity as Lawrence O'Donnell or
Rachel Maddow. Israel has to defend itself. Putin's aggression and Russian
meddling in our democracy.
'Quantitative easing' as a doubleplusgood expression for human history's most colossal
case of mass-swindling the world has ever known.
it's everywhere, and the more it isn't noticed, the more sinister and diabolical it
is.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode of the aliens that only wanted to 'serve man'.
'We're here to serve you'.
The writers of that episode certainly must have been thinking of a certain tribe of
'philanthropists' and owners of 'human rights' organizations.
@anonymous Thank
you for clarifying that though you do not give any evidence beyond reason for suspicion about
his role in Ukraine as to why this career diplomat should be sacked from his Ambassadorship
to Greece.
As for israel's nuland neanderthal*, this is a critter about as zionazi low as one can get.
What she posits come directly from israel and its international domination freakshow. The
critter is about as far right/neocon psychopathy as that subhuman element gets.
The use of these freaks by both american dem and rep colonial governorships shows how
these are simply psywar front outfits pursuing the same goals for the zionazi master.
@Wizard of Oz My
comment (#35) that you're typically and oh-so-diplomatically trying to obscure concerned the
naïveté of those who think that Mr. Trump ever intended to (or could) effect any
change in Uncle Sam's treatment of other countries.
But as to your concern for this "career diplomat," do you think he's too good to "be
sacked" and have to work at an honest job?
@Colin Wright If a
politicians lips are moving they are lying. This comes from the war parties think tank and
everything they say is the total opposite every time. This group gives me great insight into
thier plans and why I even bothered to share this here today. Thanks Wright!
@AnonFromTN
Democracy is a subversive term used by the Zionists, MSM and many politicians as well as lots
of other people that should know better. Democracy results in mob rule that will always lead
to tyranny.
The word democracy does not occur in either the Declaration of Independence or it's
companion document the Constitution. That is because the founders believed it to be the worst
form of government. James Madison stated that democracies "have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."
It is no mistake that the word democracy is widely used. Democracies work in the Elites
favor because they can steer the chaos then put their system in place when the democracy
falls apart.
The founders established a system of sovereign states in a limited Republic of laws. That
was the foundation of our success, not democracy.
@anonymous For an
apprentice pedant you are not doing well. You seem to have overlooked Trump's very big
changes in the treatment of one major foreign country, namely China.
And I am disappointed that you don't realise how much the US needs the institutional
memory and the skills of career diplomats when so many ambassadorships are given to
completely unqualified and unsuitable donors to the president's election campaign.
@Druid55 Hardly
anyone died. No planes used and all accounted for. Social Security Death Register about the
same as usual for that day in N.Y. Bodies "jumping" out were dummies. Another false flag for
the Zionist agenda of wars for Israel.
Jew supremacists like Nuland & her fellow (((treasonous war criminals))) care ultimately
about expanding the domain of "Greater Israel."
Fomenting hostility (if not outright war) between the world's largest primarily White
countries has always been what (((they))) do.
On the home front, Black Lives Matter terrorism would go nowhere without Jew supremacist
organizing, funding, censoring, & intimidating. Not that the (((shysters))) actually give
a damn about Blacks!
@Anon Nuland is a
Jew. Nothing to see here. She is a nutbag who wants eternal war. Whatever Israel wants
.Israel gets. Whether it's Obama destroying Libya or constant friction with Russia it's the
Jewish control of everything.
@Jake Do you think
the Catholics were any less likely to sell out? The Catholic Church was infiltrated by the
cripto Jew Medicis with the placement of Leo X in 1513. The Founders of the Jesuit order were
also cripto Jews.
The Jews have infiltrated all the governments of any consequence. Jewmerica has been so
well infiltrated it would be more accurate to just term the situation an out in the open
takeover. The Jews could have never made much headway without the shabbos goys helping them.
The government of Jewmerica is full of traitors serving the Zionist Jew agenda.
@Ryan2 She is a
hard core Zionist Jew. She is in the clique with the most powerful criminal syndicate in
existence. And they are winning. Some of them may actually believe that they are still the
Chosen. Trump's Chabad Lubavich son-in-law and the Shiksa Princess are said to be disciples
of Rabbi Schneerson who taught that we Gentiles were just here to "hew wood and fetch water"
for the Jews. Judging from the words and deeds of the shabbos goy puppet actors like Trump,
Pence, Pelosi and almost the entire congress along with most governors, an observer would
think this is definitely true.
Jew supremacists won; Germany (& everyone else) lost.
If that wasn't the case, the world would know the Holocau$t mythology is an extortion
racket, and we wouldn't be fighting the Jews' criminal wars for them to this day.
@AnonFromTN
"Grabbing the Breadbasket of Europe The East-West competition over Ukraine involves the
control of natural resources, including uranium and other minerals, as well as geopolitical
issues such as Ukraine's membership in NATO. The stakes around Ukraine's vast agricultural
sector, the world's third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of
wheat,constitute a critical factor that has been often overlooked." Whereas Ukraine does not
allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture,Article 404 of the EU
agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed:
it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of
biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the
agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank
Piper Jaffray, "Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the "most promising
growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and
DuPont."" https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf
@Anon "Russia" is,
for US intelligence ALSO code for "French". The propaganda against Russia during the cold war
and beyond, also applies to "the French" [IMO].They both had a revolution , with world wide
consequences , both have the same color flag[ the US propaganda says that Russia modeled
their flag from the Netherland flag, but I suspect it is modeled from the French flag. The
Americans cant be too blatant about it , but that is what is going on; anti Russia animus and
propaganda is also anti French animus and propaganda. [ during the cold war, my French
relative who had been a communist , went to Russia to see what it was like. She was
disappointed .When she subsequently tried to visit my family here in the US, she was stopped
art the airport and told she could not enter the US because she had been to Russia. This was
the 1960's.Apparently this two countries and people were not polarized as the US and the
soviets were. A kind of mutual respect or even admiration existed perhaps. Maybe I'm barking
up the wrong tree, but that has been my sense for decades. Nuland's anti European/ anti
russian animus is not surprising; its rather ubiquitous in the US and when they say EU they
have primarily in mind the French!
Bolton, of course, dismissed the entire concept of diplomacy from the very start. He never
bought into the notion that North Korean officials could be talked to sensibly because they
were, well, insane. Bolton's version of North Korea diplomacy was to tighten the
economic screws, brandish the U.S. military, and wait until one of two things happened: 1) the
Kim regime surrendered its entire nuclear weapons program like Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, or
2) the Kim regime continued to spur Washington's demands, in which the White House would have
no option but to use U.S. military force. Bolton's
record is analogous to a stereotypical linebacker on an obscene amount of steroids -- smash
your opponent to pieces and don't think twice about it. Top Beauty Surgeon Says "Forget Facelifts, This at Home Tip is My #1 Wrinkle Red Del Mar
LaboratoriesDr: This May Be the Best CBD Ever for Arthritis, Aching Joints & Inflammation Mirror
News OnlineEnlarged Prostate Gone - Just Do This Before Bed (Watch) Newhealthylife3 Ways Your Cat Asks for Help Dr. Marty The content you see here is paid for by the
advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by
Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation,
Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular
interest to you. We encourage you to view our Privacy Policy and your opt out options
here . Got
it, thanks! Remove Content Link?
Please choose a reason below:
Submit Cancel
The only problem:
North Korea isn't some helpless punter with string bean arms and a lanky midsection. It's a
nuclear weapons state fiercely proud of its independence and sovereignty, constantly on guard
for the slightest threat from a foreign power, and cognizant of its weakened position relative
to its neighbors. This is one of the prime reasons Bolton's obsession with the Libya-style
North Korea deal, in which Pyongyang would theoretically discard its entire nuclear apparatus
and allow U.S. weapons inspectors to take custody of its nuclear warheads before flying them
back to the U.S. for destruction, was
unworkable from the start. The Libya-model trumpeted by Bolton was a politically correct
way of demanding Pyongyang's total surrender -- an extremely naive goal if there ever was one.
When one remembers the fate of Qaddafi 8 years after he traded sanctions relief for his weapons
of mass destruction -- the dictator was assaulted and humiliated before being executed in the
desert -- even the word "Libya" is treated by the Kim dynasty as a threat to its existence. As
Paul Pillar wrote
in these pages more than two years ago, "Libya's experience does indeed weigh heavily on the
thinking of North Korean officials, who have taken explicit notice of that experience, as a
disincentive to reaching any deals with the United States about dismantling weapons
programs."
One can certainly take
issue with Trump's North Korea policy. Two years of personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un have yet to
result in the denuclearization Washington seeks (denuclearization is more of a slogan than a
realistic objective at this point, anyway). But Trump's strategy aside, Bolton's alternative
was worse. The president knew his former national security adviser's public insistence on the
Libya model was dangerously inept. He
had to walk back Bolton's
comments weeks later to ensure the North Koreans didn't pull out of diplomacy before it got
off the ground. Trump hasn't forgotten about the experience; on June 18, Trump tweeted
that "Bolton's dumbest of all statements set us back very badly with North Korea, even now. I
asked him, "what the hell were you thinking?"
Personally he is a bully and as such a coward: he can attack only a weaker opponent. His new
book shows that however discredited and intellectually thin his foreign policy views are, they
always rise to the top. To Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies
abroad.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is any rivalry. ..."
"... Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism, nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little thought to his nation. ..."
"... Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting off of his time in government. ..."
The release of John Bolton's book today has become a Washington cultural event, because he
is, by all measures, Washington's creature.
Those who dislike the Trump administration have been pleased to find in The Room Where It
Happened confirmation in much of what they already believed about the Ukraine scandal and
the president's lack of capacity for the job. Some accusations in the book, such as the story
about Trump seeking reelection help from China through American farm purchases, are new, and in
an alternative universe could have formed the basis of a different, or if Bolton had his way,
more comprehensive, impeachment inquiry.
While Bolton's book has been found politically useful by the president's detractors, the
work is also important as a first-hand account from the top of the executive branch over a
19-month period, from April 2018 to September 2019. It also, mostly inadvertently, reveals much
about official Washington, the incentive structures that politicians face, and the kind of
person that is likely to succeed in that system. Bolton may be a biased self-promoter, but he
is nonetheless a credible source, as his stories mostly involve conversations with other people
who are free to eventually tell their own side. Moreover, the John Bolton of The Room Where
It Happened is no different from the man we know from his three-decade career as a
government official and public personality. No surprises here.
There are three ways to understand John Bolton. In increasing order of importance, they are
intellectually, psychologically, and politically -- that is, as someone who is both a product
of and antagonist to the foreign-policy establishment -- in many ways typical, and in others a
detested outlier.
On the first of these, there simply isn't much there. Bolton takes the most hawkish position
on every issue. He wants war with North Korea and Iran, and if he can't have that, he'll settle
for destroying their economies and sabotaging any attempts by Trump to reach a deal with either
country. He takes the maximalist positions on great powers like China and Russia, and third
world states that pose no plausible threat like Cuba and Venezuela. At one point, he brags
about State reversing "Obama's absurd conclusion that Cuban baseball was somehow independent of
its government, thus in turn allowing Treasury to revoke the license allowing Major League
Baseball to traffic in Cuban players." How this helps Americans or Cubans is left
unexplained.
Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is
possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of
the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession
with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for
partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't
so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is
any rivalry.
Anyone who picks up Bolton's over 500-page memoir hoping to find serious reflection on the
philosophical basis of American foreign policy will be disappointed. The chapters are broken up
by topic area, most beginning with a short background explainer on Bolton's views of the issue.
In the chapter on Venezuela, we are told that overthrowing the government of that country is
important because of "its Cuba connection and the openings it afforded Russia, China, and
Iran." The continuing occupation of Afghanistan is necessary for preventing terrorists from
establishing a base, and, in an argument I had not heard anywhere before, for "remaining
vigilant against the nuclear-weapons programs in Iran on the west and Pakistan on the east."
Iran needs to be deterred, though from what we are never told.
Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his
own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn
that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's
judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP
clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society
or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at
home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's
views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism,
nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little
thought to his nation.
The more time one spends reading Bolton, the more one comes to the conclusion that the guy
just likes to fight. In addition to seeking out and escalating foreign policy conflicts, he
seems to relish going to war with the media and the rest of the Washington bureaucracy. His
book begins with a quote from the Duke of Wellington rallying his troops at Waterloo: "Hard
pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest." The back cover quotes the
epilogue on his fight with the Trump administration, responding "game on" to attempts to stop
publication. He takes a mischievous pride in recounting attacks from the media or foreign
governments, such as when he was honored to hear that North Korea worried about his influence
over the President. Bolton is too busy enjoying the fight, and as will be seen below, profiting
from it, to reflect too carefully on what it's all for.
Bolton could be ignored if he were simply an odd figure without much power. Yet the man has
been at the pinnacle of the GOP establishment for thirty years, serving appointed roles in
every Republican president since Reagan. The story of how he got his job in the Trump
administration is telling. According to Bolton's account, he was courted throughout the
transition process and the early days of the administration by Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner,
ironic considering the reputation of the former as a populist opposed to forever wars and the
latter as a more liberal figure within the White House. Happy with his life outside government,
Bolton would accept a position no lower than Secretary of State or National Security Advisor.
Explaining his reluctance to enter government in a lower capacity, Bolton provides a list of
his commitments at the time, including "Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Fox
News contributor; a regular on the speaking circuit; of counsel at a major law firm; member of
corporate boards; senior advisor to a global private-equity firm."
Clearly, being an advocate for policies that can destroy the lives of millions abroad, and a
complete lack of experience in business, have proved no hindrance to Bolton's success in
corporate America.
Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had
extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of
Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a
Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares
one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more
than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
Ricardel resigned after a dispute over preparations for the First Lady's trip to Africa, an
example of how too often in the Trump administration, nepotism and self-interest have been the
only checks on bad policy or even greater corruption ("Melania's people are on the warpath,"
Trump is quoted as saying). Another is when Trump, according to Bolton, was less than vigorous
in pursing destructive Iranian sanctions due to personal relationships with the leaders of
China and Turkey. At the 2019 G7 summit, when Pompeo and Bolton try to get Benjamin Netanyahu
to reach out to Trump to talk him out of meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Jared
prevents his call from going through on the grounds that a foreign government shouldn't be
telling the President of the United States who to meet with.
The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his
views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always
goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all
too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the
book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed
attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of
the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting
off of his time in government.
In the coverage of Bolton, this is what should not be lost. The former National Security
Advisor is the product of a system with its own internal logic. Largely discredited and
intellectually hollow, and without broad popular support, it persists in its practices and
beliefs because it has been extremely profitable for those involved. The most extreme hawks are
simply symptoms of larger problems, with the flamboyant Bolton being much more like mainstream
members of the foreign policy establishment than either side would like to admit.
Richard Hanania is a research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace
Studies at Columbia University.
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of
Syria -- and then sending them
back in . One hundred thousand
Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are
still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .
Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including
Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish
alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it
spiralled out of control.
Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of
lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term
I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It
deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.
"... let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda. ..."
"... Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years. ..."
"... Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons. ..."
"... The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children. ..."
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National
Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter
Donolo, from 2018:
So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's
another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic
Barton.
Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five
years.
Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would
have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.
The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those
nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's
adult children.
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership
and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to
reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of
evidence in a court of law. Maybe
Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term
I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It
deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some
observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider
them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he
(Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in
media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see
Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an
arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time.
Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few
dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be
stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put
up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny
outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him
(Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.
It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against
anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme
that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who
then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so
he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby
parasite.
div> Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type
character, for US diplomacy.
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy
expert he (Trump) respected.
Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!
Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping
orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally
and physically abused for objecting.
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a
warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
Did John Bolton put his personal interests above the will of congress in an attempt to extort
the Ukrainian government? You're making a false equivalence. You seem to have a soft spot for
Trump. Bolton is an in-your-face son of a bitch, but Trump, Trump is just human garbage.
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got. Just a distraction. Trumps outrage just
meant help Bolton sell some books. Lol. People are so easy to fool.
I still think Bolton managing the operations as COG in Cheneys old bunker. Coming out for
a vacation while next phase is planned
Bolton is just another American arsehole. Nothing new. When they do not get their way, the y
always turn on their superiors, or those in charge. Bolton is just another "Anhänger"
personal gain is what motivates him.
He should have been a blot on his parents bedsheets or at least a forced abortion, but
unfortunately that did not happen...
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.
Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more
than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time,
incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded
by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever
international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.
Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate
with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the
negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?
Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with
"something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after
re-election. If you believe that...
Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments
of lucidity.
In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be
that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike
the hideous Trumpian productions.
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.
he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights
into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful
idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in
foreign "policy." another abusive father figure
reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat
livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one
like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up
inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed,
colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their
wisdom find? Trump stinks.
Scotch Bingeington @ 6 -- "Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton
does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable
to Merkel's face, come to think of it.
At last, someone who notices physionomy!
That face drips with false modesty, kind of trying to make his face say, "... look at
harmless old me..."
That walrus bushiness points at an attempt to hide, to camouflage his true thoughts, his
malevolence.
That pretended stoop, with one hand clutching a sheaf of briefing papers, emulating the
posture of deferential court clerks, speaks to a lifetime of a snake in the grass "fighting"
from below for things important to himself.
But those of us who have been around the block a couple times will know to watch our backs
around this type. Poisoned-tipped daggers are their fave weapons, and your backs are their
fave "battle space". LOL
This statement by Jeffrey Sachs may as well also describe America's leadership crisis: "At
the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among
America's political and economic elite."
GeorgeV @ 8 -- "It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each
other a whore! How low has the US sunk."
And the US "leadeship" sends these types out to lecture other peoples on "values"? on how
to become "normal nations"? on how to "contain" old civilisations such as Iran, Russia,
China?
It is axiomatic that the stupid do not know they are stupid. Same goes for morals. The
immoral do not know they are immoral. Or, perhaps, as Phat Pomp-arse shows, they know they
are immoral, but do not care. Which makes one rightly guess that people like Bolt-On and him
must be depraved.
Yes, it may take centuries before the leadership in this depraved Exceptionally
Indispensable Nation to become truly normal again.
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do
so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters. by: bob sykes
11
I wondered about He King claims that Trump actually attempted to do those awful things, .
.. , I looked for evidence to prove the claim.. I asked just about every librarian I could
find to please show me evidence that confirms the deep state over rode Mr. Trump's actual
attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan and Syria. thus far, no confirming or
supporting facts have been produced. to support such a claim. Mr. Trump could easily have
tweeted to his supporters something to the effect that the damn military, CIA, homeland
security, state department, foreign service, federal reserve, women's underwear association
and smiley Joe's hamburger stand in fact every militant in the USA governed America were
holding hands, locked in a conspiracy to block President Trumps attempt to remove USA
anything from Afghanistan or Syria.. If Mr. Trump has asked for those things, they would have
happened. The next day there would have been parties in the streets as the militant agency
heads began rolling as Mr. Trump fired them each and everyone.. No firings happened, the
party providers were disappointed, no troops, USA contractors or privatization pirates left
any foreign place.. as far as I can tell. 500 + military bases still remain in Europe none
have been abandoned.. and one was added in Israel. BTW i heard that Mr. Trump managed to get
17 trillion dollars into the hands of many who are contractors or suppliers to those foreign
operations. I can't say I am against Trump, but i can ask you to show me some evidence to
prove your claim.
Trump searches for new slogan as he abandons Keep America Great amid George Floyd and covid
turmoil
The president has taken to inserting the term 'Transition to Greatness' into his remarks.
His 2016 slogan was 'Make America Great Again'. After election he polled audiences on whether
to go with 'Keep America Great'. He told CPAC this year and said at the State of the Union
'The Best is Yet to Come'. Tweaks come as he trails Biden in new NBC and CNN polls, as the
nation struggles with the coronavirus and protests over police violence.
Ukrainian police seize $6 Million in bribes paid to kill the new case into crooked
Burisma.
This money is a Followup to the multi-millions in bribes Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and
President Poroshenko earned to leverage their offices to kill the original case.
goals that you consider important are different from personal interests.
What personal interests has Trump actually advanced during his time as president. Leaving out
the fake allegations, I'm hard put to think of any. If you look at Trump's actual behaviour
rather than his bullshit or the bullshit aimed at him, I'm also hard put to think of anything
illegal he's done while in office that wasn't done by previous administrations.
US President Donald Trump sought help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election,
"pleading" with the Chinese president to boost imports of American agricultural products,
according to a new book by former national security adviser John Bolton. The accusations were
included in an excerpt from The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which is set to
be released on June 23. Bolton also wrote that Trump demonstrated other "fundamentally
unacceptable behaviour", including privately expressing support for China's mass interment of
Uygur Muslims and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang.*This video has been updated to
fix a spelling mistake.
@42 Mao I'm struggling to see how "pleading" with any country for it to purchase more US
goods is "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" from a US President.
Pleading to Xi for China to give, say, Israel preferential access to markets, sure.
I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises
over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious
than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by
saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not
about. They are not about:
* Racism or "White privilege"
* Police violence
* Social alienation and despair
* Poverty
* Trump
* The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
* The infighting of the US elites/deep state
They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.
It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of "cause" and
"pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some
degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are
the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you
want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US
society.
Don't really want to take sides between those two odious characters, but I think there's a
difference in what the paper is saying.
One is about someone pursuing policy goals they favour, the other "personal interest".
From what I have seen so far, Bolton's main definition of Trump's "personal interest" is his
chances for re-election (rather than any personal business interest).
I think Bolton was happy for Trump to pursue the policy goals he favoured, at least when
they coincided with Bolton's!
How many people have cashed in on Trump so far? Countless numbers of them. An ocean of them.
Scathing books about Trump is one way to cash in on thr Trump effect, and the authors, many
of whom don't even write the book themselves, get promoted and their books promoted in the
mainstream media and elsewhere.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Trump. We know everything there is to
know about Trump. Some of us knew everything there was to know about him before he became
POTUS. And yet, there he is, sitting like the Cheshire Cat in the Oval Office, untouchable
and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, even more scathing books are in the pipeline because there's
money, so much money, to be made don't you know.
Bolton is a shitbird every bit as much as Trump is and in fact an argument can be made
Bolton is even worse and even more dangerous than Trump because if Bolton had his druthers,
Iran would be a failed state right about now and America would be bogged down in a senseless
money-making (for the defense contractors owned by the extractive wealthy elite) quagmire in
Iran just as it was in Iraq and still is in Afghanistan.
Colbert is all into the Bolton book because he and his staff managed to secure an
interview with Bolton. Bolton, of course, has agreed to this because it's a great way to
promote his book to the likes of Cher who is the perfect example of the demographic Colbert
caters to with his show. Some of the commercials during Colbert's show last night? One was an
Old Navy commercial where they bragged about how they're giving to the poor. The family they
used for the commercial, the recipients of this beneficence, was a black family. Biden is
proud of Old Navy because don't you know, poor and black are one and the same. In otherwords,
there are no poor people except black people. No, that's not racist. Not at all. Also,
another commercial during Colbert's show was for the reopening of Las Vegas amidst the
spreading pandemic. This is immediately after a segment where Colbert is decrying Republican
governors for opening southern states too early. The hypocritical irony is so stark, you can
cut it with a chainsaw.
Mao @ 45 quoting The Saker -- ".... the real cause of what is taking place today is the
systemic collapse of the US society."
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
In my 50 years of studying American society, I have learned to watch what US leaders do,
not what they preach. More profitable is to look at what declassified US documents tell us
about the truth, not what the presstitudes of the day pretend to dish up. Also, what other
world leaders might, in a candid moment, tell us about America.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Afterall, a system that allows for creeping entrenched endemic corruption, is a crappy
system. It's the system that's the root of this and it's not just isolated to the United
States. It's civilization itself that's the root and what enabled civilization -- the spirit
in our genes as Reg asserts.
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going
against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one
of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely
better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go
back to hell.
I agree. They would, because they already have and continue to do so, coddle and provide
apologia for any and all monsters who decry Trump. Hell, I'm convinced they would clamor for
Derek Chauvin's exoneration if he vocally decried Trump. Chauvin would make the rounds on the
media circuit excoriating Trump and telling the world, contritely of course, that it was
Trump who made him do it and now he sees the error of his ways. He'd be on Morning Joe and
Chris Cuomo's and Don Lemon's shows not to mention Ari Melber and Anderson Cooper and
Lawrence O'Donnell. The conservatives and their networks, who have provided apologia for
Chauvin thus far, would now be his worst enemy. Colbert and Kimmel would have him on and
guffawing with him asking him how it felt to choke the life out of someone, laughing all the
way so long as he hates Trump and tells the world how much he hates Trump.
This world is an insane asylum, especially America. All under the banner and aegis of
progress. And to think, humanity wants to export this madness to space and the universe at
large. Any intelligent life that would ever make its way to Planet Earth, if ever, would be
well-advised to exterminate the species human before it spread its poison to the universe at
large. Not that that is possible, but just in case the .000000000001% chance of that does
miraculously manifest.
Concerning Trump "pleading" with Xi, it is only right for a leader to request others to
buy more US farm produce. We have only Bolton's word that the request was a plea. We also
have only Bolton's word that the request / plea was to seek "help from Xi Jinping to win the
upcoming 2020 election". Too early to believe Bolton. Wait till we see the meeting
transcripts.
Bolton also alleged that Trump exhibited "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" concerning
the Uygurs. Again, only Bolton's word. Even so, saying it is "unacceptable behavior" presumes
that China does wrong to incarcerate Uygurs. If not, ie, China either does not incarcerate
them, or if China has good moral grounds to do so, then Bolton is wrong to disagree with his
boss for uttering the right sentiment. Judging by how the anglo-zios shout about China's
"crime", I tend to think the opposite just might be the truth, and that says that Bolton is
simply mudslinging to sell books; score brownie points with the anglo-zios, virtue-signalling
for his next gig.
NYT writes Bolton direct US policy to fit his own political agenda,
while Bolton emphasizes Trump direct US policy in the way that pocket him most money.
Politician Bolton is consistent with his politician job (like it or not), Trump is
corrupted.
@56, I would argue that if one person could be both at the same time, that one person would
be Donald Trump. He's already proven, like Chauncey Gardner, he can walk on water. Seriously,
that excellent movie, Being There , starring the incomparable Peter Sellers, was about
Donald Trump's ascension to the Oval Office.
Using this 'quod licet jovi ...' the author apparently knows quite a bit of Latin, the dead
language!
But seriously, the nomination of Bolton who had always behaved like 2nd rate advisor, a 3rd
rate mcarthist cold warrior was a surprise to me. Such a short sighted heavily biased person
could be, yes, chosen a Minister or advisor in a banana Republic but was picked up by the
United states.
One can only conclude such a choice was driven by very specific interests of the deep
state.They needed a bulldog and got it for one year and half and threw the stinky perro soon
as the job was done.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Posted by: 450.org | Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52
The primary cause of corrupt leadership is corrupt and corruption-accepting
population.
Without a population that is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, corrupt leadership is
unstable. Conversely - and this is important to recognise as the same phenomenon - democracy
cannot exist if the population accepts and takes for granted corruption, as the two are
mutually exclusive. In other words if you root out the corrupt leadership without dealing
with the mentality of the population, the corruption will quickly come back and any
democratic experiment will collapse very quickly.
There is one important qualifier - an overwhelming external influence (since WWII always
the USA, either directly or as secondary effect) can leverage latent corruption so that it
becomes more exaggerated than it normally would be.
What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind
protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving
the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied
to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford,
Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to
current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.
Bolton pretended to be President, screwing up negotiations with his Libya Model talk,
threatening Venezuela (and anywhere generally) and directing fleets all over the world
(including Britain's to capture that Iranian oil tanker). Vindman revered "Ambassador" Bolton
because he was keeping the Ukraine corruption in Americans (and Ukrainian Americans') hands,
and daring the Russians to "start" WWIII. Bolton might have been a bit more bearable if he
had ever been elected, but was happy to see him go. Trump seemed mystified by him.
b has presented us (knowingly or not, but I wouldn't put it past him) with the Socratic
question of the presumed identity between the morality of the State and personal morality, as
best encountered in Plato's dialogue, 'The Republic' ['Politeia' in the Greek] That dialogue
begins by examining personal morality, but changes to an examination of what would bring into
being a perfect state. In doing the latter, however, it is how to create public spirited
persons, in the best sense, which is the actual concern, and the conversation ranges far and
wide, becoming more and more complex.
I've always thought that to consider the perfect state had to be an impossibility if the
individual, the person him or herself isn't up to the task - and that is the point of the
Politeia enterprise. Like the ongoing relay race on horseback that is happening at the same
time in the Piraeus, the passing of the argument one person to another that happens in the
dialogue demonstrates that what is most crucial for the state as well as for the individual
is personal integrity.
I take as an example the message of Saker's essay, linked by Down South and commented on
above by others. Saker is pointing out that the protests have been seized upon by the
anti-Trumpists who have been disrupting things from the beginning of his administration. But
he also says:
"My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his
political enemies"
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The discussion of different kinds of states,
which we often have here pursued, or the discussion of what makes a person able to function
in one or another state? I don't think Plato was saying that Greece had it made, that Greece
needed to throw its weight around more to be great. He's pointing out that it had lost
greatness, the same way every empire loses when it forgets that individual spark that is in a
single person, his virtue. And the sad thing is it all comes down to the education of our
young people in the values, the virtues that apply both to his own personal life and to the
life of the state.
At its heart, the protests which are beginning, only beginning, and which are peaceful,
may be politeia vs. republic, the 'polis' itself against 'things political'. A new and true
enlightenment, multipolar.
Corruption's been a fact of life in North America ever since it was "discovered."
Bernard Bailyn captured it quite well in his The New England Merchants in the
Seventeenth Century , that is during the very first stages of plantation, with most
corruption taking place in Old England then exported to the West. Even the Founders were
corrupt, although they didn't see themselves as such. Isn't Adam & Eve's corruption
detailed in Genesis merely an indicator of a general human trait that needs to be managed via
culture? That human culture has generally failed to contain and discipline corruption speaks
volumes about both. John Dos Passos in his opus USA noted that everyone everywhere was
on the "hustle"--from the hobo to the banker. "Every child gots to have its own" are some of
the truest lyrics ever written. Will humanity ever transcend this major failure in its
nature?
Who is behind the claim that China is imprisoning vast numbers of Uighurs in concentration
camps and what evidence has been presented? See the Greyzone for its recent report on this.
Thanks to all of you for your insights on Bolton.
I still don't see anything to explain why he got a second gig in the Whitehouse.
Or anything that he did that enhanced US security long term.
And another guy who dodged active service.
Strange angry dude,!
Pat Lang believes that Bolton has breached a law requiring US Officials with access to Top
Secret Stuff to submit personal memoirs for scrutiny before publishing. Col Lang is awaiting
similar approval for a memoir of his own and thinks Bolton didn't bother waiting for the
Official OK.
There's a diverse range of comments. Most commentators like the idea of Bolton being tossed
in the slammer. Others speculate that as a Swamp Creature, Bolton will escape prosecution.
It's interesting that no-one has asked to see the publisher's copy of the USG's signed &
dated Approval To Publish document, relevant to Bolton's book.
As Ben Garrison recent noted, in an
interview Bolton stated that it was OK for the government agencies to lie to the American
people if national security is at stake. And it always seems to be at stake for dominant men
who want secrecy and power. Bolton is a dangerous liar and his anti-Trump screed cannot be
trusted.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
"The centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." -- W. B. Yeats,
1919
Truth is the first victim in politics. Factions and passions rule. Random facts are picked as
weapons, no one thinks things through.
We need to understand the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd.
Many key facts are being ignored:
Floyd's blood tests showed a concentration of Fentanyl of
about three times the fatal dose. Fentanyl is a dangerous opioid 50 times more potent than
heroin. It has rapidly become the most common cause of death among drug addicts. The knee hold
used by the police is not a choke hold, it does not impede breathing. It is a body restraint and
is not known to have ever caused fatal injury. Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe"
a few minutes before the neck restraint was applied, while resisting the officers when they tried
to get him into the squad car. Fentanyl affects the breathing, causing death by respiratory
arrest. It was normal procedure to restrain Floyd because he was resisting arrest, probably in
conjunction with excited delirium (EXD), an episode of violent agitation brought on by a drug
overdose, typically brief and ending in death from cardiopulmonary arrest. The official autopsy
did indeed give cardiopulmonary arrest as the cause of death, and stated that injuries he
sustained during the arrest were not life-threatening. Videos of the arrest do not show police
beating or striking Floyd, only calmly restraining him In one video Floyd is heard shouting and
groaning loudly and incoherently while restrained on the ground, which appears to be a sign of
the violent, shouting phase of EXD. His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into
the squad car is typical of EXD cases. A short spurt of superhuman strength is a classic EXD
symptom.
Minneapolis police officers have been charged with Floyd's murder. Yet all the evidence points
to the fact that Floyd had taken a drug overdose so strong that his imminent death could hardly
have been prevented. In all likelihood, the police were neither an intentional nor accidental
cause of his death. These crucial facts have been completely ignored in the uproar.
When scientists review scientific papers, they look primarily at the evidence, and give less
weight to the conclusions, which are only the other fellow's opinions. To blindly follow "expert
opinions" is the Authoritarian View of Knowledge. This is no real knowledge at all, because to
assess whether an expert is always right, we would need infinite knowledge, and doubly so when
experts disagree. Not thinking for oneself is not really thinking.
So let us stick to the evidence. The county's ambivalent autopsy also included the following
hard facts: "Toxicology Findings: Blood samples collected at 9:00 p.m. on May 25th, before Floyd
died, tested positive for the following: Fentanyl 11 ng/mL, Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL ,
Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL 86 ng/mL of morphine," but draws no conclusions therefrom, noting only
that "Quantities are given for those who are medically inclined."
If ever there was a leap before a look, we are in it now. Masses of people have become
extremists, based on conclusions that are as false as they are hasty.
One difficulty is that there are public statements to the effect that the coroner ruled it a
homicide, and the title of the autopsy report includes the term "neck compression." But the words
"homicide," "restraint," "stress" or "compression" do not appear in the 20-page body of the
report. References to the neck are few -- a couple minor abrasions, a contusion on the shoulder,
and "The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage." It is as if the title
was chosen in regard to what was expected or proposed, but which was never found, and the title
was never updated. There seems to be no support at all in the report body for the report title,
which reads, "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck
compression."
The term "cause of death" does not appear. The words "death" and "fatal" only appear in this
comment in the lab report: "Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory
depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death . In fatalities from fentanyl, blood
concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL." Floyd's fentanyl level was
seven times higher.
If first impressions via the media fooled the coroner's office, until they examined the body,
we too can be fooled at first, but change our opinion according to the evidence.
Excited Delirium Syndrome
An additional hypothesis involves Excited Delirium Syndrome (EXD), a symptom of drug overdose
which sometimes appears in the final minutes preceding death. EXD typically results from fatal
drug abuse, in past years from cocaine or crack, more recently from fentanyl, which is 50 times
more potent than heroin. Especially dangerous are street drugs like meth, heroin or cocaine laced
with fentanyl.
According to an article in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (WJEM), 2011: [5]
https://westjem.com/articles/excited-delirium.html "Excited delirium (EXD) is characterized
by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care
setting. It is typically associated with the use of drugs. Subjects typically die from
cardiopulmonary arrest all accounts describe almost the exact same sequence of events: delirium
with agitation (fear, panic, shouting, violence and hyperactivity), sudden cessation of struggle,
respiratory arrest and death ."
It appears that an EXD episode began when the officers tried to get Floyd into the squad car.
He resisted, citing "claustrophobia" -- the onset of the fear and panic phase, and "I can't
breathe" -- difficulty breathing due to fentanyl locking into the breathing receptors in the
brain. (Classic symptoms of EXD are highlighted in bold.) He then exhibited unexpected strength
from the adrenaline spike in successfully resisting the efforts of four officers to get him into
the car. We may never know whether Floyd's agitation was caused purely from the EXD adrenaline
spike, or if it was aggravated by police attempts to subdue him -- but a subject defying the
efforts of multiple officers to subdue him is a very common theme.
When Chauvin pulled him out of the car he fell to the ground, perhaps due to disorientation
and reduced coordination. Presumably this was when he injured his mouth and his nose started to
bleed, and the police made the first call for paramedics.
While restrained on the ground, Floyd exhibited agitation ( shouting and hyperactivity, trying
to move back and forth) for several minutes. There is one brief video at this point. One hears
Floyd shouting very loudly, as in the agitated delirium phase -- it sounds like, "My face is
stoned ah hah, ah haaa, ah please people, please, please let me stand, please, ah hah, ah haaa!"
[6]
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-video-appea...17476/ . In a few minutes this was
followed by " sudden cessation of struggle, respiratory arrest and death, " shown in a later
video, where he becomes exhausted, and had stopped breathing when the ambulance arrived.
[7]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/
It appears that disorientation had already set in when the store employees went to Floyd's car
and asked him to return the cigarettes he had bought for a fake $20 bill. He refused, and they
reported the incident to the police, saying that he appeared to be very intoxicated. He certainly
must have been, or he would have either returned the cigarettes or left quickly to avoid arrest.
Loss of judgment is a symptom of the syndrome; this includes futile efforts to resist arrest.
Police Intervention and Intentions
The EXD diagnosis is controversial and in some quarters is viewed as an alibi for police
brutality. The WJEM authors note, "Since the victims frequently die while being restrained or in
the custody of law enforcement, there has been speculation over the years of police brutality
being the underlying cause. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of deaths
occur suddenly prior to capture, in the emergency department (ED), or unwitnessed at home."
Regarding restraint, they note, "people experiencing EXD are highly agitated, violent, and
show signs of unexpected strength, so it is not surprising that most require physical restraint.
The prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as "hobble" or "hogtie"), where the
person's ankles and wrists are bound together behind their back, has been used extensively by
field personnel. In far fewer cases, persons have been tied to a hospital gurney or manually held
prone with knee pressure on the back or neck."
This latter position is what the accused officer Chauvin was applying, although at one point
the team did consider using a hobble. Physical restraint of the subject has always been the
classical procedure, to prevent the subject harming themselves or others. It has been proposed
that restraint helps to forestall injury and death by conserving the subject's energy, but most
experts believe that by leading to an intense struggle, it increases the likelihood of a fatal
outcome.
Since knowingly using counterfeit currency is a fairly serious offense, the Minneapolis
officers were required to arrest Floyd and try to bring him in. When he violently resisted, the
optimal choice could have been to let him sit against a wall and guard him while calling an
ambulance. To be able to quickly switch from law enforcement mode to emergency care mode requires
training in recognizing the symptoms.
The charge sheet against Chauvin included this exchange between the two white officers on the
squad: [8]
https://www.startribune.com/protests-build-anew-afte...869672 ""I am worried about excited
delirium or whatever," Lane said. "That's why we have him on his stomach," Chauvin said."
According to this dialogue, Chauvin was apparently was trying to follow the protocol
recommended by WJEM. Since Floyd was on his stomach, Chauvin's knee pinned him at the side of his
neck, and did not impede breathing. Commentators are referring to Chauvin "kneeling" on Floyd's
neck, or resting his weight on it. From videos it is hard to gauge how much weight he applied,
but the correct procedure is just enough to restrain movement, not to crush the person.
Chauvin and his team might not have done everything perfectly, but it is easy to underestimate
the difficulty of police work, particularly in cases of resisting arrest, whether willfully or
due to intoxication. If they had been clairvoyant clinicians, they would have called an ambulance
the moment they saw him. Better training is needed. Was the police department then responsible?
Might the department have given the needed training if the AMA had acknowledged the existence of
the syndrome? This brings up a paradox: could police critics who deny the syndrome then bear part
of the responsibility for the deaths they decry? The syndrome is being recognized by law
enforcement after the fact. It needs to be recognized as it is happening.
With a fatal overdose there is no good outcome possible, but there is no way for police to
foresee that. Sometimes EXD can last longer, and it is not always fatal. Perhaps the ACEP Task
Force on EXD will update their report and provide guidelines to help police identify and deal
with EXD while avoiding accusations of police brutality.
In one video [10]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/ Chauvin continued to apply the
neck restraint although bystanders repeatedly objected, and even after Floyd stopped moving. As
Floyd became exhausted, it could have been reasonable to relax the restraint to see if it was
really necessary. Chauvin didn't seem to respond to the bystanders to give a medical reason for
the restraint. His actions were consistent with a belief that police should restrain the subject
until medevacs arrive. Videos show the police focused on restraint, never beating or striking
Floyd. The restraint and verbal exchanges with Floyd are also consistent with a belief that he
was resisting arrest, by refusing to get in the squad car. When he said "I can't breathe," they
responded "You're talking fine." When they said "Get in the car," he didn't agree to.
EXD seems to be the most likely reason why Floyd suddenly refused to get into the squad car,
and began to shout and writhe on the ground. With or without EXD or police intervention, he was
going to die quickly from fentanyl, short of immediate intensive care. A common treatment for EXD
is sedation with drugs like ketamine. The usual antidote for fentanyl is naloxone. Higher levels
of fentanyl may require intravenous naloxone for 24 hours or more.
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty. and then completely stopped breathing, this was the
onset of respiratory arrest, which is how a fentanyl overdose kills.
While police work is needed to trace the source of these dangerous drugs, the problems of drug
addiction and crime have deep causes and can only be contained, not solved, by the police.
Whatever our society has been doing about these problems is not working.
Right now, our civilization risks being torn apart by the passions of extremism, due to a
misunderstanding. Please share this analysis, as an appeal to return to reason.
Reviewer comment: "My first thought is why it has been left to you to figure this out, when
we pay professional journalists to investigate these things, and why aren't the police and
politicians telling us about this."
A good question which gives a clue to something I've been wondering about. When other
commentators publish within hours, why does it take me a week or two to finish an article like
this? Journalists are usually under a deadline to produce stories quickly, whereas it takes a lot
of research and reflection to develop an original thesis into a fair and coherent explanation of
events.
Everyone tends to have an agenda, and to look for facts to support it. Police brutality or
looters running amok may be more newsworthy than a chronic problem like drug abuse. The best
agenda now is to take a break to focus on facts, or else an "Excited Delirium" could become a
contagion that engulfs our nation.
A young white man died in Dallas a few years ago, after being restrained by the police with
the knee on his back. My respondent believed he suffocated, but the actual autopsy said cardiac
arrest due to cocaine, overdose EXD, and stress from restraint by police officers.
Tony Timpa had not only taken an overdose of cocaine, plus he was off his anti-schizophrenia
medicine. Mental illness can also be a trigger for EXD, and according to the autopsy report, he
displayed all the classic symptoms. The first phase, fear and panic, was fear of the onset of
delirium itself -- he himself called 911 for help. By the time the police arrived, security
guards had already handcuffed him to restrain him. He was incoherent, out of control, found lying
on the ground, the typical EXD position. The police pinned him down with a knee on his back for
13 minutes, saying he was at risk of rolling into the roadway, and suddenly he was dead.
Tony Timpa died in 2016. The family got the run-around, [16]
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/...timpa/ and an autopsy was not released
until 2019. The body cam footage was released, which showed the police behaving callously towards
the subject. The officers were originally charged with homicide, but it was found they were not
at fault, charges were dropped and they were reinstated. Timpa's case is very similar to Floyd
case in many ways, and there are also many differences -- the starkest of course being the
intensity of the public reaction.
Based on the case history and autopsy findings, it is my opinion that Anthony Alan Timpa, a
32-year-old white male, died as a result of sudden cardiac death due to the toxic effects of
cocaine and physiologic stress associated with physical restraint.
Cardiac hypertrophy and bipolar disorder contributed to his death.
The mechanism of death in cases such as this is sometimes referred to as "excited delirium."
Classically, people affected by EDS are witnessed to exhibit erratic or aggressive behavior,
and will often "throw off" attempts at restraint, requiring multiple people to subdue them. The
person will appear to calm down and will suddenly become unresponsive. Most cases are
associated with drug intoxication and/or illness.
In this case, several factors likely contributed to the death. The surveillance and body cam
footage and witness reports fit the classic scenario of excited delirium and cocaine use and
illness (bipolar disorder) are common predisposing risk factors for EDS. Cocaine leads to
increased heart rate and increased blood pressure, making a cardiac arrhythmia more likely. Due
to his prone position and physical restraint by an officer, an element of mechanical or
positional asphyxia cannot be ruled out (although he was seen to be yelling and fighting for
the majority ofthe restraint). His enlarged heart size also put him at risk for sudden cardiac
death.
Although the decedent only had superficial injuries, the manner of death will be ruled a
homicide, as the stress of being restrained and extreme physical exertion contributed to his
demise.
MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide
[Signatures and seals of medical examiners]
(Note that homicide is not the same as murder, it also includes unintentional or accidental
actions contributing to death.)
Anthony Timpa autopsy p. 5, blood tests -- Cocaine and metabolites
If we add the three numbers above for cocaine and metabolytes together it comes to about 18
mg/L. This is anywhere from 3 to 18 times the lethal dose. With such an overdose, plus being
without his schizophrenia medication, Timpa had little if any chance of surviving.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on Timpa, part of a series on the Dallas police.
On August 10, 2016, Dallas Police killed Tony Timpa, a 32-year-old resident who had not taken
his medication. Timpa was already handcuffed while a group of officers pressed his body into the
ground while he squirmed. It took over three years for footage of the incident to be released.
The footage contradicted claims by Dallas Police that Timpa was aggressive Criminal charges
against three officers were dropped in March 2019 and officers returned to active duty."
Wikipedia doesn't even mention cocaine, although that was the main cause of death. Likewise,
the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
makes no mention of a drug overdose or excited delirium. By entitling the articles "Killing"
rather than "Death," Wikipedians appoint themselves as a court of law.
It must be observed that the Minneapolis officers acted with far more consideration towards
Floyd than the treatment Timpa received in Dallas. The way the officers made fun of Timpa was a
scandal. [19]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/tony-timpa-dal...m.html Then they were surprised when
he suddenly died.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
Isn't it odd, when we have a problem in the United States of many shootings by -- and of --
the police, that such an uproar has arisen, over a case where the police actually had little or
nothing to do with the man's demise?
The stress of restraint is most likely incidental. As reported by the WJEM, "Victims who do
not immediately come to police attention are often found dead in the bathroom surrounded by wet
towels and/or clothing and empty ice trays, apparently succumbing during failed attempts to
rapidly cool down." Hyperthermia or high body temperature is a classic symptom of EXD. Enormous
energy is released by an uncontrolled adrenaline spike. The heat also feeds delirium, which is a
familiar symptom of high fever.
Normally, it's assumed that stress factors contribute to a heart attack, as medical examiners
wrote in both the Floyd and Timpa cases. Yet the WJEM notes that "one important study found that
only 18 of 214 individuals identified as having EXD died while being restrained or taken into
custody." All victims died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Drug overdose and EXD are sufficient causes
for this outcome.
Both Floyd and Timpa had taken overdoses at triple the lethal level. Enough drugs to kill them
three times over. Yet you can only die once so how could the stress of restraint contribute more
to their deaths? You can't contribute to a glass that's already full three times over. That is a
little like saying that someone died because their parachute didn't open, and the weight of their
backpack also contributed to the fall. But they die from the fall once they hit the ground,
whether it's at 120 mph or 122 mph.
In conclusion, excited delirium should be treated as a medical condition, at high risk of
ending quickly in sudden death. An ambulance should be called immediately. Only the minimum
necessary restraint should be applied. Police and paramedics should be trained in the symptoms
and handling protocols.
It would be helpful if the AMA would recognize EXD as a real condition, rather than dismissing
it as a cover story for police brutality. Ignorance of the symptoms can lead to unintentional
cruelty by police, when they assume they are confronted by a typical case of a criminal violently
resisting arrest, rather than a patient with a life-threatening intoxication.
[2]
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/fentanyl-overdose-dont-count-naloxone-save-you-10822
"The patients who were dead on arrival had gone into cardiac arrest due to blood concentrations
of fentanyl that were much higher than what is administered therapeutically. " Patients who died
in hospital had concentrations of 9.5 ng/mL to 13 ng/mL. See also note 13. In other studies of
death from heroin and morphine, there were deaths from only 100 ng/ml of morphine and "all cases
with a blood concentration of 200 ng/ml and more of free morphine displayed a fatal outcome."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11040428_Fatal_versus_non-fatal_heroin_overdose_Blood_morphine_concentrations_with_fatal_outcome_in_comparison_to_those_of_intoxicated_drivers
(Heroin quickly metabolizes into morphine.) Fentanyl is considered 100 times more potent than
morphine. By this comparison, Floyd's blood fentanyl concentration could have been 10 times the
fatal level. In addition his morphine concentration of 86 ng/mL would usually be fatal by
itself.
Concentration levels are relative to the volume of blood, so are independent of body size.
[4]
The knee on the neck is a body hold, not a chokehold or carotid restraint, which involves putting
pressure precisely on both carotid arteries, located on either side of the throat. A carotid
restraint is usually applied by an elbow, and causes the subject to pass out in as little as 15
seconds. Blocking the arteries does not stop the breathing or heartbeat (pulmonary or cardiac
arrest), which Floyd suffered after being restrained for many minutes. Once pressure on the
arteries is released, the subject normally regains consciousness quickly.
[9]
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/acep_report_on_excited_delirium_syndrome_sept_2009.pdf
See also the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, "[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics
to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a
disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement
efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense."
in "Explaining the Unexplainable: Excited Delirium Syndrome and Its Impact on the Objective
Reasonableness Standard for Allegations of Excessive Force," https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
The first few pages relate a narrative similar to the Floyd case, involving multiple police
subduing a violent EXD victim, who suddenly dies from exhaustion. A media uproar then arises
against alleged police brutality.
[11]
From the incident report of the fire truck that was called to the scene, it appears that both
police and bystanders called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The first call was Code 2,
apparently for Floyd's nosebleed, which summoned a fire truck, followed by a more urgent code 3,
which was said to bring an ambulance within six minutes. It appears the police called the
ambulance when Floyd's breathing and heartbeat stopped.
https://www.startribune.com/first-responders-worked-nearly-an-hour-to-save-floyd-before-he-was-pronounced-dead/570806682/
"Floyd goes limp and appears to lose consciousness. Hennepin EMS then arrive six minutes after
the distress call." The article refers to the incident report by the fire truck, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-224680.pdf
which has a note implying the first call to EMS was from police and another call came from
bystanders: "No clear info on pt [patient] or location was given by either initial pd [police
department] officers or bystanders." We need an incident report from the ambulance.
[12]
TV news clips showing police restraining subjects who are exhibiting EXD symptoms and violently
resisting arrest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc A
TV news report and cellphone video on a more humane method of managing an EXD case, thanks to
police training, putting safety of the subject and of bystanders first, rather than restraints.
However, no details are given about the outcome or the drug dose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc
[14]
Wikipedia has a detailed narrative of the incident here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
. Certain notes there support the thesis of fentanyl intoxication, and resisting arrest as part
of an EXD syndrome. Floyd struggled with Lane before leaving his own vehicle, and again when
Kueng, then all four officers, tried to get him into the squad car. Floyd already complained he
couldn't breathe before they tried to get him into the police car, without any neck restraint,
indicating the onset of respiratory depression from fentanyl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-arrests-america-approaching-10000/story?id=71038665
"They all tried to force Floyd into the backseat, during which time Floyd said he could not
breathe, according to the complaint."
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
[21]
"According to Dr. Assaad Sayah, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, Excited
Delirium Syndrome can be best explained as a 'physical response to an actual psychological [or
drug] problem resulting in their autonomic systems producing too much adrenaline.' Dr. Sayah
analogizes it to 'having too much nitrous in a car; eventually the engine will blow up.' In most
cases, the cause of death is either 'a heart attack or, less frequently, respiratory failure.'
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every year in
police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from the drugs and
from the struggle.'" Op. cit.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
I think more likely he died of a Covid-19 induced heart attack. Heart disease is the #1
comorbidity of Covid19. Doctors have talked about patients of Covid19 dying of sudden heart
attacks at a high rate. Floyd was Covid19 positive, and he also had heart disease and
hypertension, the top two comorbidity of Covid19.
That is over three times the lethal overdose, following earlier reports where the highest dose
survived was 4.6 ng/mL.
Good points. And before this, all we ever heard about was how deadly fentanyl is. It killed Tom
Petty and is so potent, it killed him via skin absorption! Now, however, the Back Flow Media
(BFM) ;-), has agendas to push and truth ain't one of them.
Unfortunately, those who need to learn these facts have no interest in truth. Logic, reason,
common sense, and all such things are thrown out; instead, the mob controls based upon who
yells the loudest, not who makes the most fact-based sense.
People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them. If you
don't like the Floyd murder, I got a couple thousand other cop murders for ya, and I would like
to see you write such a stirring defense of cop-killed bodies riddled with hundreds of rounds
of automatic weapons fire. Including all the dead white people.
No denying that Floyd was a thug. Neither would any amount of denying alter the fact that he
died at the hand – rather the knee – of a racist cop. Get over it, supremacists.
It really does not matter. The Jewish mainstream media has tried and convicted the officers.
They will never get a fair trial and are screwed. Saint George will have to be avenged or there
will be more riots, arson and looting which the same degenerate media will call "protests".
So they could have left him alone and he would have died anyway, another statistic.
It does imply intrusive policing invites unintended consequences. For the counterfeit
$20, a summons would have been sufficient. Then George could have crawled off, go home to
Jesus, and we could have been spared the phoniest and most overblown freak show since the Fall
of Babylon.
Let them patrol their own 'hoods and be done with all this.
Fentanyl Floyd was a drug peddler and a petty criminal who got caught in the act of selling
drugs by patrolling police. Panicking, he swallowed his own stash and overdosed as a result.
Now he is being retconned into a saint.
I think Floyd was being passive aggressive rather than resisting as such. What was done to him
by Chaving was punishment out of frustration, but the duration was well outside normal
practice.
Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe" a few minutes before the neck restraint
was applied,
That will be a dangerous argument for Chauvin's defence counsel to make to the court,
because it will be opening the door to a telling counter argument: Floyd's breathing was
restricted after he reported respiratory distress.
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote, not put weight
on his ribcage while he was face down and his hands cuffed behind him; a contributory cause
according to the autopsy, which found wrist bruises.
@Anon
There's no such thing as a heart attack induced by covid-19.
People who have been hospitalized for heart disease, and subsequently test positive for
covid-19, don't usually die from the virus they die from their underlying heart disease
condition.
I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me. Weight on his other knee, looking right
at the camera while "killing" someone, yada yada. Officer Chauvin, fer Chrissake. Officer
Racist would be too much even for stupid goyim. 8 minutes my ass. Aces and eights anyone? The
point of this fentenyl dohicky is to pretend it really happened. Just another deep state psyop
I say. But go ahead and argue about it. Makes it easier to steal 10 trillion from the US
taxpayer.
This guy is channeling Johnny Cochran. Yes, we know O.J. didn't do it either, because Nicole
Brown was high on lethal amounts of cocaine, and Ron Goldman was mainlining deadly amounts of
horse(heads almost fall off when this happens)
You see, the amount of imaginary fantasy is endless which feeds the inter-civilian war of
people-against-people while the State remains blissfully secure knowing that those who control
the media(narrative) will always win
Otherwise, yea, we get it, the police are always honest, justice is blind, your vote counts,
your money is secure, god loves you, the vaccine is harmless, and your children are doing a
great service by telling the government instructor(school teacher) that you smoke pot, so the
state can seize everything you own.
Your underlying analysis is incorrect. People overdose at much higher levels and live through
it. Maybe the cops should have been more interested in why he was presenting in an altered
state and called an EMT, than carting him off to jail for a possible forged $20 bill.
The mean serum concentrations of fentanyl in their patients was (52.9 ng/mL) with a range of
7.9-162.3 ng/ml.
One of the 18 patients died in hospital. Five patients underwent cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, one required extracorporeal life support, three required intubation, and two
received bag-valve-mask ventilation. One patient had recurrence of toxicity after 8 hours after
naloxone discontinuation. Seventeen of 18 patients required boluses of naloxone, and four
required prolonged naloxone infusions (26–39 hours). All 18 patients tested positive for
fentanyl in the serum. Quantitative assays conducted in 13 of the sera revealed fentanyl
concentrations of 7.9 to 162 ng/mL (mean = 52.9 ng/mL).
The author starts one paragraph with "in conclusion", LOL again LOL
Once again missing the point,intentionally,misdirecting. It's a FALSE FLAG
Street theater duh, set up Fromthestart. Plandemic.Seriously,it creates jobs.
Liars oops I mean lawyers,oops I mean poly ticks,locally,nationally,
all the way to the jewdicial branch and congress and beyond.GET REAL.
It's far worse than that.An elder told me they don't believe in IQ.
The facts and investigations and evidence don't do nuffin after the incurred LOSS
of SO much time,money,energy,community,productivity,confidence,SANITY etc.
THIS is COUP and" it's no where near in conclusion." that's my comment,thanks
peace,love, life
Excellent article which should be on the front page of every major paper in the USA. The part
on the Excited Delirium Syndrome is new to me but it's interesting .It illustrates nicely this
civil disorder has nothing to do with Mr Floyd. I just hope officer Chauvins defence team makes
good use of this information.
As a retired pharmacist I'm surprised by the use of fentanyl as a drug of abuse. The
therapeutic dose banding is very small, its very potent , it is a very short acting drug and
it's a drug that only an anaesthetist should consider using or abusing. Its a very potent
respiratory depressant that has a nasty habit of producing a delayed action hours after the
affect has apparently worn off. Fentanyl also causes heart slowing and any anaesthetist would
give other drugs to counter that effect to keep the patient under control.
Now lets look at the photo of other officers using the correct Israeli defence force pin
down
Notice that the knee and leg not doing the pinning is not on the ground therefore all the
weight of the body is brought to bear on the victims neck and the major blood vessels under the
knee. Now look at officer Caulvin his right boot toe is on the ground along with his right
knee. Try it yourselves on a pillow, you cannot bring any force to bear , at best you are
holding someone with that pose. He also looks under no stress from Mr Floyd with his hold. At
5′ 8" I would be using the IDF method if I had to restrain Mr Floyd, but lets be honest I
would avoid him full stop. There is also the fun part of trying to hit and subdue someone who
thanks the the Fentanyl in his system would feel little pain.
This whole thing looks very suspicious to me , and the speed with which the thing went global
even more suspicious. The speed that people appeared with expensive t-shirts and hoodies all
bearing
"I cannot breath" printed on the front in many locations simultaneously along with the piles of
bricks and attacks on statues has a pre-planned Soros and Antifa agenda all over it.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be totally
fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on his neck for
nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into the squad car is typical of EXD
cases.
When did this happen, exactly? The security cam video show that two [2] officers succeeded
to get Floyd into the back seat of the cruiser. Then, one officer pulled him out on the other
side.
I've read plenty about ExD, and believe that Chauvin will make a successful defense. Your '4
men failed' spared me reading this long slog.
Gotta protect those israeli occupation troops at all costs and keep their colonial police state
(that's the usa, neanderthals) a colonial police state. Should those dumb goy animals unite and
force our quislings out, who knows what might befall our "sacred homeland".
Did drugs kill George Floyd ? Does it matter ?
This affair is one of public perception.
The perception IS that Chauvin used excessive force. The guy died after that "force" whether
excessive or not. People, rightly or wrongly see cause & effect.
As for your points about overdose ? Fairly weak. Every minute that passes the likelihood of
overdose decreases. Overdoses don't hide in your system for 20 minutes (excluding digestion or
assimilation) & then jump out & shut down your heart.
Floyd may have appeared intoxicated, but he also appeared functional for a "normal" unstressful
setting.
He sat down, handcuffed, against a wall for some minutes without "losing it".
Also interesting -- they had him in the police car -- then dragged him out for lack of
compliance. Why ? Let him sit in the locked, secure police back seat, So he screams & makes
a fuss ? Arrestees are known to do that. But no, they drag him out (still handcuffed) &
THREE of them get on top of him: one on legs, one on the torso, & one on his neck. And stay
that way for nearly 9 minutes. And its not like they don't know he's physically problematic --
they call the EMS early on.
Now lets imagine that you have a problem with your heart or breathing (he tells them numerous
times about his breathing, not necessarily entirely from physical airway blockage, but from
panic -- psychology rendering the act of breathing difficult )– would being pinned to the
road by 3 burly men, one of them exerting some pressure on your neck not cause some
degree of panic ? Could some people be near to literally shitting themselves from panic ? Would
such fear & panic not be contraindicated in a man for whom you have already called the EMS
?
Funny thing, was I a police man I would have asked Floyd to sit in his car (yes, take his keys
& guard him) while I had a look at this so-called counterfeit bill. I mean, that's the
point isn't it ? this whole abortion rests on passing a dodgy $ 20. (Knowingly passing: I
wonder how many shonky US bills there are out there millions ?).
So Floyd is probably a scumbag -- so ? The whole affair looks appalling. And that really
IS the point here.
"Systemic racism" is simply POC and non-European descended Whites saying that they cannot live
in Western (or, indeed, industrial) society,
The POC are correct in this. Who, after all, is qualified to tell them that they are wrong?
George Floyd was destroyed by "systemic racism" in the above sense. Even East Asians and South
Asians with high enough IQ and sufficient emotional control to live in Western (industrial)
society strongly condemn the lack of organization in such societies, and the absence of the
protective social organizations (caste, a directive government/social organization) that are
characteristic of their homelands. Middle Eastern Whites condemn the absence of the tribal /
honor / religious system that characterizes their countries of origin.
POC and non-European descended Whites want Western ( industrial) society changed or destroyed
for their benefit.
This is a serious and irresolvable conflict of interest, for the European descended Whites are
just as unable to live in the home societies of various POC and non-European descended White
groups as these groups are unable to live in Western (industrial) society.
Note that the above irresolvable conflict of interest is not ever discussed directly. This
is characteristic of major irresolvable conflicts of interest. WW II is a good example of this
(see the American Pravda articles, unz.com , for
support of this assertion). All of the participants (except possibly Hitler, who apparently
wanted a European Empire allied to the British Empire) thought it was "them or us" (hence the
"unconditional surrender" demands from the Allies), and thus had strong reasons for fighting.
These reasons were not used in propaganda by any side. Propaganda based on self interest of the
"only one Empire will survive" type makes poor propaganda. So does propaganda based on what
amounts to a multi-sided volkwandering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswanderung
), which is what we seem to be entering into.
Good propaganda is smoke -- mythic appeals, but to a non-applicable myth, with irrelevant
"proof". George Floyd is an example of how this is supposed to work.
The interesting thing about this situation is that it is the OC and non-European descended
Whites are the ones insisting that they cannot live in the West / industrial civilization.
Granted that the Left wing of the Democratic Party is the proximate cause of the current
offensive, attempted Antifa leadership of the offensive has been largely repudiated or simply
ignored by the various POC. Understanding the basics of this situation requires that the
objections of the POC and non-European descended Whites be taken seriously and understood, as I
have tried to do above.
@Sean
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote,
Are you serious?
These cops meant to make an instant medical diagnosis.
Decide the problem and drug involved.
Produce an antidote.
And administer it.
What planet are you on?
And had they administered the wrong drug .?
They would be crucified as well.
Its hard to believe you can really believe that comment yourself.
Its sheer prejudice and blah for BLM.
And a grossly unfair accusation.
*Since the MSM and many of our leaders are in sync with BLM, we should just turn the country
over to them since they've done a great job within their own "neighborhoods."
*It's pretty useless to say the MSM loves BLM. The MSM does what the folks who control/own
it tell it to do.
*Per BLM's demand, cops should stop patrolling black neighborhoods and instead boost
patrolling non-black neighborhoods to reduce crime there.
Police were not arresting him for the counterfeit bill. If you pass a counterfeit bill you are
interviewed by police so they can attempt to trace its origin.
Where did you get cash?
Where do you cash your checks?
Did you get this as change for a larger bill? Where?
He was detained because when they came up to him in the car he was obviously intoxicated and
behind the wheel. Also rewatch the security tape and see the cop talks to him for 2 minutes and
at one point is so worried by whatever Floyd was doing he unholstered his gun but didn't point
it. Floyd also had no ID on him.
So it's a cascade of events that lead to his arrest. Police can't ID an intoxicated person
behind the wheel of a car. Try to get him out of the car and he immediately starts
resisting.
@Sparkylyle92
" I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me"
Here's an excellent analysis of 3 of the alleged live, completely contradictory videos on
this alleged event, which quite clearly show it to be hoax perpetrated via crisis actors, fake
police and EMT's. :
@Anonymous
I'm curious about this "racist cop" trope that's become pretty common. Is it common for
"racists" to be married to someone of another race as Chauvin is? I'd think a "racist" would
favor a spouse of their own race, no? Seems to me, to you crazies on the left, Pale skin makes
a person a "racist ". It's become a truth in America that the only definition of "racist" is
White. The word is, therefore, meaningless. Floyd died because of his drug use and criminal
activity. Not a knee on the back of his neck.
@SOL
I second that. Problem is there is no satisfying the BLM folks. They are suffering from PTSD
because of our history of slavery. This is sort of like vets who have PTSD, but the key
difference being vets actually participated in a war whereas no black living was a part of our
history of slavery.
The solution is for the BLM and lgbtqi folks to join forces and put forth a black tranny
candidate to solve all our problems.
Why should we believe the "report"? why not believe our lying eyes? Who released this "report"?
Where is an independent verification? I'll wait, thanks, for a report that has been released by
an independent source that is confirmed by the family.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be
totally fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on
his neck for nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
When I see a comment like this on an article as closely reasoned and supported as this one,
I wonder whether public schools teach the ability to read.
You can check my previous posts and see that these are precisely the points I made from a
very casual glance at the autopsy report and a little knowledge of police motivations. That was
right after the incident occurred. Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only
raise emotional response.
Thank you, Ron Unz, for being brave enough to publish this article.
I guess the defense is entitled to a defense. I guess that is the benefit of having two
coroner's reports. The skill and advocacy of the police unions to manufacture alternative
theories and creates smoke as defense is light years ahead of antifa, BLM or the KKKK.
Te problem with the the current system is not dug induced males sitting on their cars o
falling asleep in drive thrus or jogging in around empty construction sites or waiting for tow
trucks, or selling cigarettes, or avoiding creepy guys stalking the in apartment complexes, or
sleeping in their beds or or walking with some white women --
It's the loss of credibility. The police unions can have the officers walk out as they ave
routinely done as a means of black mail holding cities hostage, but at the end of the day, what
technology is doing is unavailing a side of Wyatt Earp the public would rather not see even if
they know what's up. It's the system in a manner of exposure unlike it's even been used to.
It's the collapse of the arguments for invading countries that are not a threat. It's the
collapse of the internal dialogues among the agencies in multiple arenas of government force.
It's Ruby Ridge, It's Waco, It's Baltimore, It's Fergusaon. It's Oakland. It's Baton Rouge.
It's New Jersey. It's . . . It's balloting were the 1 per-center is suddenly number one,. Utter
nonsense such as written in the Fergason Report. It's nonsense such as the Ferguson Effect.It's
a news system, that is serious doubt. It's bail out for WS, repeatedly and then throwing the
payees f bail out out of works. It is stagnant wages. It's hiring and executive to make a
serious shift ad the best he could do hire ore part time citizens and embrace more
immigrants.
It's the system saying it's not the system. It;s loosening up credit for businesses and the
rules for consumers tighter. It's watching something on film as it happens and then being told
what you saw is not what happened.
It's the unmasking of tactics used by the system to shield itself from accountability. And
perhaps worst of all, we believing what the system tells us because believing reality is just
to tough a road to to travel. It is the system saying . . . it's not the system.
-- -- --
uhh No. I didn't believe there was a reason to invade Ira or Afghanistan or any of the
subsequent intentions by the former Vietnam protester "we lost Vietnam" crowd as I am that Mr.
Floyd died from a drug overdoese.
And none of the smoke and mirrors: that Pres Hussein was a bad person, that the Taliban were
in on 9/11, that the family occupying Ruby Ridge were Nazis, Mr. Koresh was a demon, there's a
Fergason Effect, that blacks are just bad innately and whites are angelic beings along with
browns and yellows worthy of pass, or that IQ is destined by some unique, unknown and unseen
genetic code, that the Russians sabotaged US elections, . . . or US lost Vietnam (no it did
not). If I start buying onto the nonsense spouted as truth to escape accountability before you
know it, I will start advocating that slaves were just immigrants coming the continent for
better jobs and life.
@Sean
Apart from Emily's point I note that you state that Chauvin constricted Floyd's breathing
without evidence despite it not being accepted by the author of the article.
This proves, the sainthood of a very simian looking convicted criminal doped up coon, that you
can fool some of the people all of the time. The Jooz are laughing all the way to the
ban total control of the World.
@Anon4578
A passer of counterfeit bills is typically given an opportunity by the cheated merchant to make
him whole before the cops are called. Saint George, for whatever reasons, didn't avail himself
of the opportunity extended to him to do just that.
@Wuok
He prolly would have had they just left him alone. Then they'd be in jail for failure to render
first aid. The rioting would have still happened. Heads or tails, you lose with niggers.
@Rich
Chauvin was probably a screaming liberal until he got involved with the chink. The thing about
chinks is they're known to hate everyone equally who isn't a chink.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
That is not strange. The reason BLM choose cases where the policeman only did their job is
because otherwise, they'll risk seeing the policeman go to jail, and then there'd be no
systemic racism to rail against. Only when you are sure the policeman will be exonerated in a
court of law, can you rile the animals without risking the party coming to an end before the
music even starts.
@RouterAl
For the time being, an educated comment like yours gets a hearing, in contrast to the
unreasoned moral posturing of so many others here. For so long as they can hide behind "good
intentions," they can run from inconvenient facts. UR recently featured an article and comments
on Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure , which says it best about these disgusting
phonies who'd never dream of reexamining their positions based on the horrors they cause.
"In our political environment, it would seem, we are surrounded on all sides with good
intentions. But the nurturing of good intentions is an utterly undemanding mental exercise,
while drafting plans to realize those worthy goals is another matter. Moreover, it is far
from clear whether "good intentions plus stupidity" or "evil intentions plus intelligence"
have wrought more harm in the world. People with good intentions usually have few qualms
about pursuing their goals. As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained
harmless often becomes dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions
rarely suffer the qualms of conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people
with bad intentions. The conviction that our intentions are unquestionably good may sanctify
the most questionable means.
Excerpt From
The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations
Dietrich Dorner
This material may be protected by copyright.
@Thulean
Friend What exactly did happen to the white substance that clearly fell out of his left
pocket while against the wall? Odd nobody mentions that.
George killed himself. He took a lethal overdose of Fentanyl. The meth and the fentanyl
combined cause delirium and heart problems. These two drugs caused what is called "Excited
Delirium Syndrome" which is usually fatal.
When the officers pulled him out of the Mercedes–he was already foaming at the mouth.
These four officers need to be released and given their jobs back. Their arrests are just a
lynch mob by the liberal establishment. George killed George. He gambled with his life, put
himself in that position with allegedly passing counterfeit money. Furthermore, George was DWI;
he was sitting in the drivers seat. Even though you are not driving, sitting in the driver's
seat is DWI, Driving while impaired. Who needs to be arrested is the Drug Dealer that sold him
the Fentanyl.
Moreover, Excited Delirium syndrome causes "Wooden Chest". That is what George was
experiencing, His drug cocktail killed him.
1 million to 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of
the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli
alone (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by
other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast)
"From bases on the Barbary coast, North Africa, the Barbary pirates raided ships traveling
through the Mediterranean and along the northern and western coasts of Africa, plundering
their cargo and enslaving the people they captured."
From at least 1500, the pirates also conducted raids along seaside towns of Italy, Spain,
France, England, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland, capturing men, women and
children.
On some occasions, settlements such as Baltimore, Ireland were abandoned following the
raid, only being resettled many years later. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone had 466
merchant ships lost to Barbary pirates.
@Anonymous
Are you sure that you are not a racist or a progeny of racists?
As Confederate statues are torn down in the USA, one wonders: Are we going to ask Egypt to
change its name, tear down its pyramids which were built by slaves too? And destroy mummies
of pharaohs that had slaves?
Are the black tribes of Africa, the ones who sold the slaves they took from other tribes
when at war and sold to the Arab slave traders, are we going to change the names of those
African tribes too? And tear down the names of their leaders?
No comments? Here is more:
Regarding white slaves in Africa and black slaves in the New World, it is often overlooked
that slaves were enslaved before they were bought and sold by Jews, Arabs, and Gentiles. The
unasked question is: Who enslaved them?
Things that used to be true before political correctness set in: More whites were brought
as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States.
All this obsessing over what pretty boy George died of is irrelevant. Cops putting their knee
on the neck, the most vulnerable part of the human body is wrong period! No sympathy for the
thug, he was a menace to society. What should be obsessed over is police culture has not been
to "protect and serve" since at least the 70's. They see themselves as "at war" with the whole
of society, from the suburban soccer mom to the ghetto thug.
It's widely known cops will take a routine traffic stop, and poke and prod at the driver to try
to rile them up and get the person to react and give the cop an attitude to escalate the
interaction into an altercation. In the suburbs, quiet rural areas it matters not. Race matters
not. They'll pull this shit in the most docile neighborhoods, with the most docile of people,
regardless of color.
I'm neither pro cop or anti cop, I see them as a necessary evil. They'd be a hell of alot less
evil if reforms were made in their attitude toward the public at large, and if they were held
accountable for all their various abuses of power. They also need their privileged status as
some sort of exalted special class "above the public" obliterated! Cops on the whole are some
of the most corrupt, anti social, sadistic people in society. I know many of them personally,
both city and suburban.
As much as I dislike the rioting, looting, arson and chaos, I'm enjoying the karmic retribution
the boys in blue in receiving.
@obwandiyag
It could also be that a certain race is a bit more prone to get into drugs, crime,
prostitution,
and so on. And truth to be told hard work is not in their DNA. As long as you keep
denying FACTS this will never end.
Canada has to bring thousands of Mexicans and Guatemalans to work on the farm fields,
while half of this people are on welfare, and when they do work they only want easy jobs,
bus drivers, taxi drivers, or for the governments where most of the time they just don't
perform
as well. In the mean time people like me are being taxed close to 60% to pay for all these
social programs which only benefits the laziest
Since when gross injustice against a once subdued person legitimate anti-humanity? That is how,
to a naive person consumes daily propaganda by the usa government and their presstitute which
reflect an appearance of "good america" while genuinely reflecting a clandestine disdain for
what is right or such unjustified violence cloaked under the line of duty against the general
population would not be so common in the touted "land of the free." The magnet (of the peaceful
protesters from australia, to europe and latin america) is not to a "good free land of
jewmerica" but to the missing and lack of legitimate Justice parroted along with the moral
compass touted by the usa government and their law enforcement while the true reality of
irrectitude makes itself apparent in videos such as the one of George floyd's unjustified
assassination/murder, where unjustified violence is evident. Thus, with these uncensored videos
by the peaceful population or general public of the usa, the truth did not remain hidden by
manipulated narratives of the jew-owned presstitute and media in favor of the cia/usa
government flavor of their wicked ideology preference while cloaked in sheep's clothing.
In conclusion, When an individual poses a serious threat to an officer or another
individual, according to the National Institute of Justice, the "peace-officer" (as they are
glorifyingly touted) is generally authorized by law to use lethal weapons (i.e., firearms) to
protect himself or herself or others by stopping the individual's actions. You don't want to
realize that there is IRREFUTABLY no serious threat nor danger to life once a person (of any
color in handcuffs as the estate of George Floyd was and many others) is subdued. And, those
marching (or rather peacefully protesting to show solidarity) in many other foreign nation
states display how morally magnetic is the actual legitimate axiom of the interest of justice
because that no democracy can exist unless each of its citizens is as capable of outrage at
injustice to another as he is of outrage at unjustice to himself.
I don't care so much for the cops since they would put you in a cage with these animals for
thought crimes like posing the JQ and denying the Holycaust without any hesitation at all. They
are paid mercs and sometimes they get burned. Similarly the light property damage incurred by
corporate storefronts and reduction in quality of life for liberal urban dwellers is not at all
a concern for me, and I honestly hope this goes on in perpetuity until the statistical reality
of black crime is literally beaten into their skulls. As for George Floyd he will no longer be
producing any more of his ilk. He was set to marry a lower class white woman and open an
establishment eponymously named the Konvict Kitchen, all in defiance of the principles of
nuptiality and common decency. The former enhances black criminality by combining pathological
white genes from the classes which in Europe would have their breeding restricted by cultural
and economic constraints but are allowed to flourish here generating trailer parks and white
trash that with miscegenation and negrification are as much of a danger to society as the the
African type they complement.
In any case having seen the footage from these events it strikes me that these cops are
themselves very unintelligent. In the case of the Atlanta negro aptly named Rayshard they were
inclined to play junior detective and gameshow host for upwards of 30 minutes when it was
obvious that they should have immediately incapacitated the feral groid and dragged him away
from a motor vehicle capable of causing far more damage than the plastic dart guns they ended
up wrestling over. Instead they allowed the monkey to shuck and jive for what seemed like an
hour repeating the same inane phrases over and over again. I would have been inclined to dump a
mag in the baboon at the 2 minute mark. These two men were themselves products of negrification
and no doubt they likened the ill-fated negro to their favorite afleets and sports stars they
worship on TV, giving him chance after chance to behave like a human being with around a
standard deviation more aptitude than they should have given him credit for. If they had a
choice between the ineffective Taser device and a firearm they ended up using it would have
gone better.
I think this country is screwed in the long run and I just hope it ends in fireworks. The
long and inexorable drag into stupidity is maddening.
I doubt anyone cares what he died from, they can just go "change" their signs to some guy in
Georgia. They all look like hoaxes but they needed something for "change" to happen. Back to
online petitions and countless fake hoaxes and more toppling anything whuhhh, and more
historical revision to erase whuhhhh, can't even spell it anymore.
Who called the police on the martyrs? Why would a black person call the police on a black man
asleep in the line at Wendy's in Georgia, when they could have just drove around him. Why have
the white police bother him? It all just looks like more lefty "change" helped out by the good
folks at Netflix or something.
He also had sickle cell anemia. The coronary report mention a lot of "sickled" cells, but only
postmortem. It is knows that sufferers of SCD show that kind of pattern: Death induces it.
However, George Floyd was also COVID19 positive, and there are signs that COVID19 decreases
Hemoglobin levels:
Primate models of Covid-19 (Munster 2020) and human Covid-19 patients have subnormal
haemoglobin levels (Chen 2020). Clinical evaluationof almost 100 Wuhan patients reveals
haemoglobin levels below the normal range in most patients as well as increased total
bilirubin and elevated serum ferritin (Chen 2020). Hyperbilirubinemia is observed in acute
porphyria (Sassa 2006) and would be consistent with ineffective erythropoiesis (Sulovska
2016) and rapid haemoglobin turnover.
@ICANREAD
They did call the EMTs. That's what they were waiting for. Maybe you shouldn't try to analyze
the situation until after you learn what the situation involved?
@Wuok
He was dying before he even left the car. He collapsed when they pulled him out of it. He
collapsed after they helped him walk to the wall. He was complaining that he couldn't breathe
before he had a knee on his neck. My sense was that when he saw the cops were coming for him,
he swallowed his drugs. Pretty common.
@EliteCommInc.
And criminals who break into pregnant women's houses and jam guns into their pregnant guts
really do get their just deserts when they hastily swallow all the drugs they were dealing to
avoid going back to the joint.
"It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself."
It would b strange if what you said was accurate.
enforcement, It is not singular artifact.
I is not any singular death, not even a group of deaths that are rare at the hands of
police. It's the ten million plus arrests misdemeanors primarily that end with violence against
unarmed citizens that are disproportionately used with respect to african americans it's the
related history. It is the sentencing. It is the pea bargain system . . .
It's the crack vs regular cacaine narratives nonsense, it is the rhetorical dialogue -- it
is not one single thing, but a compendium of constructs across the country over time.
@Anon
It seems more likely that the heart attack came because the heart was overworked due to low
blood-oxygen levels due to the sedated breathing from the opioid.
Such analysis is diversion from the main discussion. It does not matter if Floyd was on drugs
or a criminal. Why was he treated brutally by the police. Too much power given to the law
enforcement. And the bad apples always take advantage of it. Observe the way they walk. No sign
of humility or being a servant of society or a protector.
Race riots yes. but so many whites and no African Americans are rioting, too. It is economic
disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are avoiding purposely.
Brilliant presentation.
I was arrested one time and was put into car. Interestingly enough I had difficulty breathing
and I did not have any drugs in me.
I did ask officer to open window in the car but he did not. He did not care.
@SOL
Exactly. They would not even spend the time to read this excellent example of actual
journalism.
Their hatred blinds them to all facts.
Talking time is over. Balkanize the failed multi-cultural experiment. Ethnostate is NEEDED.
Separate from Hate.
Anyone else getting rather peed off by the huge donations to BLM, apparently about to flow in
– as reparations for the proceeds from slavery by Briitish firms.
Seems to me these companies should be starting at home.
What about the proceeds from mills and factories here in England where the labour was little
more than slavery.
Forced on the poor for pathetic and utterly meagre wages – amounting to slavery –
as the option to the 'poor house'.
Children of seven working 12 hours a day for pennies.
Many dying and crippled by the machinery under which they had to scrabble.
I am sure there are millions – not least up north – who would very much like some
recognition for the quite awful exploitation of their forebears.
Oops – sorry – they all have white faces and are not prepared to commit mayhem,
arson and criminal damage to support any claim.
Time, maybe to start, it works.
Maybe we less than aristocratic English people should start a few demands in payment for the
terrible conditions of the industrial 'revolution', for the Victorian slums, more appalling
than black Americans ever endured.
You don't see the black Americans sporting rickets, TB, suffering starvation, diptheria and
smallpox to mention a few.
Or kids forced up chimneys.
I wonder how Dickens would be feeling today – at Lloyds etc.
Disgusted and sick, I imagine.
Don't get me started on those 'pressed' into the navy .
@chuckywiz
Why was he treated brutally by the police.
Was he?
The autopsy doesn't appear to record 'brutal physical injury' of the kind you appear to claim
.
Could you detail the evidence that demonstrates such 'brutality'
Restraint surely does not come into that category and there is no or very little indication on
his neck or throat.
Clarify the facts, Chucky, so we can all see the cuts, bruises, abrasions
Perhaps you will also give us some information as to how you would have handled a very large
such individual full of fentanyl and other substances .
@Wizard
of Oz The author of the article talks about the knee on Floyd's neck only. But while he may
be correct, that knee was not the only thing going on. I am talking about the other
things including Chauvin's other knee. Officer Lane seems to have diagnosed Floyd's medical
status as one unlikely to stand up to the tender mercies being administered by Chauvin. Lane,
the first cop to talk to Floyd, had immediately observed he had been foaming at the mouth.
Later, once Chauvin got on top of Floyd, Lane suggested turning him face up, and said he was
worried about EXD. Lane's partner complained and said 'don't do that' to Chauvin in relation to
him kneeling on Floyd.
If a 300lb wrestler was to apply a tight bodylock (bear hug) and keep it on tight, breathing
would halt and the one being bear hugged would quite likely die within 10 minutes. Floyd's
breathing was constricted by his bulk and being put face down with cuffs pulling his arms
against the side of his ribcage. The weight and duration of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back
surely is what tipped the balance and killed him. There is an ex cop and prison guard who
admits he used to deliberately break the fingers of resisting convicts who points to the sun
glasses perched on Chauvin's head and the casual placement of his hands while kneeling on Flyod
as clear indications there was no meaningful resistance from him, see here .
It is not mere opinion that Floyd was not actively resisting arrest during the several
minutes he had Chauvin on top of him, because officer Chauvin was recorded explaining the
reason Floyd was being pinned down was he had not cooperated earlier , when they had
tried to put him in the police car. Hence Chavin virtually admitted it was a was a physical
punishment for previous non-cooperation, but in law Chavin is not permitted to use the
restraint technique as a punitive measure, which he knew very well. Hence Chauvin was commiting
a felony, wham, in the course of which someone died, bam. Wham bam: felony murder.
@chuckywiz
Actually, this article touches on what you consider the "main discussion" when it assesses
whether or not the cop was following procedure. Is the man being vilified as the worst person
on earth just a guy who was doing the job he was taught to do? If you think the rules are
wrong, you're free to work to change them. This cop will face an American court, not some
post-revolutionary tribunal. The question is whether or not his trial will look more like the
latter than the former.
Hispanic cop in Georgia shoots and kills white guy who grabs Hispanic cop's taser = NO coverage
by national media. Hell, I live in Georgia and I didn't even hear about this one.
White cop in Georgia shoots and kills black guy who grabs White cop's taser = NONSTOP 24/7
coverage by national media.
SHOULD THE MEDIA BE LABELED AS A HATE GROUP BY THE $PLC?
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. If allowed to become too
numerous they destroy previously-thriving and safe White cities.
This is why Blacks seethe with jealousy and hatred of Whites yet can't seem to stay away
because they want what we create and maintain, no matter if they deserve it or not. They want
our peaceful and clean neighborhoods, our law and order, our technology and science, our school
systems, our inventions, the jobs we create, the food we grow, the transportation we invent,
the entertainment we provide Blacks hate us but can't live without us. That's why they demand
that we take care of them and give them special rights and privileges that we don't grant
ourselves, just to compensate for their inability at living in a modern and
technologically-advanced civilization.
Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere.
Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced race; but they never
developed at all and had to be domesticated by Whites.
National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations:
Just week we had a White sub-Saharan African (Elon Musk) launch a spacecraft while Black
sub-Saharan Africans destroyed several cities.
Name a civilization (or even a written language) ever created by Blacks.
Name a single contribution from sub-Saharan Africans to the world.
The simple fact is, everything Blacks have was given to them by Whites.
Blacks are the only race never to have civilized. They were removed from the jungle just 250
years ago.
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Slavery was the best thing to happen to Blacks, it was essentially a rescue mission by a
free cruise. Being a slave was actually a good career move for a Black African -- as it still
would be today. An enslaved Black in any non-Black country has a higher standard of living than
a free Black living among his own kind.
After defeating George Foreman for the heavyweight boxing title in Zaire (now Congo),
Muhammad Ali returned to the United States where he was asked by a reporter, "Champ, what did
you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."
Blacks are incapable of creating a civilization of their own. Blacks can only achieve
because they have White admixture or because they reside in White societies. Everything Blacks
have was given to them by Whites.
Criminally insane Floyd killed himself. His chosen lifestyle could only lead to a bad end
sooner or later. He shouldn't even have been out on the street after his armed home invasion
conviction. It was the misfortune of the police to have had to deal with this drugged-up thug
at the point he was going to expire due to drugs and eroded health due to years long drug use.
He was a large, tough looking criminal that one had to be careful in dealing with. This is the
'hero' of the moment, one of the scummiest people one could ever meet.
@chuckywiz
The Jewish MSM always ignores non-black victims of police misconduct. They made a collective
decision to do that following the mild uproar over Ruby Ridge and the Waco massacre of the
Branch Davidians. Today the Narrative is all about white oppressors and black victims.
It is economic disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are
avoiding purposely.
We can't read minds, so you could possibly be right. But in the visible world toppling
statues of white men and various displays of guilt-mongering seem to be taking precedence over
any racially neutral economic demands.
Muddy the water. Now we know why they hate us. Now we know why posters at this site and Zero
Hedge are considered white trash. Science is unacceptable when lefties use it to promote global
warming or the Nazis use it to lock down our society, but when it can be manipulated to try and
prove dirty cops innocent then it's okay. What's to conclude? Giant Echo Chamber! The Left has
it to keep their ignorant followers in line. The Right has it as well. Everyone preaching to
their audience and no one really worried too much about truth.
This is an excellent site. It's a shame that it feels a need to blame EVERYTHING on Jews or
Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to fear. The site simply hurts its
credibility doing this. Not much better than Left wing groups and that's one serious Freak
Show!
They riot because they are sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–
no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America.
That's why they're rioting. The Floyd death was simply the perfect metaphor for
America's 'racism', crystalized down to nine minutes of video.
The video was simply the catalyst, for a mindset that's been foisted by the ((universities))
and ((media)) for many decades now.
We're seeing what they've wanted all along. White people transformed into Palestinians,
treated as second class citizens. Affirmative action, and now free health care ONLY for blacks
in Kentucky.
White people will pay the taxes, but not get the benefits, because they're racists and
anti-Semites, and like the Palestinians (terrorists) they don't deserve any rights.
That's what this is all about. The 21st century is to be like the 20th, a Jewish
supremacist orgy of racial hatred unleashed.
I don't understand why they held him down so long. It seems as if they wanted to wait until
the criminal stopped tensing himself, which could be an indicator of continued resistance.
Maybe they felt if they eased up, he'd jump up and fight them as the guy in Atlanta did.
The Atlanta cops are going to get lynched. That's not justice.
@RobbieSmith
Ali spoke a lot of truth and the only reason the counterculture adopted him is because of his
stance against "Whitey" or what they thought was his stance against "Whitey." I do not blame
Ali for not wanting to fight for America in the Vietnam War. When Ali grew up, Blacks were
indeed second class citizens, far from it now, they have their asses kissed 24/7. Ali was about
Blacks pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, and was a hardcore SEPARATIST. Ali actually had
more than a touch of Irish blood in him. I wish more Blacks did indeed belong to the NOI like
Ali, I think we would have less crime and they would stay to themselves.
George Floyd was an unhealthy man. He wasn't an angel. He wasn't even a decent citizen. He was
a piece of shit.
But he didn't die of an overdose.
He died from a cop burying his knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes. Already in horrible
shape with breathing problems, his body wasn't able to handle it.
Floyd was pleading for him to get off his neck. He was asking for his mother. C'mon people.
Chauvin was heartless and ignorant. All he had to do was get off Floyd's neck. He wasn't a
threat.
Chauvin had a serious lapse in judgement. So did Floyd. He wouldn't have been in that
position in the first place. We can always argue that Floyd was a piece of shit. Maybe he was,
but he didn't have to die like that. Who in this comment section is so perfect to judge?
Chauvin has his own issues. He isn't a murderer either. Ignorant and callous, yes. Deserving
of jail time. I don't think so. Therapy and retirement form the police force? Absolutely.
1 Blacks can newer be civilized.
2 Blacks will never trust white people.
3 Whatever whites will do. Blacks will never be satisfied until they will have all and
permanent administrative power.
It was the liberal Democratic governors who were the worst 'lock-down' "Nazis", but to a
dishonest, agenda-driven liar like you, the truth is only something to bastardize to your own
hatred-consumed agenda.
EVERYTHING on Jews or Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to
fear.
Yea, it's not like thousands of those rednecks haven't given their lives in the last two
decades fighting the Eternal Wars for Israel, now is it? But that's a price we should all pay
for what was done on (((9/11))), huh?
The entire debate is moot at this point. Floyd is dead. The puppeteers have their "Crisis". The
mob is still out there. Thought crime is the new passion. Negroes can do nothing wrong. When
they do, it is my fault because I am white. Up is down, down is up, etc. The big question is
what lies ahead.
This was all manufactured to cover the real truth about a collapsing economic system which will
devastate nations and economies all over the world. When it hits(my bet is before 2021),
nothing else will matter. Here in Amerika, the Sheeple, Normies, and Cucks will go bat-s ** t
crazy. It will be Bosnia times Rwanda times Venezuela, times The Stand. Plan accordingly. Bleib
ubrig. Proverbs 27:12.
All this hysteria over one dead black thug and utter silence about far more tragic/innocent
victims(often at the hands of black thugs) suggest that the 'systemic racism' is in favor of
blacks.
It's like US's favoritism for Zionists over Palestinians, Iranians, and Arabs.
We hear endless yammering about 'antisemitism' and 'white supremacism', but US is
pathologically philosemitic and serving Jewish Supremacism 24/7.
BTW. it will be funny when a black guy wearing a Floyd t-shirt ends up dead at the hands of
another black.
@Anonymous
IF this whole incident is REAL, and believe me, nowadays I have a hard time believing anything
we see in the media or read is REAL, I have to say the cop was wrong and does deserve to do
time. Whatever the guy died from, people in the crowd told Chauvin over and over that Floyd
wasn't moving. The other cops should have pulled Chauvin off as well. The case in Atlanta is
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, however. IMO, Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter and quite possibly second
degree murder, but that one would be hard to prove. BUT the question must be ASKED ONCE AGAIN,
how or why did it come to this, WHY didn't George Floyd COMPLY with officer's orders? Floyd
would still be alive IF he had JUST COMPLIED with the cops. What is it about complying with an
officer's orders do Blacks not understand? A couple months ago a man was killed right up the
street from me because he attacked an officer with a knife. The officer responded to a domestic
dispute and the man STUPIDLY charged an armed cop with a knife and was shot dead. White cop,
and white perp so that was the end of story.
@Ficino
Covid-19 attacks cells with ACE-2 enzyme receptors. They are present in the lungs, heart,
intestine, blood vessels, and kidneys. Many people infected with Covid-19 suffer more damage in
these organs than in the lungs. People think they will recover quickly from this virus like
another cold (two of the cold strains are actually coronoviruses) or flu viruses, but it's
damage to the organs is more severe. It leaves them vulnerable to next year's covid-20, where
they will now have "preexisting health conditions."
May 27, 2020 New video shows Minneapolis police arrest of George Floyd before death
Four white officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been fired from the
Minneapolis Police Department, but Mayor Jacob Frey is saying that one of the officers should
be arrested for pressing his knee on Floyd's neck.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every
year in police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from
the drugs and from the struggle.
So that is nearly 2,000 civilians a year that die in interactions with police basically the
Wild West
As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained harmless often becomes
dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions rarely suffer the qualms of
conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people with bad intentions.
Good intentions were cobbling his way to disaster. – Old German saying. –
I like Dietrich Doerner – as a social scientist and as a humble man (a Social Democratic
leftie from the days before the left grew "regressive" (Dave Rubin).
Floyd's condition is irrelevant. If I have the facts straight Floyd was handcuffed and loaded
inside the police car. For reasons that are unclear he ends up face down on the asphalt with 4
dudes sitting on top of him. For me, without an amazing explanation all four should never have
been police officers. His death makes it worse but the inexplicable part is why he was on the
pavement being crushed.
@obwandiyag
Are you really going to share "a couple thousand" murders by police with us? Ok, I'll bite.
Send them to us in short installments of 3 or 4 hundred, just so we can keep up.
@Cranberries
RE: Might help for someone to explain this calculation, since simply summing the fentanyl and
norfentanyl concentrations gives 16.6, not 20.6. Cranberries comment #6.
I read somewhere that another fentanyl moiety was also detected in George Floyd's autopsy
blood. That may explain the discrepancy.
I really hate saying it but you could have a video of St.George shooting up minutes before his
encounter with Minneapolis' finest and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The Church of the
Perpetually Aggrieved have their martyr and will not let trivial things like truth get in the
way.
When I'm feeling particularly cynical and want to irritate the Missus I will say something
like, "Yeah, that was pretty bad but he probably did something we don't know about. So it all
evens out in the end."
@vot
tak Oh "prejudiced " against a particular group, is that the same thing as "racist" now"?
Does "racist " mean anything other than White? The word "prejudice " means to "pre-judge", what
if someone judges a person or group after getting to know them very well? What if I find I love
all people except Tibetans, am I a "racist "? For you kooks, I am if I'm White. So I guess
that's a "dumb question", since I'm pretty Pale
Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only raise an emotional
response.
This is fact is usually overlooked. I still don't really grasp, why that is. But people seem
to lack – media education, or self-reflective self-distancing concerning the difference
between being an ey-witness and witnessing a video about an event. – Maybe Marshal
McLuhan is one reason that the video-deception is not being noticed for what it is: a major
source of self-deception because he made media-reflection trendy and at the same time
clueless.
This seems at first sight like a rather dismal academic distinction – until it becomes
crucial to make it, like in this case.
By now I might even be boring some readers of Unz.com by insisting on the following factual truth: Tom Wolfe showed in
pristine detail, just how this video deception, as you might call it, works in his (sigh, I'll
repeat this esthetic fact too now for the umpteenth time) – Tom Wolfe was able to show
how this video-deception plays out in his excellent novel Back to Blood .
PS
It might be not accidental, that Tom Wolfe did have a close look at Marshal McLuhan's ideas and
did write quite a bit about it, long before he started to work at Back to Blood .
– Fruits take their time until they're ripe, it seems.
What is it about complying with an officer's orders do Blacks not understand?
since I generally agree with you, and agree that this was likely staged, and that the other
cops should have intervened, and that Chauvin was obviously guilty of a callous disregard for
the man's life, (regardless of what he actually died of).. I agree with that all.
But I also understand why some people would try to flee the cops, (and being arrested and
having your life destroyed). It's a risk some people are willing to take. Like the guy who was
murdered by cop, lying in the snow (while being sadistically tortured by tazer). That sadistic
bitch tortured him to death because he ran from her, and defied her 'authority'.
I've known of too many cops in my lifetime who're drunk on their authority (power), and I
don't blame some people for running from them. If our laws say it's ok for cops to shoot such
people, then so be it, but if they're not allowed to shoot suspects running away, then if
that's murder, it's murder. No?
American cops are way too militarized and often murderous and unaccountable.
Absofuckinglutely.
But the Jews are turning this into a racial issue for their own agenda, whatever that is at
the moment. Perhaps simply as an amusement, to watch whitey squirm. (one of their favorite
pastimes ; )
I've never before seen such stupidity in the comments as is seen here today. Something strange
is going on. Many of you didn't read the article but have strong opinions. This isn't typical
of Unz readers. For some reason the Trolls are out in force on this one. Are you trying to
destroy this website's credibility?
@Emily
In certain quarters first responders do carry naloxone injectors for that contingency –
it takes half an hour of training.
Opioid LD50s are house numbers, but it´s a possibility.
Clearly no choking, but I wouldn´t rule out vagus shock.
Overall I´d say a measured exposé, but as many others already noted the
question is moot now.
@Biff
Given your confidence, can you tell us the exact number of "racists" married to people of other
races in America?
Your response should be within 2% of the actual number, and please also provide proof of the
"racism" on the part of the individual "racists" married to non Whites.
It is possible that floyd died of a drug overdose.
Not long after the video of Floyd s death came out a journalist from the Atlantic tried to
reenact it. He was unable to keep his balance for the amount of time.
This is possibly because the knee on the neck was not putting that much pressure on the
neck. It is possible that it was it was an even stance and the knee was applying slight or no
pressure.
@obwandiyag
They riot because the press whips them up into a frenzy. There is no shortage of blacks killed
by police or whites killed by police but this incident was spread to the 4 channels blacks are
capable of finding and drove them to riot.
If blacks don't like how cops treat them, then they should improve their savage behavior. Over
half of all homicides, over a third of cop killers, the majority who shoot at police, and far
more likely to resist arrest. When will blacks learn basic civilization, or do whites need to
hold their hand yet again?
Then, one officer pulled him out on the other side.
I assaume because he demanded to be let out due to a medical emergency. "I can't breathe!".
So they did and called an ambulance, which arrived a little later.
Facts:
1.Officer Derek Chauvin isn't in the video. The person purported to be Officer Chauvin is a
different person and that is quite clear from examining stills from the video and comparing
them to still photos of Officer Derek Chauvin.
2.One of the police vehicles had a licence plate that said 'POLICE'. This is absurd.
These are just two EXTREMELY obvious facts about the 'video' and there are dozens more fun
facts about this incident that really no other conclusion is possible IF a person is observant
AND honest about this video: it is a hoax. See: canucklaw.ca for an excellent and detailed breakdown.
Somehow, nearly everyone in 'professional media', aka as the presstitutes paid to lie by
their jewish billionaire employers, accepts this obvious HOAX as though it is legit and beyond
question.
Sounds familiar. Kind of like every mass shooting incident of the last 18 years which is to
say, ever since the HOAX of 9/11 the Jew Spew Propaganda arm just can't stop 'reporting' on
clearly faked events anytime they want to push the gun control issue, distract from another
issue or, worse still, to manipulate low IQ ghetto thugs, communists and assorted snow-flakes
into rioting which the Jew spew media then presents as 'peaceful protests'.
Anyone else sick of this never ending effort to manipulate the conversation away from the theft
of Trillions of dollars being presided over by Zion Don, his underlings Mnuchin, Jared Kushner
and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Last time I checked the unemployment number, that was previously 40 million, it seems to
have inched up to nearly 50 million. I expect to see continued efforts, each more desperate
than the last, as the elites fight for power, loot the treasury and race-bait. I don't know
when but I expect that at some point, barring any corruption or treason trials. elites will
start to be executed by vigilante groups. I just can't see these level of social pressure,
outright criminality and outrageous propaganda continuing to grow before average people become
frustrated and disenfranchised enough to act. Somewhere from among the silent majority of
rational Americans I expect to see a response to the last 2 decades of 'Global War of Terror'
insanity,financial looting of the present and future American people with a dash of race war
tossed in as a further insult to reason.
It amazes me that a community of largely dysfunctional blacks -mostl net takers from the
economic system-have the gall to use the term 'white privilege'. They don't pay taxes beyond
basic consumption, cause endless problems, avoid the infantry in every war, and now want
'reparations' after leeching off whites for over 150 years. It never ceases to amaze me how
effective propaganda is and how incredibly stupid the far left of the curve can be.
@obwandiyag
said:
"People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them"
– Then Euro-whites should be the ones rioting.
– The number of Euro-whites killed by police are much, much higher than blacks, which is
remarkable considering that blacks do the vast amount crime.
– It is whites who are targeted by blacks, the stats don't lie. The Color of Crime : https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
@Rurik
I agree with your post 100%. If Mr. Floyd had been White and the cops were White, this story
wouldn't have been talked about outside of Minneapolis. Speaking of Minneapolis, notice the JEW
MEDIA covered the story about the black thug throwing the white kid off a balcony in the Mall
Of America for about 3 minutes, and no suggestions of race at all. Yep, I don't buy the Pawn
Vanity narrative that 99% of cops are decent either. I can't think of any profession that could
make that claim. I am watching the telly as I type this and now the natives are engaging in a
multi-city "Juneteenth March." LMAO. I guess this will now become a national holiday. How
anyone can be fooled by this anymore is beyond stupid. Take care, my friend and enjoy the
comedy placed before us.
I've been on Derek Chauvin's side from the beginning. I knew it was just a race thing that the
media blew up and distorted, just like that kid wearing the MAGA cap with the native American
in DC, whose name I forgot. I hope that Derek Chauvin will be found not guilty and will sue the
mainstream media like that kid from Kentucky did. My only fear is that America is not an honest
country anymore and even if it is so blatantly obvious that Chauvin is innocent, that they will
have to find him guilty anyway.
I just can't stand it. I can't stand the thought of that happening. I mean, imagine that
ultimatum . serve justice or risk a city burning down. How can the masses be so misinformed?
Unaware and corrupted?
I took some notes today from E. Michael Jones, I watched his video, Sicut Judaeis Non, and
I/we have to really let what he said sink into our beings, in order that we can resist it and
not acquiesce. I can't go along with corruption and let injustice come to Derek Chauvin. The
truth has to be told.
My notes from E. Michael Jones:
"Jewish identity is the rejection of logos- political, moral, economical"
"Modernization is about everyone becoming Jewish."
"We have internalized the commands of our Jewish oppressors."
"We have a Jewish superego."
"Break free from the control of Jews in our minds."
And recently I've been watching Yuri Benzmenov again, we really have to understand the deep
psychological warfare, the hypnotic spell we've been under and break free from it.
@SOL
What else is new? Repeat offender was a drug addict. Drug addict died of an overdose. People
using lies about his death are not revolutionaries, they are just bandits, burglars and
vandals.
@anonymous1963
They'll get a fair trial and be found not guilty . setting off round #2 of rioting and looting
a couple of weeks before the november election
@Dan
Kurt Hey Dan, I thiiiiink .. norfentanyl is a metabolite of fentanyl, which means it has
been absorbed and processed by the body so the norfentanyl level would be indicative of a
higher/additional level of fentanyl intake, which when calculated backwards implies 20.6 total
@Rurik"no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America."
The persistent so-called "achievement gap" reveals the same racial IQ hierarchy on
standardized academic exams. The SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on
the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ
scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching, or
practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small -- on average, no
more than about 20 points per section.
[MORE]
Even after decades of focused attention to the achievement gap, it has remained unchanged.
Vanderbilt University researchers tracked the educational and occupational accomplishments
of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search and determined that scores on
the SAT correlate so highly with IQ that they are described as a "thinly disguised"
intelligence test.
Year White Black Gap
1985 1038 839 199
1990 1031 849 185
1996 1052 857 195
2000 1060 859 201
2005 1061 863 197
2010 1063 855 208
2015 1047 846 201
The new SAT introduced in 2017 was "designed to inspire and increase access to college" by
creating "a more equitable exam". The new SAT cannot be compared to previous results:
Year White Black Gap
2017 1118 941 177
2018 1123 946 177
The 2017 "college readiness" scores (ability to earn a C or higher in an entry-level course)
showed the stark racial achievement gap; Asians scored 70% college readiness, Whites 59%, and
Blacks only 20%.
SAT scores are highly correlated to intelligence test scores. The SAT correlates with an IQ
test at 0.86, almost the same as an IQ test correlates with itself. For this reason, we can
very reliably take SAT scores and convert them to IQ scores.
Results of psycho-metric IQ and scholastic tests are highly correlated. Rindermann &
Thompson (2013, p. 822)
In the 20 year period from 1994-2014 the Black-White difference increased on both the verbal
and math SATs despite targeted efforts to close the race gap. On the reading test, it rose from
.91 to .96 standard deviations. On the math test, it rose from .95 to 1.03 standard
deviations.
In fact, the truncated nature of the SAT math score distribution suggests that these race
gaps would be even larger given a harder exam with a bigger score variance. Note, for example,
how the Black score distribution is cut off at the bottom while the Asian score distribution is
cut off at the top. That suggests that a redesigned exam might feature even more pronounced
race gaps.
Percent by Race Reaching the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark:
15% = Black
24% = Non-White Hispanic
35% = Native American
53% = White
56% = Asian
Source: The College Board, 2014
PISA scores by race:
White Black Asian
531 433 525
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2015
NAEP Report Card: Mathematics
"In 2019, there were no significant changes in score disparities compared to 2017 across
most reported student groups in eighth-grade mathematics, with a few exceptions. For example,
among racial/ethnic groups, the average mathematics score at grade 8 for White students was 32
points higher than the average score for their Black peers in 2019 and 24 points higher than
the average mathematics score for eighth-grade Hispanic students. The 32-point
White–Black score difference in 2019 was not significantly different from the 32-point
score difference in 2017, the previous assessment year, nor the 33-point score gap in 1990, the
first assessment year."
Blacks and Whites with Equal Educational Attainment Differ in Cognitive Ability
Black and White Americans with the same formal level of education differ significantly in
their cognitive abilities. Specifically, within any given level of formal education Whites
consistently outperform Blacks. Moreover, this effect is so strong that Blacks often
underperform Whites who have lower levels of formal education than they do.
Consider the following data from the General Social Survey. This public data is frequently
used in social science research and contains a test of verbal intelligence as well as
measurements of participant's self-identified race and highest educational degree obtained.
Verbal intelligence tests correlate at around .75 with full-scale IQ and so this data can also
be taken as a fair measure of intelligence in general (Lynn, 1998). If we set the White mean
score on this test to 100 and the standard deviation to 15, we can come up with an "IQ" style
scale.
As can be seen, using this method Blacks with a graduate degree have a level of verbal
intelligence indistinguishable from that of Whites with a junior college degree. Blacks with a
four-year degree are roughly on par with Whites who never went to college at all.
IQ BY RACE AND HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED (1972 – 2014):
Highest Degree White IQ Black IQ Gap
High School Drop-out: 89 82 7
High School Diploma 98 90 8
Junior College Degree 102 95 7
Bachelor's Degree 108 100 8
Graduate Degree 113 102 11
This data is consistent with evidence from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) which
administered tests of cognitive ability to 26,000 US adults in 1992. These tests were designed
to measure how well people could take information and use it in a way which would help them
function in modern society.
Blacks are such poor academic achievers that the National Achievement Scholarship Program
was created with lower standards for Black candidates only, instead of the National Merit
Scholarship Program which is open to everyone else.
THE SMARTEST STUDENTS: The National Merit Scholarship Program was founded to identify and
honor scholastically talented American youth and to encourage them to develop their abilities
to the fullest.
BLACK STUDENTS ONLY: The National Achievement Scholarship Program was initiated specifically
to identify academically promising Black American youth and encourage their pursuit of higher
education.
They are both measured on the PSAT.
Minimum score for National Achievement: 190
Minimum score for National Merit: 220
Roughly, PSAT x 10 = SAT (out of 2400)
The U.S. government's PACE examination, given to 100,000 university graduates who are
prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year, is passed with a
score of 70 or above by 58% of the Whites who take it but by only 12% of the Blacks. Among top
scorers the difference between Black and White performance is even more striking; 16% of the
White applicants make scores of 90 or above, while only one-fifth of one percent of a Black
applicants score as high as 90 -- a White-Black success ratio of 80/1. IQ differences become
more pronounced with greater g-loading.
Bill Gates, after pulling philanthropic funding from Common Core, "When disaggregated by
race, we see two Americas. One where White students perform along the lines of the best in the
world with achievement comparable to countries like Finland and Korea. And another America,
where Black and Latino students perform comparably to the students in the lowest performing
OECD countries, such as Chile and Greece."
Blacks score so poorly on academic exams that colleges give them 230 "race bonus" SAT points
to help them qualify for admission:
"Personal scores" are the new subterfuge for artificially assisting Blacks gain admission to
universities. Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than
20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white applicants receive a
2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top six deciles. Hispanics
receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top seven deciles, and Blacks
receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight deciles.
An otherwise identical applicant bearing an Asian male identity with a 25 percent chance of
admission would have a 32 percent chance of admission if he were White, a 77 percent chance of
admission if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance of admission if he were Black.
@FB
"Police extrajudicial executions of civilians are over 1,000 EACH YEAR in the United States far
more than any other country in the world "
In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 Blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous,
according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 Black male victims of police
shootings as "unarmed." That classification masks assaults against officers and violent
resistance to arrest.
Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from Black
males than Black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times
more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male was to be killed by a
police officer.
From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896
offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over that 33-year period was 52% White, and 41%
Black. So, the 13% total Black population in the U.S. commits 41% of police murders.
Further, Black males have made up 42% of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they
are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of
the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers -- committed vastly and disproportionately
by Black males.
Nine unarmed Blacks were killed by police in 2019 (seven of whom physically assaulted the
officers), as opposed to 19 Whites, according to the Washington Post's database, but Blacks are
much more likely to have police encounters than Whites. In an average year, about 49 people are
killed by lightning in the US, according to the National Weather Service.
Every year, American police officers have about 370 million contacts with civilians. Most of
the time nothing happens, but 12 to 13 million times a year, the police make an arrest. How
often does this lead to the death of an unarmed Black person? We know the number thanks to a
detailed Washington Post database of every killing by the police. What is your guess as to the
number of unarmed Blacks killed by the police every year? One hundred? Three hundred? Last
year, the figure was nine.
That number is going down, not up. In 2015, police killed 38 unarmed Blacks. In 2017, 21.
What about White people? Last year, police killed 19 unarmed Whites, in addition to the 9
unarmed Blacks. We know the number of Black and White people arrested every year, so it is
possible to make an interesting calculation. The chances of being unarmed, arrested, and then
killed by the police are higher for Whites than for Blacks. For both races, it's very rare: One
out of 292,000 arrests for Blacks, and out of 283,000 arrests for Whites.
Since 2015, when the Post began tracking these numbers, the police have killed about 1,000
people a year. Every year, about one quarter of them are Black. This is about twice their share
of the population, which is 13 percent. Is this proof of police racism? No. The more likely
explanation is that Blacks are more likely than Whites to act in violent, aggressive ways that
give the police no choice but to shoot them. In 2018, the most recent year for which we have
statistics, Blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crimes, 54 percent of
all arrests for robbery, and 53 percent of arrests for murder. With so many Blacks involved in
this kind of violent crime, that Blacks should account for 25 percent of the people killed by
the police seem like a surprisingly low figure.
There is another perspective on police killings of civilians. Every year, criminals kill
about 120 to 150 police officers. And we know from this FBI table that every year, on average,
about 35 percent of officers are killed by Blacks. So, to repeat, Blacks are 13 percent of the
population and account for 25 percent of the people killed by police. But if police were
killing them in proportion to their threatening, violent, criminal behavior, they would be a
greater percentage of the people killed by the police.
Thank you for a thoughtful article. This reinforces my original thought that we should wait for
the results of the trial. Presumably the cop has a competent lawyer who will be able to review
and present the comprehensive evidence to a jury. Ideally the prosecuting attorney will also be
able to understand and present another side of the story. Ideally there will be a fair jury,
not a howling lynch mob, and not a group of retired cops. This system is certainly imperfect
but better than shoot from the hip opinions based on some seconds of video viewing.
Two weeks ago a senior Trump Administration official revealed that the president had decided
to withdraw
9,500 American soldiers from Germany and that the administration would also be capping
total U.S. military presence in that country at 25,000, which might involve more cuts depending
what is included in the numbers. The move was welcomed in some circles and strongly criticized
in others, but many observers were also bemused by the announcement, noting that Donald Trump
had previously ordered a reduction in force in Afghanistan and a complete withdrawal from
Syria, neither of which has actually been achieved. In Syria, troops were only moved from the
northern part of the country to the oil producing region in the south to protect the fields
from seizure by ISIS, while in Afghanistan the nineteen-year-long training mission and
infrastructure reconstruction continue.
In a somewhat related development, the Iraqi parliament has called for the removal of U.S.
troops from the country, a demand that has been rejected by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Put
it all together and it suggests that any announcement coming from the White House on ending
America's useless wars should be regarded with some skepticism.
The United States has its nearly 35,000 military personnel remaining in Germany as its
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949 to counter
Soviet forces in Eastern Europe in what was to become the Warsaw Pact. Both the Organization
and Pact were ostensibly defensive alliances and the U.S. active participation was intended to
demonstrate American resolve to come to the aid of Western Europe. Currently, 75 years after
the end of World War II and thirty years after the fall of communist governments in Eastern
Europe, NATO is an anachronism, kept going by the many statesmen and military establishments of
the various countries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Since the
demise of the European communist regimes, NATO has found work in bombing Serbia, destroying
Libya and in helping in the unending task to train an Afghan army.
In spite of the clearly diminished threat in Europe, NATO has expanded to 30 members,
including most of the former communist states that made up the Warsaw Pact. The most recent
acquisition was Montenegro in 2016, which contributed 2,400 soldiers to the NATO force. That
expansion was carried out in spite of assurances given to the post-Soviet Russian government
that military encroachment would not take place. Currently, NATO continues to focus on the
threat from Moscow as its own viable raison d'être , with its deployments and training
exercises often taking place right up against Russia's borders.
Few really believe that the Russia, which has a GDP only the size of Italy's, intends or is
even capable of reestablishing anything like the old Soviet Union. But a vulnerable Russia is
nevertheless interested in maintaining an old-fashioned sphere of influence around its borders,
which explains the concern over developments in Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States.
Given the diminished threat level in Europe, the withdrawal of 9,500 soldiers should be
welcomed by all parties. Trump has been sending the not unreasonable message that if the
Europeans want more defense, they should pay for it themselves, though he has wrapped his
proposal in his usual insulting and derogatory language. A wealthy Germany currently spends
1.1% of GDP on its military, far less than the 2% that NATO has declared to be a target to meet
alliance commitments. That compares with the nearly 5% that the U.S. has been spending
globally, inclusive of intelligence and national security costs.
Fair enough for burden sharing, but the European concern is more focused on how Trump does
what he does. For example, he announced the downsizing without informing America's NATO
partners. The Germans were surprised and pushed back
immediately . Conservative politician Peter Beyer said "This is completely unacceptable,
especially since nobody in Washington thought about informing its NATO ally Germany in
advance," and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas regretted the planned withdrawal, describing
Berlin's relationship with the Washington as "complicated." Chancellor Angela Merkel was
reportedly shocked.
The timing of the decision has also been questioned, with many observers believing that
Trump deliberately staged the announcement to punish Merkel for refusing to attend a planned
G-7 Summit in the U.S. that the president had been trying to arrange. Merkel argued that
dealing with the consequences of the coronavirus made it difficult for her to leave home at the
present time and the G-7 planning never got off the ground, which angered Trump, who wanted to
demonstrate his global leadership in an election year.
Trump's behavior has real world consequences. The Canadians and Europeans regard him as a
joke, but a dangerous joke due to his impulsive decision making. He cannot be trusted and when
he says something he often contradicts himself on the next day. Arguably Donald Trump was
elected president on the margin of difference
provided by an anti-war vote after many Americans took seriously his pledge to end the
burgeoning overseas wars and bring the soldiers home. It all may have been a lie even as he was
saying it, but it was convincing at the time and a welcome antidote to Hillary the Hawk.
There will be costs associated with removing or relocating the troops in Germany, to include
constructing new bases somewhere else, hopefully in the United States, but the realization that
the soldiers are not really needed could lead to the downsizing of the U.S. military across the
board. That would be strongly resisted by the Pentagon, the defense industries and
Congress.
If Trump is serious about downsizing America's overseas commitments, the reduction in the
German force is a good first step, even if it was done for the wrong reasons. It would be even
better if he would force NATO into discussions about ending the alliance now that it is no
longer needed, which would mean that the remaining American soldiers in Europe could come
home.
The U.S. mission of global dominance has meant huge budget deficits and a national debt of
$26 trillion, which is likely unsustainable. Germany and other European nations, by way of
contrast, balance their government budgets every year. South Korea, which hosts 30,000 American
soldiers, is wealthy and far more powerful than its northern neighbor. The continued occupation
of Japan with 50,000 troops makes no sense even considering an increase in China's regional
power. Overall, the United States continues to have 170,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines based overseas in 150 countries and its military budget exceeds one trillion dollars
when everything is considered. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars may have cost as much as seven
trillion dollars given the fact that much of the money was borrowed and will have to be repaid
with interest.
It is past time for Donald Trump to make a bold move because the Democrats won't have the
backbone to rattle the status quo. End the foreign wars, shut down the overseas bases and bring
the soldiers home. Spend tax dollars to improve the lives of Americans, not to fight wars for
Saudis and Israelis. A simple formula for change, but sometimes simple is best.
Security screening of manuscripts I t is the law in the United States that those who
have had legal access to the secrets of the government must submit private manuscripts for
removal of such secrets BEFORE they are published or even presented to a potential publisher.
Every department of government has an office charged with such work.
I know this process well because my memoir "Tattoo" has been in the hands of the appropriate
Defense Department office for nigh on six months. The book is long, and I was so unlucky as to
have DoD shut down its auxiliary services during my wait. I have thought of withdrawing it from
screening but, surprisingly, the screeners tell me it has some worth for those who will come
after. So, I will wait.
All this applies to John Bolton, a career State Department man whose adult life has been
soaked in government secrets. I first noticed Bolton as a glowering presence at briefings I
gave to selected State Department people with regard to national command authority projects I
was running. His attitude was consistent. If the idea was not his, it was simply wrong.
Bolton's "kiss and tell" book about Trump is IMO as much caused by wounded ego as a desire
to make money. He submitted the book for security review to DoD and the CIA. Why not State? Ah,
Pompeo would tear it to pieces. Bolton evidently grew impatient with the pace of clearance and
decided to go ahead with publication without clearance
To do this is a felony. The release of the book today completes the elements of proof for
the crime.
Bolton should be arrested and charged with any of a number of possible crimes. pl
Let's see what Trump does with Bolton now that he has committed a felony.
My bet is that other than crying on Twitter, he'll not do much. His previous
actions/inactions on these matters show weakness.
In any case bitching on Twitter makes him look like an executive with poor hiring
judgement as he was the one that hired him. Just like he hired Mattis and Kelly as well as
Rosenstein and Wray.
Bolton being successfully charged with violations associated with his sour grapes hit piece
memoir is analogous to Al Capone finally going down for tax evasion. But if that's the way it
goes I will not be sad.
Re "Tattoo", your Memorial Day "Ap Bu Nho" extract alone makes "some worth" an amusingly
ludicrous understatement. I wish you luck with the censors & very much look forward to
one day reading "Tattoo".
"He was a convert - - -"
I was going to ask what went wrong with Bolton: was he dropped on his head as an infant? No
father in the home? The Dulles brothers spent their childhoods being harangued by their
bible-thumping Calvinist grandfather (reports Kinzer in his useful bio on the brothers).
In Jeff Engel's book about the decision-making behind G H W Bush's decision to wage war
against Saddam re Kuwait, he recounts that an argument by Brent Scowcroft was significant,
AND that "Scowcroft, who was very short," confronted taller-than-average Bush while
knees-to-knees in an airplane.
Bolton is shorter than the average American male. Does he have 'short-person' compulsion to
compensate?
People psychologize Trump constantly, usually from ignorance and malice. But something is
very wrong with Bolton. Pompeo as well. What is it?
"What huge imago made a psychopathic god?" (Auden, Sept. 1939)
#1 I read this WaPo article that argued because the recent DOJ's lawsuit against the
release of the book is based on "prior restraint on speech before it occurs", meaning the
Trump administration cannot censor speech before it happens, therefore there is no 1st
amendment breach against the Trump admin by Bolton. As the court elaborated in Nebraska Press
Association v. Stuart, prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights" and "one of the most extraordinary remedies known to
our jurisprudence."
#2 Bolton took all of his notes containing classified intelligence with him after he was
fired and nobody took an issue. How is that possible?
#3 The Wapo article says his manuscript was reviewed for four months by one Ellen Knight,
an official (doesn't mention which department) responsible for reviewing publishing material
and she gave it the green light for publication on April 27th.
#4 During a press conference, Bill Barr gave an unusual take on Bolton's book as if he was
giving publicity to the book. He said he had never seen a book being written on Trump with
such pace and in such quick time and that it had a lot of sensitive information and stuff. It
sounded really odd what Bill Barr said. I dunno maybe I am reading to much between the
lines...
#5 With regards to Pompeo, back in September during a press conference at the State, when
asked by a reporter about Bolton's firing I specifically remember watching him on TV giving a
big meaningful chuckle and a smile... it was revealed later that they clearly did not get
along with each other and Pompeo had complained on numerous times that Bolton as NSA, who
does not have executive authorities, had been doing a lot of policy stuff and running his own
show in shadow.
On a final note, I don't think Bolton is a neocon in the mold of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith,
Abrams, Kagan, Kristol etc...There is this long piece by New Yorker published last year that
really gets into detail of how and why Bolton is not a neocon, but adheres to a more hawkish
Jacksonian nationalism approach rather than the liberal idealism of arch neocons I mentioned
above. However, he does have quite similar F.P. views with neocon oldies such as Irving
Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.
If Bolton does NOT get the book thrown at him, it will be pretty good evidence of the
existence of the Deep State allowing those it favors to write their own rules. Of course, we
already knew that after Clapper lied with impunity to Wyden when he was under oath.
He'll never be prosecuted and neither will Comey, Clapper and the rest of the swamp scum.
Strozk (lower on the food chain) might be the human sacrifice (with a sentence of "community
service") but no one of any significance (or "royal" title) is ever prosecuted in the
swamp.
Trump has tried, but his miserable lack of hiring experience and skill has not made a dent
I feel like I have a few words to say about Bolton if I may,
IMHO Bolton's view of the world is very dark and extremely Hobbesian. He is no slouch by
any stretch of imagination, in fact he is extremely knowledgeable and masterful when it comes
to policy-making and that basically how things are done in D.C. He has made a brand for
himself as the most hawkish national security expert in all of America in my opinion.
Honestly I cannot think of anyone else who espouses more hawkishness and zero diplomacy than
Bolton, ever... maybe Tom Cotton or Liz Cheney but still not close. This is the reason why
Trump hired him. In fact Trump did not want to hire him as the top brass in first place,
citing his mustache as one reason that would not look good on TV and wanted to give him 2nd
tier jobs at the State or as NSA early on, but Bolton refused. Trump, wanted to hire Bolton's
"brand" not his policies or hawkishness to intimidate Nkorea, Iran, and China to force them
come into making deals with him and him personally.
IMO Trump found out after the first Kim summit that Bolton was
such an ambitious and counterproductive foreign policy maker and one-man-team that if he
allowed Bolton to get his way, there would be world war III (Trump's own words) and his most
important promise to keep America out of forever wars which was his wining platform over
neocons such as Hilary, Jeb and Rubio during 2016 election would disappear into thin air.
So, Trump found ways to check Bolton and keep him out of the loop in sensitive and crucial
moments by Mattis, Kelly, Joe Dunford, Pompeo and even Melania (in the case of getting rid of
Bolton's close confidant and neocon Mira Ricardel when she called for bombing Iranian forces
back in September 2018 in respone to several rockets by iraqi militias hitting the ground
close to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad), and even sent him to Mongolia last year on a goose
chase to make an embarrassing example of him for undermining him (i.e. Trump's) authority in
the case of sitting down with the Taliban in Camp David to discuss military pullout from
Afghanistan back in Sep. whereas at the same time Pompeo was smart enough to tow the same
line as Trump and survive.
I few years ago I came across this interesting but odd piece by B on the Moon of Alabama
on Bolton. I honestly dunno what to make of it.
The book is already released in the hundreds. It will be on-line soon enough regardless of
the niceties of Barr's attempt to slam shut the barn door, or what the legal system does with
Bolton going fwd.
Those close to Trump know his emotional state must be appeased or they will soon be departing
- unless there's a DNA match.
Reaction to it will be a test of one's ability to distinguish Bolton from the events he
describes & their veracity. Is there anything of Trump's statements & acts (released
so far) that surprises anyone... that rings untrue?
Those ideologically (or religiously) dependent upon the Trump Phenomenon for validating their
core beliefs will demonstrate how creative true believers can be when attached to a
personality.
For what its worth I am looking forward to buying it, should scratch that Peter Scholl Latour
itch.
Another thing is that I just dont get the Neocons.
Their politics are bad both from a Machieavellian (dilutes US forces, creates enemies,
considerably restricts creative ways in which US power could be employed) and from a moral
(obviously) point of view. I also dont get their power, stupid/evil tends to be competed out.
Heck, even if they are stupid/evil but very good at beurocratic backbiting stuff, they are
still supposedly disadvantadged against skilled beurocratic backbiters that arent stupid/evil
(or at least only evil and not stupid).
Is it internal cohesion or a much higher degree of ruthlessness that maintains their
position?
I've for many years thought that the Bolton problem was best solved with a speedy trial and a
swift execution, with remains thrown overboard somewhere in the Indian ocean.
He signed an oath to safeguard the secrecy of the information when "read on" for it and
another such when he was "read off." The 1st Amendment does not come into it at all
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going against
Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one of the
most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely better place
when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go back to hell.
Poor Johnny! What's sadder than being a crook, but an ineffective one? I think that's what he
is. He may be infamous enough to be a household name, but he never really managed to make a
career. Hardly ever did he stay on a job for more than 2 years, before his fellow crooks
deemed him unfit for his position, again and again. Says a lot.
I hope they will confiscate his book on some flimsy pretext, only to lose the piles of
copies in storage, so they cannot possibly be released to bookstores again. Maybe some mice
will make use of it to furnish their nests?
Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton does not enjoy being
John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable to Merkel's face, come
to think of it.
John Bolton's tell all book about his tenure with the Trump administration is a perfect
example of the pot calling the kettle burned. It is a fitting description of the leadership
of the US government and it's capitol city as a den of backstabbing, corkscrewing and double
dealing vipers. It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each
other a whore! How low has the US sunk.
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do
so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters.
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National
Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter
Donolo, from 2018:
So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's
another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic
Barton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Barton
Then Bolton gets fired. 'Nuff said. Just to let everyone know that Bolton is well and truly
hated, as a government official, in certain circles.
Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years.
Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have
required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.
The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations,
and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult
children.
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership
and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to
reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of
evidence in a court of law. Maybe
Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some
observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider
them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he
(Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in
media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see
Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an
arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time.
Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few
dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be
stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put
up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny
outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him
(Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.
It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against
anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme
that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who
then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so
he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby
parasite.
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy
expert he (Trump) respected.
Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!
Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping
orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally
and physically abused for objecting.
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a
warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
If we view Bolton as Adelson puppet, such a behaviour clearly does not make much sense. Or this is a single from Israel lobby to
Trump "moor did his duty, moor can go"?
Notable quotes:
"... "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons." ..."
"... "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," ..."
"... "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't accept," ..."
"... "bombshells" ..."
"... "exactly the right thing to do." ..."
"... "systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China." ..."
"... "Panda Hugger." ..."
"... The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had "never seen a war he didn't like." ..."
"... Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York Times excerpt. ..."
"... "soft on China" ..."
"... As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job. ..."
Former national security adviser John Bolton has leaked excerpts of his book to major newspapers, accusing President Donald Trump
of colluding with leaders in China and Turkey, and obstruction of justice "as a way of life." Facing a DOJ lawsuit seeking to
block the publication of his memoir for containing classified information, Bolton decided to go to the press, leaking parts of
the book to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.
Breaking News: John Bolton says in his new book that the House should have investigated President Trump for potentially impeachable
actions beyond Ukraine https://t.co/8lpd4xAzYu
Bolton famously refused to testify before the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings against Trump over his alleged abuse of power
regarding Ukraine, but now claims that they should have expanded the probe to "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene
in law enforcement matters for political reasons."
He accuses Trump of wanting to "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," bringing up companies in China
and Turkey as examples, according to the Times. "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't
accept," the Times quotes him as saying.
One of the Bolton "bombshells" is that he sought China's purchase of US soybeans in order to get re-elected, during trade
negotiations with President Xi Jinping.
SOYBEAN DIPLOMACY: The WSJ has published an excerpt of
@AmbJohnBolton 's forthcoming book, revealing
Trump-Xi conversation and how the American president pleaded his Chinese counterpart to buy U.S. soybeans so he could win farm
states in the 2020 presidential elections |
#OATT pic.twitter.com/XKAogLCCtN
An excerpt in the Wall Street Journal has Trump telling Xi that – alleged – concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in China's
Xinjiang province were "exactly the right thing to do." It also alleges that Trump did Xi a favor by relaxing US sanctions
on ZTE, a Chinese telecom company.
WSJ excerpt of Bolton book has Trump & China bombshells. Trump told Xi building concentration camps for Muslims "was exactly
the right thing to do." Trump pleaded w/ Xi to help him w/ re-election by making US farm product buys. And Trump helped Xi w/
ZTE. https://t.co/4CSflQQqcL
This comes as Trump signed into law
the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, which mandates US sanctions against Chinese officials over "systematic use of indoctrination
camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities
in China."
Another excerpt has Bolton referring to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin as a "Panda Hugger."
According to Bolton, Trump told Xi to "go ahead with building the camps" for imprisoned Uighurs.
As another proof of Trump's perfidy, Bolton writes that the president told Xi that he would like to stay in office beyond the
two terms the US Constitution would allow him. Bolton's one-time colleague Dinesh D'Souza commented that Bolton was unable to recognize
a clear joke.
Really? This is it? John Bolton's smoking gun? Trump has been jokingly putting out memes about this for four years. This conversation,
if it occurred at all, seems obviously jocular. Bolton, however, whom I knew quite well from AEI, doesn't have a jocular bone
in his body pic.twitter.com/Qe8sXCAT58
Trump has on more than one occasion shared a meme showing him staying in power forever, triggering Democrats into denouncing him
as an aspiring dictator. Apparently, Bolton thought the same.
According to John Bolton posting this meme was an impeachable offense https://t.co/q2BHlfVTEu
-- Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain)
June 17, 2020
The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact
reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had
"never seen a war he didn't like."
Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York
Times excerpt.
Pretty telling that the episode which pissed off Bolton the most during his tenure was Trump calling off airstrikes which would
have killed dozens of Iranian soldiers in June 2019 https://t.co/ruFSInj2Mu
pic.twitter.com/5zO7UrxMTM
Arguing that Trump is being "soft on China" and colluding with Xi also happens to be a Democratic Party strategy for the
2020 presidential election, outlined in April
and reported by Axios.
While Democrats and the mainstream media welcomed Bolton's bombshells as validating their position on Trump, he is unlikely to
become a #Resistance hero, simply because they still remember he refused to say these things under oath during the impeachment hearings,
when they – in theory – could have bolstered their case for getting Trump out of office.
As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place
and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following
a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job.
Do I care that Bolton is stabbing Trump in the back? Not at all. General Flynn was NSA and Trump made his choices. Being outraged
on behalf of a 70+ year old man who makes poor choices is well beyond my job description.
One of the most disturbing aspects of American foreign policy since 9/11 has been the
assumption that decisions made by the United States are binding on the rest of the world, best
exemplified by President George W. Bush's warning that "there was a new sheriff in town." Apart
from time of war, no other nation has ever sought to prevent other nations from trading with
each other, nor has any government sought to punish foreigners using sanctions with the cynical
arrogance demonstrated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The United States uniquely seeks to
penalize other sovereign countries for alleged crimes that did not occur in the U.S. and that
did not involve American citizens, while also insisting that all nations must comply with
whatever penalties are meted out by Washington. At the same time, it demonstrates its own
hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to
use the courts to hold it accountable for its many crimes.
The conceit by the United States that it is the acknowledged judge, jury and executioner in
policing the international community began in the post-World War 2 environment, when hubristic
American presidents began referring to themselves as "leaders of the free world." This pretense
received legislative and judicial backing with passage of the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA) as amended in 1992 plus subsequent related legislation, to
include the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA). The body of legislation
can be used to obtain civil judgments against alleged terrorists for attacks carried out
anywhere in the world and can be employed to punish governments, international organizations
and even corporations that are perceived to be supportive of terrorists, even indirectly or
unknowingly. Plaintiffs are able to sue for injuries to their "person, property, or business"
and have ten years to bring a claim.
Sometimes the connections and level of proof required by a U.S. court to take action are
tenuous, and that is being polite. Suits currently can claim secondary liability for third
parties, including banks and large corporations, under "material support" of terrorism
statutes. This includes "aiding and abetting" liability as well as providing "services" to any
group that the United States considers to be terrorist, even if the terrorist label is dubious
and/or if that support is inadvertent.
The ability to sue in American courts for redress of either real or imaginary crimes has led
to the creation of a lawfare culture in which lawyers representing a particular cause seek to
bankrupt an opponent through both legal expenses and damages. To no one's surprise, Israel is a
major litigator against entities that it disapproves of. The Israeli government has even
created and supports an organization called Shurat HaDin, which
describes on its website how it uses the law to bankrupt opponents.
The Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan has become the clearing house for
suing the pants off of any number of foreign governments and individuals with virtually no
requirement that the suit have any merit beyond claims of "terrorism." In February 2015,
a lawsuit initiated by Shurat HaDin led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and
the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000
and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special
feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million. Shurat
HaDin claimed sanctimoniously that it was "bankrupting terror."
The
most recent legal victory for Israel and its friends occurred in a federal district court
in the District of Columbia on June 1 st , where Syria and Iran were held to be
liable for the killing of American citizens in Palestinian terrorist attacks that have taken
place in Israel. Judge Randolph D. Moss ruled that Americans wounded and killed in seven
attacks carried out by Palestinians inside the Jewish state were eligible for damages from Iran
and Syria because they provided "material support" to militant groups Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. The court will at a future date determine the amount of the actual damages.
It should be observed that the alleged crime took place in a foreign country, Israel, and
the attribution of blame came from Israeli official sources. Also, there was no actual evidence
that Syria and Iran were in any way actively involved in planning or directly enabling the
claimed attacks, which is why the expression "material support," which is extremely elastic,
was used. In this case, both Damascus and Tehran are definitely guilty as charged in
recognizing and having contact with the Palestinian resistance organizations though it has
never been credibly asserted that they have any influence over their actions. Syria and Iran
were, in fact, not represented in the proceedings, a normal practice as neither country has
diplomatic representation in the U.S. and the chances of a fair hearing given the existing
legislation have proven to be remote.
And one might well ask if the legislation can be used against Israel, with American citizens
killed by the Israelis (Rachel Corrie, Furkan Dogan) being able to sue the Jewish state's
government for compensation and damages. Nope. U.S. courts have ruled in similar cases that
Israel's army and police are not terrorist organizations, nor do they materially support
terrorists, so the United States' judicial system has no jurisdiction to try them. That result
should surprise no one as the legislation was designed to specifically target Muslims and
Muslim groups.
In any event, the current court ruling which might total hundreds of millions of dollars
could prove to be difficult to collect due to the fact that both Syria and Iran have little in
the way of remaining assets in the U.S. In previous similar suits, most notably in June 2017, a
jury deliberated for one day before delivering a guilty verdict against two Iranian foundations
for violation of U.S. sanctions, allowing a federal court to authorize the U.S. government
seizure of a
skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan. It was the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in
United States history. The presiding judge decided to distribute proceeds from the building's
sale, nearly $1 billion, to the families of victims of terrorism, including
the September 11th attacks . The court ruled that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11
attacks solely based on its status as a State Department listed state sponsor of terrorism,
even though the court could not demonstrate that Iran was in any way directly involved.
A second
court case involved Syria, ruling that Damascus was liable for the targeting and killing of
an American journalist who was in an active war zone covering the shelling of a rebel held area
of Homs in 2012. The court awarded
$302.5 million to the family of the journalist, Marie Colvin. In her ruling, Judge Amy Berman
Jackson cited "Syria's longstanding policy of violence" seeking "to intimidate journalists" and
"suppress dissent." A so-called human rights group funded by the U.S. and other governments
called the Center for Justice and Accountability
based its argument, as in the case of Iran, on relying on the designation of Damascus as a
state sponsor of
terrorism . The judge believed that the evidence presented was "credible and
convincing."
Another American gift to international jurisprudence has been the Magnitsky Act of 2012, a
product of the feel-good enthusiasm of the Barack Obama Administration. It was based on a
narrative regarding what went on in Russia under the clueless Boris Yeltsin and his nationalist
successor Vladimir Putin that was peddled by one Bill Browder, who many believe to have been a
major player in the looting of the former Soviet Union. It was claimed by Browder and his
accomplices in the media that the Russian government had been complicit in the arrest, torture
and killing of one Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant turned whistleblower working for Browder.
Almost every aspect of the story has been challenged, but it was completely bought into by the
Congress and White House and led to sanctions on the Russians who were allegedly involved
despite Moscow's complaints that the U.S. had no legal right to interfere in its internal
affairs relating to a Russian citizen.
Worse still, the Magnitsky Act
has been broadened and is now the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2017.
It is being used to sanction and otherwise punish alleged "human rights abusers" in other
countries and has a very low bar for establishing credibility. It was most recently used in the
Jamal Khashoggi case, in which the U.S. sanctioned the alleged killers of the Saudi dissident
journalist even though no one had actually been arrested or convicted of any crime.
The long-established principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other
states even when it disagrees with their internal or foreign policies has effectively been
abandoned. And, as if things were not bad enough, some recent legislation virtually guarantees
that in the near future the United States will be doing still more to interfere in and
destabilize much of the world. Congress passed and President Trump
has signed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and
Atrocities Prevention Act , which seeks to improve Washington's response to mass killings.
The prevention of genocide and mass murder is now a part of American national security agenda.
There will be a Mass Atrocity Task Force and State Department officers will receive training to
sensitize them to impending genocide, though presumably the new program will not apply to the
Palestinians as the law's namesake never was troubled by their suppression and killing by the
state of Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Iranian explosively formed penetrator IED killed 196 U.S. troops and wounded getting on
for a thousand in Iraq. What did they expect a pat on the back, America to forget all about
it?
As her writing shows Marie Colvin was sympathetic to all civilians being targeted
including Palestinian women being shot by Israeli backed militia snipers.
The long-established principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other
states even when it disagrees with their internal or foreign policies has effectively been
abandoned.
I think the Iranian government obviated any obligation for the US to abide by
international law and conventions, by seizing US Embassy personnel and using them as hostages
to influence US politics. Very successfully I might add. Iran only supports the Palestinians
in order to mitigate Arab Sunni loathing for the Persian Shia. It is self interested, unlike
Ms Colvin's reporting.
" At the same time, it demonstrates its own hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity
whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to use the courts to hold it accountable
for its many crimes ."
This is all no more than "par for the course" if you understand the true nature of all
governments.
This "just" in:
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock: https://mises.org/library/our-enemy-state-4
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." Onebornfree: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
"The state lies in all the tongues of good and evil, and whatever it says is lies, and
whatever it has, it has stolen, everything it is, is false, it bites with stolen teeth, and
it bites often, it is false down to its bowels."~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,
If you never get to understand the true nature of all governments, then you are forever
doomed to complain about what it does, seems to me, Mr Giraldi.
Right now (today june 15) there is a strong diplomatic tension between France and the US.
Pompeo is calling the International Court of Justice a "Kangaroo court". Speaking of Kangoroo
courts, there is more than one around. Especially in the US. When you see the trap in which
Bayer Deustchland has fallen in the US Or what Giraldi rightfully points
Don't know why the US elite is so enraged with almoste everyone. Maybe because they are the
slaves of zionist billionaires. They are enraged because they are slaves.
Final grasps and misuse of power are probably fairly typical as an empire collapses. The
right leadership could turn this ship around and head our nation toward the moral high
ground.
But the political will to regain constitutional relevance and produce real leadership
seems defeated.
@Sean
ndreds, of thousands of Iranians over the following decades. What do the US and UK expect? a
pat on the back, Iran to forget all about it?
The US also encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war which led to the
death of literally millions of Iranians. The US also shot down an Iranian passenger plane
killing hundreds without even so much as an apology (they gave the captain of the ship
involved a medal for it in fact)
My point is that you can't just start the clock (and the narrative) to suit yourself, you
are being ignorant and/or dishonest to do so.
The word sovereignty in the title gets right to the crux of this issue. The whole world
defined sovereignty by consensus at the UN World Summit. Sovereignty is responsibility. And
what's responsibility? Formal commitment to the UN Charter, the Rome Statute, and core human
rights instruments (the International Bill of Human Rights at a minimum.)
As always, the US signed with fingers crossed, interpreting the summit outcome in bad
faith in breach of peremptory international norms. The US is the last holdout or throwback to
the pre-modern concept of absolute sovereignty: arbitrary state power. Now if you look
closely, the state organ that actually holds arbitrary power is CIA. That is disguised by
lots of bribed and blackmailed functionaries and elected officials, but CIA murders them if
they step out of line, not excepting puppet 'heads of state' like Kennedy, Ford and Reagan
(sometimes they miss but they make their point.)
Now to the whole rest of the world, this CIA regime is not sovereign at all. Then what is
it? It is a criminal enterprise based on impunity. The legal relationship between responsible
sovereignty, absolute sovereignty, and impunity is very touchy to the CIA regime, which
dispatched John Bolton to the UN over Congress' explicit refusal, if you remember. And why?
What was Bolton sent to do? He obstructed the Summit Outcome Document with endless Neo-Soviet
nyets, submitting 600 amendments until drafters removed the trigger word impunity from one
paragraph.
This US totalitarian state considers that its arbitrary rule negates another universal
world agreement, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Foreign Intervention,
A/RES/20/2131, which is in fact state and federal common law in the US.
So how does this legal conundrum get resolved? When the time is right, Russia, China, and
Iran point their missiles at a selection of defenseless US military assets and say, Go fuck
yourself. It's what the Russians call coercion to peace. We the subject population need to
prepare for this eventuality, because the current rebellion includes peace in its demands
(ask BAP.) The basis of US impunity is arbitrary use of force at home and abroad. The human
right to peace means capitulation for the CIA regime.
The reply is pure, direct nonsense. Iran is correct in supporting the Palestinians. The
United States supports the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It supports apartheid and
starving Palestinians.
There is no need for moderation. Through U.S. tax dollars to Israel, it supports apartheid
and the suffering of Palestinians who have had their land taken from them by the Israelis.
Look at map of Palestine today.
@Sean
tive and hews closely to Jewish interests as expressed & shaped by the Jewish-controlled
American media.
The death of 34 servicemen on the USS Liberty is barely a footnote of history, and while
the death of St. Floyd is tearing America apart, the brutal killing of American Rachel Corrie
in Israel was the butt of jokes among Zionists in the American media.
After all, making some deaths more important than others is a Jewish specialty and control
of the media means never having to say you're sorry – while others have to watch their
step or face the wrath of the mob.
@Sean
se they cannot control it. SJW Globalists hate Jewish Israel because they cannot control it.
Preposterous bloviation about the supremacy of supranational bodies is an easily
penetrated cover story. The obvious TRUTH -- One religion is intentionally misusing bodies,
like the UN/NWO, to assault Christians & Jews that it cannot control.
The U.S. must uphold its sovereign responsibility to oppose oppression and punish the
murder of its citizens. If Soleimani wanted to live, he should not have senselessly butchered
Americans.
The whole world knows that the US attack on Iraq was a war of aggression not condoned by
the UN. Also, the US didn't hide its intentions and put Iran next on the list (the Axis of
Terror ). Omitting these little details are very convenient indeed for it enables you to
portray the US soldiers as blue eyed UN Peace Keepers attacked by the malignant theocratic
regime, when in fact the opposite is true.
@Sean
but its status as a diplomatic mission may very well have been compromised by practises
contrary to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation (Vienna 18 April
1961), in which case the Iranians should have simply asked the US staff to leave. but seizure
by the students made that moot.
Think of it as the Iranian Lives Matter protest of 1979. Its a shame the criminals behind
the current BLM and AntiFa movements aren't treated as harshly as we treat the Iranians,
though now that AntiFa made the list, maybe someone can connect the dots to Soros and relieve
him of a few billions.
Isramerica Inc. ceased being a nation state when the Rothschild Reich conquered the
American Republic in 1913 by establishing the Rothschild Reserve Bank. Give a Rothschild a
gun and he can rob a bank. Give a Rothschild a bank and he can rob a country. What Rothschild
Wants, Rothschild Gets. Rothschild wants his Central Banks in all Zionist Globalist
international city states. Rothschild wants control of all Zionist Globalist Corporations.
Bank of Isramerica,the City of Londonistan, Berlinks, Parisk, Zu Rich . Microsoft, Apple,
Amazon all KNEEL before the Rothschild Royal Family of Black Lives Matter. Rothschild wanted
WWI, WWII and now wants WWIII and a final solution to enslave the West, a ZODD. The Zionist
Owned Digital Dollar to COVID 1984 track, trace and enslave all of Cattlekind. DOWN WITH BIG
ZOG!
@joe2.5
to support divestment from Iran-oriented investments, in favor or investment in Israel.
This has been the case at least since Bob Casey's campaign to unseat Rick Santorum (aka
the
DumpRick campaign). Before Casey's win, he was taken to Israel by members of AIPAC, who
returned him to US shores assured that "while Rick was good for Israel, Bob will be even
moreso . . ."
Pennsylvania's Jewish governor, Jewish state's attorney, and Jewish transgender director
of public health are combining their authorities to impose some of the most stringent, and
fraudulent, sets of regulations on the people of Pennsylvania relative to the scamdemic.
-- Radical U.S. students seize the Iranian Mission to the UN, located in NYC.
-- They demand the turn over of Ayatollah Khameni for his war crimes against the Iranian
people.
-- The Trump administration "To Protect Innocent Student Lives" refuses to intervene for ~444
days.
Under your rules, these U.S. Students would be 'private citizens'. Hypothetically, no
violation of international law has occurred.
I suspect your hypertechnicality could lead to unintended, though currently hypotheical,
outcomes.
Precisely. Being that what you said applies equally to all 50 states, non-voting
territories, vassalages and messuages, the extraterritorial invasion of Iraq (or anywhere) is
on behalf of the same owners of the country.
Ooh! Sean used the IED word! How sophisticated. IED, IED IED!!! Would it be better they
used nice, professional ordinance, like the Yankees' depleted uranium? Yo' mama raised the
afterbirth!
I am sure A123 is wallowing in a puddle of self-extracted sperm by now.
Cute, the previous article I read was about how Zion and its Undeclared Soviets in America
plan to use force against the International Criminal Court. IED, I say.
Before Sean and A123 get together and breed more apologists for the satanic childfucking
cacastocracy and their queen Hillary. (Deposed by reason of failing clone stability).
The African Group (representing the 54 African countries in the United Nations) convened
an "Urgent Debate" (technically equivalent to a special session) in the HRC on, basically, US
killer cops – on the 17th, the fireworks to be broadcast/archived on http://webtv.un.org/
You can watch the US piss away its international standing.
Racial discrimination comes up of course, because Africans are extra touchy about pigs
killing jigs for sport, but violent attacks on your human right of assembly is on the agenda
too (UDHR Article 20, state and federal common law; ICCPR Article 21, equivalent to federal
statute.) Urgent debate in this charter body mobilizes the treaty bodies and special
procedures, which in turn supports propria motu ICC investigation of the US and its Izzie pig
torture trainers.
US Human Rights Network*/ACLU ask:
"If you live the United States, please contact foreign embassies in Washington D.C. that
are members of the UNHRC, especially U.S. allies, and urge them to support international
accountability for police killings in the U.S.
And if you live outside the U.S., please contact your Foreign Ministry or your country's
UN Mission in Geneva and let them know that you support the call made by families of victims
of police killings in the United States and over 660 groups from 66 countries to mandate an
independent Commission of Inquiry. This is the only credible accountability measure that can
effectively respond to the current human rights crisis in the United States.
Go over the head of your horseshit government to the world.
One day, A123, some sensible person will have the opportunity to take that PEACE emoticon
and shove it up your smutty throat. My dog is flapping his hind leg at the joyful
thought.
Also, you forget to mention the role your private international terrorist organisation, CIA
played in every so-called 'incident' regarding Iran.
The greatest danger of BDS is is the defunding of satanic criminal networks such as USAID,
CIA, MOSSAD etc. It's not like Israel has provinces full of industry to 'invest' in.
You do know that blaming Iran for that is quite a stretch. The technology involved was not
hard to acquire.
And what about the dozens of countries the US government has actively plunged into war,
killing, maiming and destroying the lives of millions and millions of people? WTF about
that?
Mr. Giraldi provides some noteworthy examples of pro-Israel legislation, but the names
could be tweaked a bit. Here's some proposed legislation that more honestly reflects the
character of our vaunted solons
1. The Israeli Destruction, Invalidation, and Oppression Tenet, also known as IDIOT.
Once ratified, IDIOT would require a congressional representative's public proclamation of
pride upon the occasion of any crime committed by Israel. Said proclamation must be no less
than 500 words and preempt all other matters pending deliberation. Failure to persuade one's
constituency of Israeli virtue warrants a donation of $250,000 to the incumbent's next
election opponent.
2. Completing the Ruinous, Execrable Takeover by Israel Now, or CRETIN Act.
This law would defer all civil rights cases ordinarily brought before an American justice
to a tribunal of members appointed and officiated by Alan Dershowitz. Appeals may be granted,
subject to a display of fealty including, but not limited to, ceding custody of one's
firstborn child.
3. The Doing Everything Israel Likes Act, hereinafter referenced as DEVIL.
Under this mandate, electronic bracelets such as those worn by felons subject to in-house
arrest will be fastened to every member of congress, their voltage increased in direct
correlation to the measure of their recalcitrance against Israel. Perceived acclimation to
the accompanying pain will necessitate either castration or sale into slavery. Should the
former consequence apply, the gelding will be permitted to preserve remnants of his manhood
in a curio cabinet display set up for public viewing in the Capitol Rotunda.
Only a Zionist would have the nerve to write such immortal nonsense while at the same time
the assaults on the Russian and Venezuelan embassies, the invention of shadow governments in
Venezuela and Bolivia and the Ukraine are occurring.
We have to account for the fact that there are younger people here, as well as those who
have yet to understand the dynamics at play. We also have to give him credit where it's due:
he knows how to elicit a response. Yet, in a forum of this nature, that's not too difficult
when you're running interference for the powers that be. In that sense, he's no different
than "Lot" or that other troll with a numeric handle.
His respondents don't imagine they're going to make him happy. Everybody just thinks
they're gonna be the one to whack the mole.
The solution for the many ills facing the US. This solution WILL entail violence.
From the Byzantines, Ezra Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the
Jews.
"The answer to the Jewish problem is simple," he said.
"Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government."
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their
hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their
subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation."
THE US IS DEAD & WILL BE NOTHING AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PETRODOLLAR. After Bretton
Woods, where the Jews used the US as they did in WWI, it can now be snuffed out as it has no
assets, industry and has destroyed every entity of ecological protection and is the biggest
user of geoengineering wiping out almost all life and that is the way the Elohim want it.
Gomberg map is just a short version of the most valuable state in the world and it's in you
damn dollar bill. Those little green nations are the owners of the earth and the top is where
the ALL SEEING EYE IS. It's all a fraud but people are as stupid as animals and will deserve
what is coming as the next pillar of the destruction of the US from St. John the Devine
states. Then a new birth after the deaths of billions. These were put up in 1997 and in 1999,
the messiah of Israel stated what would happen to the towers and is in STONE.
Jewish cohesion, skill, tenacity, and purposefulness has imbued this tribe with
unsurpassed status. And power.
International Jewry pilots world banking, orchestrates the manufacture of news and
entertainment (and public opinion), while it oversees all US policies in areas that affect
the standing of Israel or status of world Jewry. This is no small matter.
Inordinate Jewish power, and its distorting impact on international affairs, has become
one of humanity's greatest trials. It is the grand conundrum that we lesser souls are not
supposed to notice or ever complain about. This puts us on the road to ruin.
Hey A123 -- - I see where that little stinker Sean, stole your Hasbara Central talking
points. So now all you can produce is this crap -- - I know – what is this world coming
too? -- Art
@joe2.5
by the KJV Bible as edited by Samuel Untermyer and his seven or more employees that Untermyer
paid the known crook, the known fraudster C. I. Scofield to put his name on so it wouldn't
look like a Jewish-edited New Testament edition. He, the worm A123, swoons with joy when the
Jews vandalize Christian churches in greater Palestine and shoot Christians, which is
happening all the time.
A real nasty piece of work he is, A123, and a real clueless immoral idiot. It's a pity
he's too illiterate to read Ron Unz's Oddities Of The Jewish Religion. He'd soon learn
how the Jews hate him.
Judge jury and executioner. This is why this madness must end. When talking about systemic
oppression it is solely outward towards other nations. Such brutality and arrogance. The
worlds only chance is turning away from the dollar, Israel and the US.
'I think the Iranian government obviated any obligation for the US to abide by
international law and conventions, by seizing US Embassy personnel and using them as hostages
to influence US politics.'
That was over forty years ago. In 1985, what kind of behavior would you have advocated
towards Germany?
@MarkU
, to shooting down an airliner taking off from their own airport. Pauperised and paranoid,
Iran is self destructing. They got a pass for limpet mine tanker attacks and drone
destruction of a oil refineries in Saudi, so what did they do? Attack a US embassy in Iraq.
That is great thinking if they intended to get Trump to use force as he has long been known
to have been outraged by the hostage crisis of decades ago. Iran is helping Israel more than
the Palestinians. One can only imagine what disaster the Iranian leadership would bring on
their country if they had a thermonuclear weapon.
The "Gloat Over Your Broken Environment And Never Surrender" Act, or GOYBEANS Act.
If ratified, this bill would provide 666 million dollars annually for developing public
school curricula in partnership with the ADL, SPLC, and NAMBLA. Proposed as a reformatory
measure, the GOYBEANS Act was drafted in response to demands from the aforementioned
organizations that school curricula be more inclusive of topics such as nurturing gender
doubt, learning to properly hate, and the non-existence of Palestinians.
Times have moved on. Jews would need to be banned from the McMedia industrial complex,
including newspapers, cinema, TV etc. A ban on political donations would obviously be also
necessary. They should be free to worship Yahweh and themselves at length without causing
harm to others.
It should be a lesson learned for the rest of the world: don't keep any assests in the US,
or the West for that matter. Isolate from the West, divest from the West, sanction and
boycott the West, build your own institutions and link up only to non-Western countries.
Don't even bother to visit the West, find other places to vacation in. Anyway the West is
being ruined by your own immigrants, so why would you want to spend your holidays among
them?
We live under a tyrannous U.S.-led Anglo-Zionist fascism which is committing heinous war
crimes on behalf of the Jewish Israel and its Jewish supporters.
While there are some similarities between Anglo-Zionist fascism and German Fascism (Nazi
Germany), Anglo-Zionist fascism is more injurious, more ruthless and more criminal than
Germany under Adolph Hitler.
@Anon
aid to Mr Giraldi[post 4]: "If you never get to understand the true nature of all
governments, then you are forever doomed to complain about what it does"
Most people [including, of course, all the commie idjuts in "CHAZ"] live in denial of the
true nature of the government they complain about all the time, forever unable to see that
the state is doing nothing more than being,er, "stately". It would appear that you are no
different from them.
@MarkU
My point is that you can't just start the clock (and the narrative) to suit yourself, you are
being ignorant and/or dishonest to do so.
You are partly right. However, Sean is far from ignorant, though his lack of ignorance is
more than matched by his total lack of honesty. Both characteristics of a paid troll.
The zios must see UR, as a real threat to their mythical narrative, judging by the resources
they put into defending the undefendable, always going to be an uphill mountain, even for the
totally dishonest Sean and his cronies.
@Sean
Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real
Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired
financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a
world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian
nations.
The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."
Paul Singer's best known legal battle is a marathon campaign to force Argentina to pay out
on bonds he bought at a knockdown price in 2001. He finally succeeded in getting a $2.4
billion payout last year. He has also been accused of profiting at the expense of other
impoverished nations, namely Peru and Congo-Brazzaville, a West African country where most
live in dire poverty. Singer acquired Congolese government debt though a Cayman Islands
vehicle and set about clawing money back through the London courts in a campaign over several
years, eventually winning £78 million.
Singer works for Israel in his world wide looting.
Singer is also the founder of Start-Up Nation Central, a Tel Aviv-based non-profit that
seeks to connect business and government leaders around the world with the Israeli people and
technologies that can solve their most pressing challenges.
His most recent looting project is to get Twitter.
An activist investor known as a major Republican political supporter wants to wrest
control of Twitter from co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey, US media has reported.
Your map looks straight out of Halford MacKinder's strategy for getting control of his
designated heartland. International banking owns both Russia and China. So it would seem the
shining city is both antiquated and dangerous. Also it can neither control its borders and its
cities . We really need to decommission the biological and nuclear weapons. Finally according
to your logic dementia Biden is the appropriated president for a demented USA.
The Nuremberg trials led to the creation of the International Criminal Court and
jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression.
Make laws for everyone and then find ways to get around those laws. It's a never ending
Talmudic cycle.
The foreign policy of the ZUS has been driven by the zionists since 1913 when they took over
control of America with their privately owned FED and IRS and then came the wars and the attack
on the USS Liberty and their attack on the WTC on 911, designed to plunge America into
destroying the middle east for zionist Israel.
Read the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen,
and the Protocols of Zion.
2 Menachem Begin was frightened of being found out that his regime was conspiring against
Carter's administration colluding with GOP agents hostage release . He even physically
threatened Peres against trying anything on his own behind the knowledge of the Begin
regime.
3 I read somewhere that during the very early period of the developing hostage situation
Israeli operation inside Iran put the lives of the hostage at risk despite the people on the
ground from US agency requesting the Israelis not to do .
The US overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the torturing Shah.
The US precipitated the Iraq/Iran war and gave Iraq chemical weapons to kill Iranians.
Speaking of shooting down airliners , our fine USN shot an Iranian civilian airliner out of the
sky in 1988 killing a few hundred people.
You think any Iranian is losing sleep over the killing of Americans in a country that the US
illegally invaded and occupied?
Expressing many lies and sanitizng US 's dirty wars on Syria ,even ignoring it– here
is NYTimes
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/world/middleeast/syria-economy-assad-makhlouf.html
"The United States will impose sweeping new sanctions this week that could target the
businesspeople Mr. al-Assad needs to rebuild his shattered cities.
The Caesar Act, named after a Syrian police photographer who defected with photos of thousands
of prisoners tortured and killed in Syrian custody, requires the United States president to
sanction anyone who does business with or provides significant support to the Syrian government
or its officials."-NYT
It has already imposed sanctions and has done repeatedly . Caesar's photo journalism was the
playbook from Lantos Kuwait babies Curveball's begging for jail free asylum in US and from
Wolfowitz lies that Saddam was behind 911.
You have, in a nutshell, given the reason why the JewEssA declared Pound insane and had him
locked up.
"Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a 'country run by Jews,'"
"America is a lunatic asylum."
~ Ezra Pound
As an update, "the West" could be substituted for "Europe".
But the impulsive George Bush should not have dragged Iraq into another war, he lied his way
into the war. A devout Methodist who is also a war criminal. And who do I see shuffling off in
the left corner? Why its the international statesman Henry Kissinger, who advised the Americans
that the Ayrabs would not respect anyone who raised the sword but would not bring it down.
But unlike others commenting here I agree that US Army owed Iran big time, for ambushing
them when all they wanted was to pacify the Shiites and Sunnis and get the hell out.
Nonsense. Sovereign states use whatever tools are available to further their geopolitical
objectives. To cite one of innumerable examples, China uses everything, including trade, against
recognition of Taiwan.
I'm old fashioned, I think the USG should leverage its strengths in pursuit of its
geopolitical objectives. Its current dominance of global finance definitely qualifies.
Giraldi has a soft spot for the Palestinians. Fair enough. Though he does them no favors by
putting them in the same bucket as Iran in this context. Z-man , says: June 16, 2020
at 3:25 pm GMT
@WJ It
is true that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons. However, the US had given Iran chemical weapons
previously. As Stephen Pelletiere, who investigated Saddam's alleged gassing at Halajaba for
the military, reported, cyanide gas was used to kill the Kurds. Cyanide gas was being used by
Iran.
The reality is, and Mr. Giraldi seems reluctant to discuss, that the US (Israeli) strategy
in the Middle East is one of perpetual chaos. If it became convenient tomorrow, Iran would be
an "ally" and Saudi Arabia an "enemy". As long as the Eretz Yisroel project is active, that
will always be the objective.
The Talmudic faction among them is a ticking time bomb. Why take the risk of keeping the
latent virus in a country? Check out the role of the tribe when Moorish armies advanced on
Toledo, Spain.
Jews have their own country now. They can non-violently be sent to live amongst their own
kin and make their Jewtopia. That is an option that historically wasn't available but since
1948 it's been on the table.
American "law" is a sick joke. The country was a "banana republic" before its zionazi
colonization, what it is now is a fully colonized "banana republic" under full control of
israeli oligarchical interests. I believe this full control was finalized in the quisling trump
regime and that one of the major roles this regime has been tasked to accomplish was finalizing
this zionazi/israeli full control. If not the major role they were tasked to accomplish. The
slow boiled frog is now dead and fully cooked.
@Sean S.
and its precious Operation Inherent Resolve have brought in weapons from Bulgaria, Libya,
Jordan, Israel, and the U.S., inter alia, to trying to bring down Assad to the tune of some
500+K civilian deaths so I'm missing the point of your moral calculus here. Basically, we wage
aggressive war causing massive casualties, destruction, and suffering but you highlight a
particular weapon used against U.S. forces who brought the full panoply of surveillance
platforms, armor, fighter bombers, artillery, electronic warfare, and infantry to bear in a war
based on lies and stupidity. Ours.
@padre
unded on fairness, the quest for justice, and equal treatment under law. A key objective would
be advancing the common good. Zionism distorts these principles.
Lawfare uses concentrated Jewish wealth to assure that Israeli objectives become
more equal under the US law. This subverts fairness as well as the Equal Treatment
doctrine.
Organized Jewish cunning tosses aside the common good in favor of what's good for the
Jews .
What we get in its place is a premeditated perversion of justice.
@al Muqawama
Local 12 ier sovereign could claim total independence and freedom of action in
international relations but his exercise of power was not necessarily whimsical, random,
authoritarian, or illegal.
The globalist, open borders, progressive crowd work hard to paint "nationalism" as the
supreme evil -- well, after advocacy of white interests -- but it is not the evil they
try to make it out to be. As with the E.U., the silk drawer set proceeded to obliterate the
nation state and its loathsome "nationalism" which is exactly the healthy antidote to their
sought-after collectivist, multicultural nightmare.
@mark
green n my illustrious (grin) career with a powerful government agency which was the
Vatican City of government agencies back in the day (meaning once you were in you were in an
untouchable club, 'a made man') I made my political opinions known to some extent. (Mistake) In
the course of my meteoric rise as a junior executive (lol) I may have called out a Jew or two.
Whell I was transferred from my cushy office job and put out in the field, like the Red
Guards of the Cultural Revolution in CHY-NAH, (lol). It might have been for my calling out of a
'chosen'ite'.
You really are stupid enough to believe that the Iranians were stupid enough to produce so
called IED's with "Made in Iran" written on them in English?
Phil Geraldi demonstrates that the US justice system is a joke and a farce. The court's hand
down verdicts like the courts in the former Soviet Union or North Korea do. The alleged support
of terrorism by Iran and Syria doesn't hold water. It's purely political and has nothing to do
with the rule of law. To argue that the State of Israel doesn't commit acts of terrorism is
bananas. Miko Peled, who wrote "The General's Son" https://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.com/2012/10/miko-peled-generals-son.html
stated in a speech on 1 October 2012 in Seattle: The Israeli army is the "best trained, best
equipped, best fed terrorist organization in the world." He continued saying: "Their entire
purpose is terrorism." The Israeli army commits acts of terror daily against the occupied
people of Palestine. Which Zionist law firm will take up their cases against the ruthless
Zionist regime in Jerusalem?
Ah, the old "senseless butchery" ploy, 99. I saw it coming a mile away.
Islam does not have 99 ploys. It extremely simple blood cult. The Muslim play book has only
3:
-1- Jihad -- Senseless Butchering of _________ (Jews, Christians, the weak, the innocent
)
-2- Taqiyya -- Lie about murders committed in the name of the Anti-Christ Muhammad
-3- Repeat -- Ploy #1 & Ploy #2
@A123
Soleimani. Since when do garden-variety military tactics and weaponry amount to SB? I've seen a
Muslim scientist who argued with some Muslim nut that the earth is in fact round. This despite
the authoritative statement of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia that the Koran says it's flat.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Forgive my obscure reference. "99" was the female lead in the amusing TV spy spoof, "Get
Smart." Maxwell Smart always referred to her as "99." She must have been flattered as she later
married him. In "real life" as we used to say. With considerable accuracy.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
Frank Speaker Jun 13, 2020 12:53 PM Sweden was once fiercely neutral and social democrat. It
was the pinnacle of human civilisation, a template to copy and aspire too, albeit imperfect as
we humans are.
Sweden has shifted to the right since Palme's assassination, is now on the verge of joining
NATO, increasingly Russophobic, has opened its doors to unchecked migration which is decimating
its culture, politics and safety of its indigenous people. These changes all point very clearly
towards the cuplrit of Palme's murder. Antonym Jun 13, 2020 3:16 AM The murder of a PM without
anyone considering his protection & a strong motive?
Highly suspect: his own Swedish security top might be implicit. If he tells his security detail
to go home, some of them should have hung back a dozen meters. Biggest motive: the CIA. Biggest
interest not to find out the killer: the Swedish deep state. Harvey Jun 12, 2020 9:00 PM The
CIA's war against socialism, or anything that serves the peoples interest has lasted 60 years
now, and we see the results in the USA, the homelessness, the poverty and the desperation of a
vast numbers of the population, and they haven't finished yet, there are more people to fleece
at home and overseas.
The USA is an empire that wants to reverse 500 years of popular emancipation and progress,
and take the people back to squalor, slavery and feudalism. When history is written, not by
them and their liars in Hollywood, it will remembered as one of the worst, most evil empires in
history. tonyopmoc Jun 12, 2020 7:38 PM I have read a lot about Olof Palme in the past. So far
as I remember he was Assassinated by evil people – probably British or American –
MI6? CIA? but I can't remember all the details, but he was probably a nice bloke or they
wouldn't have killed him. I doubt the Swedish did it. They are not like that. A bit of
operation Gladio was it? It seems its back on. Who's next? Dr NG Maroudas Jun 13, 2020 12:24 PM
Reply to
tonyopmoc @Tony Opmoc: "I doubt the Swedish did it. They are not like that".
Julian Assange might disagree: Carl Bildt, a PM who succeded Palme then cooked up the Case
for the Persecution against Assange, is definitely "like that". Many Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian
victims attest to Sweden's complicity in mass murder under such nauseatingly hypocritical
pretexts such as "Liberal Interventions" and "Right to Protect". Sweden is part of a
potentially nuclear Scandiwegia playing anti-Russian NW-passage-suprematist power games in the
Baltic.
"From fire, pestilence and Norsemen may the good Lord protect us" -- prayer by British in
the dark ages and Middle Easterners in the 21st century. John A Jun 14, 2020 11:59 AM Reply to
Dr NG Maroudas Carl Bildt is high up in the Atlantic Council and proven to have been a CIA
informant. gordon Jun 12, 2020 6:35 PM ashkanazi good
goy nazi bad
DID MOSSAD ASSASSINATE ANNA LINDH?
Sweden's popular foreign minister Anna Lindh is the third high-ranking Swedish political
opponent of Zionism to have been murdered since 1948, which raises the question: Was Lindh
assassinated because of her outspoken opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine?
The late Swedish Social Democrat Prime Minister Olof Palme – murdered in 1986 –
was a pioneer of anti-Israel incitement. He accused Israel of Nazi practices
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16413
17 0 Reply John A Jun 14, 2020 8:29 AM Reply to
gordon The guy who murdered Anna Lindh sounds exactly like Sirhan Sirhan who 'assassinated'
Robert Kennedy. He was mind controlled and has no recollection of the murder or why he did it.
0 0 Reply snuffleupagus Jun 12, 2020 5:41 PM of related interest:
Ron Unz -- Mossad Assassinations Jen
Jun 12, 2020 9:31 PM Reply to
pasha The point of the article is that the Swedish authorities are uninterested in
investigating the death of a Prime Minister – supposedly the most powerful and most
important person in Sweden – who actually took very seriously for himself the moral role
of being a social crusader and seeker of social justice that Sweden always claims to have.
The reality, as the link to the Elisabeth Asbrink article demonstrates, is that Sweden has a
iong (still ongoing) obsession and love affair with conformism and social repression, evidenced
in having had the world's longest eugenics policy targeting tens of thousands of people, most
of them young women, for "mental disabilities", resulting in their sterilisation from the 1930s
to 1975. Most of these victims were reported to authorities by their families, neighbours and
in some cases by pastors in their local church parishes.
Behind the Social Justice Warrior mask is a nation that has been a de facto police state for
at least 100 years.
Neocons like the historian Robert Kagan may be
connecting with Hillary Clinton to try to regain influence in foreign policy.
Credit...
Left,
Stephanie Sinclair/VII via Corbis; right, Colin McPherson/Corbis
WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the
neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama,
not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that
bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen
feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to
return to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons --
Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle -- are permanently buried in the
sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The
Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further American
decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction -- one that might allow
them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning
away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan,
the author of a recent,
roundly praised article
in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only
avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an
influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon
think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under
President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism
into the liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on
maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among
other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line
from him straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan
whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for
Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
noted in The New Republic
this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a
principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the
intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the
Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf
Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her
administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan
on board.
Of course, the neocons' latest change in tack is not just about intellectual
affinity. Their longtime home, the Republican Party, where presidents and candidates from Reagan to Senator
John McCain of Arizona supported large militaries and aggressive foreign policies, may well nominate for
president Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been beating an ever louder drum against American
involvement abroad.
In response, Mark Salter, a former chief of staff to Senator McCain and a
neocon fellow traveler, said that in the event of a Paul nomination, "Republican voters seriously concerned
with national security would have no responsible recourse" but to support Mrs. Clinton for the presidency.
Still, Democratic liberal hawks, let alone the left, would have to swallow
hard to accept any neocon conversion. Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy
views -- the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as "like a neocon, practically." And
humanitarian interventionists like Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations, who opposed the
second Iraq war, recoil at the militaristic unilateralism of the neocons and their inveterate hostility to
international institutions like the World Court.
But others in Mrs. Clinton's orbit, like Michael A. McFaul, the former
ambassador to Russia and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a neocon haven at Stanford, are much
more in line with thinkers like Mr. Kagan and Mr. Boot, especially when it comes to issues like promoting
democracy and opposing Iran.
Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972,
Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early
neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing "something of a swing group between the
two major parties." Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has
changed.
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double
government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of
government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable"
Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America
has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn
its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined
not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens,
the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that
"there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S.
Constitution and government."
One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W.
Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose
was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy
has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored
from the actual Constitution.
In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an
unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She
rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely
esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no,
"it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our
behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."
She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global
responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are
different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that
foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless
resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American
interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."
In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently
argued
that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation
from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government"
that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The
Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the
establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no
part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.
Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should
not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals
should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no
better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy
around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams
position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted:
"it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."
When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes
clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the
future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment,
she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe."
Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge,
multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern
with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States.
We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is
entirely appropriate."
She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a
normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and
become again an unusually successful, open American republic."
Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979
article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of
the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments
that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free
and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without
republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the
world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act
of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to
traverse."
While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a
tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider
Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself
to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.
Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey
Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993
she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance
against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the
invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W.
Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is
not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."
The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald
Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president)
make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like
pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War
alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she
were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast.
That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign
of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the
Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy
and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy
under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.
Introduction: Questions about the official World War Two death figures increasingly mount.
Where are the proofs for these numbers? Where are the bodies? Did people just vaporize into
thin air–as some believe, going up in smoke through tall chimneys?
Two responsible figures have recently and publicly added their voices to the question of six
million Poles murdered (ostensibly by Nazis) between 1939 and 1945.
One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Speaking to a journalist for Izvestia (Russian daily newspaper), he said, rather
tongue-in-cheek, that he cannot understand how the Polish population exploded between 1946 and
1970, and then leveled off to become stagnant from 1990 till today. He humorously remarked that
there had to have been "a strong aphrodisiac" to lead to the birth of millions of new Poles
because "in the grocery stores there had been only vinegar and millions had died even after the
war."
The other is Dr. Otwald Mueller, a well-known German researcher, whose remarkable letter
appeared on October 17, 2009 in two American German-language newspapers, the New Yorker
Staatszeitung and the California Staatszeitung .
In his letter, Dr. Mueller discusses the six million figure that was widely reported during
the September 1st, 2009 conference, held at Gdansk (Danzig), Poland, marking the 70
th Anniversary of the beginning of what was to expand into World War Two.
A translation of his letter appears below, followed by a survey of actual mass graves that
have been found and excavated to date that physically reveal flesh-and-bone victims of
WWII.
Dr. Mueller writes:
On the occasion of Poland's victory celebration at Danzig/Gdansk, September 1, 2009,
you could read in the press the following statements:
1) Die Welt (German newspaper "The World"), September 2, 2009: "?beginning of WW II, 6
million victims in Poland, half of them Jews? ."
2) Daily Gazette (Schenectady, N.Y.), September 2, 2009: " .Poland alone lost 6 million
citizens, half of them Jews?"
[The Associated Press (AP) supplies news to nearly all newspapers in the US. That means
those news stories were published in nearly all US newspapers.]
3) Catalyst, Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Number 6,
July-August 2009: "Six million Polish citizens were killed in the Holocaust – three
million of them were Catholics".
An important chart
There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population
of 29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million. The difference
is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population. The chart seems to prove the
statement of "6 million" ? but, on the contrary, it contradicts it.
On page 413 of the book "Poland: It's People, It's Society, It's Culture" by Clifford
Barnett, HRAF Press, New Haven, CT 1958, the following figures are marked at chart #1: For
the year 1950, a population of 24,533,000; for the year 1955, a population of
27,544,000.
Where are the losses? They turned into gains, because –
For the years 1946 to 1950: a gain of 5.5%. For the years 1950 to 1955: a gain of
15.5%.
That shows in a significant way how Polish history – better Polish fairy tales
– works.
Caption: (by author) Between 1931 and 1946 there is a large loss of population, which
neatly adds up to six million Polish citizens, or 21%. We must keep in mind that 31% of
Poland's population was of non-Polish origin � one million were German, as you can see
from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau. It also included 7 million
Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, and 3 million Jews. Even so, between the postwar years
of 1946 to 1955, the lost population is gained back again – minus 2 million. By 1950,
there is a gain of 908,000 in 4 years. And by 1955, an additional gain of 3,011,000 in 5
years! Can these be new births over deaths? No. They are more likely an "adjustment"- a more
accurate accounting than was done before. This increase cannot be from Germans, Ukrainians or
Lithuanians who returned to Poland, because Poland today is one of the most ethnically
homogenous nations in the world. Are they not Poles, who either returned from the East, where
they had fled, or never left?
Truth in regard to history The declaration by the chairman of the
German-Polish Bishop's Conference on the occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the beginning of
WW II states: "The church will definitely take steps against such inadequate handling of
historical truth. We recommend and encourage an intensive dialog which always includes being
ready to listen to the other side."
The German Bishop's conference unfortunately did not comply, so far, with its own
directives. They did indeed "listen carefully" to their Polish partners and accepted all
Polish historical interpretations without ever questioning or correcting. It is an outrageous
way to violate historical truth when the author of that chart names the cities of Allenstein,
Danzig, Koeslin, Stettin, Gruenberg, Breslau, Oppeln – in the provinces of East
Prussia, Pommerania and Silesia – as "Polish cities."
The declaration of the bishop's conferences reads: "Seventy years ago, on September 1,
1939, German forces started their attack against Poland." (Tagespost, 27 August 2009, page 5)
Thus the second world-war began. How truthful is that declaration? In reality, Stalin also
started his attack against Poland with his Soviet Red Army on September 17, 1939. Hitler and
Stalin together started a local war which ended after 6 weeks. Well, Stalin might have just
said "Nyet" and Hitler would have stayed home. Stalin was not forced to sign a pact with
Hitler. Stalin gained 51% of pre-war Poland.
One violates the truth in dealing with history when one identifies the Germans expelled
from the German East provinces as "Polish victims."
The German Bishop's conference should consider it their task to urge the Polish Bishops
to see that those Polish historical distortions are corrected.
In pre-war Poland, millions of Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Ruthenians and
others were living. How did they become Poles? No newspaper report tells the story.
April, 1920 – 22 years before Hitler [invaded the SU] – the Polish Army
under Pilsudski started the victorious campaign against the Soviet Union.
On May 7, 1920, General Rydz-Smigly occupied Kiev.
At the peace treaty of Riga, March 21, 1921, Poland gained vast Ukrainian and White
Russian territories with a population of about 11 million.
Did anyone have any doubts that the Soviet Union would sooner or later retake those
regions? That happened in August 1939 with the Hitler-Stalin pact. Why did the bishops not
mention that? Why did the German newspapers, so eagerly interested in historical truth, not
report it? All the guilt is loaded on one side; the others carry no guilt at all.
Bush's America attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003. No Third World War started because no
one wanted one.
Katyn
Up to June 7, 1943, the Wehrmacht excavated and identified, as well as possible, 4143
Polish officers murdered by the NKVD. (Louis Fitzgibbon: Katyn – A Crime without
Parallel, Scribner's Sons, New York 1971)
If it were correct that 3 million Polish Catholics were murdered, as the Catalyst
journal states, one must have found in Poland about 750 mass gravesites of the same size
during the past 65 years (3,000,000 divided by 4000=750), each with circa 4000 dead. Or 1500
mass gravesites, each with 2000 corpses. It is not known if even one of those mass gravesites
has been found. If they would have found only one, journalists from all over the world would
have been invited to come and visit. All newspapers would have published terrible pictures
and stories for weeks. But did we not indeed find one such gravesite – at Marienburg in
East Prussia, now called Malbork by the Poles? Yes, but they were German deaths, and not
Poles. Now, one can convincingly say that argument also contradicts the thesis of the 6
million.
A ray of hope on that topic
Maybe the search for historical truth progresses slowly. In the Maerkische Allgemeine
Zeitung (German newspaper), August 28, 2009, one can read the following headline: "The
numbers-to-date of victims are incorrect – 70 years after the start of the war,
scientists are searching for facts." Warsaw: "The numbers of victims of WWII are to a great
extent wrong. That is known among specialists and expert historians. Most of the figures are
too high: 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union, 6 million deaths in Poland, 2 million among
the German expellees. For political reasons, the numbers were increased after the war.
Reparation negotiations were already carried on during the war. High loss numbers justified
high reparations requests from the Germans–"today we know most of the figures entered
into that game then are wrong " and: " the historian Mateusz Gniastowski came to the
conclusion that the losses of ethnic Poles had to be corrected from 3 million to 1.5 million
."
Bartoszewski talks With the headline, "No restitution for Jewish property,"
the Junge Freiheit (German magazine) of 28 August, 2009, reports the following: "Wladyslaw
Bartoszewski, ex-Polish secretary for foreign affairs, vehemently denied any restitution
payments for Jewish properties by Poland."
Bartoszewski: "Of the 3.5 million Polish Jews, nearly 2 million lived in the Ukraine
and White Russia of today." A very interesting statement – naturally, they became, in
October 1939, Soviet citizens and were never again Polish citizens.
The consequence? Regardless what did happen to those people between 1939 and 1945
– whether they survived or were killed – they could not be counted as "Polish
victims" but belong to the victim chart of the Soviet Union. Otherwise they are counted
twice.
Final conclusion: According to the statement of Bartoszewski alone, the number of the
alleged 6 million Polish losses must be reduced already by 3.5 million (1.5+2). The Poles
have no right to count German, Jewish, Ukrainian losses as their own. The 6 million number of
WW II Polish deaths do not comply with serious historiography. ~
1) Clifford Barnett: "Poland – its people – its society – its
culture" HRAF Press. New Haven, Conn. Survey of World Cultures,1958
2) German-Polish declaration of the chairman of the Bishops Conference on occasion of
the 70 th anniversary of the beginning of WWII. "The reconciliation between our
nations is a gift." (Die Versoehnung zwischen unseren Nationen ist ein Geschenk). Die
Tagespost, 27.6.2009. Page 5
3) Gerhard Frey: Antwort an Warschau (response to Warsaw} FZ – Verlag (publisher)
2009
4) Louis FitzGibbon: Katyn–A Crime without Parallel. Scribner's Sons, New
York.1971
5) Maerkische Allgemeine ( a German newspaper w 29.8.2009; "Geschichte:Die bisherigen
Opferzahlen sind falsch" (History: The present loss figures are wrong)
6) Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom): Keine Entschaedigung fuer juedisches vermoegen (No
redemption for Jewish property) 28.8 2009
~End of translated letter ~
How many survivors are counted as both survivors and victims because of the chaotic movement
of peoples, boundaries and rulership – giving inflated numbers of victims? This is a
common error, which seems to be purposely overlooked.
We have a right to ask where are the remains of the three million Catholics murdered by the
German Nazis. The only known mass grave of Poles was the work of the Soviet Red Army, led by
the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet Russia. Long blamed on Germany, the responsibility for
this genocidal act is now placed where it belongs. Ironically, the only mass gravesites found
on Polish territory have been of German civilians. There are not even any mass graves of Poles
– Catholic or Jewish – on the grounds of the famous concentration camps. No buried
ashes either.
Let's take a look at what mass gravesites have been found, and what they contain.
MASS GRAVES IN MARIENBURG CONTAIN GERMAN CIVILIANS
In the previously German city of Marienburg, now named Malbork, Polish workers digging a
foundation for a future hotel across from the Marienburg Castle, in October 2008, came upon a
mass of human bones and skeletons. By December, about 470 individuals had been found, none of
whom could be identified. A German organization dedicated to caring for German war graves sent
a representative to attend the digging. By April 2009, the number of dead had climbed to 2000.
When further discoveries were ruled out, the dead totaled 2116: 1001 women, 381 men, 377
children and 357 not identified.
At Marienburg, a pit full of human bones, but "We aren't finding any personal objects, no
glasses, no gold teeth and above all, no clothing," said Zbigniew Sawicki, Malbork
archaeologist.
Other mass graves stemming from World War II have been found around Malbork. In 1996, 178
corpses were discovered on the grounds of Marienberg/Malbork Castle. In 2005, specialists
exhumed the bones of 123 more, including five women and six children, from a trench. All are
believed to be Germans.
In the case of this latest and largest mass grave (2008), no clothing, eye glasses or gold
teeth were found. It thus appears that they were completely stripped before they were killed.
The skeletons that were laying on top had bullet holes in their heads, indicating they may have
dug the grave and put the dead in it before they themselves were added.
The Germans who did survive were forced to leave the city. The relevant authorities in the
newly established Polish district announced proudly on November 3, 1947, that the Marienburg
area was "almost 100 percent purged of Germans." (Spiegel, Jan. 23, 2009, "Death in
Marienburg: Mystery Surrounds Mass Graves in Polish City.)
On August 17, 2009, 108 coffins with the remains of the 2116 victims of war atrocities which
took place in Marienburg in early 1945, were buried elsewhere, at the Volksbund War Memorial
Cemetery near the village of Neumarkt, close to the old Hansa city of Stettin, in former
Pommerania. The highest dignitaries attending were the German ambassador to Poland and bishops
from both nations.
Czechs have not claimed massacres from the war – other than the 173 men of the village
of Lidice, who were executed for harboring the murderers of Reichs Protector for
Bohemia-Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich, as an example to those who would cooperate with the Czech
underground (considered by the Germans as an illegal terrorist organization).
Still, there was great desire to retaliate following the retreat of the German Wehrmacht and
the arrival of the Soviet Red Army and NKVD. Postelberg/Polstoloprty and Saav/Zatec, two towns
northwest of Prague, saw brutal massacres of at least 2,000 Sudeten Germans in the space of a
few days in June 1945.
The largest mass grave contained 500 bodies and had been known since an inquiry into it in
1947. After that, in August 1947, other mass graves were secretly dug up and 763 bodies were
removed and cremated. But there still remained more.
Meanwhile, documents in Postoloprty were classified as confidential and disappeared into
Interior Ministry archives. Today, a majority of Czech residents in these towns admit the
massacre, but do not want to talk about the case and oppose building any memorial structures at
the gravesites. ( Der Spiegel , "Czech
Town Divided over How to Commemorate 1945 Massacre," Hans Ulrich Stoldt, Nov. 4, 2009)
There was also the Bruenn/Brno Death March, which began late on the night of May 30, and the
Aussig/Usti nad Labem Massacre on July 31, 1945–both majority German towns in the same
area of Northwestern Bohemia. Basing their decision on the Potsdam Agreement, the Czech
"National Committee of Brno" announced the expulsion of 20,000 ethnic Germans, mostly women,
children and elderly (the adult men were all POW's), and forced them to march 56 kilometers
south to the border of Austria. Once there, however, the Soviet authorities refused to allow
them to cross, so they were marched back into internment. Many died and are buried along the
way; up to 8000 perished in the terrible conditions before the survivors were released.
The Usti massacre was triggered by an explosion at an ammunition dump. Though the cause of
the explosion had not been determined, ethnic Germans were beaten, bayonetted, shot or drowned
in the Elbe River, where most still remain in their watery grave.
No mass graves of Jews have ever been found on Czech soil.
SLOVENIA: THE KILLING FIELD OF EUROPE
Over 100,000 people fell victim to summary executions on Slovenian soil immediately after
the end of the second world war. These were suspected Nazi collaborators and opponents of
communism – murdered by Tito's Yugoslav federal army or by Slovenian civil authorities
and the Communist secret police, OZNA.
"The killings that took place here have no comparison in Europe. In two months after the
war, more people were killed here than in the four years of war," said Joze Dezman , a
historian who heads the government Commission for Concealed Mass Graves.
A task force of the police and state's prosecutor's office has exhumed 12 mass graves and
filed two criminal complaints, with no indictments so far, according to the Slovenian Press
Agency, March 20, 2008.
A particularly gruesome discovery was the mummified remains of approximately 300 pro-Nazi
soldiers from Croatia and Slovenia in a mining shaft in Huda Jama.
"Gassed to death: 300 lime-covered victims of Yugoslavia's communist regime found in mass
grave," by Graham Gurrin, 3-11-09, Mail Online, UK.
They are thought to have been killed with gas because there are no visible signs of wounds.
Piles of military shoes were found at the entrance. "It seems that the victims had to undress
and take off their shoes before they were killed," said Joze Balazic, of the Institute for
Forensic Medicine in Ljubljana. The bodies were found in an underground passage some 400 meters
from the cave entrance, in good condition because they had been covered in lime and the cave
had been hermetically sealed with several walls of concrete separated by layers of barren soil.
(Javno, 3-4-09, Translation: Karmen Horvat)
Photos: Unclothed skeletons wearing shoes appear to have died in agony in a mass grave in
Huda Jama, Slovenia. Positions indicate there was movement before the victims expired (they
were buried alive). ( photos no longer
available )
THIS IS WHERE THE WAR WAS ENDING
Slovenia was part of the former Yugoslavia. Dezman said, "These killings took place in
Slovenia because this is where the war was ending: this is where the iron curtain was
anticipated, this is where refugees found themselves at the end of the war."
He also says that "due to the short time frame, the number of victims, the method of
execution and their sheer extent, the reprisal killings of suspected Nazi collaborators and
other opponents by Communist authorities in Slovenia could be compared to the biggest crimes of
Communism, as well as Nazism, anywhere." (Slovenian Press Agency, March 20, 2008)
Another historian, university professor Mitja Ferenc , has unearthed more than 570
hidden grave sites from World War II. His digs have cracked a psychological barrier in Slovenia
and sparked new political debate about the sins of that war, wherein thousands of Germans,
Croatians and others on the losing side were killed.
In 1999 he found 1,179 skeletons in a trench near the city of Maribor, where a road by-pass
was being constructed.
[The department of highways pressed to continue the road works, and the (left-wing)
government in Ljubljana ?had no objections, although very likely, thousands of corpses were
still hidden in the trench. Present investigations revealed that there are at least 15,000,
possibly more than 20,000 corpses. The tank trench was suitable for mass killings, it was big
enough to line up pow�s and civilians, shoot them with machine guns and cover the
corpses with earth. Frankfurter Allgemaine, "Slovenia: Massacres after the War," by
Karl-Peter Schwarz, 10-16-06. ]
Slovenian forensic experts investigate the site discovered in 1999 by Slovenian highway
workers near Maribor, where 1,179 skeletons were found in a World War II-era trench. It's
believed up to 20,000 are actually buried along this stretch of roadway.
In 2007 a new dig began nearby in the Tezno Forest – it's believed as many as 15,000
dead lie in this spot of timberland. Military gear indicates they were Croatians and
Germans.
"My point is to find out what's out there. Without excavation, there is no way to
know ," said Ferenc.
BRITISH DECEIT; STILL NO OFFER OF REGRET
The Queen pictured with Yugoslavian president Josip Tito, front left, in 1978 after hosting
him at Buckingham Palace. Behind are Prime Minister Lord Cardiff and Prince Philip. Tito was
supported by the British in the war, and its representatives turned thousands of fleeing
German, Croat, Slovene and Cossack forces back to Tito's partisans in 1945, knowing they would
be killed.
In May 1945, German troops and Croatians were trying to reach Austria in order to surrender
to the British rather than Tito's brutal fighters. Tens of thousands of Slovenes, Serbs,
Cossacks, Romanians and others joined the frantic flight.
Tamara Griesser-Pecar writes in A people divided. Slovenia 1941-1946. Occupation,
Collaboration, Civil War, Revolution (Publisher: Boehlau Verlag, Wien 2003) that all
Yugoslavs of German ethnic background were declared outlawed by the "Anti-Fascist Council of
National Liberation of Yugoslavia" (AVNOJ). Those who survived the horror of the labor camps
were expelled from the country.
She speaks of the 60,000 Croatian soldiers and civilians who were massacred on Slovenian
soil. Thousands vanished, to be found in recent times as skeletons bound at the wrist with
wires. Not all were German sympathizers, but Catholics and other anti-communists fighting what
they considered a civil war.
There were also the 25,000 Cossacks and 2000 Domobranci Slovenians who were part of the
German army retreating in early May to the valleys of Kaernten in southern Austria, where they
surrendered to the British who, promising they were being sent to Italy, forced them into
locked railroad cars that instead went directly to the waiting Soviets in Styria and the Tito
partisans at the Austrian border–certain death at the hands of their enemies.
In the Gottschee Horn (Kocevski Rog), 12,000 Slovenians were murdered. In another pit near
Ljubljana, Croatians and Cossacks had been murdered – German prisoners were forced to
clean out this pit with a "horrible cadaverous smell" and thereafter were murdered
themselves.
Mitja Ferenc said Yugoslavia's communist authorities persistently refused to
acknowledge the executions had taken place and refused to tell relatives where the bodies were
buried. For almost 50 years, people were not allowed to visit the graves. Many of them were
destroyed by deliberate explosions or covered by waste. In some places, such as Celje, about 60
km (35 miles) east of Ljubljana, parts of towns were built on them.
"The evidence is being gathered but the fact is that most evidence has been systematically
destroyed in the past ," Joze Dezman said.
Typifying the ongoing attitude of the communists is 85-year-old Janez Stanovnik, a partisan
fighter as a teenager who held high government positions under communism.
"I'm not proud of what happened in May and June 1945, but I am proud of what the partisans
did during the war," he said. "Is this really something another generation has to pay for
– or see used for political capital?" (Chicago Tribune, "Wartime heroes, sinful
secrets," Christine Spolar, Jan. 29, 2008)
IN UKRAINE, JEWS HUNT FOR BODIES
Sparked by all these discoveries, Jewish groups have undertaken to discover their own mass
graves in the Ukraine and Russia, which they claim to be the "killing fields" of World War
II.
But for all the hundreds of thousands of Jews who are claimed to have been murdered here by
the Nazi Einsatzgruppen, no remains have shown up in any large numbers. [The
Einsatzgruppen were special SS task forces whose job was to protect the German fighting
forces from behind-the-front attacks by the local population and communist partisan
fighters.]
But it is suspicious that little to no excavation is taking place to verify the number of
bodies or to identify whether they are Jews or not, or how they were killed. The search parties
and excavation teams are made up entirely of Jews, without government or neutral parties
involved.
For instance, according to an article at Y-Net News, an Israel-based internet site,
published Sept. 8, 2006, a secret private mission called "Kaddish for Ukraine's Jews," chaired
by Yehuda Meshi Zahav, began looking for mass graves of Jews massacred during the Second World
War. This mission was initiated by the Jewish Congress and French historian/priest Patrick
DesBois (author of Holocaust by Bullets ), with the help and funding of the national
holocaust museums in Paris and Washington D.C.
Around Sept. 1, 2006, this mission uncovered what they say are hundreds of Jewish skeletons
in a Ukrainian forest next to the city of Lvov.
They say they used metal detectors to detect bullets. When the metal detectors went off,
they began digging and, at two meters down, sculls and skeletons began to surface. They say
they counted hundreds and most were children . They say they recovered
German-manufactured bullets marked with the years 1939 and 1941.
This "find" has been widely publicized in world media as a "holocaust" mass grave, yet no
tests have proven the remains to be Jewish, or the perpetrators to be Germans. It is
assumed.
We know the Soviets killed thousands of Ukrainian and Polish anti-communist nationalists
before retreating from this area in 1941. There were also terrible massacres of Poles by
Ukrainians and Ukrainians by Poles before and especially during WWII (over the disputed region
of Volhynia) 1 . After the war, there were fights between Ukrainians and Russians in the
part of Ukraine that Russia got from Poland.
The Kaddish delegation has estimated that 1800 Jews were buried here–even though they
did not excavate and count all the bones. The Ukrainian authorities have agreed to recognize
the area as a Jewish burial site , which means the bones can stay where they are. The Kaddish
delegation performed a religious ceremony and erected a memorial monument in a matter of two
weeks after the announcement of the discovery was made! This kind of haste is usually the mark
of a desire for non-investigation.
JEWS GET CONTROL OF ANOTHER GRAVESITE
Another site that has received a great deal of attention is Gvozdavka, a village in southern
Ukraine, near Odessa, where another group of rabbis insist thousands of Jews are buried. It was
found by chance in the spring of 2007 when workers digging to lay gas pipelines discovered
human bones.
As soon as the bones were discovered, the Jewish community in Odessa requested the
authorities to cease construction work.
Israeli rabbis "help" to excavate a mass grave they claim to have discovered in Ukraine.
(Reuters photo)
According to a story in Haaretz, June 6, 2007, "Mass WWII-era Jewish grave found near
Odessa," Rabbi Abraham Wolf announced that the authorities had also agreed to give the
Jewish community ownership of the land so it could build a monument commemorating the
victims.
Odessa chief rabbi Shlomo Baksht revealed their plans to fence off the site and erect a
monument to the victims that same year!
In a follow-up story 8 days later in Haaretz (June 14, 2007, "Israeli Rabbis help excavate Holocaust-era
mass grave" , it's reported that a dozen rabbis were on the scene – 3 of whom were
Holocaust scholars from Israel, others from the U.S. – and "spent several hours hunting
for bones, which they immediately shoveled back into the ground."
In the follow up article, it's reported that Vera Kryzhanivska, who heads the village
council, said it would soon discuss a request to hand over control of the meadow to Jewish
groups.
Some Jewish community leaders complained that villagers didn't show enough respect for the
dead. "How could people just walk past the grave and do nothing?" said Ilia Levitas, the head
of Ukraine's Jewish Council. "Where is their Christian mercy?"
* * *
Since these two finds in 2006 and 2007, there have been no more claims of mass graves of
Jews. As we know, there are no substantial remains of either bodies or ashes discovered at the
concentration camp sites of Treblinka, Belzec, Sorbibor, Chelmo or Auschwitz-Birkenau, all in
Poland. The killing-by-bullets of Jews that supposedly took place in the Ukraine is not showing
up in any new mass graves, even though Father Patrick DesBois continues to search. He finds a
few bodies here and there.
What are we to think? When it comes to Germans and their allies massacred and thrown into
pits, we have masses of evidence compiled by official government agencies, even when they are
resistant to do so. When it comes to Poles, Ukrainians and other Slavic ethnic groups, we don't
find them buried in mass graves by the Nazis. When it comes to Jews, we have only the word of
Jewish delegations that thousands of Jews are buried in mass graves that they refuse to
excavate.
As Mitja Ferenc, the Slovenian history professor, remarked of his own discoveries: "Without
excavation, there is no way to know."~
1) "The Soviets, having enlarged Soviet Ukraine to the west, deported tens of thousands of
the Volhynian elites, mostly Poles, to Siberia and Kazakhstan. These actions ceased only when
the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941." And "The 1943 decision of Ukrainian
nationalists to cleanse (Volhynian Poles) was [ ] based upon news of the Soviet victory at
Stalingrad" (with the expectation of the end of German occupation). "Ukrainian partisans killed
about fifty thousand Volhynian Poles and forced tens of thousands more to flee in 1943." Later
the Poles turned the tables on the Ukrainians. (From "The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic
Cleansing 1943," Timothy Snyder, Yale University, 2003)
– A classic example of what Carolyn Yeager writes about, here's all that was found
at Sobibor, where 250,000 Jew remains are said to exist. Of these there is no proof of even
the age of the skeletons, whether they were even Jews, whether they were even murdered. Yep,
the "holocaust" narrative is that bogus.
– Sobibor, mass grave where 250,000 Jew remains are said to exist
Lack of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Lack of Jewish mass graves which nobody is
really looking for because it is not really permitted, ostensively for religion reasons, can
not give the answer to the missing Jews providing that there is such a question. Jews are
missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds. Normal people will agree that the official
number of 6,000,000 is might be too high and that rather three to four million Jews died
during WWII and they are not missing because they are dead.
Mystery of the Missing Americans
There are 2.6M deaths per year in the US. 50% (1.3M) are cremated. 1/3 of ashes are
buried at cemeteries, 1/3 are kept at home and 1/3 are scattered. This means that every
year in the US ashes of 430k people are scattered into environment. The 1/3 kept at homes
will be scattered into the environment sooner or later so the number of scattered ashes
will be circa 800k per year. In 5 years it is 4M people. In 20 years it 16M people. In 40
years it is 32M people.
In last 40 years 32M people vanished w/o a trace. How would you go about proving it to
Holocaust deniers that 32M people in American died and that they were not teleported to
Venus? There are no graves. No exhumations. Nobody even try to find the answer. Wally of
CODOH would not accept any documentation because he would claim it was forged. He would not
accept any witness statement because he would claim that all so-called witnesses lie. The
claim that 32M Americans in last 40 years died and were cremated can't be proven. Wally
must be right that 32M of Americans were teleported to Venus.
Furthermore, can you imagine the absurdity of cremations? The conspirators want us to
believe that they cremate the corpses while charging for shaving the corpses and applying
make up and dressing them up in their Sunday's best. Why would they do it if they allegedly
cremate the bodies and plan to throw away the ashes? That does not make sense. For some
reason they want them bodies to look good on Venus.
Otoh the question of missing Germans or the question of atrocities committed against
Germans can be
tackled by searching mass graves. There is no prohibition against excavating of non Jewish
graves. For example why nobody tried to confirm James Bacque's hypothesis by searching sites
of Eisenhower's POW camps in Germany? If one million or more died there, the graves should be
easy to find. Say, 1,000 graves with 1,000 bodies each. Find at least one.
The Jews have a long Talmudic tradition of lying victimhood.
Consider the typically ridiculous self-reports of victimhood in tractate Gittin 57b of the
Torah, the 4 BILLION (yes, BILLION) Jews killed by the Romans [Gittin 57b claims
Vespasian killed "four hundred thousand myriads" = 400,000 x 10,000 = 4 BILLION] and the
64 MILLION Jewish children skewered and burned in scrolls by the Romans in one city
alone [Gittin 58a claims "400 synagogues" each with "400 teachers" and "400 pupils" for each
teacher" = 400 x 400 x 400 = 64 million]. http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_58.html
Truly as Jesus said, children of the Father of Lies and Murder. John 8:44
This article seems eerily similar to Gunnar Heinsohn's revision of 1st millennium history
based on stratigraphy – no layers for a historical period of civilization, then that
history is false or fake. 700 phantom years are missing and the collapse of the Roman period
seems to thus have occurred circa 930 AD, and not 700 years before.
Given the sensitivity of the topic in this article, I limit comment to the idea that
proscriptive dogma is invariably used to bury facts and to keep them buried. Whether
proscriptive dogma is used in ignorance based on false beliefs, or is official policy remains
moot. But propaganda 101 is to always accuse your opponents of your own crimes.
"Juedische Allgemeine": the destruction of Poles as a nation was never planned
https://www.dw.com/pl/juedische-allgemeine-zagłada-polaków-jako-narodu-nigdy-nie-była-planowana/a-50041291
Lesser cites numbers given by historians Feliks Tych and Mateusz Gniazdowski, according to
which in the occupied territories Germans murdered over 90 percent of Polish Jews and from
five to seven percent of ethnic Poles. "In absolute numbers, they were three million Jews
and about 1.4 million ethnic Poles," he writes. In 1947, at the behest of Jakub Berman, a
member of the PZPR Central Committee Political Bureau, the number of victims "was
arbitrarily rounded to 6 million or 22 percent of the pre-war population. The idea was that
Polish Christians would not feel discriminated against as victims of Polish Jews. Berman
also hoped that this operation would stop the venomous anti-Semitism in the country,
"writes the author.
There are many geographical inaccuracies in this article – eg the author thinks that
Bruenn is near Aussig. They seem to have a very sketchy understanding of the ethnic fabric of
Eastern Europe both before and after WWII and I would therefore caution anyone to accept
their findings or conclusions.
"When it comes to Jews, we have only the word of Jewish delegations that thousands of Jews
are buried in mass graves that they refuse to excavate."
Well, story telling and theatrical exaggeration seems to be in their blood, especially the
latter.
It's even commemorated in a song about their most important empire, Hollywood:
"Hooray for Hollywood! Where you're 'terrific' if you're even good . "
Take the exaggerations with a grain (or truckload) of salt, and let's all just pray the
horrors visited upon the hapless Europeans (and everyone else) during WW2 are never
repeated
The War on Knowledge , Truth and Common Sense will go on until the honest researchers get
finished with their work. But the Enemies, that wish No sharing of knowledge, truth etc. are
many and work very hard at spreading the lies and cover-ups. If the bullets found in these
trenches are known to be German made ,plus the date of origin, then maybe we could be told
what Pharma company supplied the gaz for all the other proclaimed deaths – the dates
and where the chemicals were produced , would be appreciated – also. I thought it was a
very good article.
If it were correct that 3 million Polish Catholics were murdered, as the Catalyst journal
states, one must have found in Poland about 750 mass gravesites of the same size during the
past 65 years (3,000,000 divided by 4000=750), each with circa 4000 dead. Or 1500 mass
gravesites, each with 2000 corpses.
It is not known if even one of those mass gravesites has been found
At the end of 1944, the Germans, obliterating the crime, burned most of the corpses
. In the Szpęgawski Forest, as many as 7,000 people could have died, approximately 2400
names were established. In the cemetery there are 32 mass graves in one complex and 7 graves
500-1000 m away.
Slightly off topic,but also interesting:After the war,13.3 million Germans were deported from
Poland,Chekoslovakia and Hungary,but only 7.3 million actually arrived in Germany,mostly
women,children and old people.6 million Germans had disappeared.Many of those were sent to
Russia for forced labour.
-first post-war German chancellor Konrad Adenauer in a speech in Bern,Switzerland,March
23,1949.
This has to be one of the most risible, amateurish rubbish masquerading as Holocaust
revisionism.
The title says -Some Answers to the Mystery of the "Missing Jews" – and whoa
3/4″s of the article is about post WW2 Communist atrocities, did you think that the
Stalin & Beria combine would spare anybody associated with the Nazis when they swept East
Europe? And the most Hilarious bit is that this dogs puke of an article completely ignores
the AR camps, how can you give answers about the missing Jews while ignoring the AR
camps.
Listen if you can't answer about what happened to those 'Missing Jews' of the AR camps
kindly shut up.
Shame on you Ron for publishing such amateur Rubbish here, if you want to go full
Revisionist publish Carlo Mattogno or Rudolf or some professional.
"Jewish groups have undertaken to discover their own mass graves in the Ukraine and
Russia, which they claim to be the "killing fields" of World War II."
What they're digging up is probably the remains of the millions of Ukrainians the
Bolshevik Jews murdered through forced famine in 1932 and the millions of Russian Christians
they slaughtered starting in 1917. Historical irony indeed.
There is no definitive history. More will come to light as research continues, or should I
say as long as it is allowed to continue?
In other words, Nazis were actually a good guys, while Soviet, Yugoslav communists were the
villains?You are counting Poles, Jews and Checks, while forgetting to count all the others,
like Gypsies, Russians, Serbs and other Slavs?
What an extraordinary article. Why are these facts not generally known? Yes, I am joking.
History is of course always written by the victors. And the Jews always seem to win
I don't understand why Jewish groups and their rabbis were given control of two mass grave
sites. Did the civil authorities conspire with the Jews to pretend the bodies were of Jews?
Or did the civil authorities know that if bodies were found when laying a pipeline that
they were certainly Jewish bodies?
Although mass graves of non-Jews were known to have been in those regions?
If skeletons are found I guess it's hard by examining them to know they were Jews. But why
was it assumed that they were?
And when the Jews wanted the pipeline work stopped, I suppose it would have stopped simply
because there were bodies there, whether Jewish or not.
I may have failed to understand the article. Or perhaps it omits relevant information.
Furthermore, can you imagine the absurdity of cremations?
Indeed, you had better struggle mightily, because in the year 2020 we have learned that
all of the crematories in Italy combined were unable to dispose of more than a few hundred
bodies per week. Struggle!
@Wally
Here's a suggestion; if you like poetry and read German, try Gertrud Kolmar. If you like
opera. read about Ottilie Metzger-Lattermann (one of the Kaiser's favorite singers). If you
like classical music, follow the career of Viktor Ullmann. Just these three for a start so
you can find out how peacefully they died. However, I have a strong feeling you would prefer
to deal in millions (or the lack of) instead of individual fates.
But let's see, how many Germans died at the Dresden bombings? None, because we can't find
their graves to count? The first victim of war is truth, numbers are almost always wrong or
difficult to estimate. Propaganda from one side is no different than propaganda for the other
side.
Thank you for this information. It is astonishing how much people aren't allowed to know.
Mass graves of Germans murdered by the communists, and many tens of thousands of Slovenians,
Croats and others who fought the communists. But socialist school teachers in Europe harp
endlessly about "gassed Jews".
Jews get control of found graves and immediately erect fences and memorials, without
excavation, declaring them Jews. "Proof that Jews were killed!" No mass graves of Jews ever
found at any of the concentration camps. The "einsatzgruppen" have been blamed for killing
Jews – of course the Jews hated them, as they were the ones tasked with beating down
communist attacks on German forces behind the front army.
Unz Review should concentrate on these factual stories, rather than Marxist fantasies by
people like "Eric Striker," who claims that "the Soviet Union would have worked if it had
been Germans instead of Slavs," and constantly makes excuses for socialists while making sure
you concentrate your anger about Black riots on conservatives. Unz Review should clean the
ranks.
@Reger
This article (like the comment section) is full of retarded trash. The Holocaust happened,
and the number of brutally murdered people has likely been officially under estimated,
and the only people denying the Holocaust are those with a serious learning disability and
poor attention span. I also suspect many of the people in the comment section (such as
GeeBee) are coping Jewish individuals.
Not just the missing jewish remains – misleading and skewing.
There is another nasty double standard re the victims of the well known German and other nazi
aligned Labour (concentration) camps.
How many on here have heard of Jasenovac?
It was a death camp – a real death camp.
So vile even the gestapo were sickened.
It was a Nazi Croatian mass murder camp where hundreds of thousands of allied Serbs, gypsies
and others died, suffering appalling torture and murder.
The Serbs – who NATO/US/UK mass murdered and bombed back to the stonage some 25 years
ago – died valiantly and like flies – tying up whole divisions of the
Germans.
In gratitude and on behalf of the islamic fundamentalist Saudi leaning KLA we repaid this
debt illegally attacked the Serbs – the only ethnic cleansing being some 700,000 Serb
refugees driven from their ancestral homes in the Krajina (20,000 more murdered because they
couldn't leave fast enough), over a quarter of a million of them out of their ancestral
homeland of Kosovo and many from Bosnia and other parts.
700,000 who lost it all.
Reparations due I think.
All illegal and to give radical islam a base in Southern Europe and build a massive USA base
– Camp Bondsteel.
Back to Jasenovac .
This was the most deadly and brutal camp of all.
Heard of it.
NO.
Few Jrewish victims so written out of history.
Just as have been the millions of non jews killed in the other camps.
The disabled etc – many catholics.
All written out as only Jews can be the victims.
Here are just a few of the links to Jasenovac.
And ask yourself why the silence on the suffering of the Serbians – huge numbers dying
fighting for we the allies – not as some groups, not fighting at all but
profiteering. https://jasenovac.org/what-was-jasenovac/
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/jasenovac-the-forgotten-extermination-camp-of-the-balkans/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252563/
So why the silence – only one holocaust allowed?.
And Serbs are not members of that club.
And how many know that the Serbs have been completely vindicated and Milosevic declared an
innocent man of war crimes .
Murdered non the less in his prison http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Speaking to a journalist of Izvestia (Russian daily newspaper), he said, rather
tongue-in-cheek, that he cannot understand how the Polish population exploded between 1946
and 1970, and then leveled off to become stagnant from 1990 till today. He humorously
remarked that there had to have been "a strong aphrodisiac" to lead to the birth of millions
of new Poles because "in the grocery stores there had been only vinegar and millions had died
even after the war."
What the late General is referring to is the common trope that during communism (actually
socialism but I will leave that for another time) there was only 'musztarda i ocet' that is
mustard and vinegar on store shelves. It was a common accusation against the system as a
whole and Jaruzelski personally since he was an important part of the said system. On more
than one occasion he defended himself and his times by pointing out – sometimes in a
tongue-in -cheek fashion as in the quoted citation – that it could have not been so bad
if Poland's population growth is anything to go by (he sometimes pointed out other advances
but again I do not want to side-track here) as Poland indeed experienced a demographic
explosion. Of course this resulted in many problems, for example despite a program of massive
apartment block building – in virtually every Polish city and town you will see rows
and rows of such apartment blocks standing – there was a chronic housing shortage.
Thus with citing Gen. Jaruzelski's remarks in the context of Polish and Jewish victims of
German atrocities Ms. Yeager and her sidekick managed to make it to the very top of Unz
review's comic relief category. My sincere congratulations.
That was the funny part and here comes the more serious one.
Namely Ms. Yeager and her sidekick were kind enough to write: 'The only known mass grave
of Poles was the work of the Soviet Red Army, led by the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet
Russia.'
Let me just point out, that mass graves with Polish victims of German mass executions were
located among other places at:
Palimiry, Las Sękocinski, Las kabacki, Laski and many, many others locations such as
for example Ponary (outside of Poland's post WW II borders in present-day Lithuania).
I do not know if Ms. Yeager and her sidekick are that ignorant in regard to the topic they
write about or if they deliberately lie, or alternatively there is some other explanation
– that however is of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is that what
they wrote is not factually correct.
One could go on dissecting Ms. Yeager's and her sidekick's writings however I have better
things to do on Sunday. Yet the above should suffice to put parts of their 'work' into the
category of comedies while others into that of falsities* – that in turn weighs heavily
on what to make of the rest.
*With one caveat though: hundreds of years of Drang nach Osten were indeed reversed in a
very short time at the end of WW II, sometimes in a brutal way. Thus there IS some truth in
what Ms. Yeager and her sidekick produced, this being in the category of an exception which
confirms the rule in regard to the rest.
@JohnPlywood
What is a 'coping Jewish individual' exactly? You are of course at liberty to suspect me of
being anything you like. But none of your suspecting will ever change me from being anything
other than a proud, thoroughbred Yorkshire Anglo-Saxon, who can trace both parents' lines
back for centuries with no trace of anything outside of our own fine, yeoman, Anglo-Saxon
bloodline.
My admittedly unusual 'take' on twentieth-century history arose from making a closer study
of it than I had hitherto stirred myself so to do, in the wake of having been obliged to take
early retirement at a convenient moment, in that it coincided with the appearance of much
hitherto unavailable information thanks to the burgeoning internet era. My prior studies had
by no means been trivial: I had taken modules in both War Studies and International Affairs
to degree standard while at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.
At all events, I believe my current position to reflect a good deal more of the truth than
is contained in the 'official' history, and I can assure you that my epiphany in this regard
occasioned me the very keenest mental anguish at first. Not to put too fine a point on it, I
found my life-long beliefs turned upside down. Not at all a welcome development, but one that
intellectual honesty compelled me to accept.
@Ann Nonny
Mouse Don't be so cynical. Because the Jews acting collectively have never and can never
do anything wrong, it follows that any criticism of their collective behavior anywhere and at
any time, whether today or throughout history, is hate speech.
We also know from Freudian science that it arises from envy and that paranoid
guilt-projection plays no part in their condemnation of the Other. Laws to that effect
throughout Europe also provide scientific evidence that Jews never lie and, therefore, their
narratives of events taking place outside the laws of nature and not subject to rules of
logic or scientific method must be true.
So, Mr. Holocaust doubter, just maybe the rabbis, reaching into the pits, have discovered
miraculously intact passports, photos, and birth certificates as before, using the forensic
skills their agents displayed in the ashes of the Trade Center and Pentagon to locate paper
miraculously immune from fire, water, and the forces of explosion sufficient to render
concrete into dust.
And when the Jews wanted the pipeline work stopped, I suppose it would have stopped
simply because there were bodies there, whether Jewish or not.
I may have failed to understand the article. Or perhaps it omits relevant
information.
The omitted info is the following:
Ukraine is a US/Israel controlled nation since 2014.
Nuland's, a Jewish Zionist, world famous battle cry begin the Zionist coup and Zio rule of
Ukraine with these infamous words "F–k the EU."Poroshenko the first president of this
Zion colony was half Jewish.The second president Zelensky is Jewish.The Zionists in control
of this US/Israel colony are even afraid Shabbos Goy to take the presidency of their new
colony.
@HammerJack
It is true that India cremates millions per year, that is their tradition. However to attend
a Hindu cremation and to observe, really observe the logistics required to burn ONE body is
to realize the impossibility of German logistics to effectively do away with 6 million in
addition to fighting a war against multiple opponents.
One need not have a Doctorate in Maths. Just pick a modern City with 3 million
inhabitants, visit it and drive around it extensively and now imagine you will completely
decimate TWO (2) cities like it by killing and burning every single human being in them. The
infrastructure, transportation, human resources and material logistics required for such a
task are horrendous. At the same time you are fighting a major war against several nations, 2
with with almost unlimited manpower and industrial capacity. Toward the end of the war
Germany was fighting on 3 fronts, being bombed to smithereens and also battling partisans in
several countries AND also running their extermination program ??
It is one thing for 6 million families in India to cremate 6 million relatives. I find it
hard to believe that the staff in all the concentration camps would be up to this numerical
task AND make the bones and ashes of 6 million disappear completely.
I love a good ghost story but my powers of belief have their limit.
During my visit in August I myself observed the burning of bodies in a mass grave near
Kiev. This grave was about 55 m. long, 3 m. wide and 2½ m. deep. After the top had
been removed the bodies were covered with inflammable material and ignited. It took about
two days until the grave burned down to the bottom. I myself observed that the fire had
glowed down to the bottom. After that the grave was filled in and the traces were now
practically obliterated.
I just don't know where to start. Whole "article" is such a BS. OK, let's start from
beginning then:
Two responsible figures have recently and publicly added their voices to the question of
six million Poles murdered (ostensibly by Nazis) between 1939 and 1945.
"One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski (
)"
LOL.
General Wojciech Jaruzelski. Head of military junta that took over power from Party in
1982, responsible for murdering dozens of people. Cold blood mass murderer, aparatchik, liar
and Soviet hardliner. Such a perfect "responsible figure"! And delicious cherry on top
– he most likely was "wtornik" too (it's margin note, I can explain meaning of this
term and whole story but only if somebody will be genuinly interested). During inteview with
Soviet, communist, cenzored newspaper. Said something. Wow! Groundbreaking news. Let's
rewrite all history books.
The other is Dr. Otwald Mueller, a well-known German researcher.
Right
Let's check this "researcher".
"Die Welt (German newspaper "The World"), September 2, 2009: "beginning of WW II, 6
million victims in Poland, half of them Jews ."
2) Daily Gazette (Schenectady, N.Y.), September 2, 2009: " .Poland alone lost 6 million
citizens, half of them Jews" ( )
An important chart
There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population of
29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million."
SO HE IS WELL-KNOWN GERMAN RESERCHER?
And his scientic research regarding even basic facts are based on bloody TABLOIDS? GERMAN
TABLOIDS? And he can not even "research" population chart for Poland?
ROTFL is not enough.
Are you mocking and insulting all Poles and Polish citizens who died during WWII? Or
perhaps all world's scientists and reserchers including half-baked and fully stoned first
year history course students? Do you think all your readers are complete idiots?
Facts: Republic of Poland population in 1938: Roughly 35 millions. NOT 29.89 millions. 35
MILLIONS.
Here any kind of discussion ends. I kindly ask all readers to check that one fact
yourself. Find Poland population before WWII. Got it? Now ask yourself: do you like to be
fooled like that? This "well-known German reasercher" (and Carolyn Yeager and Wilhelm
Kriessmann who published such a BS) lied to you about most basic fact. Cause they think that
you are absolute idiots. Are you?
Anyway. Just for fun let's verify very next "fact":
"There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population
of 29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million. The difference
is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population. The chart seems to prove the
statement of "6 million" but, on the contrary, it contradicts it."
"and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million".
True.
"The difference is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population."
The difference is approx. 11 MILLIONS, or 33% of the total population.
And yes. It was that bad. One third of total population lost (notice: LOST! Not all died.
Some publications did indicate that 6 millions died, it could be one of the reasons for
possible confusion regarding subject, among others)
Source: As for official count and confirmation of data I recommend Nuremberg Trials
protocols and final statements. It's all there. Again – if you are interested find
exact relevant data yourself, source provided.
"That shows in a significant way how Polish history – better Polish fairy tales
– works."
Yes. I do understand Otwald Mueller is absolutely hideous, abhorrent and disgusting
person.
Not only liar, not only completely fake "researcher" and real Nazi comforter and backer but
absolutely disgusting character too. No doubt about it. Still it's always good to know the
true, whatever it is.
Let's "reserch" just next fact. That will be simply very next sentence.
"We must keep in mind that 31% of Poland's population was of non-Polish origin one million
were German, as you can see from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau."
We have to, we really have to keep in mind Otwald Muller is not only hideous person, liar
and fake researcher but also complete idiot. We are talking absolute moron who is willing to
lie about most basic facts, even when simpliest fact checking will expose him as a complete
fraud.
Now, I do not know exact ethnic population of Poland in given time. I can easily check it
but there is no point. Let's assume it was 31% of non-Polish, just for the sake of argument.
And let's assume 1 million were Germans.
"as you can see from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau"
German science at it finest.
1. STETTIN is GERMANIZED name for Polish name SZCZECIN, not the other way around.
2. Same story with Wroclaw (for short period of time known as Breslau).
Exposing this german moron (and those behind him) is like kicking a puppy. I am sure he is
true vile character, he has very worst intentions for real victims of WWII and he is doing
his best to cover German crimes of WWII.
Still exposing him does fell like kicking a puppy.
And I am not going to waste more time exposing more of this BS "letter" and BS "article
anyway. Not unless somebody will be genuinly interested.
So one final note regarding lol very german cities of Stettin and Breslau:
My English isn't fluent so I explain it in simplest way I can. Szczecin is a name for
settlement built/established by Slavs (Wkrzanie) in VII century. It is old city and old name.
Yes, most of city dwellers were Germans from like XVI century to 1945. No it's not because
this city was build by Germans. It was taken by Germans (not Germany, it was Hanza, lol, it's
a long story, to cut it short – let's say Germans) centuries after it rose and they
changed name only a bit, to make it easier to pronounce. Germans don't do SZ and CZ
diphthtongs hence Stettin. It is as easy and simple.
BTW there is so much more to the story of Szczecin. Like city coat of arms ("Gryf" or
"Gryfin", eng. Griffin) and the fact even when citizens were mostly Germans, for 500 years
rulers where "Gryfici" native Poles of House of Griffin. Very old and noble family. House of
Griffin ended in XVII century, natural causes.
Breslau. It's even funnier. Again. Breslau is germanized name for Polish city.
And again. Fascinating story but let's keep it short. First settlement then town, then
city. Slavs, Poles, Poles. One of most important Polish cities. First name recorded?
Vuartizlau. 1133. In Thietmar's Chronicle.
Now if you are not familiar with Thietmar then just a brief: Thietmar of Merseburg,
German, bishop, historician. Kudos to him for good effort in writing down city name as
similar to way it was spoken as posssible. Vuartizlau gives a lot of hints regarding, well,
many things.
Serbian ideology is chock full of lies. For instance, lunatic Serbian ideologues
(Milojević, Lukin Lazić, Pjanić Luković, Deretić), from the 1870s to
the 2010s, have claimed that:
* Mesopotamians are actually Serbs
* Siberia got the name from Serbs (S-b-r..well, it's like S-r-b)
* half (at least) of Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was a Serb
* Homer, Aristotle etc. wrote in Serbian
* all Slavs are actually Serbs, as well Germans etc.
* all ancient civilizations, except yellow races (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Rome, Greece,..)
were Serbian
* etc. etc.
As far as WW II is considered, official censuses from 1931. (the last census in Royalist
Yugoslavia) and from 1948. (the first in Communist Yugoslavia) show that there are c. 700,000
more Serbs in all of Yugoslavia- and 3,500-14,000 less Croats, despite annexation of Croatian
areas formerly held by Fascist Italy (Istria, Rijeka, 5 islands with exclusively Croatian
population).
So, Serbs who are supposedly the greatest victims in ex-Yu WW II show a growth in absolute
numbers by 700,000 & Croats who are supposedly perpetrators, or lesser victims- are
diminished in absolute numbers by 14,000 (despite adding a significant Croatian-only
territory)?
The whole Yugoslav & Serbian narrative about WW II is one big, fat lie.
@Ann Nonny
MouseI don't understand why Jewish groups and their rabbis were given control of two
mass grave sites. Did the civil authorities conspire with the Jews to pretend the bodies were
of Jews?
Ukraine has a Jewish president and a Jewish prime minister. The current regime was
installed following a coup organised by their Jewish cousins in the USA. Fewer than 1% of the
population is Jewish – but this is a democratic government after all.
Politicians and journalists who don't toe the line are shot. The victims never seem to be
Jewish. Here is the latest one only a few weeks ago – May 22. I doubt if it made the
MSM anywhere.
@padre
Anyone who ever fought in a war will tell you there are no good guys, no side is right while
the other is wrong. All war is atrocity on both sides sometimes deliberate sometimes just
sheer revenge. To experience the reality of a battlefield, before, during and after is to try
to survive under the most terrible conditions physically and emotionally intact.
As I tell any young man who would lend me an ear. There is no glory and honour in war.
These are words the politicians use to provoke youth to wash their dirty laundry while they
chill in nice comfortable and safe homes licking up the finest wines and foods. The youth get
to eat any cheap shit they feed you, in a hole, with assorted vermin, without a bath or
change of clothes for at times several days, most times defecating and peeing in your pants
from necessity or sheer terror. Why nourish and nurture a man who may have a life expectancy
of a few hours ?
I dont look at war movies. They are all bullshit. I passed the TV once when my son was
looking at one such movie. The actors all look so clean and well groomed. An artillery shell
landed and some of them somersaulted as if they had bounced on a trampoline and then landed
all intact. That is Hollywood! The reality ? When a heavy shell lands among men they
disappear. You might find a leg with the boot still attached. A discerning person may say
"Yeah, that is Billy's leg. I remember because the boot had such and such a mark carved on
it". But the rest of Billy is nowhere to be found. Its called "Missing in Action"
During and after a war, civilians may wax about humanity, peace and love and goodwill to
all men, who was good and who were the criminal types but those classifications do not exist
on a battlefield or in a war. Even God is nowhere in sight, what would he be doing there
anyway ?
And if God has made himself scarce who or what is good and who and what is bad ?
Jews are missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds.
Were there ever two better lines written to illustrate the hate that Jews have for
non-Jews and the disrespect that Jews have for the minds of non-Jews?
"Keep searching goy, lack of evidence that you are a murderer does not mean that you are
not"
"Lack of hard evidence of your crimes and our victimhood is only lack of evidence in your
mind".
What a lunatic.
Completely representative of your people.
Wonder no longer why you people draw so much animosity.
Normal people will agree that the official number of 6,000,000 is might be too high and
that rather three to four million Jews died during WWII and they are not missing because
they are dead.
"Normal people will agree"
Who is this, a member of the special needs Hasbara team? Using condescending rhetoric that
is so rudimentary and ineffective that it is given to the short bus participants to make
noise? Is today also the field trip to the yeshiva, where you will read from the torah like a
real Jewish boy?
No one "normal" would agree with your any of your self-interested logic after reading the
lines that I prior highlighted. In fact, "normal people" would reflexively investigate the
opposite position.
In fact, "normal" people would and do discount the entire story after it came out, as
admitted by Jews themselves, that Simon Wiesenthal invented the additional 5 million
non-Jewish dead for sympathy. And that lie was put forward as true for decades.
You people don't lose "part credit" or "part credibility" for that lie. You lose it all.
And that's before we get to the rest of the proof against Holocaust logic.
You are inveterate liars, mass murderers, willing oppressors, and thieves.
Even when Jews LIE it is only to bring joy into the world. Take one Herman Rosenblat who
wrote, "Angel At The Fence," describing his time in a concentration camp during WWII. Good
ole Herman was making the talk show circuit with his book and there were plans for a movie,
UNTIL, it was found out that good ole Herman Rosenblat had made the whole story up, it was a
LIE. The nice Jewish boy, Herman, had Doprah Pigfrey calling his book the greatest love story
of all time. teehee. When caught in a LIE, Herman said he was only guilty of trying to bring
joy into the world.
Jews are such a caring people. Jews are champions of human rights for everyone and they
always seem to take joy in their role as their brother's keeper. Here was a Jewish man who
did not seek fame nor money, no sir, his concern was bringing joy into the world through a
book. Jews can teach humanity so much. Jews have suffered so much. And don't let Jewish
power, money, and influence fool you, or their role in the pornography business or other
seedy occupations, Jews are people of the Book, and the pillars of the community. Jews have
championed the fight against White racism and civil rights for Blacks, they are tireless
workers for truth, justice and the American Way just like Superman. Go Jews.
Fallacious. Taurus excretus cerebus perplexus – and we all know which party
throws most of the BS in the perverse hope of obfuscation – they just can't help
themselves. Then see 33.Anonymous[506]. rgds
Keep in mind how many tons is 1,00,000 people. If the average weight of 1,000,000 people was
135 pounds then the total weight of that 1 million is 135,000,000 lbs. Divide that by the
number of pounds in 1 ton which is 2,000lbs and you get 67,500 tons of human remains. Now how
the hell do you hide that much human remains of one million people much less 6 million.
@utu
Always remember that the other pertinent truth is that the Jews were guilty of everything
that the Germans accused them of.
As is well-evidenced by what Jews support, control, and how they otherwise act as a
political group today.
The Jews are no different than Al Qaeda. They merely work to hurt outsiders with lies
about their identities and motivations, their control of the press, their influence on the
culture, and their perfidious political actions once embedded in governments. Instead of with
literal IEDs.
Jewish goals are parallel to the goals of Al Qaeda, with much better results.
That the Jewish and Islamic religions share virtually all of their theological DNA is not
a coincidence.
@GeeBee
True that jews always seem to win but the fact is they cant lose one major war or they are
done forever. Israel cant lose one war or she is done. Arabs can lose 10 wars and the come
back for another one someday. If Hitler would have won jews would have been done.
@Ann Nonny
Mouse I know the place they are discussing and you have to remember Odecca has always
been a heavy Jewish city. But only when it suits their best interests. In this case –
getting more free land and calling out the Orthodox folks . Even goes back to the Khazarian/
Pecheneg times, when they chose to be Jews because the Ottomans in the south and the Rooskies
in the north were pressing them to be either Islamic or Orthodox. Of course they chose the "
chosen ones religion" for their slave trade and usury / theft trade. The normal
Russians/Crimeans that I know that are jews are way cool folks – they even have family
is Israel but no big ego. Just normal Russians.
@utu In
justice, absence of evidence is absence of evidence and has been for thosand of years
everywhere, except for ancient Egypt . If you cannot provide evidence, the accused is
innocent. This is called presumption of innocence.
Very good thinking that adds up to nothing more than:
The original statement is that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," which simply
means that a lack of proof for something doesn't, in and of itself, prove that the thing is
false. But lack of evidence for something is most definitely evidence that the thing in
question may be false, especially when there should be evidence for that thing.
But beyond the silly proof you offer that the absence of evidence is proof of presence,
the answer to your question about how one would prove that those whose ashes disappeared had
really died is easily answered by death certificates, cremation records, and evidence of
funerals or memorial services that were held, and announcement about the death of the
deceased.
But even your notion that the ashes of the holocaust victims would have been as scattered
as would be the case of cremated remains scattered throughout the United Statges by relatives
is absurd with rerspect to holocaust victims who were all allegedly killed in very confined
geographic spaces and whose ashes the Germans certainly did not bother to scatter throughout
Europe to hide them as your example of relatives scattering the ashes of relatives throughout
the country would have them do.
That you would even provide this example to substantiate the holocauset reveals the
absurdity of your claiming it happened as claimed. Had it happened on the scale claimed,
there would be massive evidence of it just as the examples provided in the article about the
mass graves of real victims that have been found.
Indeed, given the millions killed in the fighting on the Eastern Front there should be
endless examples of mass graves first of the millions of Russians killed during the German
advance the Germans almost certainly buried in mass graves as the Russians did likewise of
the Germans killed during the Russian advance.
So where is the evidence?
An easy place to look as Babi Yar where 30,000 Jews were reportedly murdered in a very
specific site. Why has no one looked to prove it with the evidence of the bodies?
@utu
– You really should know what you're talking about before you speak. Remember, it is your "Holocaust Industry" which claims that such immense human grave sites
exist in known locations, not Revisionsts.
– Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable
'holocaust' storyline is the message.
– The millions of other deaths you cite are not based upon the ridiculous
"holocaust" claims of enormous numbers of people dying in highly centralized locations in
which, again, the locations are supposedly known.
– As for military deaths, I remind that that there are cemeteries all over
Europe.
– There have been many, many attempts to find the alleged huge mass graves in
which many millions have been supposedly dumped. Those attempts failed miserably, as I
demonstrated about Sobibor in the first comment in this thread.
@Reger You
say "many geographical inaccuracies in this article" and you cite one. Indeed, the one you
cite is an error – Bruenn/Brno is not in the "same area of Northwestern Bohemia" as is
Aussig/Usti nad Labem. Brno is in the south.
I will correct this on my website, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But it is
certainly not weighty enough to undermine the rest of the article, which is based on
newspaper accounts from the time. Since that time, no new diggings of any consequence have
been undertaken. The will to do so, by those in authority, is not there.
@Bardon
Kaldian Croat Ustaša killed thousand of Serbs, it's well documented, do you deny
that?
This is supposedly from a Gestapo report, if true it's quite damning, it's not a source
that would want to incriminate their own allies:
Increased activity of the bands [of rebels] is chiefly due to atrocities carried out by
Ustaše units in Croatia against the Orthodox population. The Ustaše committed
their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially
against helpless old people, women and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats
have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand
(I have no dog in this fight, but have more sympathy for Serbs than for Croats because of
the way the have been treated by the U.S. Empire recently).
@Grahamsno(G64)
The AR camps and complete lack of forensic evidence at each of them is mentioned. I can see
why the focus is on Auschwitz because if Jews brought more attention to Treblinka it would be
obvious how fake the whole thing is.
@skrik
Dear Sir, it is inappropriate to quote oneself they say thus I will refer you back to my
original comment which you were kind enough to comment yourself. Sufficient to say I pointed
out that Ms. Yeager and her sidekick made fools out of themselves with their choice of Gen.
Jaruzelski's quote and have a nonchalant attitude towards facts when it comes to mass graves
of German atrocities victims.
In this context I can not help but also to point out that it is not the first time Ms.
Yeager wrote nonsense and not the first time to I call her out on that either.
Thus if anyone here is a peddler of taurus excretum it is Ms. Yeager who has a proven
track record of being one.
For this reason when she occasionally gets something right it is similar to a broken clock
showing the right time every twelve hours.
"Let the dead bury their dead". Instead of harping on such issues with a discussion that
never ends and is rather pointless, Europeans would do better to focus on the future and
reproduce more. Of course, "Holocaust denial" and similar speech criminalization laws would
have to go too, it's time, soon there will be no survivors alive, and it will hopefully be
forgotten like all wars. There's no need to keep talking about this things forever, let's
forgive and forget, and think about the future. If Europe becomes majority African and Arab
in the next 100 years, then what's the point of discussing what flavour of white killed which
flavour of white? It won't matter anymore I mean non-whites are already toppling Churchill
statues, and Churchill was until recently an "anti-fascist" and a hero of both leftists and
neo-cons.
".. .the only people denying the Holocaust are those with a serious learning
disability and poor attention span .. ."
and those poor, deluded people who prefer to have evidence , and not just
Hollywood films created by people with an agenda to push and a story to sell!
@Reger
Individual fates?
Anything to do with the Hollow-co$t narrative is suspect. What kind of "death camps" have
hospitals for internees? What kind of "death camps" have scrip for prisoners to spend at a
canteen? What kind of "death camps" have orchestras and theaters for internees? Why would
"death camps" record marriages and births? The Olympic size swimming pools and soccer fields
for internees at "death camps" were there, obviously, as another form of mass murder by
forcing the internees to swim until they drowned or run until they collapsed.
How about the individual fates of the women and children burned to death in the incendiary
bombing of Hamburg and Dresden, or the deaths of 1600 civilians who drowned when the Ruhr
Valley dams were bombed? More teenage girls named Anne died in one night of allied bombing
than ever died in concentration camps.
To paraphrase David Irving, more people died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than in
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. It is indeed, unfortunate that people died, but the
Jewish "leadership" declared war on Germany in 1933. The deaths of the three people you named
is on their hands for scheming against the legitimate government of Germany.
Curious that the fanatical record keeping Nazis have no record of the amount of coke
needed to burn the numbers of alleged victims cremated at concentration camps. Meanwhile, the
Soviet archives released camp records are in line with the Red Cross estimates and Bletchley
Park transcripts. Obviously, they are all lying and Yad Vesham is correct.
@RT Grow
up. You are not in the court. You are not even in the court of public opinion. You are among
the Holocaust denial retards. You are one of them actually.
@Curmudgeon
I beg your pardon? There is a good chance I have more first-hand experience with socialism
(as Realsozialismus) then you have experience with anything at all.
* during 1918-1939 period, Yugoslavia was basically a softer version of Greater Serbia,
with all nations-except Slovenes- oppressed. Close to 400 Croats & ca. 2000 Muslims had
been killed by Serbian paramilitaries & government forces during "peaceful" period in the
1920s & 1930s. The turning point was assassination of Croatian leader Stjepan Radić,
a sort of Croatian Gandhi, by a Serb nationalist in Yugoslav parliament in 1928. This
convinced some Croats that any Yugoslavia was insufferable, and the most influential among
them was future Poglavnik/"Leader" Ante Pavelić, who emigrated & founded a
revolutionary terrorist organization ustaše (ca. 200-300 people).
* after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the April war 1941, situation in Croatia &
Bosnia and Herzegovina was something like a vacuum. No Croatian politician wanted to become
the head of state patronized by Nazi German authorities, but at the same time there was a
sense of jubilation: Croats got independent (in theory) country, after decades of Serbian
oppression. In this vacuum, Pavelić was installed by Hitler and Mussolini as a kind of
puppet. In this country, ca. 50-60% were Croats & more than 30% were Serbs (the rest were
Bosnian Muslims, considered to be Croats).
* Pavelić assumed power on April the 10th 1941. But even a week before that, Serb
paramilitaries had started killing Croats & some 200-400 people were killed in the
interregnum. After he had been installed, Pavelić actually dissolved parliament &
established a dictatorship; Croatia was crippled & many vital areas, especially in
Dalmatia, were given to Mussolini's Italy. Also, he introduced racial laws for Jews &
started to persecute Serbs- both as a revenge for their participation in royalist Yugoslavia
period terror & their atrocities during interregnum. In next few months perhaps 5-20,000
Serbs were killed by ustaše in various areas of NDH/Independent State of Croatia.
Basically, it was a terrorist regime & most Croats disapproved of it, but were
expecting to get rid of ustaše in some future & retain statehood under democratic
circumstances. So, Croats wanted a truly independent country.
* Serbs, being persecuted (along with Jews & Gypsies) rebelled on a massive scale in
the last quarter of 1941 & many areas of NDH had become virtually defunct. This resulted
in further Pavelić's dependence to Hitler. On the other hand, communist partisans, led
by a Croat, Josip Broz Tito, after their defeat in Serbia fled with remnants of their army to
the NDH territory. There, they found refuge among Serbs, while many of them defected to
royalist Četniks led by Serbian colonel Mihailović. Četniks had killed, during
1941, ca. 12-15,000 Muslim & Croat civilians, mostly in the eastern Bosnia regions.
From 1941-1945 there was a civil war in all of Yugoslavia, with various factions fighting
for different aims. In Croatia, more Croats had been coming to partisans, especially after
1943 (fall of Italy) & thus partisans became a respectable force. For instance, Croatia
had 5 partisan corpses (4 of them with clear Croatian majority), while Slovenia had 2, Bosnia
& Herzegovina 2, Serbia proper 2 etc.
* in may 1945, war was over & partisans had won. But, in 2- 6 weeks after the end of
war, they committed mass atrocities, killing ca. 80,000-130,000 Croatian soldiers &
civilians, perhaps 10,000 Serbian Četniks & up to 4,000 Slovenian white guards.
Modern unbiased historical investigations have dispelled many myths, especially those re
number of victims in Yugoslavia & NDH in particular. In sum, in all of Yugoslavia, ca.
500,000 Serbs had died unnatural deaths & this included some 300,000 Serbs in NDH. Of
these, perhaps over 100,000 had been killed by ustaše, while others died of typhoid,
were killed by Germans, Četniks etc. Among Croats, ca. 200- 250,000 died of unnatural
causes, virtually all of them in NDH on various sides. Percentage-wise, the biggest losses
were among Bosnian Muslims, over 80,000.
@utu
Bottom line is that the whole existing Jewish Holocaust narrative is not supported by the
evidence. And any competent detective would spot the inconsistencies and contrary evidence in
the overall narrative and conclude that either the witness is fabricating and embellishing
what actually happened, or very simply is lying.
That's not the same thing as saying no Jews were killed in Europe, or that I'd want to be
Jewish and in Europe in WWII. (Hell, I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere in Europe during
WWII period!) Rather, it's very clear that everybody was killing everybody else in
those places and at that time based on ethnicity, nationality, politics, being on the losing
side or what have you, including plain old greed, and that nobodies' hands were clean.
Warfare will do that.
That, and the subsequent coverups, denials and spinmeistering over the years by all actors
concerning massacres and reprisals, large scale thefts, organized starvations and ethnic
cleansing are more over embarrassment and concerns about reputations than anything else.
Likewise, the claiming of this, that or the other mass grave as your own is just as much
about economic advantage and fortune seeking as it is about validation.
Enough! It was 80 odd years ago. Learn about what happened, all that happened and why,
and to all peoples who were present, without favour given to an influential (for now) few.
Resolve that it was monstrous for all, and resolve that it ought not to happen again. And
then move on.
@peacewalker
This sort of opinion is as childishly chauvinistic now as it was in 1850, 1920, 1939 and
1990. Did you know that Eastern Germany has been only given to the Poland for temporary
administration by the Soviets? Notwithstanding the weird actions of the people in power in
the FRG, Poland's borders are defined by international law by the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles to which Poland was a signatory party.
@GMC " The
normal Russians/Crimeans that I know that are jews are way cool folks – they even have
family is Israel but no big ego. Just normal Russians."
Nonsense. Jews are not Russians, period. Different ethnic group, different loyalties.
Given a brouhaha, you'll see which group they side with.
Bottom line is that the whole existing Jewish Holocaust narrative is not supported by
the evidence. And any competent detective would spot the inconsistencies and contrary
evidence in the overall narrative and conclude that either the witness is fabricating and
embellishing what actually happened, or very simply is lying.
This is stupid. It is very easy to calculate upper & lower limits of losses of various
European peoples during WW2, just by feeding the computer with pre-war & post-war census
data and taking into account border changes.
True, some figures overlap & there is a significant standard deviation for some
numbers. But, generally, overall picture is rather well established.
Nonsense, low IQ person. The burden of proof is on the person making the existential
claim, not on the person questioning it. I suggest opening a basic critical thinking book at
some point in your life.
Fact is that the evidence for the deliberate murder of 6,000,000 Jews is almost entirely
missing, apart from 'confessions' obtained under torture and the claims of self-interested
parties who stand something to gain.
Add to that any number of oddities.
– Official reports from the Red Army indicating that the area around Treblinka was
pastoral and undisturbed, contrasting with eyewitness accounts (by Jews) of skulls being
strewn everywhere.
– Red Cross records mentioning nothing of a mass murder campaign costing millions of
lives.
– Putin's comments that the Soviets transferred millions of Jews out of Poland
– The number of compensation claims registered with the German government reaching the
4 million mark, when the Nazis estimated the total number of Jews in Nazi occupied territory
was smaller than this.
– The physical impossibility of outdoor cremation of millions of people using barbeques
made from train rails and stacks of wood (which magically worked, even in the snow and
rain).
– The lack of cross examination at the Nuremburg tribunal.
It smells mightily of a Jewish fantasy enabling them to guilt trip the Germans, cover up
British war crimes, and justify the theft of Arab land.
Obviously the holocaust must be fake or there wouldn't be laws against researching it, or
disputing different aspects of it. Historical events that happened have no laws forbidding
questioning or debating them. We can argue over how many died at Stalingrad, or in Hiroshima.
We can question the number who starved in the Potato Famine, or from Smallpox in American
Indian tribes. But one so-called "historical" event must never be questioned? Ridiculous. The
fact that laws force one to believe in it, makes me doubt it completely.
@Grahamsno(G64)
I asked Ron Unz to put the title "Some Answers to the Mystery of the "Missing Jews" on the
article; the original title is the sub-title you see here. I think it's perfectly justified
– note the word "Some." Not 'The answer' or 'An answer', but only 'Some answers', which
in retrospect over the last 10 years it does provide. If the communists murdered thousands
and hundreds of thousands of Eastern European peoples, as you say, doesn't that impact the
WWII death toll and the "missing jews"?
Holocaust believers like yourself have never been able to show the existence of the
remains of those millions of bodies you say the German's killed. In light of that it's
amazing anyone can still defend this cult of death.
That explains why you are reduced to personal insult, ad hominem and distractions like
"what about the AR camps," instead of explaining why only Axis forces have been unearthed in
mass graves since the war's end, and no Allied forces. That includes no Jews.
Also, FYI (and others), "Revisionism" is not something dictated from above by certain
"professionals" but is individual works by individuals who study various aspects of history
and put their work out there for scrutiny. Not something you are capable of appreciating, I
know. So far, you have said nothing that debunks this article that is based on documented
reality.
Jews are missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds.
Jews historically have had no homeland and thus feel no attachment or sentimental value to
the lands upon which they live. It is therefore not that hard to speculate that once news of
the evil Nazis approaching reached them that they packed up and moved further east or west to
avoid getting mixed up in the actual fighting.
We see this mentality at full effect even today when millions of whites and blacks are
sent around the world to kill, maim and occupy foreign nations while the jews who profit from
it all stay at home in their million dollar mansions and closed off ghettos demanding to be
given the best of the special treatment for their eternal victimhood.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of abscence-but is rather objective evidence of the
non-existence of such a claim or cause of which one has been supportive or others forced to
accept as truth.
@utuGrow up. You are not in the court. You are not even in the court of public opinion. You
are among the Holocaust denial retards. You are one of them actually.
Poor little utu – is he a Jew terrorist – or one of the feeble-minded
gentiles, who falls for the Stockholm Syndrome Jew victim "six-million" lie. He is clearly on
the wrong side of history.
As is abundantly clear from this article and its comments – many if not most of
central Europe's ethnic peoples experienced group murder. 55,000,000 people died during WWII.
Jews where just one tribe of many.
Instead of forgiving and healing all – the Jews have grabbed all the sick
"victimhood glory" for themselves and used it as a cudgel to do even more killing in the
Middle East.
Maintaining the "six-million" lie has cost America its cohesion and Western idealism
– we are divided today into identity groups warring with each other -- all to maintain
terroristic Jew political control, aimed at sustaining the "six-million" lie. Anyone who
dares to disagree with the Jew lie – is terrorized and ostracized from society.
So what is it for little utu – Jew terrorist or fool?
A fool can intellectually grow – a morally poor Jew who supports "the lie" is
hopeless.
@Robjil
Judging by the aggressive theft of Ukraine farmland for pennies on the dollar by Chabad,
instrumentalized by Nuland's lackeys at the Dept of State, and the consequent dispossession
of Ukrainian farm people à la Palestinians in Palestine, my guess is that Israel intends
to use the Ukraine as the "breadbasket" of the JWO in Europe, just as a de-industrialized
United States, with its white population exterminated, will become the JWOs breadbasket in
the Western Hemisphere.
His aggregate numbers (in Table 2 on p. 10) are consistent with the numbers from the
Jewish Virtual Library. But what's curious are the numbers for Eastern Europe (i.e. Imperial
Russia/Soviet Union and Poland primarily) The American population exploded between 1880 and
1939. That's the well-known turn-of-the century influx. It's safe to assume that about 5M of
the American number was due to immigration (applying a reasonable 0.5% growth rate to the
1880 population), and that it was mainly from Eastern Europe. That would mean that the stock
of Eastern European Jews grew from 5.7M in 1880 to about 8.2M+5M = 13.2M in 1939, an
annualized growth rate of 1.4%. This is simply not believable, given the chaos afflicting
Eastern Europe during this time period. If we apply the 0.9% growth rate claimed for world
Jewish inter-war population by the JVL (probably high but not absurdly so) to the 5.7M
Eastern European stock, and subtract off the 5M that emigrated to America, we get an Eastern
European Jewish population in 1939 of around 4.7M, which is at least 3.5M less than commonly
claimed. (It was probably even less than 4.7M, given emigration to Palestine.) World Jewish
population in 1939 was probably around 16.7M-3.5M = 13.2M, not 16.7M, implying Jewish losses
during the war of around 2.2M. This number is consistent with German documentation re. the AR
camps, Auschwitz, and the EG shootings, as well as Red Cross documentation about the Western
camps. It's highly likely that both the Soviet and Polish 1939 numbers were exaggerated by at
least 1M each. The numbers for the eastern part of the old Austro-Hungarian empire should
also be viewed skeptically. (The 1931 Polish census claiming over 3M Jews is well-known, but
there was a 1921 census claiming 2M Jews; there is no way the Polish Jewish population grew
at a 4% annualized rate in that decade.)
Hitting the holohoax (oops I mean "holocaust™") head-on doesn't work because of the
jew-controlled media which has declared "holocaustianity™" to be the new worldwide
"state religion" from which no dissension from its "orthodoxy" is permitted.
The only way to counter "holocaustianity™" is to point out the scientific and
engineering impossibility of every "holocaust™" claim.
Let's look at a number of claims that have been made and have been ingrained in
"holocaust™" orthodoxy:
-- using "bug spray" (Zyklon B) as an execution agent (ha ha)
-- "gas chambers" with ordinary wooden doors, not gas-tight doors
-- "gas chambers" with no means to ventilate the chambers after "operation"
-- "gas chamber" chimney not connected to anything
-- "blood spurting out of the ground" for weeks and months
-- "crematoria stacks with visible flames" (not possible) crematoria burn clean
-- "thousands of bodies cremated per day" (not possible)
-- "multiple bodies" in one "muffle" to "speed up" operations
-- "lampshades, soap and shrunken heads", oh my
-- "the ability to tell when jews are being cremated by the smell or color of smoke"
-- "claimed burial grounds not being permitted to be disturbed" per jewish "law"
NONE of these claims are possible or valid and can be easily debunked using sound scientific
and engineering principles.
I have been thrown out (asked to leave) those "jewish freak shows" called
"holocaust™"museums for merely attempting to point out these facts.
@jbwilson24It smells mightily of a Jewish fantasy enabling them to guilt trip the Germans, cover up
British war crimes, and justify the theft of Arab land.
Say jbwilson24 -- did you kill any Jews -- I didn't!
Hmm -- then why are we being held guilty? 98% of everybody alive today was not even living
during the war. Yet, the Jews act like we are ALL guilty for WWII.
Using a vile false guilt trip, the Jews have seized power over the West.
We are coming to understand this ploy – human nature does not like lies – it
rebels.
p.s. Jew use of the Stockholm Syndrome, rules the West. (terror first – claim
victimization second)
Why do you write "Polish historical interpretations" knowing that after WWII this so called
'Polish' regime was infested by (appointed) Stalin Jews and few Polish commies with
suspicious past? *
*During Poland's partition many Jews bought for cents on dollar or acquired (for
snitching) names, estates and noble titles of Polish patriots shipped to Siberia.
Jan 30, 2016 Operation Reinhard: The Murder of Polish Jewry
How did the horror of the Nazi death camps evolve? Auschwitz didn't just sprout from the
ground one day. There was an "evolution" of the murder machinery, and a cast of diabolical
characters most people have never heard of.
@trickster
But than all Hitler was stupid, because he did not figure out that eventually will come to
that.
All Germans were so stupid that they did not know that number of roads in Ukraine and Russia
that in case of rain did not change to mud holes could be counted on fingers.
And even those were no match of via Apia of ancient Rome.
@peacewalker
Impressive your information about the origin of Stettin and Breslau. But as far as I can see
through a fast look at wikipedia, what you say seems to be at least a bis misleading. The
history seems to be quite complicated with really lot of changes. They say about Breslau that
the "Wandalenstamm der Silinger" (a German tribe) settled there between the 4 and 5 Century
and Slavs came about 1 or 2 centuries later. Much later there was a Polish domination.
Breslau was destroyed by the Mongols in 1241 and after that rebuilt by German settlers. In
1261 Breslau received the right of cityship (? Stadtrecht) by the German city of Magdeburg.
The history of Stettin is even more complicated, but wikipedia says that it was founded by
the fusion of German and Polish settlements ("Die Stadt Stettin entstand aus einer
pomoranischen und zwei benachbarten deutschen Siedlungen" = The city Stettin has originated
from a pomoranian and two neighbour German settlements).
Let me just point out, that mass graves with Polish victims of German mass executions
were located among other places at:
Palimiry [sic], Las Sękocinski, Las kabacki, Laski and many, many others locations
such as for example Ponary (outside of Poland's post WW II borders in present-day
Lithuania).
Why hasn't the general public heard of these incredible mass graves? Except for a little
commotion at Palmiry and Ponary, they are Polish fiction. The Germans assembled an
international team of experts to exhume the Katyn graves and publish their findings. The
Poles kept their exhumations, if there were any, all in the family.
Palmiry massacre, Wiki – "After the war, the Polish Red Cross , supported by
the Chief Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland (pretty sure
this is Soviet), began the search and exhumation process in Palmiry. The work was carried out
between 25 November and 6 December 1945, and later from 28 March until the first months of
summer 1946. Thanks to Adam Herbański and his subordinates from the Polish Forest
Service , who in the years of occupation were risking their own lives to mark the places
of execution, Polish investigators were able to find 24 mass graves. More than 1700 corpses
were exhumed, but only 576 of them were identified. Later Polish historians were able
to identify the names of another 480 victims.[17][50] It is possible that some graves still
lie undiscovered in the forest near Palmiry.[11]
Ponary massacre, Wiki – "The total number of victims by the end of 1944 was between
70,000 and 100,000. According to post-war exhumation by the forces of Soviet 2nd
Belorussian Fron t the majority (50,000–70,000) of the victims were Polish and
Lithuanian Jews from nearby Polish and Lithuanian cities, while the rest were primarily Poles
(about 20,000) and Russians (about 8,000).[2]
(No more information on this Polish-created page about the exhumation/identification process.
It goes straight to the more extensive commemoration/memorial monuments section.) Then ends
with:
"The murders at Paneriai are currently being investigated by the Gdańsk branch of the
Polish Institute of National Remembrance [1] and by the Genocide and Resistance
Research Center of Lithuania .[27] The basic facts about memorial signs in the Paneriai
memorial and the objects of the former mass murder site (killing pits, tranches, gates,
paths, etc.) are now presented in the webpage created by the Vilna Gaon State Jewish
Museum."
This why the general public doesn't know of these sites – they have not been
legitimately vetted. Yale's Timothy Snyder is a big believer though.
The sad thing is that the Final Solution to the Jewish problem has not yet been achieved.
I mean the problem of the presence of non-Jews in the world, a major problem for the Jews.
Not finally solved yet, but getting close.
There have been some great achievements since earliest times. One was Moses's great
success in tricking the stupid Midianites a number of times before finally exterminating
them, as recounted between Exodus Ch. 2 and the end of Numbers. Another was Joshua bar Nun's
fabulous achievement exterminating most of the Canaanites. For the time, the greatest
achievement bar none!
But the great achievement of the Jewish Dark Age of 200–400 AD, the killing of 6
million Jews by the Jews, the 6 million Hellenistic Jews by the Talmudic Jews, outshines
everything to date. Done at a time when the world population was tiny!
That must be done, the killing of non-Talmudic Jews must be done, as Maimonides wrote a
few centuries later. But the best subsequent achievement seems to have been the killing of
about a million non-Talmudic Jews in Iberia, greater Spain. Maybe fewer. Many escaped the
peninsula. Many Karaites survived. Or some did, count unclear.
So far, at least till 1948, and since the Cyrene massacres of the 2nd century, stopped by
the Romans, they have not had the power to kill non-Jews in any large numbers, could only
encourage wars among them. And undermine their society with their lobbying skills and
organized financing. But they are immensely powerful today in America and Europe. The Final
Solution may be close.
@Bardon
Kaldian Serbian lies are only matched by coatian lies (jews/muslims lies are out of
competition simple because they belive they can say anything to non-jew/non-muslim and do a
right thing).
Serbian lies can't change fact that every single sentence from Bardon post is one big fat
lie.
Hints: census from 1931 counted people by religion(ortodox, catolics, muslims, ), census from
1948 counted serbs, croats, slovenians, montenegrins, macedonians and 'minorities'. Muslims
are counted as serbian or croatians. He can't even say those numbers for current croatian
territory (hint: about 90k serbs less than ortodox and 300k croats more than catolics,despite
200k croats killed or expelled by comunists)
Counting persons with serious mental problems with zero influence as 'serbian ideologues' is
just fun.
@Curmudgeon
said:
"What kind of "death camps" have hospitals for internees? What kind of "death camps" have
scrip for prisoners to spend at a canteen? What kind of "death camps" have orchestras and
theaters for internees? Why would "death camps" record marriages and births? The Olympic size
swimming pools and soccer fields for internees at "death camps""
– Here's more info. on the big one in the "holocaust"narrative, so called "death
camp / extermination camp" Auschwitz
[MORE]
– An "extermination camp" where thousands of Jews chose to stay behind when
the Germans left.
– An "extermination camp" where most of the inmates, more thousands, chose to
leave WITH the Germans.
– An "extermination camp" where 1,500,000 human remains supposedly exist, but in fact
no such remains exist.
– An "extermination camp" where many Jews gave birth.
– An "extermination camp" where the absurdly alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' could
not have worked as alleged, as proven repeatedly, scientifically impossible.
– An "extermination camp" where fake 'gas chambers' were "reconstructed" AFTER THE
WAR.
– An "extermination camp" where detailed aerial photos of the period show nothing
that is alleged to have been happening.
– An "extermination camp" where there are even obvious, laughable attempts to tamper
with aerial photos that make a mockery of the fake story.
see:
– Auschwitz war time aerial photos, tampered with to fit the fake story ,
ex.:
Drawn in 'Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers', ON A ROOF . –
An "extermination camp" where there are countless Jew "survivors", yet the fake narrative
says 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'
-An "extermination camp" where so called "survivors" say the most impossible and
conflicting things that do not hold up to scrutiny, would be laughed out of a legit court
of law.
This is stupid. It is very easy to calculate upper & lower limits of losses of
various European peoples during WW2, just by feeding the computer with pre-war &
post-war census data and taking into account border changes.
But it is precisely the border changes for those countries and population movements
occurred within those areas that makes it difficult if not impossible to determine with any
accuracy what population changes within the area those borders include at different times
mean. It is, obvious, is ity not, that the "Poland" of 1939 is not the "Poland" of 1946, is
it not? And that it's ridiculous to draw any DEFINITIVE conclusion based on the ethnic group
distribution included within the boundaries of those "countries" between those periods,
especially when Russians moved substsantial numbers out of the area they occupied from 1939
to 1941, and then Germans were moved out of areas that became Polich after WWII, etc., etc.
and also moved people into and out of those areas when no one really knows the NUMBERS
INVOLVED.
It's years ago since I lookeed at the numbers Hillsberg cited, but I remenber dismissing
them at the time because they look conjectural at best.
@Carolyn
Yeager There are two ancient Slavic tribes Czechs and Moravian s. Capital of Czechs is
Praha (Prague)
Capitol of Moravian s is Brno. Slovaks at one time were part of Great Moravian empire.
Morava is east of Czechia, (As is its capital Brno, and not south as you claim.)
Slovakia is East of Moravia.
Morava is river and the tribe was named after river. River Morava joins Danjub
at Slovakia.
@peacewalker
said:
"I just don't know where to start. Whole "article" is such a BS. OK, let's start from
beginning then"
– Let's start with you actually reading the article.
– Then show us the millions upon millions of human remains that are said by those
like you to be in specific, known locations.
– After that, tell us how the absurd 'Nazi gas chambers' supposedly worked.
– Your cited sources give no proof.
It's curious that people like yourself actually want the alleged millions to be dead.
You should be happy to hear that millions of your brethren were not murdered.
"In the case of this latest and largest mass grave (2008), no clothing, eye glasses or gold
teeth were found. It thus appears that they were completely stripped before they were
killed." My German mother and her family began fleeing west in the last months of the war.
They lived in the German city Brieg (now called Brzeg under Polish rule). It's close to the
bigger city Breslau (now called Wroclaw under Polish rule). She was captured near Pilsen
(known as Plzen under Czech rule). The Red Army arrived. My mother was part of a group of
women being held and the women were forced to strip naked and they were humiliated. This is
what my crying mother told me roughly about 40 years ago. She was not raped. She's gone now
and despite this sad story was an upbeat and generally happy person. The Americans were also
there. I believe they took the area first and then withdrew and turned the area over to the
Russians and Czechs. My mother was able to escape and eventually settled in Bavaria for
several years before moving to the USA. If there are numerous cases of victims being
stripped, I wonder if this could be tied to a particular army or nationality. Or was it was
done by more than one army or nationality?
@the
shadow I agree. From my reading the transfers of population for reasons of ethnicity,
colonisation (eg of the Wartheland), slave labour, not to mention the theft of 'aryan'
children from Poles made for total confusion at the end of the war. The stories of witnesses
always mention fellow victims from all parts of Europe and people travelling in all
directions.
Re the numbers I can only repeat the wise quip of Christopher Isherwood in an argument about
the number of victims; he said to his opponent: 'What are you? In real estate?"
Why not just say Mahatma Austrian Hitler left no victims, including 20s-30s-40s Germans
(400,000 to 600,000 by most accounts, murdered by the NSDAP) and espouse, more important,
Germans were the only victims in WW2? Go for it!
The NSDAP brought God to Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Memel, Denmark. Norway,
Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Crete, North Africa, USSR,
etc.? Hitler was quite the evangelist. God (in that hymnal) is named Adolf. A deity without
territorial aspirations but nonetheless great coincidental appetite and digestive ability.
And with a post-war score to settle with German Churches.
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker" ("Ich
gehe mit traumwandlerischer Sicherheit den Weg, den mich die Vorsehung gehen
heißt") -Adolf Hitler 15 Mar 1936 Munich
He "sleepwalked" Germany into catastrophic World War, then attacked an ally in what became
a winter campaign 1941-42 lacking winter uniforms and operational gear. Incompetence
paramount. Nothing to do with Jews, though by all counts – as in Poland –many
were murdered (sorry Carolyn).
"The war against Russia is an important chapter in the struggle for existence of the
German nation. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slav peoples, of the
defense of European culture against Moscovite-asiatic inundation, and the repulse of Jewish
Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the destruction of present-day Russia and
it must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Every military action must be
guided in planning and execution by an iron will to exterminate the enemy mercilessly and
totally. In particular, no adherents of present Russian-Bloshevik system are to be
spared."
– Generaloberst Erich Hoepner, Orders to 4th Panzer Group Commanders in advance of
Barbarossa 2 May 1941 [Burleigh 'The Third Reich' p. 521]
A year later at Stalingrad 42-43, same problems, Hitler doubled-down plus some.
"The Führer commands that on entering the city the entire male population should
be eliminated since Stalingrad, with its convinced Communist population of one million, is
particularly dangerous."
– Adolf Hitler to Sixth Army 2 Sep 1942 [Beevor 'The Second World War' p.356]
Genocide? There you have cold hard fact.
There's more Carolyn. It's against Germans! 9 Nov 1942 Hitler orders 150,000 artillery and
transport horses in Sixth Army be sent several hundred kilometers to the rear, ostensibly to
save transporting fodder to the front. It deprives all unmotorized (75% of 6th Army forces)
divisions of mobility. Ten days later Soviets launch "Operation Uranus', a 'Kesselschalcht'
encirclement worthy of Bismarck and von Moltke.
By 23 Nov 1942 the Sixth Army is cut-off in pocket, destined to starve and freeze as
Hitler orders "Sixth Army stand firm in spite of temporary encirclement". His solution to the
crisis is to designate the Sixth Army "Fortress Stalingrad" and order (24 Nov) holding the
front "whatever the circumstances". No clarity on food, munitions, medical care or strategic
relief. None comes.
Germans knew better.
"I am beyond caring. Two of my brothers were sacrificed in Stalingrad and it was
quite useless. And here we have the same."
–Soldat to SanUff [Senior Medical Officer] Walter Klein, Kampfgruppe Heintz, Field
Dressing Station near St-Lô, Normandie 26 Jul 1944 [Beevor 'D-Day' p.353]
That's the legacy you (Ron and Carolyn) embrace? Good luck!
@anonlb
Dumb (my advice- don't mess with someone who knows what he's talking about. You'll turn out
to be a laughing stock ).
In 1931 census people were counted by religion & language. The South Slavic "language"
was a bizarre official combination of the Slovene, Croat & Serbian (no one then, except
Croatian linguist Stjepan Ivšić, had recognized Macedonian language). Other
languages like Hungarian, German, Italian, Slovak, Czech, Albanian were clearly the languages
of those peoples. So, one could clearly distinguish between Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims ..
by simply looking at their religion & mother tongue (in that case, weird
"Sloveno-Croato-Serbian").
During the Communist census in 1948, people just said what they were, nationally.
Catholics- if not Slovene speaking- were Croats; Orthodox were either Serbs, Montenegrins or
Macedonians (there were preserved censuses from 1931, so one could monitor county
fluctuations of population); BH Muslims were mostly "Yugoslavs undetermined" (some of them
said they were either Croats or Serbs, due to political pressures, but in next 2-3 decades
were simply written out of this census).
Also, there were tiny minorities of Catholic Serbs (ca. 8,800) and Orthodox Croats
(9,300)- but they don't mean anything, in comparison with these millions.
So, if you try to argue, rather use convincing arguments than a hysterical blather.
@the
shadow Virtually all modern works on victimology had taken into account borders shifts so
that victims (or potential victims) couldn't be counted twice (or thrice). It is reflected
even in such a wishy-washy source as Wikipedia.
Morava is east of Czechia, (As is its capital Brno, and not south as you claim.)
The article is mentioning Czechoslovakia , not the Czech Republic (note the map),
and only in relation to the treatment of its German citizens in 1945-6. There is nothing
inaccurate in my comment that you're referring to; Brno is definitely in the south of the
country compared to Usti.
@maz10 I'd
doubt it. The biggest fraud about socialism was the promotion of Marxism (communism) as being
socialism. I'm not saying Marx didn't have followers, but the majority of his contemporaries
rejected his state owns all views as being totalitarian. Communism is the obverse side of the
coin of finance capitalism. Both seek to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few –
relatively speaking.
Clifford Douglas, who invented the Social Credit movement, worked closely with the Guild
Socialists in Britain. While ultimately rejecting their views, he recognized that they
weren't interested in state ownership, were not opposed to competition, but were opposed to
finance controlling production and trade. By the way, Douglas was opposed to finance
capitalism as well.
I repeat: your local co-op is socialist. Every member has an equal say through the single
share allowed to be purchased; the board of directors is elected by the membership; the
profits shared are based on your participation level; and it competes with privately owned
businesses, including corporations.
@utuHere is an excerpt (one of MANY) from the Jewish press showing that Jewish American groups
have long tried to stop the U.S. Congress from recognizing the genocide committed against
Christian Armenians by Turkey:
Every year on April 24, the day that Armenians commemorate the killings, a resolution
calling for the use of the controversial term is proposed in Congress and then beaten back.
Some Jewish groups claim credit for ensuring that such a resolution never passes.
Jewish advocacy groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B'nai Brith and American Jewish Committee
"have been working with the Turks on this issue" for more than 15 years, said Yola Habif
Johnston, director for foundations and community outreach at Jinsa. "The Jewish lobby has
quite actively supported Turkey in their efforts to prevent the so-called Armenian genocide
resolution from passing," she said.
Showdown Set in 'Genocide' Debate
Rebecca Spence, The Jewish Daily Forward
Sept. 2, 2006
1. STETTIN is GERMANIZED name for Polish name SZCZECIN, not the other way around.
2. Same story with Wroclaw (for short period of time known as Breslau).
What's your point?
New York was New Amsterdam before the British took over. Strasbourg was Strasburg before
Louis XIV annexed Alsace and Lorraine. Istanbul was Constantinople before the Muslims decided
to change the name. Novgorod was an East Norse settlement. At one time, the Baltic was a
"Swedish lake" and Poland was occupied by the Swedes with a Swedish king sitting in Poland.
In the mists of time, Jerusalem was Uru-shalem before the chosenites arrived from Yemen.
Borders and place names have changed through out the recorded history of mankind. Poland now
claims famous Germans were Polish. Nikolaus Kopernikus, the famous German astronomer, is now
called Mikolaj Kopernik. He lived in Thorn (now Torun'), never spoke a word of Polish, and
published his works in Latin.
The Poles were happy to be Chamberlain's dupes in starting a war with Germany, and ramped
it up with the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the German territories it occupied after
the November 11, 1918 Armistice was signed. When war starts, no ones hands are clean, but the
Poles, like the chosenites continue to play the victim.
For those that have looked at the movement of people from the late 20s to 1939, it would not
stand up to a 10 minute audit. It is obvious to me, and written by H.G. Wells in his book
"The Shape of Things to Come" that the Dazig corridor was built to start the war as Polish
and Soviet troops, and it is well documented, were killing ethnic Germans since 1938. This
was considered a brilliant move by Wells of the Wilson Administration who wiped out 60-70
million, no only due to war but the fact that it was the US out of Ft. Riley which is
documented in the Wichita Observer to be the first place that ever ha this flu of which
almost 10% died.
It is known that the US created the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks through NYC with Schiff,
Baruch, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, Harriman and others) and also set up through the War Industries
Board, by a Jewish Marrano named Samuel Bush to load the Lusitania up with "small" munitions
of which Cunard was warned as were documents not to go on the ship as the US had been
supplying the filth ridden UK with weapons but was all but defeated and Germany offered a
peace plan that was beneficial to all. The Balfour Declaration, (Read "History of Zionism
1600-1918" by Nahum Sokolow and you will find in the forward that Arthur Balfour was also a
Marrano which is pointed out specifically), was enough for the monied interests of the US to
put America into war by lies. Benjamin Freedman's speech at the Willard hotel sums it up
well.
The US, USSR, UK and China are all tied together and all are oligarch with a fraudulent
opposition as one can figure out when reading "Red Symphony" of Rothschild. All nations are
nothing more than corporations that have gone into receivership and are owned as assets just
as recently stated by the central banks and the monetization of all creation. Those that have
no reverence for all living things and respect for life or planet except for their love of
money that their contempt for creation represents is now off the charts as all institutions
are corrupt.
Bias of Priene – all men are wicked and most are evil. That was a statement of one
of the greats, of the 7 sages and has now come to a point where all life may disappear in a
few years through poisoning every aspect of life and the list is long, geoengineering,
medicine/vaccine/pharmaceuticals, big ag, idiocy in programming – (listen to JFK
condemn amusement and the need for a well informed society), no limits of committing
atrocities to life itself as the web of life is hanging by a thread. Education, think tanks,
NGOs, government leaders they all are evil and are backed up by a putrid judicial system.
@Carolyn
Yeager You are funny! And I do not need to take a look at the map. You do!
If you make a right angle triangle from Usti nad labem and Brno you do find out you will
find out that distance from Usti to Brno is twice as long eastward than southward.
So you are in error.
Authors claimed they can not find any example of documented mass grave of polish
citizens.
What the authors said is, "The only known mass grave of Poles was the work of the Soviet
Red Army, led by the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet Russia. Long blamed on Germany, the
responsibility for this genocidal act is now placed where it belongs. Ironically, the only
mass gravesites found on Polish territory have been of German civilians."
What you provided in Comment 11 ( http://lasszpegawski.pl/in-english/%5D is not
documented, it's only stories. Have these alleged graves been officially exhumed and the
remains counted and examined? It doesn't say so.
This one at the INR about Dachau is another Polish nothing-burger. By putting forth these
nonsense pages as evidence of the atrocities you claim, you only make yourself a laughing
stock.
@Petermx
Strange story. Sorry to hear of your mother's humiliation but what you write makes no sense
to me. What was your mother doing in Plzen at the end of the war? Captured by whom? There was
no Red army in Plzen and American troops left in November 1945. If your mother was supposedly
fleeing west then she would have landed in Dresden where most refugees from Wroclaw went but
not in Plzen. Caroline Yeager and you have obvious deficiencies in geography, which is a
strong indications that most of the stories, ventilated here, are simply made up.
@Curmudgeon
Kopernik did not have a even a drop of German blood in him. And he was not an astronomer.
He was a polish monk. He did study the solar system as a hobby.
He was first who did claim that all planets rotate around the Sun.
Galileo did only confirm the Koperniks theory only one hundred years after .
Galileo did have already a telescope. Kopernik did not!
@Petermx
Thanks for sharing your story, Peter. There is nothing that moves me and shakes me up more
than stories of the German expellees as they trudged and fled to the West in those terrible
months. I'm so glad your mother made it and lived to have you, tell you her story, and have a
good life. Such strength. I did some radio broadcasts with a certain Andreas Wesserle whose
family left German Slovakia and reached Bavaria, where they suffered terrible living
condition and had practically no food for several years. And they were better off than most!!
The stories he tells are shocking.
You might enjoy hearing him tell of this time with his family; he is one of my favorite
guests ever! So smart, and such a good storyteller! https://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-dr-andreas-wesserle-german-holocaust-1944-46 https://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-devastated-germany-1946-52
I know the Americans were the first to reach Pilsen. And both they and the British felt
they owed Uncle Joe practically anything he asked for! I don't know the answer to your
question about stripping, but I think it was pretty common, in order to take all the
valuables. Every piece of clothing was valuable in those times, plus eyeglasses, false teeth,
anything like that.
Surprise, surprise. The Trump/Kim Jong-un love affair was about as long as one of Elizabeth
Taylor's romances. Kim Jong-un wrote him beautiful letters and they fell in love, yet just as
quickly they fell out of love. That's the way it is with Trump. He's a male version of
Elizabeth Taylor. Melania was smart to renegotiate her prenup. It appears Kim Jong-un
neglected to insist on a prenup.
Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to
me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the
kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot
closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it
quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also
demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the
region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are
usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...
Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but
only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and
daydreamers.
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
North Korea is likely to time the announced tests in a way that creates maximum damage for
Trump's reelection campaign.
It matter little which flavor of the establishment a US President hails from.
All Presidents are portrayed as 'peacemakers'. Only peacemakers can claim to fight 'just'
wars.
USA is effectively at war with Syria (via dubious legality of occupying Syrian oilfields),
Venezuela (having seized Venezuelan State assets with the pretense that Juan Guaidó is
the true head of State), and Yemen (via support for Saudi and UAE war on Yemen). And USA
leads/forces its allies in a Cold War with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Then there
is the backstabbing of the Palestinians and the US-backed coup in Peru. Trump is merely
spokesperson for all this belligerence. When he's gone, whether that occurs in 4 months or 4
years, TPTB/Deep State will turn the page and start again.
The Korean Armistice Agreement was a ceasefire, but no peace treaty was ever signed. In
effect the Korean war never ended.
DPRK will not give up her nukes, but that's not where its strength lies. Japan and South
Korea are within range of regular ballistic missiles, where US personnel are just sitting
duck. All this talk about nukes is hooey.
Aside from China, let's not forget Russia, which has a skin in this game. It has an 11
mile border, and 15 mile maritime border with DPRK. It will do it's utmost for North not
become South.
Here's my 2 cents. North Korea should never denuclearize. The US is never going to remove
itself from South Korea. The only reason it won't ever be attacked, is if the cost of
attacking it is too great to justify. Timing this announcement to damage Trump isn't smart.
Yes, Trump gets sabotaged by Pompeo, Bolton when he was around and many others, but at the
end of the day the attack order is still his call and it's been obvious Trump doesn't want a
war with them. He's mostly just bluffing with his threats towards others. If you get Biden in
there, he won't be running the show. Youll have the Pentagon and the neoliberals in charge.
They will be less tough talk on Twitter, but definitely more of a threat to start a major war
It's important to speculate that the relations between the USA and South Korea have their
contradictions.
The South Korean elite certainly would like a complete victory over the North under their
terms (unconditional surrender to the South). That would allow the dream scenario for South
Korea: ransacking their infrastructure (by the chaebols ) and absorbing their 25
million population as cheap workforce.
The South Korean military would also love this scenario, as an enlarged Korea, bordering
both China (in a very favorable terrain for a terrestrial invasion in collaboration with the
Americans) and Russia, with 75 million inhabitants, could rival Japan as the favorite vassal
of the USA in the northwestern Pacific. This would embolden the nationalists at home, open
space to crush the center-left (social-democrats) and add fuel to the melting pot of East
Asia.
A unified Korea under capitalist hegemony would also enable the Korean military to charge
the Americans for much more money, military equipment and other infrastructure in exchange
for keeping their occupation. It would also absorb the North's nuclear weapon technology,
know-how and infrastructure, so it would automatically be a nuclear power. It could even rise
above Japan in geopolitical importance in the American eyes for this reason - it could
essentially be an Israel in East Asia, directly threatening China in the name of the USA.
For that reason I think the USA doesn't want a unified and strengthened Korea - even one
unified under the South's terms.
The American are already bleeding money and resources on Israel, NATO, Japan and the
already existing South Korea. To have another emboldened vassal would bleed the American
fiscus even more.
Besides, the Americans see themselves as the owners of South Korea, in the sense that
South Korea owes their own existence to American occupation. If the North is to fall, I don't
think the USA will allow the South Korean bourgeoisie to simply grab the North Korean
resources and nuclear know-how. I don't think they will make the same mistake they did with
Germany (by allowing the Western elite to absorb the East entirely, which opened the gates to
the creation of the EU and then to the German conquest of Central Europe).
My bet is the North resources would mainly fall to American capital if it was to be
conquered. Maybe the American won't even allow a unified Korea - at least not de facto
.
Kim Jong Un is more than a match for the dope Trump and his class of '86 wargamers. With this
particular agreement the USA confirmed in everyone's eyes that it remains incapable of making
and keeping a deal between nations. It would have been cheap and easy for Trump to walk away
with a deal to give himself security in his second term runup. He cheated, he lied, and he
bragged and so now that very agreement is a lance that the North Korean people can torment
and bleed Trump with for the next six months and more.
Let's be clear about how important and sane the original deal was: relax the oppressive
sanctions, diminish nuclear threats, remove invasion threats in exchange for repatriated
human remains, and NK to destroy its nuclear production facility. That ignorant Pompeo nixed
the deal on his very next visit and proved to Kim on his first round with the USA that the
president was a puppet and the USA incapable of being trusted.
It was easy, it was inexpensive, it was painless and the USA could not do it.
And so Trump handed a weapon to Kim to stab at him throughout his own re-election. No
brains in Kushner or Ivanka's heads as they too have handed a golden opportunity to the North
Korean fox. Fools all.
The North Koreans have only their liberty and nation to lose and they would not lose it back
in the 1950's and they sure wont lose it now. All the more so to a scabrous pack of greedy
Chaebol mafia from the south. Do not forget that the USA bombed the North Koreans
continuously, almost every village was bombed in a free fire zone approach that was repeated
in Vietnam a decade or so later. Koreans were slaughtered in their millions by this grubby
little USA mendacity and it is remembered through the generations. Korea had only just
repulsed the Japanese occupation. They remember - and they wont be suckered by some clown
nation in the Pacific.
DPRK is an ally of both China and Russia, US enemies which are currently besting the US by
undermining its influence. .. from the Senate 2021 proposed budget summary:
Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlined our nation's preeminent
challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against
our shared American values of freedom, democracy, and peace -- namely, China and
Russia.These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favor, at our expense. In
pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked
to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined
our own influence. . . here
Posted by: vk | Jun 12 2020 17:54 utc | 7 use its 25 million inhabitants as a brand-new cheap
labor resources with which the chaebols could start a new cycle of capitalist accumulation is
closing.
Not to mention the estimated *6-10 trillion dollars* in natural resources that North Korea
has.
From another article: "An estimate from 2012 by a South Korean research institute values
the North's mineral wealth at $10 trillion, 20-odd times larger than that of the South."
The case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is inevitably heading toward
its conclusion. While the presiding district judge, Emmet Sullivan , is trying to keep it
going, there's only so much he can do, chiefly because there's nobody left to prosecute the
case after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped it
last month .
In the latest developments, the District of Columbia appeals court set a hearing in the case
for tomorrow (June 12), while the DOJ's solicitor general himself, as well as five of his
deputies, urged the court to order the lower-court judge to accept the case dismissal.
"I cannot overstate how big of a deal this is," commented appellate attorney John Reeves,
former assistant Missouri attorney general, in a series of tweets on June
1 .
Personal involvement of the solicitor general "is highly unusual and rare," he said .
" Unusual " seems a fitting euphemism for the Flynn case, which has been filled with
contradictions, falsehoods, apparent blunders, extraordinary moves, and strange
coincidences.
The Epoch Times has so far counted 85 such instances.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration and
former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to
one count of lying to FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
The FBI officially opened an investigation on Flynn on Aug. 16, 2016, based on a suspicion
that he "may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian
Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security."
What activity? The case was opened under a broader investigation into whether the Trump 2016
presidential campaign conspired with Russia to steal emails from the Democratic National
Committee and release them through Wikileaks.
The bureau learned from the Australian government that its then-ambassador to the UK,
Alexander Downer, spoke with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who "suggested" that the
campaign received "some kind of suggestion" that Russia could help it by anonymously releasing
some information damaging to Trump's opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The FBI didn't know what Papadopoulos actually said or what he was talking about.
Officially, this information was used by the FBI to comb through its databases for
information on people associated with the Trump campaign and open investigations on four
individuals supposedly linked to Russia.
Because Flynn's paid speaking engagements in years past included some for Russian companies
-- one for Kaspersky Lab and one for RT television in Moscow -- the FBI decided to open a
counterintelligence investigation on the retired three-star general.
But the FBI seemed to have trouble getting its story straight.
1. Comey
Contradiction
The FBI officially opened the four individual cases in mid-August 2016.
But former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress that he was
briefed already "at the end of July that the FBI had opened counterintelligence investigations
of four individuals to see if there was a connection between any of those four and the Russian
effort."
2. Unlikely Target
Suspecting a man with patriotic bona fides of Flynn's caliber of having colluded with Russia
based on two speaking engagements seemed particularly unusual.
Flynn's command of military intelligence to aid American troops in combat has earned him
great praise.
"Mike Flynn's impact on the nation's War on Terror probably trumps any other single person,"
wrote then-Brig. Gen. John Mulholland in Flynn's
2007 performance review .
Mulholland went as far as calling Flynn "easily the best intelligence professional of any
service serving today."
Flynn was driven out of his post in 2014 after he repeatedly embarrassed President Barack
Obama by insisting, contrary to the administration's official stance, that a resurgence of
Islamic terrorism in the Middle East was imminent.
Two months after his resignation, the rise of ISIS proved him right.
3. A Name for the
Spotlight
The Russia probe was titled "Crossfire Hurricane" (CH), and Flynn was given the code name
"Crossfire Razor."
This was unusual, according to Marc Ruskin, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and an Epoch Times
contributor.
Rank-and-file agents would never pick a name like this, he told The Epoch Times in a
previous interview.
"They would mock it as being overly dramatic," he said.
4. Snooping During
Briefing
The day after opening the Flynn case, the FBI participated in a strategic intelligence
briefing given to Donald Trump and two of his advisers by the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Because Flynn was to be present, the FBI took the extraordinary step of sending in
supervisory special agent Joe Pientka to collect intel on Flynn for the investigation. Pientka
was to assess Flynn's "overall mannerisms" and listen for "any kind of admission" that could be
used by the bureau, the DOJ's inspector general (IG) said in a Dec. 9 report on the CH
investigation ( pdf ).
The IG raised the question of whether snooping on officials the FBI is supposed to brief
could have a "chilling effect" on any such intelligence briefings in the future.
5.
Dossier Coincidence
The FBI directly targeted four Trump campaign aides, opening cases on three of them --
Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Paul Manafort -- on Aug. 10, 2016. The IG never received an
explanation for why the Flynn case was opened later. Incidentally, Page and Manafort had
already been mentioned in the infamous Steele dossier since July 28, 2016. Flynn's name,
however, was only mentioned in the dossier report dated Aug. 10, 2016.
The dossier, which drummed up unsubstantiated allegations of a Trump–Russia
conspiracy, was being spread to the media, the FBI, the State Department, the DOJ, and Congress
by operatives funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
One of the CH case agents, Stephen Somma, happened to have a longstanding relationship with
Stephan Halper, a Cambridge professor who was also a longtime political operative and FBI
informant.
Somma and another agent met with Halper on Aug. 11, 2016, and learned that, in a stunning
coincidence, Halper was already in contact with Page, had known Manafort for years, and "had
been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn," the IG report said
The CH team "couldn't believe [their] luck," Somma told the IG.
7. Halper's Story
Halper was accused of spreading rumors, starting in late 2016, that Flynn had an affair with
a Russian woman while visiting the UK in 2014 for a dinner hosted by the Cambridge Intelligence
Seminar co-convened at the time by Halper.
An "established" FBI informant told the CH team that the woman jumped in a cab with Flynn
after the dinner and joined him for a train ride to London (
pdf ).
She said Halper was the one spreading the rumor to the media and the FBI, even though he
didn't actually attend the event. She unsuccessfully
sued Halper for defamation in May 2019.
Somehow, Steele also became privy to the rumor and
shared it with Adam Kramer , an aide to the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kramer
testified to Congress that he was in regular contact with Steele between Nov. 28, 2016, and
early March 2017.
8. Unmasking
The names of Americans are normally masked -- that is, replaced with generic names -- in
foreign intelligence reports. Many senior government officials have the authority to ask for
names to be unmasked for various reasons, such as to understand the intelligence. There were
dozens of unmasking requests for reports related to Flynn, between Nov. 8, 2016, and Jan. 31,
2017 (
pdf ). The number of unmasking requests has been described as alarming by some
commentators, while others described it as routine.
9. Non-masking
There are also indications that Flynn's name was never masked in summaries or
transcripts of his calls with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016, and in the following days. FBI leaders were distributing the documents to top
Obama officials. Even President Barack Obama himself was briefed on them on or before Jan. 5,
2017.
10. Who Briefed Obama?
Comey testified to Congress that it was then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
who briefed Obama on the Flynn–Kislyak calls (
pdf ). Clapper, however, denied this to Congress.
11. 'Unusual'
Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, memorialized a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting with
Obama, Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates . Rice wrote in an email to
herself that Obama asked Comey whether he should withhold any Russia-related information from
the incoming administration and from Flynn in particular.
"Potentially," Comey replied, adding that "the level of communication" between Flynn and
Kislyak was "unusual,"
she wrote . There's no indication Flynn was talking to Kislyak unusually often. He was at
the time responsible for laying the groundwork for Trump's foreign relations as president and
was frequently on the phone with foreign dignitaries.
12. Late Memo
Rice's memo itself is unusual. She emailed it to herself more than two weeks after the
meeting took place, on the day of Trump's inauguration.
13. Strzok Intervention
On Jan. 4, the FBI was already in the process of closing Flynn's case. But the bureau's
counterintelligence operations head at the time, Peter Strzok,
scrambled to keep it open , noting that the "7th floor," meaning the FBI's top leadership,
was involved.
14. McCabe–Comey Contradiction
Comey testified that he authorized the Flynn case "to be closed at the end of December,
beginning of January."
"I don't think a closure would have been soon," he said.
15. Shaky Theory
FBI documents and Comey's testimony indicate that the
bureau kept the Flynn case open solely based on a legal theory that he may have violated
the Logan Act, even though the DOJ made clear that such charges wouldn't pass muster in court
-- nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for a Logan Act violation and the government
last tried in 1852.
The law prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomacy on their own with countries
the United States is in dispute with. Not only have questions been raised as to whether the law
would pass today's constitutional scrutiny, which places greater emphasis on First Amendment
protections, but also there's no indication the law was conceived to apply to a
president-elect's incoming top adviser.
16. Call Leaks
In early January, information about Flynn's calls with Kislyak was leaked to then-Washington
Post reporter Adam Entous. He said there was a discussion at the paper about what to do with
the information, as it would have been expected of Flynn, given his position, to talk to
Kislyak (
pdf ). In the end, the paper
ran a column on Jan. 12 by David Ignatius speculating that Flynn may have violated the
Logan Act if he discussed fresh sanctions imposed on Russia during the calls.
Obama imposed the sanctions on Russian entities, including its intelligence services, on
Dec. 29, 2016. At the same time, he also expelled 35 Russian intelligence officers.
17.
Denial
The calls "had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions," incoming Vice President Mike
Pence told CBS News on Jan. 15, 2017, in an interview the network almost wholly dedicated to
questions about Russia.
This wasn't completely true.
Kislyak did bring up the issue of sanctions during the call, though Flynn didn't engage him
in a conversation on the topic.
Flynn raised the issue of the expulsions, which is technically a separate issue from
sanctions, though both were announced at the same time. He asked for "cool heads to prevail"
and for Russia to only respond reciprocally, as further escalation into a "tit for tat" could
lead to the countries shutting down each other's embassies, complicating future
diplomacy.
18. 'Blackmailable'
Yates said she wanted to inform Trump's White House about the Kislyak calls as Russia would
know that what Pence said wasn't true and could thus blackmail Flynn with the information,
according to an Aug. 15, 2017, FBI report from her interview
with the Mueller team.
According to Ruskin, this was hardly a blackmail situation, which ordinarily involves
serious compromising information, such as evidence of bribery or sexual misconduct.
Comey acknowledged to Congress in March 2017 that the idea that Flynn was compromised struck
him "as a bit of a reach."
19. Comey Blocked Information
Despite issues with Yates's argument, informing the White House may have indeed cleared up
the situation. However, Comey blocked it, saying it could have interfered with the
investigation of Flynn -- despite that it appears there was nothing for the bureau to
investigate. At that point, the DOJ already had disapproved of the Logan Act idea. In any case,
the probe was supposed to be about Russian collusion. The bureau could have closed it and
opened a new one on the Logan Act, if it indeed had had sufficient predication. But it never
opened such an investigation, the DOJ noted in its motion to dismiss Flynn's case.
20.
Another Comey–McCabe Contradiction
In the days before Jan. 24, 2017, top FBI officials were discussing plans to interview
Flynn. Comey said the point of the interview was to find out why Flynn didn't tell Pence that
sanctions were discussed during the call (even though Flynn wasn't actually the one talking
about sanctions).
"My judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what
is the deal here. That was the purpose," Comey testified.
McCabe, however, told a different story when then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked him, "Was
[Flynn] interviewed because the Vice President relied upon information from him in a national
interview?"
"No. I don't remember that being a motivating factor behind the interview," McCabe
said.
21. No Mention of Pence
During the interview, the agents didn't ask Flynn about what he did or didn't tell Pence --
an unusual approach if the point, as Comey said, was to find out why Flynn hadn't "been candid"
with Pence. The FBI, in fact, had no idea what Flynn did or didn't tell Pence.
22.
Slipped-In Warning
Agents regularly warn interviewees that lying to federal officers is a crime. Before the
Flynn interview, however, McCabe's special counsel Lisa Page emailed another FBI lawyer asking
how the warning should be given and whether there was a way "to just casually slip that
in."
23. No Warning
In the end, the agents never gave Flynn any such warning.
24. 'Get Him to Lie Get Him
Fired?'
The FBI officials agreed that the agents wouldn't show Flynn the transcripts of the calls.
If he said something that diverged from them, they would ask again, slipping in some words from
the transcript. If that didn't jog his memory, they were not to confront him about it.
On the day of the interview, then-FBI head of counterintelligence
Bill Priestap wrote a note saying he told other officials to "rethink" the approach.
"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" he wrote, noting, "We regularly show subjects evidence."
Apparently, his concerns were ignored.
25. Discouraging Having a Lawyer Present
On the day of the interview, McCabe spoke with Flynn on the phone to ask him for the
interview. McCabe said he told Flynn he wanted the interview done "as quickly, quietly, and
discreetly as possible." If Flynn wanted anybody to sit in, such as one of the White House
lawyers, the DOJ would have to be involved, McCabe told him.
According to Ruskin, that was "egregious" behavior akin to discouraging a subject of an
investigation from having a lawyer present for an interview.
26. No White House
Notice
An FBI interview of a president's national security adviser is a big deal. Normally, it
would warrant a back-and-forth between the White House and the bureau on the scope, content,
purpose, and other parameters. Most likely, multiple White House lawyers would sit in.
Comey, however, said in a public forum
that he just sent the agents in, taking advantage of the fact that it was "early enough" --
only four days after the inauguration.
27. No Notice Given to DOJ
According to Yates, Comey didn't consult the DOJ about his intention to interview Flynn,
even though the department would usually be involved in such decisions.
28. Not Quite a
Denial From Flynn
After the interview, in which Strzok and supervisory special agent Pientka extensively
questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, Comey said that Flynn denied talking to
the ambassador about the sanctions. But the agents' notes indicate that though Flynn denied it
at first, he seemed unsure when the agents asked again.
"Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything,'" he said, according to the
notes.
"I told the agents that 'tit-for-tat' is a phrase I use, which suggests that the topic of
sanctions could have been raised," he
said .
29. UN Vote Denial
Based on the agent's notes, Flynn did deny asking for Russia to delay a U.N. vote in Israeli
settlements. One of the call transcripts indicates he in fact made such a request.
Flynn told the agents he was calling multiple countries regarding the vote, but it was more
an exercise of how quickly he could get foreign officials on the phone since there was no way
the transition team could convince enough countries to actually change the outcome. Indeed, the
vote passed with only the United States abstaining.
30. No Indication of Deception
The agents came back with the impression "that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was
lying," according to Strzok.
Comey seemed on the fence.
"I don't know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one," he
testified.
31. Flynn Knew They Knew
According to McCabe, Flynn expressed awareness before the interview that the FBI knew
exactly what he said during the Kislyak calls.
"You listen to everything they [Russian representatives] say," Flynn told him, according to
McCabe's notes from that day.
32. Belated Report
The FBI interview summary, form FD-302, is required to be completed within five days of the
interview. Flynn's, however, took more than two weeks.
33. Rewritten 302
Strzok texted Page on Feb. 10, 2017, he was "trying to not completely rewrite" the 302 "so
as to save [redacted] voice." The redacted name was most likely Pientka's.
34. Missing
Original
Flynn was ultimately provided two draft versions of the 302 -- one from Feb. 10, 2016, and
one from the day after. But based on Strzok's texts, there should have been at least two draft
versions produced on Feb. 10, 2016, or before.
In fact, Judge Sullivan said in a Dec. 17, 2018, minute order that the 302 "was drafted
immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview." It's not clear what the judge was basing this
assertion on or what happened to the early draft.
Flynn's current attorney, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , later said she'd found a
witness who saw an earlier draft and that it said "that Flynn was honest with the agents
and did not lie."
35. No Reinterview
It is common that when the FBI has questions after an interview about the candor of the
subject, it would question the person again. But in this case, the FBI showed no interest in
doing so.
36. Still Investigating What?
After the interview, Comey promptly agreed to Yates informing the White House about the call
transcripts. Flynn was fired two weeks later. But, somehow, the investigation was still not
over.
Comey said in his March 2, 2017, testimony that the bureau wasn't investigating any possible
Logan Act violation by Flynn and wouldn't do so unless the DOJ directed it.
But he said the investigation was "obviously" still ongoing and "criminal in nature."
McCabe said that "even following the interview on the 24th, we had a lot of work left to do
in that investigation."
By mid-February, the status of the probe wouldn't have "changed materially" in his belief,
he said.
"Like we were pursuing phone records and toll records at that time," he said. "There were
all kinds of really very basic foundational investigative activity that had to take place and
we were committed to getting that done."
It's unclear what the point of the investigation was.
37. FARA Papers
Around Christmas 2016, Flynn found in the office of his defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel
Group (FIG), a letter from the DOJ telling him he may need to file foreign lobbying disclosures
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
The DOJ's National Security Division (NSD) wanted to know about a job FIG did earlier that
year for Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.
It should have been a routine procedure. Washington lobbyists commonly flunk FARA rules and
the NSD usually just asks them to register retrospectively because FARA cases are difficult to
prosecute. Flynn hired a team from Covington and Burling led by Robert Kelner, a
"never-Trumper" and an expert on FARA, to prepare the paperwork.
This time, the NSD was unusually eager. Heather Hunt, then-FARA unit chief herself, was
repeatedly prompting the lawyers to expeditiously file the papers.
Comey's leaking the content of this and other memos to the media served as a catalyst for
then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing former FBI head Robert Mueller as a
special counsel to take over the CH probe.
39. Rosenstein's Scope Memo Still Alludes to
Logan Act
Even though Comey said in March 2017 that the FBI wasn't investigating Flynn for a Logan Act
violation, Mueller received in August 2017 a mandate from Rosenstein ( pdf
) to probe whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian
government officials during the period of the Trump transition." That appears to be an allusion
to the Logan Act.
Rosenstein testified
to Congress that he simply put in the scope of Mueller's mandate whatever the CH team was
investigating at the time.
The scope memo also tasked Mueller with probing whether Flynn lied to the FBI during the
interview, whether he failed to report foreign contacts or income on his national security
disclosure forms, and whether the Turkey job by his firm meant that he "committed a crime or
crimes by acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey."
40. Lawyers
Delay Informing Flynn?
By mid-August 2017, Covington learned that prosecutors were looking at Flynn's FARA filings.
But the lawyers didn't inform Flynn until weeks later, according to his current lawyer,
Powell.
41. Conflict of Interest
Convington faced a conflict of interest in Flynn's case, because it was in their interest to
say any problems with the FARA papers were Flynn's fault, while it was in Flynn's interest to
say the lawyers were responsible.
Covington and the Mueller team agreed the firm can continue to represent Flynn if they tell
him about the conflict and he consents to it. Powell said the conflict was so serious bar rules
required the lawyers to withdraw.
42. Lawyers Don't Take Responsibility
In Flynn's situation, it would have been the ethical thing to do for the lawyers to take
responsibility for any problems with the FARA papers, according to Powell. But they didn't do
that.
43. Lawyers Express Apprehension About Being Targeted Themselves
The Covington lawyers on several occasions expressed concern that Mueller may target them
with a crime-fraud order, a measure that allows prosecutors to break through the
attorney-client privilege if they get a judge to agree that the client was conferring with
lawyers to further a crime or some misconduct. The lawyers were aware Mueller's team had
already used the order against Manafort.
Facing a crime-fraud order would cause bad publicity for Covington, Powell noted. Leading
Flynn into the plea allowed the firm to avoid it.
44. Perilous Interviews
In early November 2016, Mueller prosecutors, led by Brandon Van Grack, told Covington that
Flynn was facing charges for lying to the FBI and lying on the FARA papers. They asked for
Flynn's cooperation with the broader Russia probe, particularly regarding any communications he
or other Trump people had with foreign officials.
Van Grack wanted Flynn to sit down for a series of interviews. He offered Flynn limited
immunity, but acknowledged that Flynn could still be charged for lying during the
interviews.
The lawyers noted that this could have been dangerous for Flynn, even if he was completely
honest.
"To ask someone about meetings and calls during an incredibly busy period of his life as an
evaluation of candor is not a particularly attractive option," Kelner told the prosecutors
during a conference call (
pdf ).
Yet ultimately the Covington lawyers agreed to make Flynn available for the
questioning.
45. Belated Consent
Covington only asked Flynn for consent with their conflict of interest in writing on Nov.
19, 2017, after Flynn had already been through two days of interviews with the
prosecutors.
46. Wrong Standard
The consent request, sent via email, cited the wrong bar rule for handling of conflicts. The
correct rule "creates a much lower threshold at which a lawyer must bow out," Powell said in a
court filing.
47. Innocent but Guilty
The Covington lawyers repeatedly told the prosecutors that they didn't think Flynn was
guilty of a felony. They were also told that Strzok and Pientka "saw no indication of
deception" on Flynn's part and had the impression after the interview that he wasn't lying or
didn't think he was lying. But the lawyers still convinced Flynn that he should plead guilty to
the felony charge.
48. Threat to Son
According to Flynn's declaration, the Covington lawyers told him that if he didn't plead,
the prosecutors would charge his son (who had a four-month-old baby at the time) with a FARA
violation, because the son worked for Flynn's firm and was involved in the Turkey project. If
he did plead, however, his son "would be left in peace," Flynn said.
The pressure campaign, it seems, was also reflected in media leaks.
"If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son it
could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences,"
NBC News reported on Nov. 5, 2017, referring to "sources familiar with the
investigation."
"To twist the father's arm with regard to his child is a pretty low thing to do," Ruskin
commented.
49. 302 Not Shared
The prosecutors refused to share with Flynn the 302 from his January interview until shortly
before he agreed to plead. Also, they only shared the final version of the report, which was
significantly different from its previous drafts, Flynn later learned.
50. Strzok Texts
Understatement
Shortly before Flynn signed his plea, the prosecutors disclosed to his lawyers that one of
the agents who interviewed Flynn (Strzok) was being investigated by the IG for potential
misconduct. They also disclosed that the agent expressed in electronic communications "a
preference for one of the candidates for President."
This was far from covering the bombshell the Strzok texts actually were, Powell noted.
Strzok not only voiced preference for Clinton, but cursed at and repeatedly derided Trump.
In one 2016 text, he argued that the FBI needed to take action akin to an "insurance policy" in
case Trump won. Strzok later said he was referring to proceeding in the CH probe more
aggressively out of a worry that Trump may interfere with it if elected.
51. Lawyers
Never Told Flynn?
Flynn said the Convington lawyers never told him that the FBI agents didn't think he lied.
Even after he specifically asked about the agents' impression, the lawyers didn't disclose the
information and instead told him that "the agents stood by their statement."
"I then understood them to be telling me that the FBI agents believed that I had lied,"
Flynn said, explaining that had he known, he wouldn't have signed the plea.
52. Statement
of Offense Inaccurate
As part of his statement of offense, Flynn affirmed that FIG's FARA papers contained three
false statements and one omission. Yet, on all four points the statement of offense was
inaccurate, Powell demonstrated (
pdf ).
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false statements' by their own misrepresentations,
deceit, and omissions," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
The FARA papers were "substantially correct" and any deficiencies were the fault of
Covington, she said.
53. Lawyers Knew
In an internal email three days before Flynn signed his plea, one of the Covington lawyers
pointed out that some of the "false statements" attributed to Flynn in the statement of offense
regarding the FARA filings were "contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the
filing."
It seems the lawyers failed to correct the issue, since the statement of offense remained
inaccurate. They also never informed Flynn of the issue, according to Powell.
54. Judge
Recusal
Flynn entered his plea on Dec. 1, 2017. Shortly after, the judge who accepted the plea,
Rudolph Contreras, recused himself from the case. The apparent but undisclosed reason was
likely his personal relationship with Strzok.
55. Strzok Texts Media Coincidence
While the IG had found Strzok's texts already in June 2017, their first disclosure in the
media came from The Washington Post the day after Flynn entered his guilty plea. Powell noted
how convenient the timing was for the prosecutors.
56. Side Deal
The prosecutors conveyed to Covington an "unofficial understanding" that they were
"unlikely" to charge Flynn's son in light of Flynn's agreement to continue to cooperate with
the Mueller probe, one of the lawyers said in an internal email.
Such an under-the-table deal is "unethical," Ruskin said.
57. Avoiding Giglio
Disclosure
Another internal Covington email suggests the prosecutors intentionally kept the deal
regarding Flynn's son unofficial to make future prosecutions easier.
"The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Michael T. Flynn] regarding Michael
[Flynn] Jr., so as to limit how much of a 'benefit' it would have to disclose as part of its
Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify," the email reads.
"Giglio" refers to a 1972 Supreme Court opinion that requires prosecutors to disclose to the
defense that a witness used by the prosecutors has been promised an escape from prosecution in
exchange for cooperation.
58. Questionable Disclosures
After the case was assigned to Judge Sullivan, he entered an order for the DOJ to give Flynn
all exculpatory information it had, as the judge does in all cases.
The prosecutors, however, weren't prompt in revealing the information. The Strzok texts, for
instance, were only provided to Flynn after they were released publicly.
59. Business
Partner Coincidence
One day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, his former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, was
charged with a failure to register as a foreign agent in relation to FIG's Turkey job.
Powell called it a "shot across the bow" which the Mueller team wanted to "leverage" against
Flynn.
"Mr. Van Grack used the possibility of indicting Flynn in the Rafiekian case at the
sentencing hearing to raise the specter of all the threats he had made to secure the plea a
year earlier -- including the indictment of Mr. Flynn's son," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
60. Judge Makes False Accusations, Backtracks
During a Dec. 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, Sullivan questioned the prosecutors about
whether they considered charging Flynn with treason.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," he told Flynn, saying that he acted as an agent of
Turkey while in the White House.
That was wrong on multiple levels. Not only does treason not apply to unregistered lobbying,
but the Turkey job had virtually no impact on American interests. It prepared a plan to lobby
for the extradition of an Islamic cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who lives in exile in the
United States, and whom Ankara blamed for instigating a coup attempt in 2016. Almost none of
the plan materialized. Most importantly, Flynn shuttered his firm shortly after the election to
comply with Trump's promise of no lobbyists in his administration.
Sullivan corrected himself later in the hearing, but many media outlets still put his
original remarks in headlines.
61. MSNBC Coincidence
While Sullivan's question about treason and his gaffe about the Turkey job seemed to come
out of left field, they mirrored MSNBC talking points from days prior.
The day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow claimed Flynn and Rafiekian "disguised" the
origins of payments for the Turkey job so they could "secretly work in the interest of a
foreign country without anybody knowing it while they were also working high-level jobs in
intelligence inside the U.S. government."
"Flynn really thought he could be a national security adviser, the national security adviser
in the White House, and a secret foreign agent at the same time," Maddow said .
Three days before Flynn's sentencing hearing, Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism commentator,
said on MSNBC that Flynn "may have been one step away from treason" and "pulled back by
cooperating" with Mueller.
62. Judge Fails to Satisfy Plea Rules
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state in Rule 11 that "before entering judgment on a
guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea."
As such, Sullivan was required to check that Flynn's alleged lies to the FBI were
"material," meaning relevant enough to potentially affect an FBI investigation.
But the judge acknowledged during the sentencing hearing that he hadn't done so.
"It probably won't surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions. such as, you
know, how the government's investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the
criminality? Things like that," he said at the conclusion of the hearing.
There's no indication Sullivan has asked those questions since.
63. Unacceptable
Plea
Not only could Sullivan not have accepted Flynn's plea before determining materiality,
there's evidence he was in fact required to refuse it.
Rule 11 requires the court to "determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from
force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)."
In Flynn's case, there actually was a threat and a promise left out of the deal -- the
"unofficial understanding" that his son was "unlikely" to be charged if Flynn
cooperated.
64. Lawyers Insisted Flynn 'Stay on the Path'
Before the sentencing hearing, the Covington lawyers told Flynn to "stay on the path" and to
refuse if Sullivan offered him to take his plea back, Flynn said in his court declaration.
"If the judge offers you a chance to withdraw your plea, he is giving you the rope to hang
yourself. Don't do it," the lawyers said, according to Powell.
65. Unprepared
Flynn said the lawyers only prepared him for a "simple hearing" and not for the extended
questioning Sullivan engaged in.
"I was not prepared for this court's plea colloquy, much less to decide, on the spot,
whether I should withdraw my plea, consult with independent counsel, or continue to follow my
existing lawyers' advice," he said.
In the end, he affirmed his plea during the hearing.
66. Prosecutors Asked for False
Testimony?
Flynn was expected to testify against Rafiekian in 2019, but when the moment was to come,
prosecutors asked him to say that he signed FIG's FARA papers knowing there were lies in them.
Flynn, who had already fired Convington and hired Powell by that point, refused. He said he
only acknowledged in hindsight that the FARA papers were inaccurate, but didn't know it at the
time.
67. Prosecutors Knew?
Powell has argued that the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false testimony. She
filed with the court a draft of Flynn's statement of offense, which shows that the words "FLYNN
then and there knew" (pertaining to the FARA registration) were cut from the final version.
Moreover, Powell submitted emails that indicate the words were cut by the prosecutors
themselves after the Covington lawyers raised some objections to the draft.
68.
Retaliation?
Flynn's refusal to say what prosecutors wanted angered Van Grack, contemporaneous notes show
(
pdf ). Shortly after, prosecutors tried to label Flynn as a co-conspirator in the Rafiekian
case and put Flynn's son on the list of witnesses for the prosecution. According to Powell,
this was retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie.
69. Rafiekian Case Collapses
Prosecutors in the Rafiekian case tried to argue that anybody who does something political
at the request of a foreign official and fails to disclose it to the DOJ is an "agent of a
foreign government" and can be put in prison for up to 10 years.
The presiding judge, Anthony Trenga, rejected the theory, ruling that an "agent" -- as used
in that context -- needs to have a tighter relationship with the foreign government, a
relationship that includes "the power of the principal to give directions and the duty of the
agent to obey those directions."
Starting in August, Powell started to bombard the prosecutors with demands for exculpatory
evidence she was convinced the DOJ possessed. But the prosecutors repeatedly claimed the
government already provided all it had and had no more.
The main issue was, Powell noted, that the DOJ had a very narrow view of what is
exculpatory.
"If something appears on its face to be favorable to the defense the government will claim
it was said 'with a wink and a nod,' and therefore it showed the defendant's guilt after all,"
she complained in an Aug. 30, 2019, filing (
pdf ).
As it later turned out, the FBI was sitting on a number of documents favorable to the
defense.
71. Contradicting Notes
When Flynn finally obtained the hand-written notes Strzok and Pientka took during the
interview, it turned out they didn't quite match the final 302.
The 302, for instance, says that Flynn remembered making four to five phone calls to Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016. Both sets of notes indicate that Flynn didn't remember that.
Also, the 302 says that Flynn denied that Kislyak got back to him with the Russian response
a few days later. There's no mention of a Russian response in the notes.
72. Notes
Mixup
It took the prosecutors until November 2019 to find out and tell Flynn that the notes they
said belonged to Strzok were actually Pientka's and vice versa.
73. No Date, Name
The notes mixup wasn't that easy to spot because neither set of notes was signed or dated,
even though they should have been, according to Powell.
74. Harsher Sentence
Since his sentencing hearing, Flynn was expected to receive a light sentence, possibly
probation. In January 2020, however, the prosecutors indicated that Flynn should be treated
more harshly because he reneged on his promise to cooperate on the Rafiekian case.
This was part of the retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie for the prosecutors, according
to Powell.
Shortly after that, Flynn asked the court to let him withdraw his plea.
Any limitation the court puts on how the attorney-client information can be used shouldn't
"preclude the government from prosecuting the defendant for perjury if any information that he
provided to counsel were proof of perjury in this proceeding," they said.
It's not clear what specifically they were referring to.
76. Thousands More
Documents
In April, Covington told Flynn they
found thousands more documents related to his case that they failed to give to Powell due
to "an unintentional miscommunication involving the firm's information technology
personnel."
77. Van Grack Out
On May 7, 2020, Van Grack withdrew from Flynn's case as well as others. The reason is not
clear.
The same day, the DOJ moved to withdraw the Flynn case.
78. Judge Delays
A government motion to withdraw a case usually marks the end of the case. The court still
needs to accept the motion, but there's not much it can do, since there's nobody left to
prosecute the case.
Sullivan, however, didn't accept it.
79. Appointing Amicus
On May 13, 2020, Sullivan appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae
(friend of court) "to present arguments in opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss" as
well as to "address" whether the court should make the defense explain why "Flynn should not be
held in criminal contempt for perjury."
This was an unusual move. Amici are normally only appointed in civil or higher court cases.
Powell has said Sullivan doesn't have authority to do so.
80. Another Washington Post
Coincidence
Just two days earlier, Gleeson co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post where he accused
the DOJ of "impropriety," "corruption," and "improper political influence" for dropping the
Flynn case.
81. More Delays
On May 19, 2020, Sullivan issued a scheduling order that set an oral argument for July 16,
when third parties invited by the judge would get a chance to voice their opinions. As such,
the judge
set to prolong the case for about two more months and possibly beyond.
In a rare move , the appeals court
ordered Sullivan to respond to Flynn's petition within 10 days. Usually, the court would
appoint an amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of the judge. Sometimes, the court would
invite the judge to respond. Ordering a response is "very rare," Reeves commented.
Wilkinson has in the past represented major corporations such as Pfizer, Microsoft, and
Phillip Morris, as well as Hillary Clinton aides during the FBI's investigation of Clinton's
use of a private email server. She also assisted then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in
preparing his 2018 defense against a sexual assault allegation.
Wilkinson is married to CNN analyst David Gregory, the former host of the NBC News' "Meet
the Press."
84. DOJ Brings Big Guns
In another unusual move, the DOJ's Solicitor General and five of his deputies responded to
the appeals court in support of Flynn's petition. The Solicitor General usually argues cases on
behalf of the DOJ before the Supreme Court. His personal involvement in an appeals court
petition "is highly unusual and rare," Reeves said.
"For non-lawyers, a ten day notice for oral argument may seem like a long time, but it
isn't. It's an increidibly [sic] short amount of time," he said, noting that a call for a
hearing "shows that the DC Circuit is gravely concerned about this matter."
"... Anne Appelbaum is merely butthurt because her neocons don't have as much influence as she thinks they ought. ..."
"... Yeah, this is one of the fundamental problems with US politics as well as business: lack of long term thinking ..."
"... Larison regularly writes about how interventionists have their own inner ring and their own set of lies and shibboleths that they embrace and Applebaum is clearly one of their number. ..."
"... None of this is meant to defend Trump or his lackeys. She is largely right about them, but she is not as different In her thinking as she wants to think. ..."
"... Applebaum picks easy targets because she favors a different set of dishonest people. You are assuming I am a fan of those governments -- no, I just recognize cheap analogies when I see them. And Venezuela, however bad the regime, is there because it is a regime that the Beltway crowd wishes to overthrow. There are countless bad governments she could have mentioned otherwise. ..."
"... The fact is that some of her heroes, like Mitt Romney and John McCain, are part of the interventionist crowd that never saw a war it didn't want to jump into. Romney even defended waterboarding -- you can google that. Americans have the political memory of a mayfly, so perhaps don't remember that just 15 years ago people talked as though our torture policy was the slippery slope to fascism, but some of the people that favored torture and widespread government spying are now Resistance heroes. ..."
"... Her piece is a mainstream Beltway fairy tale about how we once had noble public servants with integrity and then Trump ruined everything. Trump is a disaster, but there is more than one way to be terrible. ..."
"... Applebaum's essay strikes me as Product. It is not interesting or sharply observed; there is nothing original here; the writing is boring and interchangeable with a million other writers for the Economist, The Atlantic, the New York Times, etc. ..."
"... This has been the problem with the " Resistance" all along. Much as I despise Trump and would never vote for him, the opposition to him was instantly hijacked by the people who supported endless war and gave us the free trade policies that destroyed millions of jobs. Worse, people who hate Trump ( and rightly so imo) feel obligated to praise any crappy dishonest self serving article that says Trump is a bad man. ..."
"... I consider Applebaum a prime exhibit in how adherence to ideology can make basically smart people stupid. ..."
"... "I would take the side of them ALL, and many others besides, before I would take the side of these Council on Foreign Relations ghouls like Applebaum, these sterile, soulless globalists and their lives that are 100% dedicated to manufacturing consent, being apologists for the most powerful regime in the world and for global finance, these Respectable Analysts and Experts who work hand in hand with the CIA and the Iraq War neocons and the like." ..."
"... He is not a reaction to the corruption of the elites but rather the living embodiment of it who was able to convince a lot of gullible people otherwise. ..."
"... One of the main problems with applebaum's article is that it does come too close to implying that republicans are vichy french partisans ..."
"... About poor Trump. He was bound to fail. A Julius Caesar, which was a military and political genius and an exceptionally accomplished individual, failed in his struggle against his own oligarchic class. Someone like Caesar in nowadays DC would end up being assassinated. With Trump we have a total circus created by the ruling Americans. ..."
"... "developing a feel for who is a fraud and a liar" -this is basically what I mean when I say that all politics is a clash of axioms and intuitions. It's seldom the "evidence" that is, the sterile "facts" which produce disagreement but that understanding behind those facts and which judges of them. ..."
"... I'll only say that she strikes me as being like Russian liberals, the running dogs and lackeys of the oligarchs who looted the country in the 90s, and who, to this day, in unguarded moments, aver that the reason Russia is not a "normal" country, ie., one where they rule, is because the Russian lumpenproles were not made to suffer *enough* during the 90s. ..."
"... Trump reached out to working class citizens while all the liberals or conservatives were peddling was, in was in the words of the honorable Elijah Muhammad; ..."Pie in the sky when you die by and by." ..."
"... Trump's "ideology" was standard Republican tax-cuts + angry tweets. Also he said Iraq War was a mistake - that's what Never Trumpers really hated. Media called him "presidential" when he ordered military strikes in Syria. That's what's good and normal for president. ..."
"... Applebaum is a globalist mouthpiece, whose husband is Polish politician that wants to sell out Polish freedom to the EU. ..."
"... Isn't she the same Anne Applebaum who was trying to give credence to the #RussiaGate farce that not just distracted Trump and the country from actual problems, but led to so much bad reactionary foreign policies? Like pushing Russia into the arms of China? No thanks. It's like getting a lesson in democracy from Iraq War propagandists. ..."
"... He described America's capital city, America's government, America's congressmen and senators -- all democratically elected and chosen by Americans, according to America's 227-year-old Constitution -- as an "establishment" that had profited at the expense of "the people." "Their victories have not been your victories," he said. "Their triumphs have not been your triumphs." ..."
"... Most Americans believe that. Eight-five percent of us believe it about Democrats and ninety percent of us believe it about Republicans. They have a rigged system where they decided which of themselves we get to choose between, incumbents are overwhelmingly favored over challengers, and somehow even when we get out to vote nothing much changes. ..."
"... Trump enunciated these commonly known truths, without any desire, intention, capacity, or plan to act on them. I have said what you wished to hear, isn't that enough? But, for all that we badly need Trump far removed from the levers of power, those statements remain true. ..."
She begins by comparing two young German communists who were raised in Russia, in exiled
communist families, and who returned to Soviet-controlled East Germany as members of the ruling
elite. One became disillusioned and defected; the other became head of the Stasi. What made the
difference? Closer to home, she talks about how both Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney had
strongly denounced Donald Trump before the 2016 election. Graham ended up becoming one of
Trump's strongest Senate supporters, while Romney is uniquely hated by the president. What
accounts for the radically different outcomes?
Applebaum writes:
To the American reader, references to Vichy France, East Germany, fascists, and Communists
may seem over-the-top, even ludicrous. But dig a little deeper, and the analogy makes sense.
The point is not to compare Trump to Hitler or Stalin; the point is to compare the
experiences of high-ranking members of the American Republican Party, especially those who
work most closely with the White House, to the experiences of Frenchmen in 1940, or of East
Germans in 1945, or of Czesław Miłosz in 1947. These are experiences of people who
are forced to accept an alien ideology or a set of values that are in sharp conflict with
their own.
Not even Trump's supporters can contest this analogy, because the imposition of an alien
ideology is precisely what he was calling for all along. Trump's first statement as
president, his inaugural address, was an unprecedented assault on American democracy and
American values. Remember: He described America's capital city, America's government,
America's congressmen and senators -- all democratically elected and chosen by Americans,
according to America's 227-year-old Constitution -- as an "establishment" that had profited
at the expense of "the people." "Their victories have not been your victories," he said.
"Their triumphs have not been your triumphs." Trump was stating, as clearly as he possibly
could, that a new set of values was now replacing the old, though of course the nature of
those new values was not yet clear.
She goes on to detail the many ways the Trump administration has overturned the old order.
She talks about how Trump began his administration by insisting on the truth of something that
was easily proven to be a lie: the size of his inauguration crowd. This set a pattern:
These kinds of lies also have a way of building on one another. It takes time to persuade
people to abandon their existing value systems. The process usually begins slowly, with small
changes. Social scientists who have studied the erosion of values and the growth of
corruption inside companies have found, for example, that "people are more likely to accept
the unethical behavior of others if the behavior develops gradually (along a slippery slope)
rather than occurring abruptly," according to a 2009 article in the Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. This happens, in part, because most people have a built-in vision of
themselves as moral and honest, and that self-image is resistant to change. Once certain
behaviors become "normal," then people stop seeing them as wrong.
This process happens in politics, too. In 1947, the Soviet military administrators in East
Germany passed a regulation governing the activity of publishing houses and printers. The
decree did not nationalize the printing presses; it merely demanded that their owners apply
for licenses, and that they confine their work to books and pamphlets ordered by central
planners. Imagine how a law like this -- which did not speak of arrests, let alone torture or
the Gulag -- affected the owner of a printing press in Dresden, a responsible family man with
two teenage children and a sickly wife. Following its passage, he had to make a series of
seemingly insignificant choices. Would he apply for a license? Of course -- he needed it to
earn money for his family. Would he agree to confine his business to material ordered by the
central planners? Yes to that too -- what else was there to print?
After that, other compromises follow. Though he dislikes the Communists -- he just wants
to stay out of politics -- he agrees to print the collected works of Stalin, because if he
doesn't do it, others will. When he is asked by some disaffected friends to print a pamphlet
critical of the regime, however, he refuses. Though he wouldn't go to jail for printing it,
his children might not be admitted to university, and his wife might not get her medication;
he has to think about their welfare. Meanwhile, all across East Germany, other owners of
other printing presses are making similar decisions. And after a while -- without anyone
being shot or arrested, without anyone feeling any particular pangs of conscience -- the only
books left to read are the ones approved by the regime.
Keep this thought in mind for a minute. Let me say here that Applebaum's article is rather
long, and I don't want to quote it at length. I think it's pretty devastating, though I don't
agree with all of it (and will go into that a bit below). I do not at all think it's ridiculous
or offensive for her to use the Soviet Bloc experience as a lens through which to understand
what has been happening in America, politically, these past few years. For one, if I did, I
would be a hypocrite. For another, it really does give her some deep insights. I'm not going to
quote the parts of her piece that I agree with, because there's so much there. When I encourage
you to read the whole thing, I mean it. It's really good, and I think she is mostly
correct.
A note for those who are just coming to this post from Twitter. As longtime readers know, I
was never for Trump, and withheld my vote in 2016, but I was so sick of the GOP Establishment
that I did not identify as a Never Trumper. I was willing to give him a shot. I hate to say it,
but the Never Trumpers have been mostly vindicated. This is not at all to say that I want the
old GOP Establishment back -- I emphatically do not! -- but it turns out that character really
does count. It is the Republican Party's tragedy that the person who broke the back of the
dessicated and intellectually bankrupt old guard was an incompetent sleaze. But here we are.
The one thing that makes me hopeful for conservative politics going forward is that after the
catastrophe of Trump, there will be no return to the status quo. Was it worth the judges? If
you had asked me in January, I would have said, "Maybe so." Now, in June, after the year we
have had, and the way he has utterly failed to rise to the challenges, I would say not.
Back to Applebaum's essay. Here is one very small defense of GOP "collaborators," and why
their situation is different from their would-be counterparts living under dictatorship. The
Republican lawmakers who went along with Trump were responsible to their voters back home. If
they had not supported Trump, they would have been primaried. It is true that a morally
responsible GOP lawmaker would have sooner resigned, or face defeat, rather than seriously
compromise his or her conscience. It does not absolve you to say, "Hey, I was just doing what
my voters wanted me to do." Still, it's important to remember that if there is moral stain for
having collaborated with Donald Trump, the stain is with voters too.
The part of her essay that hits home with me comes in a section in which Applebaum talks
about the rationalizations collaborators use for standing with a political leader they know is
bad news. This is the part:
My side might be flawed, but the political opposition is much worse. When Marshal
Philippe Pétain, the leader of collaborationist France, took over the Vichy
government, he did so in the name of the restoration of a France that he believed had been
lost. Pétain had been a fierce critic of the French Republic, and once he was in
control, he replaced its famous creed -- Liberté, égalité,
fraternité , or "Liberty, equality, fraternity" -- with a different slogan:
Travail, famille, patrie , or "Work, family, fatherland." Instead of the "false idea
of the natural equality of man," he proposed bringing back "social hierarchy" -- order,
tradition, and religion. Instead of accepting modernity, Pétain sought to turn back
the clock.
By Pétain's reckoning, collaboration with the Germans was not merely an
embarrassing necessity. It was crucial, because it gave patriots the ability to fight the
real enemy: the French parliamentarians, socialists, anarchists, Jews, and other assorted
leftists and democrats who, he believed, were undermining the nation, robbing it of its
vitality, destroying its essence. "Rather Hitler than Blum," the saying went -- Blum having
been France's socialist (and Jewish) prime minister in the late 1930s. One Vichy minister,
Pierre Laval, famously declared that he hoped Germany would conquer all of Europe. Otherwise,
he asserted, "Bolshevism would tomorrow establish itself everywhere."
To Americans, this kind of justification should sound very familiar; we have been hearing
versions of it since 2016. The existential nature of the threat from "the left" has been
spelled out many times. "Our liberal-left present reality and future direction is
incompatible with human nature," wrote Michael Anton, in "The Flight 93 Election." The Fox
News anchor Laura Ingraham has warned that "massive demographic changes" threaten us too: "In
some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn't exist
anymore." This is the Vichy logic: The nation is dead or dying -- so anything you can do to
restore it is justified. Whatever criticisms might be made of Trump, whatever harm he has
done to democracy and the rule of law, whatever corrupt deals he might make while in the
White House -- all of these shrink in comparison to the horrific alternative: the liberalism,
socialism, moral decadence, demographic change, and cultural degradation that would have been
the inevitable result of Hillary Clinton's presidency.
Now, wait a minute. Let us note that this "Vichy logic" is exactly the logic
feminists used to justify sticking with Bill Clinton (because Republicans might end abortion).
And it's how practical politics works. Was it Vichy logic when Louisiana Republican voters in
1991 voted for the crook Edwin W. Edwards because his opponent David Duke was intolerable? I
held my nose and voted for EWE, in violation of my conservative beliefs, because I could not
bear to think that an unrepentant Klansman could become governor. I know conservatives who plan
to vote for Biden this November, and are sick about it, because they cannot bear four more
years of Trump.
How do you tell the difference between succumbing to "Vichy logic," and simply being
realistic about the choices in front of you, and choosing the lesser of two evils? If the
choice is between Hitler and liberalism, well, that's no choice at all. But Trump, however bad,
isn't Hitler, or close to it, and it distorts the choice conservatives actually hd, and have,
facing them regarding Trump and his opponents.
For Applebaum, the things liberals and progressives demand are normative. It really is true
that with Democrats in power, pro-abortion extremism will be government policy. If you think
abortion is the extermination of innocent life, then this is a very big deal. Liberals
often mock religious conservatives over our concerns about how gay rights is eroding religious
liberty, putting "religious liberty" in scare quotes, as if the concerns we have are fake. But
they are real, and beyond that, every Democrat in Congress has come out for the Equality Act,
which would write sexual orientation and gender identity into US civil rights law. Liberals
understandably see this as just, and many have no comprehension of why conservatives disagree
that homosexuality and transgenderism are the same thing as race. These are radical
transformations of American law and culture.
Also with immigration: it is perfectly normal for a people to be concerned that immigration
is changing the character of the culture in ways they don't like. The Democrats, broadly
speaking, are for open borders -- and prior to Trump, the GOP was ineffective on the
immigration issue. High rates of immigration change countries permanently. This may be a good
thing, or a bad thing, or a mixed thing -- but it is a really big thing.
What bothers me about this aspect of Applebaum's argument is that she lacks any sympathy for
the conservative point of view, in the sense that she doesn't appear to be aware of how radical
the left has become on cultural issues. There seems to be no room in her moral imagination to
understand how a conservative can despise Trump, but be so afraid of what the Democratic Party
and the cultural left are bringing to the country that they would conclude voting for Trump is
the lesser evil.
Moreover, Applebaum is a fine writer and an insightful thinker, but she is blind to how
liberalism, in its current iteration, strikes many of us on the Right as inclining to soft
totalitarianism. Applebaum is married to Radek Sikorski, a prominent Polish liberal, and is no
doubt fiercely opposed to the views of the Polish politician Ryszard Legutko. But his book
The Demon In Democracy explains
this very well. Let me put it like this: she is blind to how establishment liberals like her
collaborate with the illiberal left, and in so doing violate the principles they supposedly
stand for.
The examples are legion, but I'll speak about them in the present moment. We are watching
right now a fast-moving coup by the illiberal, identity-politics left of American institutions,
aided and abetted by liberal establishmentarians who are too afraid to defend liberal
principles. We have seen the collapse first on college campuses, where administrations have
repeatedly surrendered to emotional demands of protesters. Here, from 2015, is Yale
Prof. Nicholas Christakis trying to defend liberalism, using reason, against an illiberal
mob. He stood alone. Yale's administration backed the mob. This is happening across
academia, and long has been. It has ramped up massively in this past week. It's also happening
in media, and in corporations. Race-conscious, identity-politics progressivism has finally
displaced liberalism -- mostly because liberals of Applebaum's class lacked the courage to
stand on principle.
It's easy for her to see the collaboration of the Republican leadership with the corrupt and
illiberal Trump, but she's blind to the collaboration of her own class with the corruption of
liberalism from the identity-politics left. I don't know Anne Applebaum, and will presume good
faith on her part, so I suspect that she is honestly unaware of how ideological her own class
is, and how frightening they are to a lot of conservative who have felt pushed by what she
calls "Vichy logic" into supporting Trump, simply as self-protection.
Just this morning I heard from a reader who works inside an elite educational institution.
Its students come from the ranks of the most well-off Americans. It is a liberal institution,
in the best sense. It has not had racial problems. Yet its administration, undergoing the same
moral panic that is sweeping the US ruling class now, is considering implementing a strict
regimen of ideological education, under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. He
worries about the future of the institution, and the corruption of its mission by identity
politics. And he's right to worry.
Staffer: Hello, I have another question about racism. I'm wondering to what extent you
think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this
country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a
starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn't racist. I
just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in
our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it's less about the
individual instances of racism, and sort of how we're thinking about racism and white
supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country. And I think particularly as
we are launching a 1619 Project, I feel like that's going to open us up to even more
criticism from people who are like, "OK, well you're saying this, and you're producing this
big project about this. But are you guys actually considering this in your daily
reporting?"
This should have been an easy question to answer, from the point of view of defending
professional journalistic standard. Baquet waffled. Flash-forward to this week, and
the shocking turmoil within the newspaper, the premier journalistic institution in America,
over its publication of Sen. Tom Cotton's op-ed. The woke younger generation within the
paper is in the process of overthrowing the older liberal generation. Baquet and the
Times senior leadership are "collaborating," in the Applebaum sense, with leftists who
have no respect for the liberal order. This kind of thing is happening in elite institutions --
academic, media, entertainment, corporate -- all over America. The George Floyd killing was the
catalyst these radicals needed to consolidate what they have been doing for a very long time,
thanks to the collaboration of the liberal establishment leadership.
To repeat: I think Applebaum's overall essay is mostly correct in her criticism of how GOP
leaders have collaborated with Trump. The history of totalitarianism really is helpful in
illuminating how this works. My objection is that she cannot see how her own left-liberal caste
has been long doing the same thing with the illiberal, identity-politics left, and concealing
from themselves the sellout of old-fashioned liberalism. My upcoming book Live Not By Lies talks about this. It's not going to
be out until September; until then, read Legutko's Demon In Democracy , which explains this phenomenon
well.
1. Lazy dumb historical analogies. Too much of that everywhere.
2. A defense of neocon foreign policy all wrapped up in the flag and presented as
something that every rational decent person would support.
3. Legitimate criticisms of the dishonesty of Trump supporters. This is fine, but you
can also get this everywhere. It doesn't have to be mixed in with parts 1 and 2.
Instead of treating every election as if it's the Battle of the Ages and a loss will be
a permanent result, maybe worry more about fixing what's broken on your side and coming up
with a long term strategy for the next generation.
Yeah, this is one of the fundamental problems with US politics as well as business: lack
of long term thinking. This is why conservatives have been losing the culture war. This
also seems to be the view taken by the Chinese elites in terms of dealing with the US as I
understand it. They plan for the long term and count on us being too distracted by the need
for short term victories.
Let me put it like this: she is blind to how establishment liberals like her collaborate
with the illiberal left, and in so doing violate the principles they supposedly stand for.
This is the heart of the issue. Appelbaum doesn't seem to realize that the illiberal
left is coming for her next.
I thought it was a terrible piece and in part because of her use of the foreign analogies.
As you say, more or less, much of what she describes is normal politics, for bettter or
worse. Sometimes people just pick what they think is the lesser evil. But she thinks it is
worse with Trump. Fine, but she still doesn't need the East German comparison. It is my
same criticism of your soft totalitarianism meme. It is simply a fact of human nature that
most people are conformists and those who seek power or have power try to bully and
discredit those who disagree with them and they will embrace lies that their chosen circle
of people expect them to embrace. As I think you know, C.S. Lewis write about this a lot,
calling it the desire to be part of The Inner Ring. It is a theme in some of his essays and
a central plot element in That Hideous Strength.
You don't need to invoke East Germany or Vichy France or Venezuela. But of course notice
that she picks easy targets, the countries or regimes her clique would agree are bad.
Larison regularly writes about how interventionists have their own inner ring and their
own set of lies and shibboleths that they embrace and Applebaum is clearly one of their
number.
None of this is meant to defend Trump or his lackeys. She is largely right about them,
but she is not as different In her thinking as she wants to think.
Ew: You don't need to invoke East Germany or Vichy France or Venezuela. But of course
notice that she picks easy targets, the countries or regimes her clique would agree are
bad.
Not just her clique-- pretty much all of us in 2020 find those regimes bad. Good grief,
who's going to speak up for the Third Reich? If you want to make an argument that can be
heard across the ideological spectrum you can't rely on examples that only resonate in some
parts of it.
You are completely missing the point. Applebaum picks easy targets because she favors a
different set of dishonest people. You are assuming I am a fan of those governments -- no,
I just recognize cheap analogies when I see them. And Venezuela, however bad the regime, is
there because it is a regime that the Beltway crowd wishes to overthrow. There are
countless bad governments she could have mentioned otherwise.
The fact is that some of her
heroes, like Mitt Romney and John McCain, are part of the interventionist crowd that never
saw a war it didn't want to jump into. Romney even defended waterboarding -- you can google
that. Americans have the political memory of a mayfly, so perhaps don't remember that just
15 years ago people talked as though our torture policy was the slippery slope to fascism,
but some of the people that favored torture and widespread government spying are now
Resistance heroes. There is an irony in people who claim to hate Trump's dishonesty
basically whitewashing recent history for their own rhetorical purposes.
Her piece is a mainstream Beltway fairy tale about how we once had noble public servants
with integrity and then Trump ruined everything. Trump is a disaster, but there is more
than one way to be terrible.
We live in New York which, as you know, is still locked down. Yesterday my wife's stylist,
Lori, came over to do her hair (and gave me a haircut, so I was able to shed the Albert
Einstein look I've been burdened with). And naturally we talked about politics. And the
three of us agreed. Trump is a buffoon and a liar, he had as bad a week as it's possible to
imagine, but we really have no choice.
Because the other side wants to destroy us.
The other side wants to turn this country into South Africa, and I'd have sit on the front
porch with a shotgun across my knees waiting for the worst to happen. Did you read what
Biden said about 10% to 15% of his fellow citizens? That'd be me, my wife and Lori. Anybody
capable of consecutive thought could see that the "TNC" and Jamelle Bouie lines lead to
nothing short of race war, and this past week they almost got it.
I haven't read the Applebaum essay, but if what she says about professional politicians
(and jurists like Barr, let it be noted) is true, where does that leave the people who
voted for him? We're all collaborationists?
I'm taking the day off and just watched Fearless Leader in the Rose Garden. You know the
Democrats are cursing how good the numbers are, and, as Trump says, they're only going to
get better. What happens if Biden wins? I'm sorry, I'll just have to bear with Anne
Applebaum's disgust.
Applebaum's essay strikes me as Product. It is not interesting or sharply observed; there
is nothing original here; the writing is boring and interchangeable with a million other
writers for the Economist, The Atlantic, the New York Times, etc.
All of this stuff has
been said. It reminds me of how many Serious Books are 550 pages long when they could have
been 15. Applebaum's writing is deadly dull, she has never come up with a striking sentence
or telling detail in her life. Everything is cartoonish Nazis and Communists. Everything is
Super Grandiose but in a dull safe bourgeois manner. Her writing is the equivalent of a
million lanyard Northern Virginia McMansions--interchangeable, I Am An Important Person
blandness and soullessness. She has no personality; she has no taste. There is nothing here
but simultaneously hysterical and utterly empty and banal attempts to manipulate; no
curiosity, no humbleness, no love, no individuality to it at all. There are no characters
here; there are people who are functionaries with as much life, as much personality as the
grim, joyless white-paper-producing think tanks they work for. Of course, all that
soullessness and antiseptic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval white-surfaces minimalism is
about euphemizing the countless Iraq Wars and Color Revolutions these kinds of people are
always promoting. The Applebaums of the world may not have been the ones who looted Russia
after the fall of the USSR but they facilitated and covered it up and they do the same for
what is happening in the USA today too. They are the ones who strip-mine nations and gut
their middle classes and cultures for globalization.
What do you find "compelling" about this kind of writing? What is compelling about any
of this kind of thing?
The protestors, the Black Lives Matter people out in the streets yelling and marching.
Straight-up Communists distributing their literature and organizing. The people rioting and
looting and setting fires. The cussed redneck hicks and yokels. Antifa. People who want to
abolish the police. Actual local-level/city cops. QAnon people. Internet natzees. I would
take the side of them ALL, and many others besides, before I would take the side of these
Council on Foreign Relations ghouls like Applebaum, these sterile, soulless globalists and
their lives that are 100% dedicated to manufacturing consent, being apologists for the most
powerful regime in the world and for global finance, these Respectable Analysts and Experts
who work hand in hand with the CIA and the Iraq War neocons and the like. Bring on the
collapse of the "center"; bring on the burning down of police stations, bring it all on,
before allowing these End of History demons to keep doing what they do.
This has been the problem with the " Resistance" all along. Much as I despise Trump and
would never vote for him, the opposition to him was instantly hijacked by the people who
supported endless war and gave us the free trade policies that destroyed millions of jobs.
Worse, people who hate Trump ( and rightly so imo) feel obligated to praise any crappy
dishonest self serving article that says Trump is a bad man.
In some cases, like Eastern Europe in 1944, people only have terrible choices. ( I can
use stupid historical analogies too.). But when it comes to essay writing, we aren't even
talking about voting the lesser evil. There simply is no reason to praise this worthless
crap. Larison, for instance, has absolutely no problem criticizing Trump and he doesn't
have to talk as though our foreign policy before him was run by public spirited citizens
who had the interests of ordinary Americans in mind.
I consider Applebaum a prime exhibit in how adherence to ideology can make basically smart
people stupid. Your line "Applebaum's writing is deadly dull, she has never come up with a
striking sentence or telling detail in her life" reminds me that her first published book
was a travel book about Eastern Europe, and it was well-written and quite evocative, with
an interesting style and observations. Almost nobody read this book, but it stands in stark
contrast to her current heavy-duty political scribblings.
Thanks for taking the time to write this response -- a great contribution.
"I would take the side of them ALL, and many others besides, before I
would take the side of these Council on Foreign Relations ghouls like
Applebaum, these sterile, soulless globalists and their lives that are
100% dedicated to manufacturing consent, being apologists for the most
powerful regime in the world and for global finance, these Respectable
Analysts and Experts who work hand in hand with the CIA and the Iraq War
neocons and the like."
1000 thumbs up.
I agree with every word (except for ACTUALLY burning things down ... let's stick with
metaphorical. :-) )
Trump is a rich Manhattan real estate mogul with his own Boeing 727....he IS part of the
establishment. The hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms have done just fine under him.
He is not a reaction to the corruption of the elites but rather the living embodiment of it
who was able to convince a lot of gullible people otherwise.
Read an interesting observation the other day on a different website:
"I asked a co-woker who grew up in a communist country the difference between here and
there. He says "Growing up in my country if you spoke bad of the government, one morning
no one sees you again. Over here you have every right to protest and speak bad of the
government but no one listens to you."
Anne Applebaum has never written a single word in her life that suggested she had an ounce
of sensitivity. Everything is determined by the needs of the bureaucracy or society of
financiers/global capitalists/billionaire donors she is attached to at that particular
time. The sentences one after another are the products of committee. There is no *soul*
here. What is the point of being a Christian or indeed a person of any religion whatsoever
other than perhaps Pharisaism, and trusting people like this? There is more humanity in
Robespierre or Lenin.
"My objection is that she cannot see how her own left-liberal caste has been long doing the
same thing with the illiberal, identity-politics left, and concealing from themselves the
sellout of old-fashioned liberalism."
This is exactly right. And it's not a simple matter of "both sides do it." It's the fact
that both sides are unable to self-critique to the extent that they see the problem. Is it
simply coincidence that both old-school liberals and traditional (i.e.,non-neocon and
neo-lib) conservatives have been pushed to the margins of their respective parties? I think
that those of us, left and right, who have moved from ideological to non-ideological
iterations of their "sides" may be able to see this better than those that remain
ideologically committed.
I believe that this is why Lasch is such a vital read. He remained a political and
economic leftist even while leaning somewhat right socially, and was thus able to see a lot
of this from the outside, so to speak,and call a spade a spade wherever he saw one. As I
said the other day I'm currently re-reading The Revolt of the Elites , which he
finished not long before he died, and which was published posthumously in 1995. It's
amazing how accurate it was, and how prescient. And it's an excellent read for both left
and right, as he had much to say to both sides. To both right and left partisans of good
will, I say tolle lege. You won't regret it.
"What bothers me about this aspect of Applebaum's argument is that she lacks any
sympathy for the conservative point of view, in the sense that she doesn't appear to be
aware of how radical the left has become on cultural issues."
That's because she thinks you're the radical i.e those who wish continue to stand on the
train tracks of modernity as it comes rushing towards you time after time no matter how
many times the train hits you. Western European and Canadian and Mexican Tories have made
their peace with modernity, she can't understand why those in the East and in America
cannot do the same. To do otherwise is simply following in Petain's footstep's in her mind:
"Pétain had been a fierce critic of the French Republic, and once he was in
control, he replaced its famous creed -- Liberté, égalité,
fraternité, or "Liberty, equality, fraternity" -- with a different slogan: Travail,
famille, patrie, or "Work, family, fatherland." Instead of the "false idea of the natural
equality of man," he proposed bringing back "social hierarchy" -- order, tradition, and
religion. Instead of accepting modernity, Pétain sought to turn back the
clock.
I would agree this example in comparison to Trump is a little overdone because the
Hungarian Army has not taken control of the U.S. and has a fifth-column of traitors working
for it to help them rule the country because they happen to agree with them ideologically.
I remember Tom Fleming once saying only a truly evil person would wish a foreign power to
conquer their land just to see policies it could not get enacted electorally be enacted at
the barrel of a gun. I'm sure he had in mind those Leftists sympathizers to the Soviet
Union but Petain is relevant to that argument as well - a man who saved his country at
Verdun in 1916 basically gave up on it in 1940 because of socialism. He might as well have
given up on the whole world and basically did. Bottom line is a LePen would be ruling
France by now if it wasn't for Vichy because the French hard right is as tainted by their
collaboration as the left was by its seeming sympathy with the Soviets or radical foreign
communists.. Thank God for creating someone like DeGaulle.
You talk a lot about Franco in this regard (the best of bad options) but at least his
rise to power came from a civil war, not from being implanted by conquering foreign power
(although he was certainly aided in winning by those powers). The America Fist movement
rose because of the belief that a foreign power (Great Britain) was using elites and
propaganda to bring the U.S. into a World War for the second time in a row. The
"Conservative Movement" rose in part because of a feeling, not just from intellectuals,
that a foreign power (Soviet Union) was using elites and propaganda to subvert American
democracy. Paleoconservatism rose as a train of thought and inellectual faction in the late
80s and early 90s because it was believed a foreign power (Israel) was using elites and
propaganda to not only subvert democracy and also bring the U.S into war (Iraq). But the
cycle can run the other way too it seems. Witness the Moonies control of certain right-wing
foundations, publications and political organizations in Washington back in the 80s. Or the
neo-Confederate tendency among certain factions of both the right and libertarians. And
now, we have conservatives, who have no problem or feel a kinship to foreign entities like
Russia or the current Polish or Hungarian governments or pro-Russian elements in Ukraine to
the point they, at the very least, don't mind their assistance to undermine their political
enemies.
Ultimately people's patriotism is going to be more powerful than people's ideology. One
can think what they wish or call upon whatever policies suit them. But to ask for
assistance from the outside in order to get it out of sympathy, well my friend the ground
you tread on can easily sink beneath your feet if you do that.
it's not apriori anti-patriotic to ask for foreign intervention into the politics of your
own nation; it really all depends on how unpatriotic you view the other side to be (which
is ultimately based on intuition/the faculty of understanding, and cannot be strictly
proved); and how beholden you become to the foreigners -which is all a matter of detail.
England did not become the slave of the Netherlands when William invaded, nor were the
Irish wrong to request help from the French or Spanish. Franco received aid from Germany
but the Spanish socialists received aid from the Soviet Union.
One of the main problems with applebaum's article is that it does come too close to
implying that republicans are vichy french partisans. No republican or right-winger
believes in replacing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with "work, family, and
fatherland" in the USA (except for me but then again, I'm not a registered republican).
Additionally, as far as I know Vichy France was not fascist, just authoritarian. Summed up,
her essay is just a lazy hit-piece with a varnish of "history" -perfect for the mass
consumption of today's tasteless masses!
Most managerial and "intellectuals" are working for those that control the state (economic,
politic, security) and play on what pleases the hand that feeds... Anne Applebaum is not
different. And I am saying most, because I am not considering Mr. Dreher in that category.
He does honestly struggle like Jacob struggled with the angel before he became Israel (best
rendition is by Thomas Mann in "Joseph and his brothers" and one of the best novels ever).
I am thinking of small prairie town, closed knit, but also very hard in its judgments
about approved and disapproved behavior. That is soft totalitarianism and this is what is
forced on us. The public opinion that embraces a certain set of ideas, while everything
else is sinful. Such a mentality is of course illiberal. But then, liberalism itself
doesn't have that great origins either: the enclosure of the commons (for the purported
goal, disproved, of increasing productivity)...
Again, observed what is never addressed by the woke: class and inequality. Jesus was a
socialist and had a beef against bankers. Something that we should always remember:
https://www.nakedcapitalism...
About poor Trump. He was bound to fail. A Julius Caesar, which was a military and
political genius and an exceptionally accomplished individual, failed in his struggle
against his own oligarchic class. Someone like Caesar in nowadays DC would end up being
assassinated. With Trump we have a total circus created by the ruling Americans.
She continues in this piece that in her view Trump is so bad that it justifies voting
for Biden, irregardless of his flaws, even if they include sexual assault. I don't think
Pollitt represents everyone on the left. However, she probably speaks for many on the left.
The point of me raising this is to illustrate how many on the left are no different from
those on the right. Both are willing put aside moral considerations to either support or
oppose Trump because they are desperate for power and fear what the other side will do if
they have power. It all speaks to how polarized our politics have become.
I should say as well that the comparisons to Hitler, Petain or Eastern European
Communists are patently absurd. I find some of the lengths that educated people go to in
making these extreme comparisons embarrassing. And yes, if Republican politicians who
supported Trump have embraced a "Vichy logic," the same was true for feminists and their
support of Bill Clinton. Let's not forget as well the Democrats have now run three
candidates for president (Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) who as a senator voted for
the Iraq War. I remember during the George W. Bush years (a president that the left
compared to Hitler) when that was actually a really bad thing. It was also interesting to
see how silent much of the left became on war when Obama became president, even when he
launched an unnecessary war in Libya. In other words, the things Appelbaum complains about
with Republicans are actually pretty bipartisan.
It's long -- LONG -- past time for the Respectable, Responsible Adults In the Room to start
developing a feel for who is a fraud and a liar, whose words are bought and paid for by
corrupt or at best non-neutral interests, who speaks "with authority" that is related far
more to pedigree, credentialism, nepotism, and class than it is to real truth or honesty,
who performs shallow and bloodless rituals of respectability that cover for massively
destructive and destabilizing agendas.
I remember all the commenters on here who rushed to defend the truly awful/AWFL Michigan
governor, Gretchen Whitmer, when I have criticized her in the past. Her handling of COVID
has been a bogus show, motivated by owning the proles and racists, and she has done an
about-face 360 now that something more sacred to affluent white female liberal cosmology
has come along, disregarding HER OWN laws and restrictions because *she* values something
else more. You do not have to hear or see people like her in action for too long before you
can tell what's up; the problem is that so many people have no sensitivity, no
discriminating taste, and many others, who I think *do* have this, have repressed it or let
it atrophy in order to go along to get along.
All this talk about "character." What is Applebaum's "character"? She is a cipher for
global capital, for unaccountable bureaucracies, for the political-legal-economic gears
that grind through peoples, nations, countries, resource-extracting and Color-Revolutioning
them. She is a sterile severe cold-as-ice reptilian Elite. Imagine her as depicted by
Dickens or Shakespeare. Imagine Dickens or Shakespeare choosing to include her in something
they wrote. We all know what it would look like.
"developing a feel for who is a fraud and a liar" -this is basically what I mean when I say
that all politics is a clash of axioms and intuitions. It's seldom the "evidence" that is,
the sterile "facts" which produce disagreement but that understanding behind those facts
and which judges of them.
And this understanding cannot actually be itself based on
something external per se (facts), or else an infinite regress or vicious circle ensues,
but has to come from within; from a process whereby one discovers their sleeping but innate
ideas.
Ultimately the struggle of politics is a clash between people who are more awake to
these innate ideas and those who are asleep or less awake.
I have no more desire to hear from Anne Applebaum on any subject than I have the desire to
hear from Bush the Lesser on any subject, or Bill Clinton. She is, however fine her prose
may be (though I am not a fan), an apparatchik and apologist for a neoliberal, End of
History order that has failed, and failed comprehensively, for the entirety of my adult
life, and I'm 46. It is tedious to recite the catechism of its failures and crimes,
I'll
only say that she strikes me as being like Russian liberals, the running dogs and lackeys
of the oligarchs who looted the country in the 90s, and who, to this day, in unguarded
moments, aver that the reason Russia is not a "normal" country, ie., one where they rule,
is because the Russian lumpenproles were not made to suffer *enough* during the 90s.
Their schtick, and Applebaum's, combines the elitism of an Ayn Rand, the hauteur and pretension
of a tenured academic, and the narcissism and preening condescension of cultural elites.
The problem is always that people like her have too little power to impose their wills on
the world, and the victims of her will too much power to resist that imposition. The Devil
take her, and may her memory perish.
I have no need to choose between the dying liberal order and Trump, as I have no need to
choose between Lucifer and Baphomet.
So just because neoliberals have been wrong about literally every single issue for the last
three decades, you're saying we shouldn't listen to them?................Okay, fine I'll
grant you that point. But if she's so wrong about everything, why is she a member of the
globalist elite?
" ...was an unprecedented assault on American democracy and American values.
Remember: He described America's capital city, America's government,
America's congressmen and senators -- all democratically elected and chosen
by Americans, according to America's 227-year-old Constitution -- as an
"establishment... "
Ah yes, it's always an "assault on democracy" when liberals lose a democratic election.
And what's more predictable than an Establishment liberal denouncing ttacks on the
Establishment that she and her friends nurture and prosper from. Do Applebaum and her ilk
even realize how absurd they sound?
I'm glad I read Applebaum's book on the Gulag years before I knew anything else about
her personally or her politics and take on more contemporary issues (I even assumed that
she must be a conservative - after all, it was generally only conservatives who thought
things like the Gulag and Communist crimes were worth investigating and writing about,
while the Left generally ignored or made excuses for them). My stomach churns after a
couple paragraphs of liberal Establishment self-righteousness that oozes from every page of
her more recent journalistic forays.
I hope Poland is listening more to its Legutkos than its Applebaum-Sikorskis.
Be it Applebaum or Dreher, what either refuses to discuss is class or wealth privilege.
Trump reached out to working class citizens while all the liberals or conservatives were
peddling was, in was in the words of the honorable Elijah Muhammad; ..."Pie in the sky when
you die by and by."
My hopes was realized when the Bushes and Clinton were banished only to
have that apparatchik in chief Joe Biden nominated. Applebaum is only trying to justify her
sinecures. A real start to reform would be to end tax exempt status for all organizations
and lift the cap on FICA taxes. I can only assume real reform is Pie in the Sky.
" What bothers me about this aspect of Applebaum's argument is that she lacks any sympathy
for the conservative point of view, in the sense that she doesn't appear to be aware of how
radical the left has become on cultural issues."
I don't know if this is true of the author you quite but let's give you the benefit of
the doubt and say you are correct about her. You do the exact same thing Rod. You are blind
to the hard totalitarianism of the right we are witnessing as we speak. You don't speak out
about all these cops running around DC with no identification at all. The only reason to
have cops unidentified it to allow them to abuse people with impunity. You're quick to pump
the breaks on things like the shooting of Arbery, calling for more information but when you
see something you claim as an outrage on the left, you don't call for that same
restraint.
This is a truism of right wing publications: complaining about ideological bias in
mainstream media and universities is basically a full time job for conservatives. But there
are zero conservative institutions which are set up in opposition to the mainstream ones
that set out to actually be fair and balanced. Every single one of them, from the
conservative colleges to the conservative media outlets are set up as biased to the
extreme, far more extreme than any mainstream outlet or university. There is no Ross
Douthat, David Brooks, Bret Stevens left wing equivalent on any conservative news platform
of any note in America. Schools run by conservatives like Liberty University don't respect
the right of students to speak freely. The school administration has veto power over the
student news paper. And they also don't allow liberal groups on campus. Papers run by
conservatives don't post articles written by AOC, unlike the NYT which just posted the Tom
Cotton garbage article.
I won't deny for a second that big name universities and journalism has a liberal bias.
But at least they hire people that YOU respect as representing your views like Ross
Douthat. There isn't a white liberal, a black person, a non-Cuban Hispanic etc who
represents the views of major factions of those groups on any conservative campus or
conservative publication. And Fox News IS the mainstream media as well. It's bigger than
any other cable outlet by far. It isn't some fringe place.
You just named three Obama loving white guys who may be conservative by New York standards
ten years ago, but now worship at the feet of Big LGBT and think that illegal immigrants
are our superiors. There are plenty of their opposite number with conservative
publications.
A reminder, that a week ago, you would be killing grandma, if you opened Churchers or went
to do a cancer check-up. What norms? There are no norms. Do you honestly believe that any
norm, any constitutional principle wouldn't be discarded tomorrow, if it got in a way of
managerial classes wishes or ideology? Is there any empirical proof, that norms matter?
Because there is a lot of it, that they don't.
Not even Trump's supporters can contest this analogy, because the imposition of an alien
ideology is precisely what he was calling for all along.
Trump's "ideology" was standard Republican tax-cuts + angry tweets. Also he said Iraq
War was a mistake - that's what Never Trumpers really hated. Media called him
"presidential" when he ordered military strikes in Syria. That's what's good and normal for
president.
He described America's capital city, America's government, America's congressmen and
senators -- all democratically elected and chosen by Americans, according to America's
227-year-old Constitution -- as an "establishment" that had profited at the expense of
"the people."
People thinking their politicians are corrupt and out to enrich themselves is apparently
shocking to her. Amazing. Maybe she should watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
Politicians get elected by saying that their opponents are corrupt and they'll fix
stuff.
She talks about how Trump began his administration by insisting on the truth of something
that was easily proven to be a lie: the size of his inauguration crowd.
Bush lied - people died. I'm old enough to remember, when US invaded Iraq over "weapons
of mass destruction". But, sure, inaguration crowd size is so important.
There might be some insights in her article, but I just couldn't get through Pravda part
of it.
I have finally stopped considering AA's fanatic globalist opinion on populism/liberalism
after her recent essay on Orbán in which she erred in about every statement she
made, including the anticipated health crisis in Hungary due to Covid (whereas Hungary is
amongst the best performers in controlling the epidemic), and Orbán's "coup
d'état" (the Parliament discussed the cessation of the special legislation earlier
this week. No "sorry" from AA, of course).
The Atlantic
I read the essay, and while she may well be an expert, it falls completely flat. I'm sorry,
but the idea that figures of Trump's White House - who have complete free will - are eerily
similar to political figures in Vichy or East Germany - who had guns to their heads, to
some extent - is simply not on. Her entire argument derives from an analogy that is, in all
frankness, nuts.
And as much as I have great disdain for many at National Review, as Ramesh Ponnuru
points out, Applebaum's comparison of "Vichy apocalypticism" to the Barr/Pompeo/Pence trio
is simply ridiculous.
It is not, in any sense of a realistic historical sense, "pretty devastating".
One thing which occurs to me is that we forget that the SJWs are mainly younger people. And
their wokeness is new to them. Because it is new to them, it must be new to everyone else.
Their warrior mentality is their first foire into politics. Once they start paying more
taxes, they will become more conservative . At least that is what a neighbor told me when I
was railing against the Vietnam war.
While I am not a conservative in today's us of the word, I am more balanced and fair in
my overall political views than I was in my protest years. I found relevance in being
against the establishment.
Heck I voted for Reagan. And I was good with Clinton being removed from office. The SJW
will Peter out. And became wiser, just like Rod has. And everyone else who agrees with him.
We are the establishment now.
What Applegate gets right, and what Rod gets wrong, is comparing Trump to anyone else.
He is in a class of one. He is incomparable. The Republicans don't get that. This makes
them think that they are being reasonable when they say"but Obama". Trump is that much of a
failed human being.
"The point is not to compare Trump to Hitler or Stalin"
That would work better if people on the left hadn't spent so much time saying he (and
every other Republican candidate for President since WWII were Hitler.
"The process usually begins slowly, with small changes. Social scientists who have
studied the erosion of values and the growth of corruption inside companies have found, for
example, that "people are more likely to accept the unethical behavior of others if the
behavior develops gradually (along a slippery slope) rather than occurring abruptly,"
according to a 2009 article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. This happens,
in part, because most people have a built-in vision of themselves as moral and honest, and
that self-image is resistant to change. Once certain behaviors become "normal," then people
stop seeing them as wrong."
The process did begin slowly, with small changes. Trump is just the latest in a long
line of ridiculous liars, and people are acting like he's so new and different... "Depends
on what the meaning of IS is."
The Trump Presidency is the result of the process she's talking about, not the cause or
start of it.
"It is true that a morally responsible GOP lawmaker would have sooner resigned, or face
defeat, rather than seriously compromise his or her conscience"
Is that a joke? We've had a dearth of "morally responsible lawmakers" at the nationally
level, in every party, for decades. Suddenly, we notice and talk about it?
You talked about explicitly scapegoating Trump for these riots in a recent post, but you
and so many others have been scapegoating him for these kinds of things all along. The
problems aren't new. He's just not putting the production values into the lies you are used
to swallowing from the career politicians in every party.
"My objection is that she cannot see how her own left-liberal caste has been long doing
the same thing with the illiberal, identity-politics left, and concealing from themselves
the sellout of old-fashioned liberalism."
And my complaint about you would be very similar. The stuff you complain about regarding
Trump is boringly normal (for politicians), and has been for *at least* 2 decades (and
really, on most of it, for generations... or maybe forever).
Of course that doesn't make it good, or even OK. But where were these complaints all
along?
Applebaum is a globalist mouthpiece, whose husband is Polish politician that wants to sell
out Polish freedom to the EU.
This is all projection from her, as she and her liberal fellow travelers have been
othering all those that oppose them and excusing the abuses of her own side for decades.
Wasn't the white Democrat playbook before the Civil Rights Era about utilizing Southern
bigots for political power?
The opposition to Trump is based upon policy, not personality. Any other Republican that
attempted the same agenda would be demonized and attacked the same way. Again, Trump could
act like Jeb and Anne Applebaum and her ilk would still be screaming "facism!"
How do we know it? Because they have been doing it since the 1940s.
The difference is that every other Republican would cave. Reagan caved and named Bush as
his VP. He also caved and gave us amnesty. He caved as governor and legalized abortion.
When Trump wins reelection, these riots will look like a Sunday picnic. And it won't be
organic, but pushed by the same folks as these.
Applebaum's story about publishing houses and printers in East Germany is vivid and moving.
It distresses me, though, that she apparently cannot understand that, for many of us
religious folks, there's an uncanny resemblance between the position of the East German
publisher or printer and, say, the position of the Colorado baker who's being compelled to
deliver messages he fundamentally opposes.
His bakery hasn't been nationalized; he tries to
conduct his business according to his deeply held beliefs; he may even be "a responsible
family man with two teenage children and a sickly wife." Eventually his refusal to comply
will likely have repercussions on his family; if his children share his values (and maybe
even if they don't), it seems increasingly likely that they will face difficulties in
accessing the best schools and getting hired by the best companies. Even if Applebaum
thinks the cases are distinguishable -- and they are in several respects, though they do
rhyme -- does she not have enough empathy to understand why some folks might prefer the
illiberalism of Donald Trump to the illiberalism of contemporary liberalism?
As to her concern about Trump calling out the establishment for serving their own
interests rather than those of the American people, come on! It's the establishment that
represents "American democracy and American values"? That would be news to many, many
Americans, of all parties and none.
Is Anne Applebaum going to write about how one political party in this country overhyped a
virus only for their own political benefit and to hurt their political opponents? And that
this would have gone on for months if their dumber followers were not presented with a
flimsy excuse to riot and loot?
Applebaum's article is incorrect on so many fronts. Putting the word collaboration in
quotation marks is correct. Applebaum starts with the definition "to help an enemy country
or an occupying power." None of this is what's happening with the Republicans that she
talks about in the article. Clearly Trump is not an enemy or part of an occupying power.
Since she can't make her point about collaboration with that definition, she adds
additional incorrect meanings to the definition: that collaboration "carries an implication
of treason, betrayal of one's nation, of one's ideology, of one's morality, of one's
values."
The use of the word collaboration is to pinpoint the "help" being given to a foreign
occupying power," under which conditions we could possibly make judgements about treason
and immorality. Without the foreign nation element, these additional characterisations are
a separate issue. Applebaum also says "high ranking members of the American Republican
Party....are people who are forced to accept an alien ideology or set of values." No.
Presume they can resign at any time. She should have stuck with calling them "careerists,"
as she did earlier in the article.
Finally, her whole idea of using the Vichy or East German governments as "analogies" is
completely erroneous, not withstanding that she agrees (?) Trump isn't Stalin or Hitler.
But she wants us to think maybe Trump is in the same league "because the imposition of an
alien ideology is precisely what he (Trump) was calling for all along." The case can't be
made that an "alien" (whatever that is) ideology is analogous to an enemy occupying power.
It just can't. Her article is more subversive and dangerous than those she's attempting to
smear.
Isn't she the same Anne Applebaum who was trying to give credence to the #RussiaGate farce
that not just distracted Trump and the country from actual problems, but led to so much bad
reactionary foreign policies? Like pushing Russia into the arms of China? No thanks. It's
like getting a lesson in democracy from Iraq War propagandists.
"The Democrats, broadly speaking, are for open borders -- and prior to Trump, the GOP was
ineffective on the immigration issue."
Yeah, that's true about the Democrats, but let's take a moment to remember how we got
here. The Democrats used to be much more moderate on immigration. Many Democrats in
congress, including Obama, Clinton, and Schumer voted for the initial creation of a border
fence. Obama famously deported high numbers of illegal immigrants throughout his term.
What changed? Donald Trump happened. After a presidential campaign where Trump made
anti-immigrant rhetoric a centerpiece, and, once in office, enacted pointlessly cruel
policies just to signal that he was "getting tough" on immigration, any kind of immigration
enforcement became anathema on the left. Now that leftward shift of the Democrats is being
used to justify further support for Trump.
You can say the reason for the shift doesn't matter, but you should at least be mindful
of how this feedback loop is working.
He described America's capital city, America's government, America's
congressmen and senators -- all democratically elected and chosen by
Americans, according to America's 227-year-old Constitution -- as an
"establishment" that had profited at the expense of "the people." "Their
victories have not been your victories," he said. "Their triumphs have
not been your triumphs."
Most Americans believe that. Eight-five percent of us believe it about Democrats and
ninety percent of us believe it about Republicans. They have a rigged system where they
decided which of themselves we get to choose between, incumbents are overwhelmingly favored
over challengers, and somehow even when we get out to vote nothing much changes.
Trump enunciated these commonly known truths, without any desire, intention, capacity,
or plan to act on them. I have said what you wished to hear, isn't that enough? But, for
all that we badly need Trump far removed from the levers of power, those statements remain
true.
James Mattis and other generals have sent the political class into delirium with their
Trump criticism, but there are better voices for this moment than the authors of America's
forever wars
A procession of decorated former U.S. military leaders has spoken out in recent days to
gravely denounce President Trump and his unmistakably authoritarian response to the
demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice sparked by the death of George
Floyd.
James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general,
accused Trump of shredding the Constitution with the violent removal of protesters
outside the White House so that Trump could stage a photo op. Mattis, who was Trump's first
secretary of defense, said Americans were "witnessing the consequences of three years without
mature leadership."
John Allen, a retired Marine Corps four-star general and former commander of U.S. forces
in Afghanistan, warned that
the "slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020," the
day of Trump's crackdown and photo op. "Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning
of the end of the American experiment."
Mike Mullen, a retired Navy admiral and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the highest ranking military position in the country,
penned an essay titled "I Cannot Remain Silent" in which he wrote that Trump's conduct
"laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the
leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further
politicizing the men and women of our armed forces."
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
"... People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly. ..."
U.S. -- A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction
with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a
foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.
People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East
or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the
military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the
foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.
"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are
really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone
strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't
matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get
them there on the frontlines?"
"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts
who are just there for the paycheck," he added.
Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly
ceased.
Note: The Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its
truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.
The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly
6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from
the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just
the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.
If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.
Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
Trump's threat to deploy the military here
is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction from military officers to
the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
According to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched,
the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly
intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
Trump's threat
to deploy the military here is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction
from military officers to the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense
referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was
making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the
language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's
tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a
deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the
normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in
the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless
and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this
time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he
inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of
faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019Non-Agreement Capable, Or Agreement Incapable, Or...
Agreement-unworthy, or.... I didn't find many English-language report on Putin's last week
interview on this issue:
We knew this all along, didn't we? It is not just about personalities, however
repulsive in his narcissism and lack of statesmanship Obama was. It is systemic, no matter who
comes to power to the Oval Office--it will make no difference. No difference, whatsoever. What
is known as US power (political) elite has been on the downward spiral for some time and, in
some sense, the whole Epstein
affair with serious pedophilia charges, not to mention an unspeakable slap on the wrist in
which this well-connected pervert was let go ten years ago, is just one of many indications of
a complete moral and cognitive decomposition of this so called "elite" which continues to
provide one after another specimens of human depravity. Remarkably, as much as I always feel
nauseated when seeing GOPers, it is impossible to hide the fact that Epstein's clients in their
majority are mostly associated with putrid creatures from the so called "left", with Bill
Clinton featuring prominently in the company of this pervert.
There were some attempts to even conceive a possibility of somehow "progressives" and
"conservatives" getting together in their condemnation of this heinous crime (yeah, yeah, I
know, Presumption of Innocence).
Doesn't it sound wonderful, warm and fuzzy, or too good to be true? It sure does,
because, as much as most American elite "conservatives" are not really conservatives, what
passes as "progressive" in the United States is PRIMARILY based on sexual deviancy, including
implicit promotion of pedophilia by "intellectual class", and "environmental" agenda, period!
Everything else is secondary. Those who think that actual conservatism (not a caricature it is
known in the United States) has anything to discuss with the so called "progressives"--they
unwittingly support this very "progressive" cause which, in its very many manifestations, is a
realization of the worst kind of suppression of many millennia old natural, including
biological, order of things and, in the end, elimination of normality as such--a future even
Orwell would have had difficulty describing.
Of course, Pinkerton gets some flashes of common sense, when states that:
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural
norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious
economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and
governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely
far away from beguiling pleasuredomes.
Well, he puts it very crudely, but I see where he is at least trying to get it
from. I will add, until nation, as in American nation, recognizes itself as a nation, as people
who have common history, culture and mission, thus, inevitably producing this aforementioned
healthy social and cultural norming--no amount of wishful thinking or social-economic
doctrine-mongering will help. There is no United States without European-keen, white Christian,
heterosexual folk, both with acutely developed sense of both masculinity and femininity,
period. But this is precisely the state of the affairs which American "progressives" are
fighting against; this is the state of the affairs which they must destroy be that by
imposition of suffocating political correctness, the insanity of multi-gender and LGBT
totalitarianism, or by criminal opening of the borders to anyone, who, in the end, will vote
for the Democratic Party. You cannot negotiate with such people. In the end, WHO is going to
negotiate? A cowardly, utterly corrupt, current GOPers and geriatric remnants of Holy
Reaganites? Really? Ask how many of them are Mossad assets and are in the pockets of rich
Israeli-firsters and Gulfies?
True "Left" economics, which seeks more just distribution (not re-distribution) of wealth,
based on a fusion of economic models and types of property, cannot exist within cultural
liberal paradigm of "privileged" minorities, be them racial or sexual ones, aided by massive
grievance-generating machine--it is not going to last. Both economic and social normality can
exist ONLY within cohesive nation and that, due to activity on both nominal sides (in reality
it is the same) of American political spectrum, has been utterly destroyed. The mechanism of
this destruction is rather simple and it comes down, in the end, to the, pardon my French,
number of ass-holes populating unit-volume (density, that is) of political space in America. It
goes without saying that such a density in the US reached deadly toxic levels, and Russiagate
coup, Epstein's Affair, or the parade of POTUSes with the maturity levels of high school kids
are just numerous partial manifestations of what one can characterize as the end of the rope.
After all, who would be making any agreements with representatives of the system which is
rotting and decomposing?
Paul Craig Roberts penned today a good piece: The
Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written . I have to disagree somewhat with
PCR's one assertion:
Europeans Are as Dumbshit as Americans
I would pause a little here. Yes and no. Here is Colonel Wilkerson who talks about
both wealth (starts roughly at 14:00) and about other very important strategic and operational
fact: overwhelming majority of weapons on hands today are among those who either support Trump
openly or simply had it with system in general.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kZA2yIFkhKg/0.jpg
And here is the issue: my bets are on people with military backgrounds, who had first hand
experience with military organization (standard manuals, combat manuals et al) and have
operational and command experience in their conflict with American Social Justice Warriors (you
know--"progressives") and other openly terrorist "progressive" organizations such as Antifa. At
least ruined Portland started to do something
about it . Is there any real left left in the US? And I don't mean this a-hole Bernie
Sanders.
And here is my rephrasing of Tolstoy's conclusion to War and Peace: there are too many
ass-holes in American politics today , very many of them being so called "progressives"
. This number must be reduced by all legal means today, and if American ass-holes can
work together terrorizing majority of good, not ass-hole people, what's precluding those good
people to work together? Nothing, except for the rotting corpse of GOP which had audacity to
call itself "conservative". If not, all is lost and we do not want to live in the world which
will come. And the guns will start speaking. UPDATE : 07/11/19
Oh goody, do they read me or is it one of those moments when, in Lenin's description of
Revolutionary Situation, economic slogans transform into political ones? Evidently Catholic
Conservative Michael Warren speaks in unison with Lenin and me, with both me and Warren
certainly not being Marxists or "communists". Here is what Warren has to say today:
It is a very loaded statement. It is also not an incorrect one. It is also
relevant to what I preach for years, decades really, that history of the so called "communism"
in USSR was a conservative history--a transition from depravity and corruption of Russian
Imperial "elites" to what resulted in the mutated nationalism of sorts in late 1930s and led to
the defeat of Nazism, historically unprecedented restoration of the destroyed country and then
breaking out into space. But that is a separate story--in USSR, as it is the case in Russia
today, sexual perversion and deviancy are not looked at lightly. Nor are, in general, "liberal
values" which are precisely designed to end up with the legitimization of pedophilia--a long
held, and hidden, desire of Western
"elites" . Guess why such an obsession with, realistically, literary mediocrity of
Nabokov's Lolita by Western moneyed and "intellectual" class. Who in their own mind,
unless one is a forensic psychiatrist or detective, would be interested in such a topic, not to
mention writing a book on it, not to mention a variety of Hollywood and, in general, Western
cinematography artsy class making scores of Lolita movies? Each time I read Lolita, in
both Russian and English, I felt an urgent desire to take a shower after reading this
concoction. I guess, I am not "sophisticated" enough to recognize appeals of this type of
"art". As Warren notes:
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we
discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on
minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be
furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. This is
how revolutions are born. America is reaching the point where, 200 years ago, a couple French
peasants begin eyeing the Bastille. The question is, can conservatives channel that outrage
into serious reform before it's too late? Can we call out the fetid, decadent elites within our
own ranks ? Are we prepared to hold our own "faves" to account -- even Trump himself?
Alas, it's only a matter of time until we find out.
In this, I, essentially an atheist, and a conservative Catholic, are speaking in
the same voice.
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria,
Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer
knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies
killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and
elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern
American warfare. In the former, only a
few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely,
hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an
exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just
one American soldier died in combat, compared to
more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children
starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S.
complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment
sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age
levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example,
sifting through the Department of Labor's
statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones.
That
outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and
outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth.
Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more
satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more
confounding losses in
Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old
notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now
killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine,
Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars
combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer
celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
"... In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly cooped by neocons, but still ..."
"... The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot water. ..."
One plausible hypothesis is that Obama administration decided to revenge Flynn
maneuver to foil Obama last move -- the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which stated
neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA. He explicitly asked Russians not to retaliate and I
would understand why Obama did not like this move.
In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration
after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help
Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly
cooped by neocons, but still
The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for
Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a
criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot
water.
Sound like wishful thinking. Looks like cutting US military budget is impossible as "Full
spectrum Dominance" doctrine is still in place and neocons are at the helm of the USA foreign
policy. COVID-19 or not COVID-19.
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget
would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive
deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for
higher defense budgets have
warned that the defense budget
is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally
convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible
cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for
income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of
Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the
threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron
bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so
far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a
"rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion
appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but
Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee
said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is
true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out
of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011,
the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well,
when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a
fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders,
making it possible to put a lid
on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit,
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget
Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover
both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the
defense budget
began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go
down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of
what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic
spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to
escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real
discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see
their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very
much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to
see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions
they do. It's about something I called
the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however,
defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant,
relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the
community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft
on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points
the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and
projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that,
presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces
(Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut
Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense
authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending
advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and
community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and
community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape
to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates
somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major
impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis
into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep
cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the
advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting
priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one
that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate
change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very
large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron
Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here,
particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are
critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can
begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader
priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly
on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells
you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss
withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just
picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells
you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss
withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just
picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who
scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn
leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who
scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn
leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn
transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama
administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn
transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama
administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay
Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for
General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And
@JoeBiden was right by
his side. END
Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for
General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And
@JoeBiden was right by
his side. END
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm
shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when
what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake
news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm
shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when
what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake
news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it.
Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and
2 others That's
why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the
real documents and substantiate what they say.
Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and
2 others That's
why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the
real documents and substantiate what they say.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released the transcripts between
then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kisliak,
which revealed that Flynn asked Russia to take "reciprocal" against sanctions levied by the
Obama administration over interference in the 2016 US election.
" I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to
only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get
into something that have to escalate tit-for-tat," Flynn told Kisyak.
12/23/16 - Flynn relays his goals about the Russia/US relationship.
Flynn: "We will not achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other
against this radical Islamist crowd."
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Former FBI agent Peter Strzok used that conversation
as a basis to continue his investigation into whether Flynn was a potential Russian agent,
according to recently unsealed court documents. The agency used the call as leverage to try to
get the retired general to admit to a violation of the Logan Act - an obscure old law nearly a
quarter-century old which prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomacy (which, as
it turns out, is standard practice among members of transitioning administrations).
FBI agent Joe Pientka, who interviewed Flynn with agent Strzok, wrote in his interview notes
that he did not believe Flynn was lying to them during the interview - while other recently
unsealed notes revealed that the FBI considered a perjury trap against Flynn to "
get him fired ."
If there was a preexisting improper relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia,
@GenFlynn
would never have needed an official call with Kislyak to prevent the disaster the Obama admin
was creating.
It's common sense if you're an honest broker.
-- John 'Murder Hornet' Cardillo
(@johncardillo) May 29,
2020
After the FBI's malfeasance came to light, the DOJ moved to drop the case against Flynn -
which US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has refused to do - instead asking a retired federal
judge, John Gleeson, to provide legal arguments as to whether Sullivan should hold Flynn in
criminal contempt for pleading guilty to FBI agents - which he now says he did not do.
Following the release of the transcripts , Sen. Grassley said in a statement: "Lt. General
Flynn, his legal team, the judge and the American people can now see with their own eyes
– for the first time – that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole
time was totally bunk. There was nothing improper about his call, and the FBI knew it. "
The transcripts show that Flynn was acting in his country's best interests, and his only
crime was bruising the fragile ego of the Obama team and their pathetic foreign policy
https://t.co/P3nuifreUI
The administration also took off the gloves with China over U.S. listings by mainland
companies that fail to follow U.S. securities laws. This came after the Commerce Department
finally moved to limit access by Huawei Technologies to high-end silicon chips made with U.S.
lithography machines. The trade war with China is heating up, but a conflict was inevitable and
particularly when it comes to technology.
At the bleeding edge of 7 and 5 nanometer feature size, American tech still rules the world
of semiconductors. In 2018, Qualcomm confirmed its next-generation Snapdragon SoC would be
built at 7 nm. Huawei has already officially announced its first 7nm chip -- the Kirin 980. But
now Huawei is effectively shut out of the best in class of custom-made chips, giving Samsung
and Apple a built-in advantage in handsets and network equipment.
It was no secret that Washington allowed Huawei to use loopholes in last year's blacklist
rules to continue to buy U.S. sourced chips. Now the door is closed, however, as the major
Taiwan foundries led by TSMC will be forced to stop custom production for Huawei, which is
basically out of business in about 90 days when its inventory of chips runs out. But even as
Huawei spirals down, the White House is declaring financial war on dozens of other listed
Chinese firms.
President Donald Trump said
in an interview with Fox Business News that forcing Chinese companies to follow U.S.
accounting norms would likely push them to list in non-U.S. exchanges. Chinese companies that
list their shares in the U.S. have long refused to allow American regulators to inspect their
accounting audits, citing direction from their government -- a practice that market authorities
here have been unwilling or unable to stop.
The attack by the Trump Administration on shoddy financial disclosure at Chinese firms is
long overdue, but comes at a time when the political evolution in China is turning decidedly
authoritarian in nature and against any pretense of market-oriented development. The rising
power of state companies in China parallels the accumulation of power in the hands of Xi
Jinping, who is increasingly seen as a threat to western-oriented business leaders. The trade
tensions with Washington provide a perfect foil to crack down on popular unrest in Hong Kong
and discipline wayward oligarchs.
The latest moves by Beijing to take full control in Hong Kong are part of the more general
retrenchment visible in China. "[P]rivate entrepreneurs are increasingly nervous about their
future," writes Henny Sender in the Financial Times . "In many cases, these
entrepreneurs have U.S. passports or green cards and both children and property in America. To
be paid in U.S. dollars outside China for their companies must look more tempting by the day."
A torrent of western oriented Chinese business leaders is exiting before the door is shut
completely.
The fact is that China's position in U.S. trade has retreated as nations like Mexico and
Vietnam have gained. Mexico is now America's largest trading partner and Vietnam has risen to
11th, reports Qian Wang of Bloomberg News . Meanwhile, China has dropped from 21 percent
of U.S. trade in 2018 to just 18 percent last year. A big part of the shift is due to the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact, which is expected to accelerate a return of production to North
America. Sourcing for everything from autos to semiconductors is expected to rotate away from
China in coming years.
China abandoned its decades-old practice of
setting a target for annual economic growth , claiming that it was prioritizing goals such
as stabilizing employment, alleviating poverty and preventing risks in 2020. Many observers
accept the official communist party line that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic made it
almost impossible to fix an expansion rate this year, but in fact the lasting effects of the
2008 financial crisis and the aggressive policies of President Trump have rocked China back on
its heels.
As China becomes increasingly focused inward and with an eye on public security, the
economic situation is likely to deteriorate further. While many observers viewed China's "Belt
& Road" initiative as a sign of confidence and strength, in fact it was Beijing's attempt
to deal with an economic realignment that followed the 2008 crisis. The arrival of President
Trump on the scene further weakened China's already unstable mercantilist economic model, where
non-existent internal demand was supposed to make up for falling global trade flows. Or at
least this was the plan until COVID-19.
"Before the Covid-19 outbreak, many economists were expecting China to set a GDP growth
target of 6% to 6.5% to reflect the gradual slowdown in the pace of expansion over the past few
years," reports Caixin Global . "Growth slid to 6.1% in 2019 from 6.7% in 2018. But the
devastation caused by the coronavirus epidemic -- which saw the economy contract 6.8%
year-on-year in the first quarter -- has thrown those forecasts out of the window."
Out of the window indeed. Instead of presiding over a glorious expansion of the Chinese
sphere of influence in Asia, Xi Jinping is instead left to fight a defensive action
economically and financially. The prospective end of the special status of Hong Kong is
unlikely to have any economic benefits and may actually cause China's problems with massive
internal debt and economic malaise to intensify. Beijing's proposed security law would reduce
Hong Kong's separate legal status and likely bring an end to the separate currency and business
environment.
I honestly don't know if this article is or is not correct... But I wonder...
AmConMag publishes a major anti-China article on most days now. What is happening? What is
the mechanics of this... "phenomenon"?
A place where where Americans opposed to U.S. hegemony because it's harm on everyone
without being overwhelmed by the Neocon acolytes where can we go, anyone ever try to get a
word in on foxnews ?
If you try to reach out to twitter on Tom Cotton or Mike Waltz dismisses you as a
'Chinese govt / Iranian / Russian bot'
You know what, God will judge us and we will all be equal in he eyes of Him
Why should I be afraid. Why should I be silent. And thank you TAC for the opportunity to
post.
I too came here for interesting commentary, - and even better comments... five years ago or
so?
I found the original articles mostly okay, often too verbose, meandering for my taste but
the different point of view made them worthwhile. The readers' comments, now that is
priceless. That brings the real value. That's where we learn. That's where I learn, anyway.
:)
It never occurred to me to message to any politician, I think my voice would be lost in the
cacophony.
The target of my curiosity is that when all these articles start to point in one direction
(like belligerence toward China) how does it happen? Is there a chain of command? It seems
coordinated.
It's possible to be anti-neocon, for their being too ideological, and not pacifist. That is
basically my position.
I agree with most here on Russia and Iran. They are not threats, and in specific cases
should be partners instead. Agree on American imperialism being foolish and often evil. I
believe in a multipolar world as a practical matter. I don't take a soft view of China
however. I believe they do intend to replace nefarious American hegemony with their own
relevant, but equally nefarious, flavor of hegemony. There are few countries in the world
with such a pathological distrust of their own people. I truly believe that country is a
threat that needs to be checked at least for a couple of decades by the rest of the
world.
As to the editorial direction, I think it is merely capitalism. China's perception in
the world is extremely bad lately. I would fully expect the always somewhat Russophile
environment here to seize the moment to say 'see! Russia is not a true threat! It's China!'
RT itself soon after Trump's election I recall posted an article complaining about total
disregard for Chinese election meddling.
You can see when the people holding the leash give a tug on the collar. And it's clear that
the GOP is feeling the need for a warlike political environment.
The most blatant presstitution example, of course, was the National Review, going from
'Never Trump' to full time servicing.
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's
share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget
by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the
economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending
on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
The U.S. Navy announced
this month that it was sending its entire forward-deployed sub fleet on "contingency
response operations" as a warning to China. Last month, the U.S. Navy Expeditionary Strike
Group
sailed into the South China Sea to support Malaysia's oil exploration in an area that China
claims. Aside from the reality that oil exploration makes no economic sense at a time of record
low oil prices, the United States should be helping the countries bordering the South China Sea
come to a fair resolution of their disputes, not throwing more armaments at the problem.
There's also heightened risk of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and
even in outer space . A huge portion of the Pentagon's budget goes toward preparing for war
with China -- and, frankly, provoking war as well.
What does this all have to do with the Great Disentanglement?
The close economic ties between the United States and China have always represented a
significant constraint on military confrontation. Surely the two countries would not risk
grievous economic harm by coming to blows. Economic cooperation also provides multiple channels
for resolving conflicts and communicating discontent. The United States and Soviet Union never
had that kind of buffer.
If the Great Disentanglement goes forward, however, then the two countries have less to lose
economically in a military confrontation. Trading partners, of course, sometimes go to war with
one another. But as the data
demonstrates , more trade generally
translates into less war.
There are lots and lots of problems in the U.S.-China economic relationship. But they pale
in comparison to World War III.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
Trump claims that the resolution was "based on misunderstandings of facts and law." The
only allegedly incorrect fact he mentions is the existence of open hostilities between the
United States and Iran, but that's merely a reflection of the time when the measure was
drafted. Besides, the two countries are still not exactly at peace with each other, thanks
in part to the president.
Trump is the one who is clearly mistaken regarding the law. He insists, as he did in
January, that the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was sufficient justification for killing Soleimani, but as the American Conservative's
Daniel Larison opined, "There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this
interpretation." In addition, he claims that he derives his war-making power from Article
II of the Constitution, yet that article specifically states that "the president shall be
commander in chief of the [armed forces] when called into the actual service of the United
States." (Emphasis added.) And who gets to call them into service? According to Article I,
Congress does, by declaring war.
Trump doubles down on this unsupportable assertion in his next paragraph:
The resolution implies that the President's constitutional authority to use military
force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack.
That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution
recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries' next moves and
take swift and decisive action in response. That's what I did!
This is on a par with Trump's declaration over the states re-opening: he declared: "When
somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way
it's got to be."
This lunatic thinks he's Caesar!
Anyone who thinks he won't start a new war - somewhere - is delusional. He may not start
one *before* the election, but if he wins, what about *after*? And i wouldn't even be sure
about "before". He's dumb enough to think - or be convinced by his neocon advisers - that he
could get a "war President" boost in the polls if he starts one before the election. After
all, the one time he got a boost in the polls was when he attacked Syria over the bogus
"chemical weapons" incidents. So I wouldn't rule anything out.
by
Los Angeles TimesUS Public Remain the Tacit Accomplice in America's Dead End Wars
Honor the fallen, but not every war they were sent to fight by Andrew Bacevich
Tweet
Share
Mail
Share
Share
19
Comments A U.S. soldier fires an anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise in Zabul
province, Afghanistan, in July 2010. (Photo: U.S. Army /flickr/cc) Not
least among the victims claimed by the coronavirus pandemic was a poetry recital that was to
have occurred in March at a theater in downtown Boston.
I had been invited to read aloud a poem, and I chose "On a Soldier Fallen in the
Philippines," written in 1899 by William Vaughn Moody (1869-1910). You are unlikely to have
heard of the poet or his composition. Great literature, it is not. Yet its message is
memorable.
The subject of Moody's poem is death, a matter today much on all our minds. It recounts the
coming home of a nameless American soldier, killed in the conflict commonly but misleadingly
known as the Philippine Insurrection.
In 1898, U.S. troops landed in Manila to oust the Spanish overlords who had ruled the
Philippines for more than three centuries. They accomplished this mission with the dispatch
that a later generation of U.S. forces demonstrated in ousting regimes in Kabul and Baghdad.
Yet as was the case with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of our own day, real victory proved
elusive.
Back in Washington, President McKinley decided that having liberated the Philippines, the
United States would now keep them. The entire archipelago of several thousand islands was to
become an American colony.
McKinley's decision met with immediate disfavor among Filipinos. To oust the foreign
occupiers, they mounted an armed resistance. A vicious conflict ensued, one that ultimately
took the lives of 4,200 American soldiers and at least 200,000 Filipinos. In the end, however,
the United States prevailed.
Denying Filipino independence was the cause for which the subject of Moody's poem died.
Long since forgotten by Americans, the war to pacify the Philippines generated in its day
great controversy. Moody's poem is an artifact of that controversy. In it, he chastises those
who perform the rituals of honoring the fallen while refusing to acknowledge the dubious nature
of the cause for which they fought. "Toll! Let the great bells toll," he writes,
Till the clashing air is dim,
Did we wrong this parted soul?
We will make it up to him.
Toll! Let him never guess
What work we sent him to.
Laurel, laurel, yes.
He did what we bade him do.
Praise, and never a whispered hint
but the fight he fought was good;
In actuality, the fight was anything but good. It was ill-advised and resulted in great
evil. "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines" expresses a demand for reckoning with that evil.
Americans of Moody's generation rejected that demand, just as Americans today balk at reckoning
with the consequences of our own ill-advised wars.
Yet the imperative persists. "O banners, banners here," Moody concludes,
That he doubt not nor misgive!
That he heed not from the tomb
The evil days draw near
When the nation robed in gloom
With its faithless past shall strive.
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream
went wide of its island mark,
Home to the heart of his darling land
where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.
At the end of the 19th century, the United States stumbled and sinned in the dark by waging
a misbegotten campaign to advance nakedly imperial ambitions. At the beginning of the 21st
century, new wars became the basis of comparable sin. The war of Moody's time and the wars of
our own have almost nothing in common except this: In each instance, through their passivity
disguised as patriotism, the American people became tacitly complicit in wrongdoing committed
in their name.
It is no doubt too glib by half to claim that today, besieged by a virus, we are reaping the
consequences caused by our refusal to reckon with past sins. Yet it is not too glib to argue
that the need for such a reckoning remains. Have we wronged the departed souls of those who
died -- indeed, are still dying -- in Afghanistan and Iraq? The question cries out for an
answer. In our cacophonous age, it just might be that we will find that answer in poetry.
"... In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further. ..."
"... And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see himself that way. ..."
"... Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. ..."
There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The
first involves Michael Flynn's dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country
directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.
The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the
criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on
malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by
the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with
the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was
something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to
something.
In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22,
2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating
was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy,
meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass
without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each
delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution.
Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not
agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23
rd .
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is
acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It
would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and
Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump
overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn's request.
The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack
Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time,
son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of
foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made
by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence
terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see
himself that way.
Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the
Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on
behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United
States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As
Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part
of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was
and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.
The
second story , which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel
against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its
telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court
lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO
Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with
spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists,
critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging
app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to
monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers
located in California to enter the accounts.
NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to
clients who themselves operate it with the "advice and technical support to assist customers in
setting up" but it also promotes its products as being "used to stop terrorism, curb violent
crime, and save lives." It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone
numbers.
Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a
Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720
hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company
reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp's servers
and deploy "its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets" before " covertly transmit[ting]
malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]" spyware into telephones without the
knowledge of the owners."
The filing goes on to assert that the "Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp's
servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to
attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp's servers and users' devices constitutes
unlawful computer hacking."
NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously
been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which "can gather information
about a mobile phone's location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and
covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages." Pegasus was reportedly used in the
killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more
recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside
experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have
used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.
Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on
the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly
back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a "backdoor" for secretly
accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage
and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more
aggressively than any other "friendly" country, which once upon a time included being able to
tap into the "secure" White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica
Lewinsky.
Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by
Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from
the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on
non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the
expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be
considered top secret.
A Politicoreport
detailed how "miniature surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" were used to imitate
regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their
locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians
as "international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture
the contents of calls and data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis
involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about their history, where the
parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get
you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It was pretty clear that the
Israelis were responsible."
So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared
to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are
only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way
favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who
is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough,
but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any
restraint when dealing with the "useful idiots" in Washington.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
div
Was Flynn a complete idiot or already ont he hook and in a position not to deny McCabe
reuaest not to use lawer? @Jim
So you can only conceive of three reasons for a person to "lawyer up"?
How about this: A badged employee of the government wish to ask you a few question. Just to
help in their investigation of something or another. So you go in to be interrogated. Your
interrogator has 20 years of employment and has done several interrogations a week for those
20 years. It is your first time being interrogated.
A smart person asks for a lawyer immediately. You are the pine rider for the little sisters
of the poor and the interrogator is Nolan Ryan. You are Rudy the waterboy and the
interrogator is Dick Butkus. You are a mook a skell, just another low life.
As a general rule, you get yourself a lawyer first before you answer anything. This is
something General Flynn knew and ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
But, But, BUT I am innocent, I have nothing to hide, it is a citizens duty to "help"
legitimate authority, I dindunuffin innocence is irrelevant. All of us have our secrets and
our private things and you can become a liar to legal authority quicker than you can imagine
just by one wrong word, or one nervous twitch, or a simple hesitation, even an ambiguity in
your wording of some innocuous answer to some "unimportant" question.
You can ask the Colonel how interrogation works he spent many years honing his art.
For how an innocent person can be caught in a perjury trap, read Chapters 18 and 19, "The FBI
Comes Calling" and "Investigated By Mueller, Harassed By Congress" of K.T. McFarland's book
"Revolution".
It only costs $9.99 at Google Play Store and IMO, is well worth it for those two chapters
alone. (Hope that endorsement for the book is okay in context.)
"In 2019, a federal jury convicted Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two
felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws and failure to register as a foreign agent for
Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify against Kian but changed his story at the last minute,
causing problems for the prosecution. The judge later tossed the verdict, saying the
prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection
with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will"
I don't know much about this aspect of the Flynn Saga
The DC Circuit court wants Sullivan to explain himself. That will be instructive as to why
he wants Gleeson to provide a third party opinion of why Flynn should be charged with
perjury.
Terence
This is one aspect of Flynn that seems a bit shady but very much in line with how DC
trades in influence peddling. Apparently he was paid by Turkey to use his influence and put
together a media campaign to get Gulen extradited to Turkey.
The new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apparently learned how to behave from the Corbyn
experience. He has been crawling on his belly to Jewish interests ever since he took over and
has even submitted to the counseling provided by the government's "Independent Adviser on
Antisemitism," a special interests office not too dissimilar to the abomination at the U.S.
State Department where Elan Carr is the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating
anti-Semitism.
The adviser, Lord Mann, who like Carr is of course Jewish, has now insisted to Starmer that
the use of words like ''Zionist'' or ''Zionism'' in a critical context must be regarded as
anti-Semitism if Starmer wants to establish what he refers to as "comprehensive anti-racism"
within the Labour Party. Mann wants to confront what he refers to as "anti-Jewish racism" in
Britain, saying that "the thing Keir Starmer has to do is stick with the clear definition of
antisemitism, and not waver from that. The second thing he should do if he wants to really
imbed comprehensive anti-racism including antisemitism across the Labour Party – then the
use of the words Zionist or Zionism as a term of hatred, abuse, of contempt, as a negative term
– that should outlawed in the party."
Perhaps not surprisingly Lord Mann's comments came during an online discussion with the
Antisemitism Policy Trust's director Danny Stone, one of the major components of Israel's
powerful U.K. Jewish/Zionist Lobby. A majority of British Members of Parliament of both parties
are registered supporters of "Friends of Israel" associations, another indication of how Jewish
power is manifest in Britain and of how spineless the country's politicians have become.
Mann added: "If he does that, it gives him [Starmer] the tools to clear out those who choose
to be antisemitic, rather than those who do so purely through their ignorance as opposed to
their calculated behavior. I think he is seeing tackling antisemitism as one of those things
that will be shown to mark that he is a leader."
So, in Britain you are still presumably free to criticize Zionism, but not Israelis, as long
as you do not use the word itself. If you do use it in a critical way you will be one of those
presumably who will be "cleared out [of the Labour Party] for choosing to be antisemitic." Do
not be alarmed if similar nonsense takes hold in the United States, where already criticism of
Israel, such as it is, eschews the word Jewish in any context. Fearful of retribution that can
include loss of employment as happened to Rick Sanchez at CNN, the few who are bold enough to
criticize Israel regularly employ generic euphemisms like the "Israel Lobby" or "Zionism,"
ignoring the fact that what drives the process is ethno- or religious based. However one
chooses to obfuscate it, the power of Israel in the United States is undeniably based on Jewish
money, media control and easy access to politicians. When the friends of Israel in America
follow the British lead and figure out that the word Zionist has become pejorative they too
will no doubt move to make it unacceptable in polite discourse in the media and elsewhere. Then
many critics of the Jewish state will have no vocabulary left to use, nowhere to go, as in
Britain, and that is surely the intention.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
When it comes to
foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch
'Pompeo is a
natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the
people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory.
And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has
embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.
Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as
wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter
feed seems dedicated more to childish
mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for
undermining America's credibility is top-notch.
At Pompeo's recommendation,
Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent
investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick
was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across
the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration
– but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.
Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse
before firing
According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for
bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even
though his own department and the rest of the US government
advised against the decision. He was also supposedly
organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential
businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's
political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being
scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting
dry cleaning and walking his dog.
But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the
nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump
over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo
was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department
officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo
has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during
the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019,
the IG released a report detailing
political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump
officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media
interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for
the Senate, a
violation of the Hatch Act.
Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile
of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a
nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who,
unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling
Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."
... ... ...
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and
Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin
Lamarque/Reuters
Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem
insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other
countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a
secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able
to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody,
and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.
The work that
department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get
home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope
with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the
image that America projects abroad.
Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized
the state department on his behalf
From MoA comment
57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other
side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long
series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world
heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With
China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called
Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the
planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of
the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if
sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless
consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data
traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever
do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it.
Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
China diplomacy is trying to thread very carefully to avoid the fallout. The answer of RIA
Novosti is good example here. Counterattacks are few (see the answer to CC question with the
following money quote: "I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not
framing the question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a
person cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations. " This is
implicit slap in the face for the USA.
RIA Novosti: How do you assess China-Russia relations in the context of COVID-19? Do you
agree with some people's characterization that China and Russia may join force to challenge US
predominance?
Wang Yi: While closely following the COVID-19 response in Russia, we have done and will
continue to do everything we can to support it. I believe under the leadership of President
Vladimir Putin, the indomitable Russian people will defeat the virus and the great Russian
nation will emerge from the challenge with renewed vigor and vitality.
Since the start of COVID-19, President Xi Jinping and President Putin have had several phone
calls and kept the closest contact between two world leaders. Russia is the first country to
have sent medical experts to China, and China has provided the most anti-epidemic assistance to
Russia. Two-way trade has gone up despite COVID-19. Chinese imports from Russia have grown
faster than imports from China's other major trading partners. The two countries have supported
and defended each other against slanders and attacks coming from certain countries. Together,
China and Russia have forged an impregnable fortress against the "political virus" and
demonstrated the strength of China-Russia strategic coordination.
I have no doubt that the two countries' joint response to the virus will give a strong boost
to China-Russia relations after COVID-19. China is working with Russia to turn the crisis into
an opportunity. We will do so by maintaining stable cooperation in energy and other traditional
fields, holding a China-Russia year of scientific and technological innovation, and
accelerating collaboration in e-commerce, bio-medicine and the cloud economy to make them new
engines of growth in our post-COVID-19 economic recovery. China and Russia will also enhance
strategic coordination. By marking the 75th anniversary of the UN, we stand ready to firmly
protect our victory in WWII, uphold the UN Charter and basic norms of international relations,
and oppose any form of unilateralism and bullying. We will enhance cooperation and coordination
in the UN, SCO, BRICS and G20 to prepare ourselves for a new round of the once-in-a-century
change shaping today's world.
I believe that with China and Russia standing shoulder-to-shoulder and working back-to-back,
the world will be a safer and more stable place where justice and fairness are truly
upheld.
Cable News Network: We've seen an increasingly heated "war of words" between China and the
US. Is "wolf warrior" diplomacy the new norm of China's diplomacy?
Wang Yi: I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not framing the
question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a person
cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations.
There may be all kinds of interpretations and commentary about Chinese diplomacy. As
China's Foreign Minister, let me state for the record that China always follows an
independent foreign policy of peace. No matter how the international situation may change, we
will always stand for peace, development and mutually beneficial cooperation, stay committed
to upholding world peace and promoting common development, and seek friendship and
cooperation with all countries. We see it as our mission to make new and greater
contributions to humanity.
China's foreign policy tradition is rooted in its 5,000-year civilization. Since ancient
times, China has been widely recognized as a nation of moderation. We Chinese value peace,
harmony, sincerity and integrity. We never pick a fight or bully others, but we have
principles and guts. We will push back against any deliberate insult to resolutely defend our
national honor and dignity. And we will refute all groundless slander with facts to
resolutely uphold fairness, justice and human conscience.
The future of China's diplomacy is premised on our commitment to working with all
countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind. Since we live in the same
global village, countries should get along peacefully and treat each other as equals.
Decisions on global affairs should be made through consultation, not because one or two
countries say so. That's why China advocates for a multi-polar world and greater democracy in
international relations. This position is fully aligned with the direction of human progress
and the shared aspiration of most countries. No matter what stage of development it reaches,
China will never seek hegemony. We will always stand with the common interests of all
countries. And we will always stand on the right side of history. Those who go out of their
way to label China as a hegemon are precisely the ones who refuse to let go of their
hegemonic status.
The world is undergoing changes of a kind unseen in a century and full of instability and
turbulence. Confronted by a growing set of global challenges, we hope all countries will
realize that humanity is a community with a shared future. We must render each other more
support and cooperation, and there should be less finger-pointing and confrontation. We call
on all nations to come together and build a better world for all.
This is all noise. Kristol is a MIC prostitute and as such he can't attack Trump who gave MIC
and Israel all what they want
Notable quotes:
"... "A 'Neocon' is neither new or conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell." – Edward Abbey ..."
"... Being an unrepentant Neocon, such as William (Bill) Kristol, means never having to say you're sorry. To qualify, you need to be an ideologue, who also has paid no price for recklessly cheerleading 4,488 U.S. troops to their deaths in the illegal and immoral Iraq War, plus another 32,223 who were seriously wounded (2003-2011). ..."
"... For years, we've heard Kristol on the TV/Cable/Network shows making outrageous statements, like this one: "The war in Iraq could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." (09/18/2001). ..."
"... There was also no mention by the reporter of the possible real reasons that Kristol was dumping on Trump. One could be that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had trashed Kristol's and the Neocons' support of the Iraq War. ..."
"... And, also Trump has indicated he doesn't have any plans to reignite another of Kristol's favorites schemes – "a Cold War with Russia." These are just two of the reasons the "Neocons, like Kristol, can't stomach Trump," according to the commentator, JP Sottile, of Consortium News. ..."
"... During last year's Democratic presidential primary, Kristol took a swipe at the candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and posted a tweet that said: "#Never Sanders." The popular antiwar candidate responded to Kristol: "Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish advocacy of the Iraq War? I make no apologies for opposing it." Sanders then added this zinger: "I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran." ..."
"... The Neocon replied: "I will defend my views on Iraq as you defend yours." Sen. Sanders underscored how Kristol had called for regime change in Iraq as early at 1998; and that Kristol also predicted the conflict would last "only two months;" and that he had repeatedly argued for the Bush-Cheney Gang to send in more troops. As early at 2006, Kristol was urging the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?" ..."
"... In a way, Kristol reminded me, in a physical sense, of the late actor Peter Lorre. Whether Kristol has a "Little Man (Napoleon) Complex," or not, I will leave to the experts in the field. All I know for sure is that he's a relentlessly angry, pusher of costly and unnecessary wars. ..."
"... Here is another gem from Kristol: "The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably." (April 28, 2003) And, then there is this whopper from the slippery Neocon: "The Iraqi elections of Jan. 30, 2005 could be a key moment perhaps the key moment so far in vindicating the 'Bush/Cheney Doctrine' as the right response to 9/11." (March 7, 2005) ..."
"A 'Neocon' is neither new or conservative, but old as Babylon
and evil as Hell." – Edward Abbey
Being an unrepentant Neocon, such as William (Bill) Kristol, means never having to say
you're sorry. To qualify, you need to be an ideologue, who also has paid no price for
recklessly cheerleading 4,488 U.S. troops to their deaths in the illegal and immoral Iraq War,
plus another 32,223 who were seriously wounded (2003-2011).
It also helps to have a significant media platform and not to give a good hoot about how
many innocent Iraqis died via the U.S.-led invasion and/or the occupation of that country. (Try
an estimated 655,000.)
By the way, false prophet, Kristol: Our troops found "No" Weapons of Mass Destruction in
Iraq.
Let me formally introduce – William Kristol, age 67, out of New York City, now
Northern Virginia, warmonger extraordinaire, ultra-conservative, and currently editor at large
of Bulwark magazine.
For years, we've heard Kristol on the TV/Cable/Network shows making outrageous
statements, like this one: "The war in Iraq could have terrifically good effects throughout the
Middle East." (09/18/2001).
The other day, May 20, 2020, Kristol was the subject of a puff piece profile in the
Washington Post , by reporter KK Ottesen. The article made no mention of Kristol's
disgusting role in promoting the Iraq War. Instead, he was given the opportunity to rip
President Donald Trump on how he has been mismanaging the coronavirus crisis. (Well, heck,
everybody knows that.)
There was also no mention by the reporter of the possible real reasons that Kristol was
dumping on Trump. One could be that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had trashed
Kristol's and the Neocons' support of the Iraq War.
And, also Trump has indicated he doesn't have any plans to reignite another of Kristol's
favorites schemes – "a Cold War with Russia." These are just two of the reasons the
"Neocons, like Kristol, can't stomach Trump," according to the commentator, JP Sottile, of
Consortium
News.
The idea that Kristol is some kind of genuine dissenter and is opposing Trump because he's
concerned about the quality of his leadership is pure nonsense. The Washington Post
allowed Kristol to use the paper for this dubious exercise and it has no one to blame but
itself.
During last year's Democratic presidential primary, Kristol took a swipe at the
candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and posted a tweet that said: "#Never Sanders." The popular
antiwar candidate responded to Kristol: "Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish
advocacy of the Iraq War? I make no apologies for opposing it." Sanders then added this zinger:
"I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran."
The Neocon replied: "I will defend my views on Iraq as you defend yours." Sen. Sanders
underscored how Kristol had called for regime change in Iraq as early at 1998; and that Kristol
also predicted the conflict would last "only two months;" and that he had repeatedly argued for
the Bush-Cheney Gang to send in more troops. As early at 2006, Kristol was urging the US to
bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?"
Flashback: The first time I laid eyes on the cunning Neocon, Kristol was at a pro-Iraq War
rally held on the National Mall, on April 12, 2003, in Washington, D.C., G. Gordon Liddy and
the late, ex-U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) were there, along with some other Right Wing
types.
What was really weird about the whole affair was the appearance of that so-called comedian,
Ben Stein. He showed up on a huge video screen endorsing the war. It should have had "a warning
label" on it!
I recall a lady in the modest crowd of about fifty at that event saying of Kristol: "Oh,
look how small he is!" She was right. Kristol is, indeed, on the very short side. I'd say that
he comes in at about 5 ft. 4 or 5 inches. It seems that, as a result of his tiny body frame,
his head appears more massive than it really is. The rally was boring. I didn't stay long.
In a way, Kristol reminded me, in a physical sense, of the late actor Peter Lorre.
Whether Kristol has a "Little Man (Napoleon) Complex," or not, I will leave to the experts in
the field. All I know for sure is that he's a relentlessly angry, pusher of costly and
unnecessary wars.
(During the Iraq War, there were countless protest actions mounted by ten of thousands of
splendid antiwar activists across the country. Many of them were held on the National Mall, and
other sites in our nation's capital.)
Here is another gem from Kristol: "The first two battles of this new era are now over.
The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably." (April 28, 2003)
And, then there is this whopper from the slippery Neocon: "The Iraqi elections of Jan. 30, 2005
could be a key moment perhaps the key moment so far in vindicating the 'Bush/Cheney Doctrine'
as the right response to 9/11." (March 7, 2005)
Of course, it wouldn't be fair to leave out this one from Kristol: "It is much more likely
that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve, in either case,
Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory." (Nov. 30, 2005)
As a result of an onslaught of Kristol's articles and media appearances in support of the
Iraq invasion, the Washington Post 's Richard Cohen dubbed the conflict: "Kristol's
War!" Right on, Mr. Cohen.
The estimated cost of the Iraq War to the U.S. taxpayers runs to a high of around $1.7
trillion!
If Kristol has any regrets with respect to his amoral advocacy for the Iraq War (which was
launched by the Bush-Cheney Gang based on a pack of rotten lies) and/or about the staggering US
casualties in Iraq, I have never heard him express them.
If Kristol has any empathy for the innocent Iraqi dead and wounded, the Iraqi women and
children who have suffered and are continuing to suffer from that conflict, along with the tens
of thousands of Iraqi homes that have been destroyed, and also for those 3.8 million Iraqis
made into refugees, then he's kept those kinds of feelings to himself.
(The other amazing thing about Kristol is how he's repeatedly able to get his distorted
views on our televisions and in our newspapers. It's like he has to only press a button and
there he is. It is all so – Orwellian!)
In any event, when the name of William Kristol, the Neocon, is mentioned, I think callous
indifference to human life and suffering.
The next time the Neocon Kristol visits the Arlington National Cemetery, over in Virginia,
to honor our Iraqi War dead, will be his FIRST! Despite all of the above, he continues to argue
for a U.S.-led attack on Iran. Kristol insists: "Invading Iran is not a bad idea!"
If warmongering isn't a Hate Crime and/or a Hate Speech, then maybe it should be. (Peace
Movement, please copy.) That would give the heartless Kristol something to think about when he
advocates for the launching of yet another monstrosity, like the Iraq War.
Bill Hughes is an attorney, author, actor and photographer. His latest book is
Byline
Baltimore . Contact the author. Reprinted from the
Baltimore Post-Examiner with the author's permission.
Trump is mostly concerned with giving handouts to the MIC because he thinks "the economy" is
based on jobs in the MIC since that is what they tell him is where US manufacturing is now
based.
Posted by: Kali | May 23 2020 18:16 utc | 2
To a degree, it is true. However, the problem with MIC as an economic stimulant is rather
pitiful multiplier effect. For starters, the costs are hopelessly bloated. Under rather
watchful Putin, Russia does its piece of arms race at a very small fraction of American
costs. By the same token, pro-economy effects of arms spending in USA are seriously diluted
-- the spending is surely there, but the extend of activity is debatable For example, in
aerospace, there is a big potential for civilian applications of technologies developed for
the military. Scant evidence in Boeing that should be a prime beneficiary. The fabled toilet
seat (that cost many thousands of dollars) similarly failed to find civilian applications.
Civilians inclined to overpriced toilets, like Mr. Trump himself, rely on low-tech methods
like gold-plating.
A wider problem is shared by entire GOP: aversion to any government programs, and least of
all industry promoting programs, that could benefit ordinary citizens. This is the exclusive
domain of the free market! Once you refuse to consider that, only MIC remains, plus some
boondogles like interstate highways. Heaven forfend to improve public transit or to repair
almost-proverbial crumbling dams and bridges.
We have to ask cui bono - who benefits from a new nuclear arms race? General Electric,
Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman et al. No one else really.
Since these corporations also own the Congress and have zillions to fund Trump's re-election,
they will probably get the go-ahead to spend the rest of the world into oblivion.
Apart from the obvious fact that the MIC is the only viable engine of propulsion of the
American "real economy" (a.k.a. "manufacturing"), there's the more macabre fact that, if we
take Trump's administration first military papers into consideration, it seems there's a
growing coterie inside the Pentagon and the WH that firmly believes MAD can be broken
vis-a-vis China.
Hence the "Prompt Global Strike" doctrine (which is taking form with the commission of the
new B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber, won by Northrop Grumman), the rise of the concept of
"tactical nukes" (hence the extinction of the START, and the Incirlik Base imbroglio post
failed coup against Erdogan) and, most importantly, the new doctrine of "bringing manufacture
back".
The USA is suffering from a structural valorization problem. The only way out is finding
new vital space through which it can initiate a new cycle of valorization. The only
significant vital space to be carved out in the 21st Century is China, with its 600
million-sized middle class (the world's largest middle class, therefore the world's largest
potential consumer market). It won two decades with the opening of the ex-Soviet vital space,
but it was depleted in the 2000s, finally exploding in 2006-2008.
How many decades does the Americans think they can earn by a hypothetical unilateral
destruction of China?
Having a treaty that limits power (in this case nuclear) on the same level for the US and any
other country is simply totally against the ideology of US Superority/Exeptionalism.
That seems to be the driving (psychological and ideological) factor behind this charade.
And like this sick ideology always ends: It too will backfire.
@gepay: another problem is people that disagree with Bernhard on COVID, but then use this
disagreement to not read his artciles anymore.
So many people only want to read what they want to hear, and run away at the first real
different view.
The narcissism, that our neoliberal societies inducded in its people the last decade shows..
And seeing both sides and everything in between is not possible anymore for a majority it
seems.
And living in a bubble is so comforting and easy in todays world. On MSM and on Alt Media
alike.
"...that may well fit Trump's plans of pushing all arms control regimes into oblivion."
It's not just arms control regimes, as the WHO business showed. This is the Roy Cohn agenda
showing up again- the old GOP objection to the UN and all other international organisations.
It is pure ideology-the US has gained immensely from dominating the organisations of which it
is a part, leaving them makes no sense at all.
As to 'spending China to oblivion". This only works when every Pentagon dollar spent
forces China or Russia to spend a dollar themselves. In such a contest the richest country
wins. But that only works in the context of pre-nuclear warfare. With the nuclear deterrent
it becomes possible to opt out of all the money wasting nonsense represented by the Pentagon
budget, sit back and say, as the Chinese diplomat evidently did, "Just try it."
Which adds up to the conclusion that it is wholly irrational of the United States to denounce
treaties designed to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used: it is to the
advantage of Washington that other powers, potential rivals, are forced to build up
conventional forces because they are bound by treaty not to rely on nuclear weapons.
So, again: pure ideology designed for domestic consumption and advanced by the most
reactionary elements in American society- the Jesse Helms good ol' boys who make the neo-cons
look almost human.
He likes economic war (against everybody), they want actual war. Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17
utc
Trump has a primitive mercantile mind. There is nothing inherently wrong about
mercantilism, but a primitive version of anything tends to be mediocre at best. Thus he loves
war that give profit, like Yemen where natives are bombed with expensive products made in USA
(and unfortunately, also UK, France etc., but the bulk goes to USA). Then he loves wars the
he thinks will give profit, like "keeping oil fields in Syria". Some people told him that oil
fields are profitable (although they can go bankrupt just like casinos).
Privately, I think that Trump wanted to make a war with Iran, but the generals explained
him what kind of disaster that would be.
One difference is that Democrats are aligned with uber Zionist of slightly less rabid
variety than Republicans. A bit like black bears vs grizzlies. Unfortunately, like in the
animal kingdom, when the push comes to shove, black bears defer to grizzlies, so on the side
of Palestinians etc. there is no difference.
Billingslea's "spending ... into oblivion" statement reflects the belief, still widespread
among US neocon political / military elites, that the Soviet Union was brought down and
destroyed by its attempts to keep up with US military spending throughout the 1980s. This
alone tells us how steeped in past fantasy the entire US political and military establishment
must be. Compared to Rip van Winkle, these people are comatose.
Spending the enemy into oblivion may be "tried and true" practice but only when the enemy
is much poorer than yourself in arms production and in one type of weapons manufacture. That
certainly does not apply to either Russia or China these days. Both nations think more
strategically and do not waste precious resources in parading and projecting military power
abroad, or rely almost exclusively on old, decaying technologies and a narrow mindset
obsessed with always being top dog in everything.
After the Soviet collapse thirty years ago, that order expanded its jurisdiction. Proponents sought to subsume the old Eastern
Bloc, including perhaps Russia itself, into the American sphere. And they wanted to do so firmly on Washington's terms. Even as the
country began to deindustrialize and growth slowed, American leadership developed a taste for fresh crusades in the Middle East;
exotic savagery, went the subtext, had to be brought finally to heel. China was a rising force, but its regime would inevitably crater
or democratize. Besides, Beijing was a peaceful trading partner of the United States.
2008, 2016 and 2020 -- the financial crisis, Trump's election and now the Coronavirus and its reaction -- have been successive
gut punches to this project, a hat trick which may seal its demise. Ask anyone attempting to board an international flight, or open
a new factory in China, or get anything done at the United Nations: the world is de-globalizing at a speed almost as astonishing
as it integrated. Post-Covid, U.S.-China confrontation is not a choice. It's a reality. The liberal international order is not lamentable.
It's already dead.
This was the argument made by Bannon. It had other backers, of course, within both the academy and an emerging foreign policy
counter-establishment loathe to repeat the mistakes of the past thirty years. But coming from the former top political advisor to
the sitting president of the United States, it was provocative stuff. Bannon articulated a perspective which seemed to be on the
tip of the foreign policy world's tongue. And it riled people up. The most fulsome rebuttal to the zeitgeist was perhaps The Jungle
Grows Back , tellingly written by Robert Kagan, an Iraq War architect. The peripheral world was dangerous brush; the United States
was the machete.
Trumpian nationalism has chugged along for nearly three years since -- stripped, some might say, of its Bannonite flair and intelligence.
The most hysterical prophecies of what the president might do -- that he might withdraw from the geriatric North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, for instance -- have not come to pass. Trump has howled and roared, true: but so far, his most disruptive foreign policy
maneuver has been escalation against Iran.
It's very good to hear the right getting a little humility in them now and talking less empire, more multilateralism. Trump has
been way too concerned with his MAGA personality cult to understand the value of humility.
The world's a big place. The reality is, America first will more and more mean working together with other nations for mutual
benefit, and often their gain will indirectly be to our own also.
Working more and more, yes. This is why US is undercutting Germany's competitiveness, by blocking a cheap source of energy via
NS2...
As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, but it will become uglier.
If it were to desire multi-polarity, the US would tolerate not only states, like KSA, where the Royals own everything, but also
states, like Iran, or Cuba, where the people (through the government/state) owns assets (land and productive facilities). But
the US does not tolerate such type of multi-polarity, not open to US "investment" and ownership (bought with fiat money).
Cold War II started in 2007, with Putin. Popcorn & beer lads!
It does seem like there's a creeping idea, not just on dissident internet sites now like before, that the Russian rivalry is a
luxury of the past. Even the liberals are going to have to reconcile with liberal hegemony not being workable and settle for something
less. Owing to distance and mutual interest (common rivals Britain and Germany) Russia and America had a long history of friendship
before the Cold war.
I sadly agree about the predatory nature of much of America does. I think it really is a reflection of partially, imperial
arrogance, but even moreso a matter of who runs the country. Oligarchy is poorly checked in modern America. Maybe we can hope
for a humbled oligarchy, at least.
Trump is indeed an empty suit and a demagogue, but he ran on a decent nationalist platform (probably thanks to Bannon, who is
almost certainly a closeted gay. No joke... a deep-in-the-closet, self-hating gay. The navy can change a man, and he's a fraud
in other ways: see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade"). Trump does have an absurd ego, and he
probably figured becoming president would impress Ivanka too.
Also, the Uyghurs are not totally innocent victims... Some of them are US-financed revolutionaries and some of them have committed
terrorism: see Godfree Roberts at Unz Review: "China and the Uyghurs" (January 10, 2019) and Ajit Singh at The Grayzone: "Inside
the World Uyghur Congress: The US-backed right-wing regime change network seeking the 'fall of China'" (March 5, 2020). Some of
our pathetic propagandists make it seem like they're in concentration camps, but there is objective reporting that suggests it's
more like job training programs and anti-jihad classes. Absurd lies have certainly been told about North Korea and many other
countries, so be skeptical.
Yeah, let's get that hate on for China - why they're as bad as Russia, Iran and Venezuela put together and there are so many more
of them. Especially a lot are available right here in the US and have lots of restaurants that can be boycotted. Not that many
Venezuelan restaurants around. Seriously, can Americans get over this childishness? When the US closes down its 800+ overseas
bases and withdraws its fleet to its own shores instead of Iran's and China's, then maybe Americans will be entitled to complain
about someone else's imperialism.
Most of anti-China stuff Hawley, much like Trump, claims always feels empty populism for WWC voters.
1) It is reasonable to be against our Middle East endeavors and not be so anti-China.
2) I still don't understand how it is China fault for stealing manufacturing jobs when it is the US private sector that does it.
(And Vietnam exist, etc.) So without Charles Koch and Tim Cook behind this trade stuff, it feels like empty populism.
3) The most obvious point on China to me is how little they do use military measures for their 'imperialism.'
One problem with all this populism emptiness, is there is a lot issues with China to work on:
1) This virus could have impact economies in Africa and South America a lot where the nations have to renegotiate their loans
to China. I have no idea how this goes but there will be tensions here. Imperialism is tough in the long run.
2) There are nations banding together on China's reaction to the virus and it seems reasonable that US joining them would be more
effective than Trump's taunting.
3) To prove Trump administration incompetence, I have no idea how he is not turning this crisis into more medical equipment and
drugs manufacturing. (My guess is this both takes a lot of work and frankly a lot of manufacturing plants have risks of spreads
so noone wants to invest.)
Hawley is a "fake populist" according to Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade" and I just saw fake-patriot
airhead Pete Hegseth claim China wants to destroy our civilization, on fake populist Tucker Carlson's show. It's well-established
that Fox News and the GOP are still neocons and fake patriots... after all, the Trump administration is run by Jared Kushner,
a protégé of Rupert Murdoch and Bibi Netanyahu.
Hawley's speech on the Senate floor yesterday deserves much more criticism than it gets here. This article from Reason
does a good job breaking down the speech and pointing out what's right AND wrong about it:
What if there is reduced wars and civil wars n the world today than ever. (So say anytime before 1991?) I get all the Middle East
& African Wars but look at the rest of the world. When in history have the major West Europe powers not had a major war in 75
years. After issues of post Cold War East Europe is probably more peaceful than ever. Look at South America. In the 1970s the
Civil Wars raged in all those nations. Or the Pacific Rim? Japan, China, and other nations are fighting with Military right now.
This is certainly less than perfect but the number of people (per million) dieing in wars and civil wars are at historic lows.
The fall of Soviet Union and weakening of Russia allowed US and Western Europe to attack Serbia in 1990s. A stronger Russia wouldn't
have allowed that to happen (who's trying to get Crimea from Russia's control now?). But with US aggressiveness and bellicosity
(including nuclear posture) at Russia's borders do not bode well.
But it is true, less important people are dying now...
Chinese imperialism? Uh ... other than shaking trees and drumming up fear can I get like one example of that.
Taiwan, part of China since the 1500's and they are have not issued any new threats since 1949.
Hong Kong - stolen from China and now reluctantly given back with lots of conditions. If they deserve the right of independence
through referendum I'm all for it as long as we apply this standard uniformly including parts of Texas, San Diego, New Mexico,
Arizona, any place that has a large foreign population will do.
Yeah, "Chinese imperialism" is complete nonsense, just like the claim that they definitely originated the coronavirus, caused
Americans to be under house arrest, and caused a depression. In fact, the origin of the virus is far from clear, and it wasn't
China who hyped up and exaggerated the danger and wrecked the economy. It was our superficial corporate media and government that
did that (perhaps deliberately)... the same people who are desperately trying to deflect blame onto the CCP. The same people who
have been mismanaging and ruining America for decades in order to enrich themselves.
"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The
net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless."
Most people would be well served to read Chomsky a first time.
However, it should be noted, Chomsky's critiques of neoliberalism aren't grounded in nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. So a
lot of TAC readers (and especially writers) may be disappointed.
Hawley seems like the natural choice for the potential future of the GOP, that is a post-fusionist or post-liberal GOP. However
the one thing that worries me is his foreign policy. He talks the talk, but I'm having trouble to see if he walks the walk. As
Mills noted he didn't vote to end support for the genocidal war in Yemen, a war that serves purely the interests of Saudi Arabia
and not our own. He has criticized David Petraeus before, but its important not to be fooled by just rhetoric. While accepting
he'll be better than any Tom Cotton or (god forbid) Nikki Haley in 2024, his foreign policy needs to be examined more until then.
Our response to the epidemic was 100% 'made in China'. The entire 'Western World' decided to copy Beijing. If that doesn't establish
a new level of leadership for China, I don't know what would. I'm surprised this is not more widely recognized. You can run down
the many parallels, including the pathetic photo-op attempt by the West to build those emergency hospitals (Nightingale in the
UK, Javits Center, etc. all across the US), which were just to show 'hey we can build hospitals in a few weeks also' ... never
mind they could never, and were never used for anything at all.
At this point, Hawley is all talk. Further, much of his talking amounts to little more than expressing resentment. I agree that
the US needs to follow a more nationalist pathway, which involved making itself less dependent on its chief geopolitical rival.
But accomplishing this is going to require more than bashing China and asserting that cosmopolitan Americans are traitors. At
this point, Hawley has no positive program to offer. Giving paid speeches that vilify coastal elites and China is not a political
plan.
Further, I agree that we're probably moving away from the universalist order that's guided much of our thinking since the 1990s.
But isolationism is not the answer. We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account of China's rise as
a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?
Lastly, I find the article's reference to China's treatment of gays and lesbians to be curious. I'd first note that using the
term "homosexual" in reference to people is generally viewed as an offensive slur. Further, China's treatment of gay people isn't
so bad, and tends to be better than what Hawley's evangelical supporters would afford. Moreover, China is a multi-ethnic country.
It's program in Xinjiang has more to do with maintaining political order than a desire to repress non-Han people.
The general chest puffing nature of the American right makes it hard for them to understand that America might need to work with
other countries at a deep level, and not as vassals either.
". We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account
of China's rise as a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a
series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?"
The thing is that the post-WWII liberal international order was good for things like that.
Trump and the GOP quite deliberately destroyed it. Before that, the US would have the trust of many other governments; now they
don't trust the US - even if Biden is elected, the next Trump is on the way.
"We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese imperialism -- countries like India and Japan, Vietnam, Australia
and Taiwan -- are economically independent of China, and standing shoulder to shoulder with us,"
OK....then can someone explain why Hawley opposed the TPP, which was designed to accomplish just this. The TPP was supposed
to create trading relationships between these countries and the United States in the context of an agreement that excluded China.
In this instance people like Hawley were advancing China's position and interests (I suspect simply because it was a treaty negotiated
under Obama, which apparently was enough to make it bad).
Probably because Hawley seems more interested in demagoguery than accomplishing anything productive. Never mind that 95% of the
people who voted for him probably couldn't find Japan or Vietnam on a map.
TPP was not geared against China as a blanket thing, as an entire exclusion of China. The perfidy of TPP was that it was against
any economic interactions with State Owned Enterprises (didn't mention the origin, didn't have to). The ultimate goal wasn't to
isolate China but to force privatization of said SOEs, preferably run from Wall Street.
Private property good and = Democracy; State property bad = Authoritarianism, dictatorship, etc. It is a fallacy here somewhere,
cannot really put my finger on it...
Except this is all lies. On each chance to actually do something Hawley has sided with international corporations, as a good conservative
will always do. Fixing globalism will never come form the right, this is all smoke and mirrors for the religious right, aka the
rubes. And they are perpetual suckers and will keep buying into this crap as our nation is hollowed out and raided by the rich.
And that, is TRUE conservatism.
"Now we must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policy makers at the end of the Cold War does not serve
our purposes in this new era," proclaimed Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri. "And it does not meet our needs for this new day." He
continued, perhaps too politely: "And we should admit that multiple of its founding premises were in error."
The "error" in the founding premises of the post-WWII economic system was that it assumed that the US would act in a responsible
manner. Instead we have run huge budget deficits and borrowed the difference from foreigners, randomly invading other countries,
undermined the institutions we set up, bullied smaller countries rather than working with them, and abused our control of the
financial system.
No, that old economic system served our interests very well, as long as we respected the institutions we set up and kept our
own house in order. We haven't been doing any of that for at least 20 years.
Let's bear in mind that the Republican leader of the Senate married into a wealthy Chinese family that makes its money from hauling
Chinese exports to our shores and the shores of other developed nations.
This is all just hollow bravado meant to appeal to the right's nativist base.
I am not into the thinking that everyone whose politics I don't support is acting in bad faith. We are talking about the actions
of literally millions of people. Accusing this or that person of acting in bad faith because of personal interest is just dirty
politics dressed up as perceptiveness. I am not accusing any specific person of acting in bad faith, although some of the people
who pushed opening up to China because more business in China would create a class of people who would eventually push for Democracy
there, were indeed acting in bad faith. They wanted access to cheap labor with no rights.
Yet, no doubt many of them actually believed the propaganda, because it supposedly happened in South Korea, Taiwan and other
places. And especially the ones who switched the line to "globalism" when it was clear that the supposed indigenous pressures
for Democracy did not materialize also acted in bad faith. I only assume that some of were because once I understood the rationale
of the CCCP it was clear to me that China was radically different, and there is no way that so many of those guys who are smarter
and more knowledgeable about political systems than me, did not figure it out. But I am not going to behave as if it the Republicans
alone who were pushing either of these two false messages.
Criticizing China for "imperialism" is the height of hypocrisy on multiple levels. First, the United States has engaged in economic
imperialism, sometimes enforced with military intervention, for a hundred years. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" if you
doubt that. Second, this is the same guy who voted against our proxy war in Yemen. Third, one could very reasonably argue that
China is simply applying the lessons it learned at the hands of Western imperialists since 1800s..
It's good that SOME Republicans are at least giving lip service to the idea of bringing back manufacturing in this country.
But you have to thank Trump for that, not the GOP establishment. The offshoring of American manufacturing as part of "free trade"
was strongly supported (if not led) by the GOP going back to the 1980s.
And check out John Perkins's books ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", etc.) for up-to-date information. It's obviously true
that criticizing China for "imperialism" is ridiculously hypocritical but people like Senator Hawley know they can get away with
it because they understand how propaganda works on the dumbed-down masses.
They understand doublethink, repetition, appeal to patriotism, appeal to racism, appeal to fear, etc. People like Rupert Murdoch
do this every day... poorly, but well enough to be effective on a lot of people.
Incidentally, the Republicans may talk about bringing manufacturing back to the US but they're actually planning on shifting
it to India (see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade").
If Washington lured the Soviet Union into it's demise in Afghanistan, which left that minor
empire in shambles - socially, militarily, economically - it was the nuclear conflagration at
Chernobyl that put the corpse in the ground.....
(Watch the GREAT HBO five-part tragedy on it and you will see that the brutally heroic
response of the Soviets, that saved the Western World at least temporarily, but is the
portrait of self-sacrifice)
What was lost in the Soviets fumbling immediate post-explosion cover-up was the trust of
their Eastern European satellite countries. That doomed that empire. So much military might
was given up in Afghanistan, then on Chernobyl, it was not clear if the Soviets had the
wherewithal to put down the rebellions that spread from Czechoslovakia to East Germany and
beyond.
Covid-19 will do the same to the American Empire.
As its own infrastructure has been laid waste by the COLLASSAL MONEY PIT that is the
Pentagon, its flagrant use of the most valuable energy commodity, oil, to maintain some 4000
bases worldwide, this rickety over-extended upside down version of old Anglo-Dutch trading
empires, will finally collapse.
Loss of trust by the many craven satellites, in America's fractured response, to Covid-19
will put the final nail in its coffin.
A hot-shooting War may come next, but the empire cannot win it.
It would be nice if that were so, but it is very unlikely.
"So tired of reading propaganda."
Is that why you regurgitate it onto forums? Kinda like purging the system, eh?
If you are going to be judging China's economic health by their pollution levels then in
the future you will find yourself convinced that they have never recovered, even when it
becomes inescapably obvious that they have. The fact is that China's pollution levels are
never going back to 2019 levels, but that has nothing to do with their economic
health.
It really never ceases to amaze me how deeply rooted and pervasive the delusions and sense
of exceptionality is in America. It is woven into the thinking, from the lowest levels to the
very top of their thoughts, of even the very most intelligent Americans. It is apparently a
phenomenon that operates at an even deeper level than mass media brainwashing, as it seems it
was just as much a problem in every empire in history. That is, I am sure citizens of the
Roman Empire had the same blinding biases embedded deep below their consciousness. I guess
Marx was entirely correct to say that consciousness arises from material conditions, and
being citizen of an empire must be one of those material conditions that gives rise to this
all-pervasive and unconscious sense of exceptionality.
Go over to EOSDIS Worldview and take a look at satellite photos of China. Simple toggle in
lower left hand corner will take you to photos of same day, earlier years. Or any day in
satellite record.
The skies over China are clear. Chinese industry is not back at work. It may be that China
at 50% or even at 20% is a manufacturing powerhouse compared to a crumbling US. But until
China is back at work the thread so far is about the historical situation six months ago.
Xi used to do elaborately staged state appearances with well planned camera angles,
fabulous lighting, pomp and circumstance. He enjoyed the trappings of power and knew how to
use the trappings of power. Hasn't done that kind of state appearance since January.
China and the US are so different. The citizens of China cannot vote. The population's
movements are micromanaged by the government. This is not the case here (yet). And I hope it
is never the case. I agree with the premise that there are those in our government who are
living in a dream of the past and that is over, unless we want to destroy the world. But
China's government is so repressive. The rules must be obeyed. We seem to be compliant so far
of some of our government officials stepping over the bounds allowed by our Constitution, due
to the fear of C-19 engendered by the deep state (aka the bsmsm). But we will not do that
forever and our government cannot just start shooting big crowds of us as they can and have
done in China. Theirs is all top down rule, which is not the case here. Also, although it is
probably heretical to say this I am glad that the US has many cases of C-19. We will
eventually get herd immunity. IMO, China can lock down as many millions of citizens as they
wish; they cannot stop this virus and as time goes by they will have as many deaths and as
many cases as everybody else. Well, that is off the topic of the article. In the end I agree
that we are fighting weird battles we can never win and we citizens need to keep informing
our government employees that we just want to trade and make money, not threaten companies
and countries and lose money.
Regarding Madeleine Albright: "She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children
through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price
is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists."
I think 'liberal interventionist' is a bit too weak for the 'lovely' Ms Albright and her
(in)famous quote.
Instead, let's try, "That is the basic credo of psychopathically sadistic zionist monsters
who exquisitely enjoy the thought of Arab children dying agonizingly slow deaths of
preventable diseases and starvation."
Ah, yes. That's a much more accurate assessment of the situation ..
"... The GWOT was promoted with brain-dead expressions like "there's a new sheriff in town" which, after the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful belief that something called "American Exceptionalism" existed. ..."
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a "force for good," but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best , stating that " if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of living and more security than has been the case ever since. ..."
"... Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world's most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government's inability to do anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago. ..."
"... The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush. ..."
"... The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 "cashpaks," each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons. ..."
"... Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money "off the books," including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return. ..."
"... Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position. She is Simone Ledeen , daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. ..."
"... Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region. ..."
"... Apparently Simone's gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed "Simone Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should want for such a position." Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants someone who will green light destroying the Persians. ..."
The Global War on Terror or GWOT was declared in the wake of 9/11 by President George W.
Bush. It basically committed the United States to work to eliminate all "terrorist" groups
worldwide, whether or not the countries being targeted agreed that they were beset by
terrorists and whether or not they welcomed U.S. "help." The GWOT was promoted with
brain-dead expressions like "there's a new sheriff in town" which, after the destruction of
large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful
belief that something called "American Exceptionalism" existed.
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about
Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United States
can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes,
exceptional. That is generally how Donald Trump and hardline Republicans see the world, that
sovereignty exercised by foreign governments is and should be limited by the reach of the U.S.
military. Surrounding a competitor with military bases and warships is a concept that many in
Washington are currently trying to sell regarding a suitable response to the Chinese economic
and political challenge.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a "force for good,"
but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best , stating
that " if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation.
We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger
here to all of us." She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S.
imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists. Either way, the U.S. gets to make the
decisions over life and death, which, since the GWOT began, have destroyed or otherwise
compromised the lives of millions of people, mostly concentrated in Asia.
One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many
formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been
dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of
living and more security than has been the case ever since.
Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living
in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world's most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there
have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government's inability to do
anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less
reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago.
Add Afghanistan to the "most corrupt" list after 19 years of American tutelage and one comes
up with a perfect trifecta of countries that have been ruined. In a more rational world, one
might have hoped that at least one American politician might have stood up and admitted that we
have screwed up royally and it is beyond time to close the overseas bases and bring our troops
home. Well, actually one did so in explicit terms, but that was Tulsi Gabbard and she was
marginalized as soon as she started her run. Alluding to how Washington's gift to the world has
been corruption would be to implicitly deny American Exceptionalism, which is a no-no.
The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to
the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz,
Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major
ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus
belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual
U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark
against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down
Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the
mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national
security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush.
Ironically, neocons mostly were critics of Donald Trump the candidate because he talked
"nonsense" about ending "useless wars" but they have been trickling back into his
administration since he has made it clear that he is not about to end anything and might in
fact be planning to attack Iran and maybe even Venezuela. The thought of new wars, particularly
against Israel's enemy Iran, makes neocons salivate.
The disastrous American occupation of Iraq from 2003-2004 was mismanaged by something called
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which might have been the most corrupt
quasi-government body to be seen in recent history. At least $20 billion that belonged to the
Iraqi people was wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly
how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost
will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means
that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.
Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which
meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war's
most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were
nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation or American
Enterprise Institute websites, where they had posted their résumés. They were
paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before
returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was former White House Press
Secretary Ari Fleischer's older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named
director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.
The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen
and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into
Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 "cashpaks," each cashpak
having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and
June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The
$100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.
Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There
was also considerable money "off the books," including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil
exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA
contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as
high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The
contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in
return.
Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political
affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of
them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position.
She is
Simone Ledeen , daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate
in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless
became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in
Baghdad.
Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the
Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region.
Post 9/11, Ledeen's leading neocon father Michael was the source of the expressions "creative
destruction" and "total war" as relating to the Muslim Middle East, where "civilian lives
cannot be the total war's first priority The purpose of total war is to permanently force your
will onto another people." He is also a noted Iranophobe, blaming numerous terrorist acts on
that country even when such claims were ridiculous. He might also have been involved in the
generation in Italy of the fabricated Iraq Niger uranium documents that contributed greatly to
the march to war with Saddam.
Apparently Simone's gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle
East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin
on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed "Simone
Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should
want for such a position." Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants
someone who will green light destroying the Persians.
Ledeen, a Brandeis graduate with an MBA from an Italian university, worked in and out of
government in various advisory capacities before joining Standard Chartered Bank. One of her
more interesting roles was as an advisor to General Michael Flynn in Afghanistan at a time when
Flynn was collaborating with her father on a book that eventually came out in 2016 entitled The
Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The book
asserts that there is a global war going on in which "We face a working coalition that extends
from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua." The
book predictably claims that Iran is at the center of what is an anti-American alliance.
The extent to which Simone has absorbed her father's views and agrees with them can, of
course, be questioned, but her appointment is yet another indication, together with the jobs
previously given to John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and
Elliot Abrams , that the Trump Administration is intent on pursuing a hardline aggressive
policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is also an unfortunate indication that the
neoconservatives, pronounced dead after the election of Trump, are back and resuming their
drive to obtain the positions of power that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
How was he leveraged to order the assassination of Iran's general Qasem Soleimani?
It's all about manufacturing new threats to his presidency, and then offering to switch
them off when he trades something the neocons want. The politics of extortion.
If "??Operation Iraqi Freedom"? may accurately be regarded as Wolfowitz's War in its
conception, then the aftermath of the war should be viewed as the Kissinger-Feith Occupation"
and continuation of illegal sanctions by "Democrat, Bill Clinton, and his meretricious Middle
East foreign policy team of Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Madeleine "??it's worth it"? Albright,
Dennis Ross, and Australian import, Martin Indyk. " but it was "
Kissinger's partner and frontman in Baghdad, Paul "??Jerry"? Bremer, which has effectively
destroyed Iraq as a nation-state, " and But within weeks of the invasion, Garner's tenure as
head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism
expert and protege of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner's
"musts". [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: "There is
still time to rectify this," Rumsfeld refused to do so. And who was assisting Dr. Kissinger
to program the new U.S. proconsul in Baghdad? Who was Paul Bremer's primary contact at the
Pentagon, overseeing the occupation from Washington, with the blessing of Don Rumsfeld? None
other than the award winning hyperZionist zealot, Douglas "clean break" Feith, the man who
had advised Likud icon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iraq, Syria and Lebanon
in 1996 and tear up the Oslo "peace process ". Feith is a protege of Richard Perle.
Feith is on the Advisory Board of JINSA ,. Feith is a face card in the deck of the Institute
for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, headquartered in Jerusalem. The law office he
founded in 1986, Feith & Zell, is based in Israel, catering to Jewish-American
"??settlers"? on the West Bank. "
If nothing else, Bob Woodward's last fat book on Iraq, State of Denial, has performed a
valuable public service by ejecting the furtive Kissinger from the shadows. Woodward reports
that vice president Dick Cheney confided to him (Woodward) in the summer of 2005: "I probably
talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at
least once a month, Scooter [Libby] and I sit down with him." [Page 406.] Woodward goes on to
state: "The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making the
former secretary the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs."
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_kissinger_connection/
Regarding Madeleine Albright: "She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children
through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price
is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists."
I think 'liberal interventionist' is a bit too weak for the 'lovely' Ms Albright and her
(in)famous quote.
Instead, let's try, "That is the basic credo of psychopathically sadistic zionist monsters
who exquisitely enjoy the thought of Arab children dying agonizingly slow deaths of
preventable diseases and starvation."
Ah, yes. That's a much more accurate assessment of the situation ..
Nixon is recorded as saying, "Any settlement will have to be imposed by both the US and the
Soviet Union". Yet, as he had told the Russian ambassador to Washington, "I don't want to
anger the American Jews who hold important positions in the press, radio and television".
The Jewish lobby has enormous influence on Congress. Nixon wanted to wait until he had won
his reelection and concluded the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam and then he could face
down the Jewish lobby. Later he told the ambassador, "I will deliver the Israelis".
In one of his final acts in office, he ordered a complete cutoff of assistance to Israel.
It was not to be.
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about
Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United
States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes,
exceptional.
That is correct and that is because it works the majority of Americans are stupid.
Do you see a solution suggested here?
It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after
the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power
that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
The neocons never went anywhere. Trump is a minion of the Deep State and staffs his
administration accordingly.
My point is simple and ineluctable, whatever our demerits, our great republic is
supposed to weed out psychopaths like Brennan long before they get as close as he has to
destroying the whole shebang.
Never happens all administrations are full of psychopaths.
Frankly nothing new. Every Empire sought to rule the world and committed a long list of
atrocities in the process. "The empire on which the sun never sets", in reference to the
British Empire (the one currently still ruling the world), comes from Xerxes' "We shall
extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no
land beyond our borders." as he invaded Greece.
That said, a word on the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski Doctrine and their Pentagon world map would be
on point here
A US judge
dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's
claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an
opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation,
demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the
July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against
the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right
wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian
Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US
mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news
agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its
"payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the
allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the
Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been
paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding
coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal
Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but
opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free
speech.
Siding
with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and
opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the
accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the
contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast,
the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and
"exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her
initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out
that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that
shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder
Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
I've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever
Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.
There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the
Permawar is one of them.
My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all
that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from
Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy?
How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language?
Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear
thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely
hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the
world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of
the same opinion still".
Pat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.
Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars.
All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense.
"While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot
persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them
to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity –
traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".
Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids,
prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet
politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular
democracies like America or Western Europe?
Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal
"values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.
As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot
it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned
this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller
than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged
down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would
not convert the dollar into gold.
Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime
soon.
The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to
war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the
saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya
re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.
You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the
name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan,
Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .
America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the
land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon
fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children
in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?
I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's
hopeless trying to "win."
If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US
have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.
Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really
nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective
to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have
that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up
and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a
peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to
bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like
that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they
live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing
to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own
country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their
ground against the odds.
If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not
willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each
other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in
producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next
batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude
to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3
billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians
and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.
In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was
mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
ours.
If I may..
another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only
wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
(((ours)))).
They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to
remain who they are.
IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it.
Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like
these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can
reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]
If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West,
and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe
and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values,
and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his
God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of
the day, he had no honor.
These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,
but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather
die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their
sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the
fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".
They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain
who they are.
Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara
Spectre would be pounding sand.
Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign
intervention.
Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.
What will the Taliban do when we leave?
They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they
will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.
Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be
dominant in Afghanistan ?
The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out
local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign
(CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that.
They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.
Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred
of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had
zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to
9/11.
And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American
military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish
supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from
day one. Duh.
.
.
.
.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out,
I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and
haunting.
Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die
for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all
those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).
@paranoid
goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream."
Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their
lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid
depression.
If the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us
into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or
will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?
Excellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war"
seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE
objective.
The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no
on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts /
bases for a raft of groups.
I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government
(which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that
the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL
as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.
Before Russiagate, the former national security advisor was an operative for Turkey,
tilting foreign policy against the Kurds.
by Reese Erlich Posted on
May 22, 2020 May 21, 2020 Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is best known
for his connection to the Russiagate investigation. Lost in that hubbub, however, was Flynn's
slimy role as a lobbyist for Turkey. A Turkish businessman paid Flynn
$530,000 in 2016 to push pro-Turkey, anti-Kurd policies in hopes of influencing the Trump
Administration.
The American public has mostly forgotten about Flynn's Turkey connections, says Steven A.
Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in
Washington, D.C.
"There's more going on with Turkey than people may realize," Cook tells me.
Flynn's money-driven opportunism is just one example of the operations of Washington's
foreign policy lobbyists. As a candidate, Donald Trump correctly criticized the Washington
swamp, but as President, instead of draining it, he has shoveled in more muck.
I've dipped my toe into the swamp on occasion by attending conferences and press events
populated by Washington's elite. I've rubbed elbows with the likes of former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Believe me, these folks are just as evil in person as they appear on TV.
Washington swamp creatures are easily identified by their black pinstriped suits, wingtip
oxfords, and red power ties. Two kinds of people attend these events: those in power and
those hoping to seize it.
Washington is crawling with former diplomats, intelligence officers, and business
executives eager to influence policy and make a buck. And so enters former army Lieutenant
General Michael Thomas Flynn, poster boy for the military-industrial complex.
Flynn's checkered past
Flynn, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, came to Washington during the Obama
Administration as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was
forced to resign for insubordination in 2014, whereupon he joined the Washington swamp by
forming the Flynn Intel Group.
In 2016, Flynn hitched his wagon to candidate Donald Trump, giving a fiery speech at the
Republican National Convention in which he echoed
the call to "lock up" Hillary Clinton for her handling of State Department emails.
Behind the scenes, however, Flynn was engaged in offenses for which he could be locked up.
The Flynn Intel Group signed
a contract totaling $600,000 with a Turkish businessman who had close ties to authoritarian
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Erdoğan wanted Washington to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a political opponent living
in Pennsylvania since 1999. Gulen is a rival political Islamist who had a falling out with
Erdogan. The Turkish president
accuses Gulen of organizing the unsuccessful July 2016 coup. At the time Flynn
spoke favorably about the military trying to overthrow Erdogan. He also
criticized Turkey for allowing terrorists to cross the border into Syria.
But after receiving the contract to help Turkey, he did a 180-degree turn and supported
Erdogan's policies.
"Flynn believes whatever is good for Flynn is good for America," Kani Xulam, director of
the American Kurdish Information Network, tells me. "The minute they put money in his bank
account, he became pro-Turkey. That was the shocking part."
Kidnapping
In September 2016, Flynn arranged
a meeting between former US officials and Turkish leaders, including the country's foreign
minister, energy minister, and Erdogan's son-in-law.
Participants at the meeting talked about kidnapping Gulen and bringing him to Turkey.
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey, who attended the meeting, said
they
discussed "a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away."
In December, Flynn
wrote an op-ed for the influential Washington publication The Hill in which he
compared Gulen to both Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini. According to analyst Cook, the
op-ed could have been written in Ankara: "It was all Turkey's talking points."
Flynn didn't bother to tell The Hill editors that he was a paid lobbyist for
Turkey.
Flynn became part of Trump's transition team after November 2016, and he used the position
to push anti-Kurdish policies. At that time, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces were on
the verge of taking control of the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa, Syria. He told
the Obama Administration not to provide arms to the SDF and implemented that policy when
Trump came to power in 2017.
But Flynn's stint as National Security Advisor lasted for only three weeks. He was forced
to
resign after revelations of his phone call to the Russian ambassador. In March, Flynn
registered as a foreign agent
for Turkey.
In 2019, a federal jury convicted
Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws
and failure to register as a foreign agent for Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify
against Kian but changed his story at the last minute, causing problems for the
prosecution. The judge later tossed the
verdict, saying the prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection
with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will.
Corrupt world
Flynn's activities are just one example of the corrupt world of foreign lobbying.
Recently, The New York Timesexposed how
defense contractor Raytheon pressured the Trump Administration to sell sophisticated weapons
to Saudi Arabia, which were then used to slaughter civilians in Yemen.
The Yemen war, which began in 2015, has
killed an estimated 100,000 people and displaced 80 percent of the population. Saudi air
bombardment of hospitals, schools, and other civilian targets helped create one of the
world's worst humanitarian crises. US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon
have profited handsomely from the slaughter.
Until recently, Raytheon's vice president for government relations was a former career
army officer named Mark Esper. Today Esper is Secretary of Defense.
Crawling into bed with lobbyists is bipartisan activity. The Obama Administration
sold $10
billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and its allies. Trump has openly boasted that US arms sales
provide corporate profits and jobs at home.
"Trump has been more forthcoming praising US relations with Saudis because they want to
buy more weapons," Kurdish activist Xulam tells me. "He doesn't care what Saudis do with the
weapons."
Analyst Cook says the entire system of foreign lobbying needs major reform. "It's a
scandal that needs to be cleaned up," he says. "It's legalized foreign influence
peddling."
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him on Twitter ,
@ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
"Foglesong's book provides a panoramic view of American popular attitudes toward Russia, one that is illustrated with many
arresting cartoons and magazine covers. It should provoke a wider debate about the rationality of evaluating Russia with reference
to an idealized view of the United States, as well as the deeper sources of this tendency." -Deborah Welch Larson, H-Diplo
"In the 21st century, the American debate on the prospects of modernizing Russia and on the Americans' role in this process is
still going strong even though it began more than a century ago. This is why David Foglesong's book aimed at elucidating the
mechanisms of misrepresentations which threaten both Russian-American relations and the world security as a whole is of equal
importance for the academic community and for the policy makers in both Russia and the United States."
-Victoria Zhuravleva, H-Diplo
"Foglesong demonstrates that powerful Americans have again and again seen the possibility, even necessity, of spreading the word
to Russia, and then, when Russia fails to transform itself into something resembling the US, have recoiled and condemned Russia's perfidious
national character or its leaders-most recently Putin. The author's singular achievement is to show that well before the cold war, Russia
served as America's dark double, an object of wishful thinking, condescension and self-righteousness in a quest for American purpose-without
much to show for such efforts inside Russia. The author thereby places in context the cold war, when pamphleteers like William F Buckley
Jr and politicians like Ronald Reagan pushed a crusade to revitalise the American spirit. Russia then was a threat but also a means
to America's end (some fixed on a rollback of the alleged Soviet "spawn" inside the US-the welfare state-while others, after the Vietnam
debacle, wanted to restore "faith in the United States as a virtuous nation with a unique historical mission"). Foglesong's exposé of
Americans' "heady sense of their country's unique blessings" helps make sense of the giddiness, followed by rank disillusionment, vis-...-vis
the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s and 2000s." -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine
Notable quotes:
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
"... The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea. ..."
"... This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags. ..."
"... T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil, precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror. ..."
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which
missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans
as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair
during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's
own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts
about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions
that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia,
more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting
what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American
journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have
distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."
The Adventures of Straw Man Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2013 This has been the essential function of US
Russia policy, as David Foglesong shows in his century-long tour.
The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has
defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed
Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea.
This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps
the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags.
The crusade against US civil rights - of which Reagan was also a part in his early career - as Communist-inspired tinkering
with the Constitution was much less successful. His support for free trade unions in the Soviet Bloc while crushing them at home
underscored the irony.
But Foglesong is much too generous in evaluating Reagan's human decency as a policy motive. Reagan pursued his grand rollback
strategy by any means necessary, mixing hard tactics (contras, death-squad funding, mujahadin, Star Wars) with soft (democracy-enhancement,
human rights, meeting with Gorbachev). Solidarity activists in Poland might remember his crusading fondly; survivors of the Salvadoran
civil war will not.
The "crisis" with the Putin regime currently empowered shows the missionary impulse yet alive: projecting one's reforming instincts
upon others rather than at home. T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion
of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil,
precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror.
I do find it puzzling that Foglesong made no mention of Maurice Hindus, the prolific popular "explainer" of Russia in over
a dozen mid-century books; and the notorious defector Victor Kravchenko and his best-selling memoir of the 1940s (ghost-written
by Eugene Lyons, another popular anti-Soviet scribe). Both were much more influential in the public and political mind than many
of the more obscure missionary authors Foglesong does cite. Nevertheless, Foglesong has offered a generous helping of cultural/political
history that shows no signs of growing stale.
>
indah nuritasari , Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
This book tells a fascinating story of American efforts to liberate and remake Russia since the 1880s. It starts with the story
of Tsar Alexander II's asasination on March 1, 1881 and how James William Buel, a Missoury Journalist wrote it in his book "Russian
Nihilism and Exile Life in Siberia."
The story continues until The Reagan era and "the Evil Empire," 1981-1989.
This book is very interesting and useful for history lovers, students, journalists, or general public. Here you can find all
the "dark and exciting stuff" about the cold war, including the involvement of the journalists, political activists, diplomats,
and even engineers.
It is really helpful for me as a new immigrant in the US to help me understand the US position and role in the Cold War Era.
The language used in this book, though, is " kind of dry". A little editing for the next edition could be really helpful!!
Yet another bombshell development emerged Thursday in the case of former National Security
Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn: the release of additional exculpatory evidence FBI officials had
withheld from the courts and the defense for three years.
Crucially, this includes evidence that the Bureau's official "302 report" filed by the lead
agent who interviewed Flynn was edited multiple times, including by an official who never
participated in the interview.
Thursday's revelations come on top of yesterday's disclosures indicating an apparent attempt
by FBI officials to trap Flynn into committing a criminal offense during an interview.
The new revelation could prove even more significant: In addition to the apparently
calculated effort to get Flynn to commit perjury or obstruction, top FBI figures, including FBI
Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, repeatedly altered the "302
report" that was filed after the Flynn interview.
That interview was conducted under highly unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, an FBI
interview of a top West Wing official would be requested through the White House Counsel's
office, and would be conducted in the presence of legal counsel representing the official being
interviewed.
That did not occur in the case of the FBI's interview with Flynn, and Comey later stated
that under "a more organized administration" he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with
it."
Initially, when the lead FBI agent handling the case was asked whether Flynn lied during the
interview, he stated that he did not believe so.
But over the coming days Strzok and Page would edit and revise the agent's 302 report
repeatedly, according to a document providing text messages between FBI officials that the
defense counsel finally received this week.
Prosecutors and investigators are required to turn over information that might tend to
indicate a suspect's innocence to the defense counsel prior to trial and sentencing. Most legal
analysts would consider the information withheld from Flynn's legal team potentially
exculpatory.
An inside source familiar with efforts to defend Gen. Flynn tells Newsmax an unadulterated,
original 302 document exists that was created by the lead agent from his notes of the interview
with Flynn.
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who testified before the
House during President Trump's impeachment, wrote Thursday the decision to keep the case open
occurred when "Special counsel Robert Mueller decided to bring the dubious charge."
In a column posted on TheHill.com on Thursday, Turley said the case against Flynn should be
dismissed. "Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution," he wrote.
At the time Flynn was being prosecuted, Mueller was seeking evidence the Trump campaign
colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign.
Critics say he was prosecuting Flynn to get him to turn state's witness against Trump, but
the general never implicated him.
Mueller eventually determined there was no evidence of a Russian-collusion conspiracy. But
by then Flynn, under intense financial pressure from the prosecution and buckling under the
threat that his son could be drawn into a legal quagmire, had pled guilty to one count of lying
to the FBI.
He has since requested to withdraw that plea, and he is awaiting sentencing.
President Trump weighed in on the controversial case Thursday morning tweeting, "What
happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen
of the United States again!"
Later the president told reporters he believes Flynn is "in the process of being
exonerated."
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the
news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis
indicated no crime had been committed.
Kerik told Newsmax Thursday that if evidence or records had been unduly altered under his
watch as police commissioner, he would have referred the matter to the district attorney for
possible prosecution.
"They intentionally went back and doctored the original 302," he said. "That's because they
were not looking for the truth.
"They were looking for a mechanism to trap Gen. Flynn, to prosecute him, to get him fired in
order to go after the president. That was their motive, that was their agenda. It's absolutely
clear at this point they were not looking for the truth."
Kerik added, "This was done at the highest levels of the FBI. At the most senior level of
the FBI, they falsified records, they suppressed evidence.
"This is irresponsible, it's outrageous They used and abused their authority to deprive Gen.
Flynn of his constitutional right to freedom," he said.
According to the source, as supported by text messages also obtained by Newsmax, Stzrok, who
also participated in the Flynn interview, rewrote the 302 extensively -- although a text
message from him stated he tried not to "completely re-write it so as to save [redacted]
voice," presumably a reference to the lead agent who originally wrote it.
Stzrok then shared the document with a "pissed off" Page, who had not participated in the
interview, and who revised it significantly again, according to the Newsmax source.
The objective of the interview was to probe whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an
18th-century statute that has never been used in any criminal conviction. The Act makes it a
crime for a U.S. citizens to interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Many legal
scholars find the law to be unconstitutional.
The documents received by Newsmax indicate the case had virtually been closed –
suggesting the lead agent was satisfied no crime had been committed -- prior to it being
reopened by the direct intervention of Strzok and Page.
The documents, for example, show the probe of Flynn was about to be put to bed when the lead
agent received a text from Strzok stating, "Hey, if you haven't closed [the case], don't do so
yet."
Apparently, Page was pleasantly surprised to find the matter had not yet been closed.
On Feb. 10, 2017, Page texted Strzok, "This document pisses me off. You didn't even attempt
to make this cogent and readable? This is lazy work on your part."
Strzok replied, "Lisa you didn't see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I
was 1) trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [the lead agent's] voice and 2)
get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon."
Wednesday's revelation included notes of a meeting conducted a short time after the 2016
election between FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The notes stated,
"What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?"
The notes were written by then-FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap.
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike
was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in
one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian
interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws
victory also played a role; as did the need for the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to
keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an
"aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now
disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past
few weeks finally
collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no
evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set
a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that
there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that
supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after
the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to
investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility
that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms
large since he felt personally under attack.
Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their
tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example,
investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The
handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack
Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's
Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about
Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former
president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement,
based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a
criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on
others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence
officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against
the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the
audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the
apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post
offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The
absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant
response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI
attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn
Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn
Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate,
see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston
titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs.
David Cay Johnston":
(The entire
debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video
as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their
dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a
second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will
do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at
it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and
set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these
'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their
own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting
rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and
derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already
brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.
QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the
beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not
going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for
destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the
CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign
agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money
through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge
transport spot for heroin into the
EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug
trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to
see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency
manipulating the public discourse?
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia
had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be
followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October
Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a
violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the
collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War
II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need
to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its
global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the
1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War,
revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong
illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward
Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and
America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark
double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what
they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and
emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about
Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted
American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their
grip."
Moribundus, 3 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take
advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.
Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He
can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing
his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles
free and farts in his general direction.
ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old
CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters'
game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.
Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone
with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we
all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read
his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3
years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years,
right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.
Posa, 9 hours ago
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very
eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing
what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails
in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War.
Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal
Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from
(((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.
LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout
of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump
haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate,
shall we?
This neocons is definitely past her shelf live. But MIC still controls the US foreign policy,
and this is that's why she is able to publish yet another second rate book.
One of the disasters that she endorsed was the Iraq war. Although not as enthusiastic about
launching an illegal, aggressive war as Sen. Hillary Clinton, Albright said at the time: "I
personally felt the war was justified on the basis of Saddam's decade-long refusal to comply
with UN Security Council resolutions on WMD." When pressed on America's alleged
indispensability, she allowed: "Vietnam clearly was a terrible disaster. The war in Iraq was a
terrible disaster. I do think that we have misunderstood the Middle East." Yet such admissions
don't appear to have tempered her enthusiasm for Washington's meddling around the globe.
She does run away from her flip answer to journalist Lesley Stahl's question about the death
of a half million Iraqi children due to sanctions: "we think the price is worth it." Albright
even claims that the Clinton administration came to recognize the human cost of sanctions and
moved to better targeted "smart" penalties. Yet there is nothing smart about America's current
economic war on Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea.
Moreover, she did not retreat from the assumption that U.S. policymakers are entitled to
decide on the life and death of foreigners. She might doubt in retrospect that the price was
worth it. But she still believes that decision was for her and other Clinton administration
officials to make.
This mindset has made the U.S. government anathema to many around the globe. Why do "they"
hate us? Because of officials like Albright. These days even the Europeans loath Washington. No
doubt, she would be horrified to be lumped with President Donald Trump and some of his aides,
such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but they all are swimming in hubris. Albright is simply
more polite when dealing with representatives of wealthy industrialized countries. In contrast,
Trump and Pompeo are ever ready to insult them as well.
Nor does she appear to retreat from the hubris she constantly expressed in other forms. For
instance, while declaring the U.S. to be "the indispensable nation," she also claimed: "We
stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here
to all of us." That assertion was bad enough when she made it in 1998. After Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Yemen, Syria, and more it is positively ludicrous. Overweening arrogance among foreign
policy elites has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, while killing
hundreds of thousands of foreigners and ravaging foreign nations.
On This Day 3 seconds
Do You Know What Happened Today In History? May 18 2015
At least 78 people die in a landslide caused by heavy rains in the Colombian town of
Salgar.
Shawn Nelson, 35, steals a tank from a National Guard Armory, destroying cars and other
property and is shot to death by police after immobilizing the tank. sponsored
Advertisement
However, it is not just those overseas for whom Albright has contempt. In 1992 she
famously queried Colin Powell: "What's the use of having this superb military you're always
talking about if we can't use it?" Never mind the lives of those who volunteered to defend
America. For her, they were just gambit pawns to be sacrificed in whatever global chess game
she was playing at the time. Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed: "I
thought I would have an aneurysm." Having served in Vietnam, he knew what it was like to lose
soldiers in combat. Anyone who has family in the military, as I do, cannot help but react
similarly.
A decade later she was asked about her comment. She responded: "what I thought was that we
had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our
military effectively again." A strange claim, since shortly before George H. W. Bush had sent
American military personnel into a limited war against Iraq, while avoiding an interminable
guerrilla war and attempt at nation-building. She well represented the sofa samurai who
dominate Washington policy-making.
Even worse, however, in 1997 she said to Gen. Hugh Shelton, also JCS chairman: "I know I
shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out
Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the
world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee
that Saddam could shoot it down?" He appeared to react rather like Powell, indicating that it
could be done as soon as she was ready to fly.
Albright is intelligent and has a fascinating family background. But she should be kept
far away from American foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a
Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he
is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
Essentially the second part of Flynn call was on behave of Israel
Notable quotes:
"... In those conversations, Flynn asked that the Russians not retaliate for the Obama administration sanctions on Moscow imposed for the now debunked Russiagate allegations. Russia eventually decided not to retaliate. Flynn also asked on behalf of Israel that the Russians veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli West Bank settlements, which Obama was planning to abstain on. Russia refused this request. ..."
"... Contrary to popular belief, when you can't trust your own government, that's a very bad thing. ..."
"... This is a hugely important article explaining the process, the policies, and their historical context by one who was a top legal expert at the Bureau. This is what the American public should be reading to know what should happen, as well as to learn how the process and policies have been violated, what have been the consequences. Thank you Coleen Rowley, and thank you Consortium News. ..."
Yhe president announced on Friday that he was firing Steve Linick, the State Department's
Inspector General.
One possible reason that Linick was removed may have been that he was conducting an
investigation into the
bogus emergency declaration that the administration used to expedite arms sales to Saudi
Arabia and the UAE last year:
House Democrats have discovered that the fired IG had mostly completed an investigation
into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's widely criticized decision to skirt Congress with an
emergency declaration to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year,
aides on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me.
"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing," Rep. Eliot L.
Engel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement sent to me.
"His office was investigating -- at my request -- Trump's phony declaration of an emergency
so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia."
If Linick was investigating the bogus emergency declaration, he would have come across
reporting that showed how a
former Raytheon lobbyist serving at the department was instrumental in pushing through the
plan to expedite arms sales that benefited his old employer. He would have discovered that
there was no genuine emergency that justified going around Congress. Once his investigation was
concluded, it would have found that the emergency declaration was made in bad faith and that
the law was abused so that the administration could proceed with arms sales that Congress
opposed.
Another reason for the firing was to
protect Mike Pompeo from an investigation into the Secretary's abuses of government
resources for personal purposes:
The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump was looking into
allegations that a staffer for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was performing domestic errands
and chores such as handling dry cleaning, walking the family dog and making restaurant
reservations, said a congressional official familiar with the matter.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee released a statement immediately on Friday objecting to Linick's firing and
suggesting that it might be an illegal act of retaliation. There will now be a Congressional
investigation into the circumstances surrounding Linick's firing. If Trump hoped to reduce the
scrutiny on Pompeo by getting rid of Linick, he will be disappointed. It remains to be seen how
much of a price Pompeo will pay for this, but the price is likely higher now than it would have
been if he hadn't pushed for removing the inspector general.
Pompeo reportedly recommended
Linick's removal. This is not the first time that Pompeo has been accused of misusing
government resources. There was a report
last summer that a whistleblower alleged that Pompeo and his wife were using Diplomatic
Security agents as their personal errand boys:
Democrats on a key House congressional committee are investigating allegations from a
whistleblower within the State Department about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his
family's use of taxpayer-funded Diplomatic Security -- prompting agents to lament they are at
times viewed as "UberEats with guns".
Congressional investigators, who asked for the committee not to be named as they carry out
their inquiries, tell CNN that a State Department whistleblower has raised multiple issues
over a period of months, about special agents being asked to carry out some questionable
tasks for the Pompeo family.
Pompeo has also repeatedly used government resources for domestic travel that seems to have
more to do with advancing the Secretary's political ambitions in Kansas. There has been
widespread speculation that he has used official trips in an attempt to lay the groundwork for
a possible
Senate campaign . If so, it would be a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. That prompted a
call for a special counsel investigation into Pompeo's travel. If Pompeo and his wife have
been using a political appointee as a gofer, that would be more of the same abusive
behavior.
Linick has previously clashed with other Trump administration officials at State. Last year,
he released a damning
report on Brian Hook over his treatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iranian-American
official who was apparently
targeted for political retaliation because of her policy views and ethnic background. The
fired inspector general was well-respected at the department, and his firing at Pompeo's urging
will likely cause further demoralization at a department that has already been run into the
ground under the Secretary's dismal leadership.
The Secretary of State seems to think that government funds and personnel are at his
disposal for his personal errands and political activities. Linick was doing exactly what an
inspector general is supposed to be doing by investigating the allegations against him, and
then he was conveniently fired on Pompeo's recommendation. You could hardly ask for a more
straightforward case of a corrupt official using his influence to remove the person responsible
for scrutinizing his conduct. If Linick was also fired because he was in the process of
exposing the administration's dishonest push for more arms sales to the Saudi coalition, that
makes his removal all the more outrageous and sinister.
"... William C. Patrick III would also become involved the FBI's Amerithrax investigation, even though he was initially suspected of involvement in the attacks. However, after having passed a lie detector test, he was added to the FBI's "inner circle" of technical advisors on the Amerithrax case, despite the fact that Patrick's protege , Stephen Hatfill, was the FBI's top suspect at the time. Hatfill was later cleared of wrongdoing and the FBI eventually blamed a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Ivins for the crime, hiding a "mountain" of evidence exonerating Ivins to do so, according to the FBI's former lead investigator. ..."
"... That same year, Hatfill offered Patrick another consulting job at SAIC and commissioned Patrick to perform a study describing "a fictional terrorist attack in which an envelope containing weapons-grade anthrax is opened in an office." The Baltimore Sun would later report that Patrick's study for SAIC discussed the "danger of anthrax spores spreading through the air and the requirements for decontamination after various kinds of attacks" as well as how many grams of anthrax would need to be placed within a standard business envelope in order to conduct such an attack. ..."
"... In addition, the FBI's supposed "smoking gun" used to link Bruce Ivins' to the anthrax attacks was the fact that a flask in Ivins' lab labeled RMR-1029 was determined to be its "parent" strain. Yet, it would later be revealed that portions of RMR-1029 had been sent by Ivins to Battelle's Ohio facility prior to the anthrax attacks. An analysis of the water used to make the anthrax also revealed that the anthrax spores had been created in the northeastern United States and follow-up analyses narrowed down the only possible sources as coming from one of three labs: Fort Detrick, a lab at the University of Scranton, or Battelle's West Jefferson facility. ..."
"... After Ivins' untimely "suicide" in 2008, Department of Justice civil attorneys would publicly challenge the FBI's assertions that Ivins had been the culprit and instead "suggested that a private laboratory in Ohio" managed by Battelle "could have been involved in the attacks." ..."
"... As previously noted in Part II of this series, BioPort was set to lose its contract for anthrax vaccine entirely in August 2001 and the entirety of its anthrax vaccine business was rescued by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which saw concerns over BioPort's corruption replaced with fervent demands for more of its anthrax vaccine. ..."
"... Of course, at the time, the only government known to be genetically engineering a pathogen was the U.S., as reported by the New York Times ' Judith Miller . Miller reported in October 2001 that the Pentagon, in the wake of the anthrax attacks, had approved "a project to make a potentially more potent form of anthrax bacteria" through genetic modification, a project that would be conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute. ..."
"... This was the continuation of the project, which had involved William Patrick and Ken Alibek, and the Pentagon moved to restart it after the attacks, though it is unclear if either Patrick or Alibek continued to work on the subsequent iteration of Battelle's efforts to produce a more virulent strain of anthrax. That project was paused a month prior when Miller and other journalists disclosed the existence of the program in an article published on September 4, 2001. ..."
A POWERFUL NETWORK OF POLITICAL OPERATIVES, A GLOBAL VACCINE MAFIA AND THEIR MAN IN WASHINGTON.
Last Friday, a group of Democratic Senators "
demanded " that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Robert
Kadlec, "accurately disclose all his personal, financial and political ties in light of new reporting that he had failed to do so
previously" after it was revealed that he had failed to note all "potential conflicts of interest" on his nomination paperwork.
The report in question, published
last Monday by The Washington Post , detailed the ties of Kadlec to a man named Fuad El-Hibri, the founder of a "life
sciences" company first known as BioPort and now called Emergent Biosolutions. Kadlec had previously disclosed his ties to El-Hibri
and Emergent Biosolutions for a separate nomination years prior, but had failed to do so when nominated to head ASPR.
Though The Post does note Kadlec's recent failure to disclose these connections, the article largely sanitizes Kadlec's
earlier yet crucial history and even obfuscates the full extent of his ties to the BioPort founder, among other glaring omissions.
In reality, Kadlec has much more than his ties to El-Hibri looming large as "potential conflict of interests," as his decades-long
career in shaping U.S. "biodefense" policy was directly enabled by his deep ties to intelligence, Big Pharma, the Pentagon and a
host of corrupt yet powerful characters.
Thanks to a long and deliberate process to introduce biodefense policy, driven by Robert Kadlec and his sponsors, $7 billion dollars-worth
of federally-owned vaccines, antidotes and medicines – held in strategically arranged repositories across the country in case of
a health emergency – are now in the hands of one single individual. Those repositories, which compose the Strategic National Stockpile
(SNS), are the exclusive domain of HHS' ASPR, a post created under Kadlec's watchful eye and tailored over the years to meet his
very specific requirements.
From this perch, Robert Kadlec has final say on where the stockpile's contents are sourced, as well as how, when and where they
are deployed. He is the sole source procurer of medical material and pharmaceuticals, making him the best friend of Big Pharma and
other healthcare industry giants who have been in his ear every step of the way.
Kadlec assures us, however, that the fact that he now holds the very office he worked so long to create is merely a coincidence.
"My participation in the ASPR project began at that time when I was working for the chairman of the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism
and Public Health Preparedness The bill was made law and the ASPR was created. It just was a coincidence that, 12 or 14 years later,
I was asked to become the ASPR," Kadlec
stated in 2018.
It was all a random twist of fate, Kadlec asserts, that saw him occupy ASPR at this crucial moment in U.S. history. Indeed, with
the country now in the middle of a WHO-declared coronavirus pandemic, Kadlec now has full control over the far-reaching "emergency"
powers of that very office, bestowed upon him by the very law that he had written.
The story of how a former USAF flight
surgeon came to have the exclusive dealer license over the single biggest stash of drugs in the history of the world is as disturbing
as it is significant in light of current events, particularly given that Kadlec
now leads the
coronavirus response for all of HHS. Yet, Kadlec's rise to power is not a case of an evil mastermind conquering a uniquely vulnerable
point of the nation's resources. Instead, it is a case of a man deeply enmeshed in the world of intelligence, military intelligence
and corporate corruption dutifully fulfilling the vision of his friends in high places and behind closed doors.
In this third installment of "
Engineering Contagion:
Amerithrax, Coronavirus and the Rise of the Biotech-Industrial Complex ," Kadlec is shown to hail from a tight-knit group
of "bioterror alarmists" in government and the private sector who gained prominence thanks to their penchant for imagining the most
horrific, yet fictitious scenarios that inspired fear among Presidents, top politicians and the American public. Among those fictitious
scenarios was the "Dark Winter" exercise discussed in
Part I .
Some of these alarmists, among them "cold warriors" from Fort Detrick's days of openly developing offensive weapons, would engage
in unsettling anthrax experiments and studies while developing suspect ties in 2000 to a company called BioPort. As noted in
Part II of this series, BioPort stood to lose everything in early September 2001 due to controversy over its anthrax vaccine.
Of course, the 2001 anthrax attacks that followed shortly thereafter would change everything, not just for BioPort, but U.S. biodefense
policy. With the stage set, Kadlec would quickly spring into action, guiding major policy changes on the heels of subsequent major
events and disasters, culminating in his crowning as King of the stockpile.
THE ACCIDENTAL MADMAN
Robert Kadlec describes himself as having been an "accidental tourist" regarding his introduction to biological warfare. An Air
Force physician who had specialized in tropical diseases, Kadlec would later say his interest in the field began when he was assigned
to be a special assistant for Chemical and Biological Warfare to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC),
advising
then-head of Special Operations Command Maj. Gen. Wayne Downing, on the eve of the first Gulf War.
Kadlec
would
later state that he had witnessed firsthand how the military, immediately prior to the Gulf War, had "lacked the necessary protective
equipment, detectors, and medical countermeasures including vaccines and antibiotics against the immediate threats posed by Iraq,"
allegedly prompting him to want to better U.S. biodefense efforts.
While holding this post at JSOC, Kadlec was privy to the advice of
William
C. Patrick III , a veteran of the U.S.' bioweapons program who had developed the U.S.' method for weaponizing anthrax and held
no less than five classified patents related to the toxin's use in warfare. Patrick, who had left government service in 1986 to become
a consultant, advised the Pentagon -- then headed by Dick Cheney -- that the risk of a biological weapons attack by Iraq, particularly
anthrax, was high. Patrick's warning prompted the U.S. military to vaccinate tens of thousands of its troops using the controversial
anthrax vaccine "anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA)." Kadlec would
personally
inject AVA into around 800 members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Kadlec
would
later note in Congressional testimony that no definitive proof of an alleged Iraqi biological weapons program was found during
the war or afterwards, but nevertheless claimed elsewhere that "the Iraqis later admitted they had procured large quantities of a
biological agents-anthrax and botulism toxin," suggesting that Patrick's warnings had had some basis in reality.
However, Kadlec failed to point out that these anthrax and botulism samples had been sold, with the U.S. government's full approval,
to Iraq's Ministry of Education by a U.S. private non-profit called the American Type Culture Collection. Donald Rumsfeld, who was
then an envoy for the Reagan administration and running a pharmaceutical company later sold to Monsanto,
would also be
involved in the shipment of these samples to Iraq.
Following the war, American microbiologist Joshua Lederberg was tasked by the Pentagon to head the investigation into "Gulf War
Syndrome," a phenomenon that studies
later linked to the adverse effects of the anthrax vaccine. Lederberg's task force argued that evidence regarding an association
between the symptomology and the anthrax vaccine was insufficient. However, he would later come under fire after it was reported
that he sat on the board
of the American Type Culture Collection, the very company that had shipped anthrax to Iraq's government between 1985 and 1989 with
the U.S. government's blessing. Lederberg
later admitted that the
investigation he led had not spent enough "time and effort digging out the details". The taskforce's findings were later
harshly criticized
by the Government Accountability Office.
Dr. Lederberg would prove to be an early, if not seminal, influence on Robert Kadlec's outlook regarding the subject of biowarfare.
The Nobel Laureate and long-time president of Rockefeller University was one of the fathers of bioterror alarmism in the United States,
alongside William C. Patrick III and other members of a tight-knit group of "cold warrior" microbiologists. Kadlec and Lederberg
would
go on to collaborate
on several books and
policy studies throughout the late 1990s and into 2001.
Years later, at a Congressional hearing, Kadlec
would
say that Lederberg's words "resonate constantly with me and serve as a practical warning." Aside from Lederberg, Kadlec was also
writing numerous books and articles with Randall Larsen, who
would later hire the
Medical doctor to teach "military strategy and operations" at the National War College, where Larsen's
close friend – William C. Patrick III
–
also taught .
A POISONED OASIS
Many of Kadlec's bioterror ravings have been preserved in 25-year old textbooks, like a U.S. Air War College textbook entitled
" Battlefield of the Future
" where Kadlec calls on the government to create a massive stockpile of drugs and vaccines to protect the population from a biological
weapons attack, particularly anthrax or smallpox. In one chapter, Kadlec
argued that stockpiles of necessary antibiotics,
immunoglobulins and vaccines would have to be procured, maintained, and be readily available to administer within hours."
Kadlec's views on the matter at the time of writing were greatly influenced by his first tour as a UNSCOM weapons inspector in
Iraq in 1994, where he was accompanied by William Patrick, among others. Kadlec would later return to Iraq in the same capacity in
1996 and 1998 in search of Iraq's alleged stores of weaponized anthrax that Patrick had been so sure were there, but had never materialized.
After three visits, Kadlec would later confess that, despite
what
Kadlec called "the most intrusive inspection and monitoring regime ever conceived and implemented" by the UN, the UNSCOM weapons
inspectors, including himself and William Patrick, "failed to uncover any irrefutable evidence of an offensive BW program." Kadlec
would
later return to Iraq on two separate occasions following the 2003 U.S. invasion of country, again finding no proof of the program's
existence.
By 1995, Kadlec was already imbued with the bioweapons alarmism that had been championed by Lederberg and Patrick. That year,
he fleshed out several "illustrative scenarios"
regarding the use of "biological economic warfare" against the United States. One of these fictional scenarios, titled "Corn Terrorism,"
involves China planning "an act of agricultural terrorism" by clandestinely spraying corn seed blight over the Midwest using commercial
airliners. The result of the "Corn Terrorism" scenario is that "China gains significant corn market share and tens of billions [of]
dollars of additional profits from their crop," while the U.S. sees its corn crop obliterated, causing food prices to rise and the
U.S. to import corn. Another scenario, entitled "That's a 'Lousy' Wine," involves "disgruntled European winemakers" covertly releasing
grape lice they have hidden in cans of paté to target California wine producers.
Around this same time, in 1994, the relatively young
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
or OTA , which informed policy decisions around questions of technological and scientific complexity on matters of national security,
was cut by the new Republican majority that took both houses in the pivotal 1994 midterms elections. At the time of its defunding,
Lederberg sat on the OTA's Technology Assessment Advisory Council (OTA-TAAC),
along with pharma industry insiders from
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Research Labs and pre-merger Smith-Kline, and chaired one of its last study panels.
In OTA's place, an independent, non-profit entity called The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) was co-founded by Special
Consultant to President H.W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) and a former CIA program monitor, Michael S. Swetnam,
who was reportedly " tasked with profiling
Osama Bin Laden before the September 11th attacks were enacted ."
The defunding of the OTA and subsequent creation of PIPS transferred policy-making on what are, perhaps, the most sensitive issues
of national security away from Congress and into a private foundation teeming with operators from the vast underbelly of the military
industrial complex (MIC). Former military officers,
DARPA scientists , NASA policy experts,
FBI agents,
CIA operatives and defense contractors like Northrop Grumman can all be found on their member rolls and in their boardrooms.
PIPS and its sponsors would shadow Robert Kadlec's career in government from the very beginning and remain in close proximity
to him today. One PIPS-linked individual would work particularly closely with Kadlec, Tevi Troy – a senior fellow at PIPS and an
adjunct fellow at the much more polished Hudson Institute, itself a major funder of PIPS. Troy has long been integral in shaping
Kadlec's biodefense policy agenda, which would remain conspicuously static and unchanging throughout the career he was just beginning.
POX AMERICANA
By 1996, talks had begun within military
leadership regarding what would become the Pentagon's mandatory anthrax vaccination program, a policy tirelessly promoted by Joshua
Lederberg, who was involved in "investigating" the links between the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome. The private talks took
place in parallel with a public push to bring biological warfare to the forefront of American public consciousness. One particularly
egregious example occurred when then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen
went on ABC News with
a five-pound bag of sugar, stating that "this amount of anthrax could be spread over a city -- let's say the size of Washington.
It would destroy at least half the population of that city."
At the same time, Joshua Lederberg was also advocating for the stockpiling of a smallpox vaccine, which the U.S. military also
took to heart, giving
a company called DynPort an exclusive multi-million dollar contract to produce a new smallpox vaccine in 1997. Soon after, BioPort,
DynPort's sister company , was formed and would soon come to monopolize the production of that vaccine.
By the time BioPort (now known as Emergent Biosolutions) had controversially gained control over this lucrative Pentagon contract
in 1998, then-President Bill Clinton was publicly warning
that the U.S. must "confront the new hazards of biological and chemical weapons," adding that Saddam Hussein specifically was
"developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." However, there was no intelligence to back
up these claims, especially after the failed attempts by weapon inspectors, like Robert Kadlec and William Patrick, to find any evidence
of an Iraqi biological weapons program.
Despite the lack of evidence regarding Iraq's alleged "WMD" programs, Clinton's concern over a biological weapons threat was
said to have been the result of his reading of
"The Cobra Event", a novel about how a genetically-modified pathogen called "brainpox" ravages New York City. The novel's author,
Richard Preston,
had been advised on biowarfare and genetically-modified pathogens by none other than William Patrick. Patrick,
then an adviser to the CIA, FBI and
military intelligence, also participated in closed
door meetings with Clinton on biological weapons, claiming that their use was inevitable and that the deadliest of pathogens could
easily be made in a "terrorist's garage."
It is also likely that Clinton's alarmism over biological and chemical weapons had been informed, in part, by a roundtable hosted
at the White House on April 10, 1998. This "
White House Roundtable on Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons ," included a group of "outside experts"
spear-headed by Joshua
Lederberg and included several other bioterror alarmists, such as: Jerome Hauer, then-serving as Director of New York City's Office
of Emergency Management (who also was advised
by William Patrick III) and Thomas Monath, a vaccine industry executive and chief science advisor to CIA director George Tenet.
Discussed in-depth at the roundtable were "both the opportunities and the national security challenges posed by genetic engineering
and biotechnology" as well as "classified material
relating to threat assessments and how the United States responds to particular scenarios."
Robert Kadlec, despite being a Republican, remains very fond of Bill Clinton, perhaps because the former president was so attentive
to the dire predictions of the "biodefense experts" who shadowed Kadlec's own career. Kadlec credits the former president with doing
a "lot of good things" and
making important
contributions to the advancement of the biotech industrial complex's policy agenda.
Clinton would issue several executive orders and Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) during this period, such as PDD-62, which
specifically addressed preparations for a "WMD" attack on the U.S. and called for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
then-led by Donna Shalala, to lead the national response to a WMD attack. Fortuitously for Kadlec, PDD-62 also called for the construction
of a national stockpile of vaccines, antibiotics and other medical supplies.
At the time, Kadlec was already evangelizing the public about a seemingly imminent, doomsday anthrax attack he was certain would
strike at any second. As quoted in
a 1998 article from the
Vancouver Sun , Kadlec speculated:
"If several kilograms of an agent like anthrax were disseminated in New York City today, conservative estimates put the number
[of] deaths occurring in the first few days at 400,000. Thousands of others would be at risk of dying within several days if proper
antibiotics and vaccination were not started immediately. Millions of others would be fearful of being exposed and seek or demand
medical care as well. Beyond the immediate health implications of such an act, the potential panic and civil unrest would create
an equally large response."
Kadlec's doomsday speculations about biological weapons attacks had caught the attention of Randall Larsen, the
then-director of the National War College's Department of Military Strategy
and Operations, who hired
Kadlec because he "had become convinced that the most serious threat to national security was not Russian or Chinese missiles,
but a pandemic – either man-made or naturally occurring." Soon after, Kadlec and Larsen
would collaborate closely
, co-authoring several studies together.
Meanwhile, their colleague at the National War College, William Patrick III was simultaneously working for the U.S. military and
intelligence contractor, the Battelle Memorial Institute, where he was secretly developing a genetically-modified, more potent form
of anthrax for a classified Pentagon program.
THE BIOTERROR INTELLIGENTSIA
A year after hiring Robert Kadlec to teach at the National War College, Randall Larsen was also involved in the creation of a
new organization called the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security (ANSER-IHS), and served as its director. This Institute for Homeland
Security, first initiated and funded in October 1999, was an extension of the ANSER Institute, which itself had been spun off from
the RAND Corporation in the late 1950s. The RAND Corporation is a national security-focused "think tank" with long-standing ties
to the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation.
ANSER's expansion through ANSER-IHS was foreshadowed by the entry of "homeland defense" into popular political discourse within
the Washington Beltway. The term is
alleged
to have first originated from a National Defense Panel report submitted in 1997 and is credited to Defense Panel member and former
CIA officer with ties to the agency's Phoenix program, Richard Armitage. Armitage was part of the group known as the "
Vulcans ," who
advised George W. Bush on foreign policy matters prior to the 2000 presidential election.
As journalist Margie Burns pointed out in
a 2002
article , the need for "homeland defense" as a major focus of U.S. government policy, including the push to create a new "homeland
security" agency, was dramatically amplified following its alleged coining by Armitage in 1997. This was thanks, in part, to a web
of media outlets owned by
South Korean
cult leader and CIA asset Sun Myong Moon, including the Washington Times, Insight Magazine and UPI , all of which
published numerous articles penned by ANSER analysts or that heavily cited ANSER reports and employees regarding the need for a greatly
expanded "homeland security" apparatus.
One such article, published by Insight Magazine in May 2001 and entitled "
Preparing for the Next
Pearl Harbor ," heavily cites ANSER and its Institute for Homeland Security as being among "the nation's top experts" in warning
that a terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland was imminent. It also stated that "the first responders on tomorrow's battlefield won't
be soldiers, but city ambulance workers and small-town firefighters."
ANSER-IHS was created at the behest of ANSER's CEO
, Dr. Ruth David, who became ANSER's top executive after leaving a lengthy career at the CIA, where she had served as the agency's
Deputy Director for Science and Technology. On
ANSER-IHS's board at
the time, alongside David, were Joshua Lederberg and Dr. Tara O'Toole, then-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Bio-defense
Studies who would later co-write
the Dark Winter exercise
.
Though first created in 1999, ANSER-IHS did not officially launch until April 2001. That same month, Robert Kadlec, at the National
War College, sponsored the paper "
A Micro-threat
with Macro-Impact: The Bio-Threat and the Need for a National Bio-Defense Security Strategy ." That paper starts by citing several
former CIA officials as well as Dr. O'Toole (who now works for the CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel) as proof that a bioterrorist
attack is "perhaps the greatest threat the U.S. faces in the next century" and that such an attack would inevitably target "Americans
on American soil."
This Kadlec-sponsored report also called for the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA), the framework for which
was contained in H.R. 1158, introduced a month prior in March 2001. The paper urged that the creation of this new cabinet-level agency
be enacted "quickly, so the resulting single executive agent (identified from here on as the NHSA) can begin its critical work."
It also argued that this agency include "a deputy director position specifically responsible for preparing and responding to a bio-attack."
Other measures recommended in the paper included greatly expanding the national defense stockpile; creating a national disease
reporting system; and the creation of real-time, automated bio-threat detectors. The latter would be initiated soon after the publication
of this paper, resulting in the controversial Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information Systems (BASIS). BASIS was discussed in
Part I of this series,
particularly its role in "induc[ing] the very panic and social disruption it is intended to thwart" during and after the 2001 anthrax
attacks that would occur months later. BASIS was developed largely by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose
national security
fellow – former Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) director Jay Davis, was
then-chairman of ANSER's
board of directors.
Also notable is the fact that Kadlec's April 2001 report cites the
largely discredited yet still
influential Ken Alibek on several occasions, including his allegation that anyone with internet access and a few bucks could produce
and unleash weapons-grade anthrax with ease. Some of the nation's top anthrax experts
would discredit this claim, with the exception of
William C. Patrick III.
This is likely because it was Patrick who had been
asked by the CIA to "vet" Alibek after he had
first defected from the Soviet Union 1992, making Patrick responsible for determining the credibility of Alibek's controversial claims,
including his
incorrect assertions
that Saddam Hussein had overseen a massive biological weapons program. Regarding their meeting, Patrick
would later say "I won't say we fell in love, but we gained an immediate respect for one another."
At the time of Alibek's defection, Robert Kadlec – who had been assigned to the Pentagon's Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Counter-proliferation policy after the Gulf War – would later recall
during
2014 Congressional testimony having "witnessed the efforts to ascertain the truth behind the former Soviet Union's BW [biological
weapons] effort" that had intimately involved Alibek and Patrick. Kadlec would also note that "the fate of these agents [related
to the Soviet Union's BW program] and associated weapons," including those described by Alibek, "was never satisfactorily resolved."
Alibek's shocking yet dubious claims were often used and
promoted by Joshua Lederberg (who
had debriefed other
Soviet bioweapons researchers after their defections), Patrick and others to support their favored "biodefense" policies as well
as the need for "defensive" bioweapons research, including clandestine efforts to genetically-engineer anthrax on which Patrick and
Alibek would later collaborate.
SETTING THE WHEELS IN MOTION
Just a few months before ANSER-IHS' "official" launch, another organization with a related focus was launched -- the Nuclear Threat
Initiative (NTI). Created by media mogul Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn in January 2001, NTI aimed not only to "reduce the
threat" posed by nuclear weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons.
In announcing NTI's formation on CNN , the network Turner had founded,
Nunn stated that while "nuclear weapons pose
the gigantic danger, but biological and chemical weapons are the most likely to be used. And there are thousands of scientists in
the former Soviet Union that know how to make these weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear, but don't know how to feed
their families." Nunn continued, stating that NTI hoped "to begin to help, some hope for gainful employment for people that we don't
want to end up making chemical and biological and nuclear weapons in other parts of the world." NTI's mission in this regard likely
came as welcome news to Joshua Lederberg, who
had long advocated that the
U.S. offer employment to bioweapons researchers from the former Soviet Union to prevent their employ by "rogue regimes."
Alongside Nunn and Tuner on NTI's board was William Perry, a former Secretary of Defense; former Senator Dick Lugar, for whom
the
alleged U.S. bioweapons lab in Georgia is named; and Margaret Hamburg, who was NTI's Vice President overseeing its work on biological
weapons. Margaret Hamburg's father, David Hamburg, a long-time president of the Carnegie Corporation, was also
an advisor and "distinguished fellow"
at NTI. David Hamburg was a longtime
close advisor ,
associate , and
friend of Joshua Lederberg.
Both Sam Nunn and Margaret Hamburg of NTI, as well as top officials from ANSER, would come together in June 2001 to participate
in an exercise simulating a bioweapons attack called "Dark Winter." Nunn would play the role of president in the exercise and Hamburg
played the head of HHS in the fictional scenario. Jerome Hauer,
then-managing director
of the intelligence-linked outfit Kroll Inc. and a Vice President at the military-intelligence contractor Scientific Applications
International Corporation (SAIC), played the head of FEMA.
The Dark Winter exercise itself was largely written by Tara O'Toole (ANSER-IHS board member) and Thomas Inglesby of the Johns
Hopkins Center for Civilian Bio-defense Studies as well as Randall Larsen of ANSER-IHS. Robert Kadlec also participated in the creation
of the script and appears in the fictional, scripted news clips used in the exercise.
As detailed in Part I
of this series, the Dark Winter exercise eerily predicted many aspects of what would follow just months later during the 2001
anthrax attacks, including predictions that threatening letters would be sent to members of the press with the promise of biological
weapons attacks involving anthrax. Dark Winter also provided the initial narrative for the 2001 anthrax attacks, which held that
Iraq and Al Qaeda had been jointly responsible. However, soon after the attacks, evidence quickly pointed to the anthrax having originated
from a domestic source linked to military experiments. In addition, several Dark Winter participants and authors either had apparent
foreknowledge of those attacks (especially Jerome Hauer) and/or were involved in the FBI controversial investigation into the attacks
(including Robert Kadlec).
On the day of September 11, 2001, Kadlec and Randall Larsen were set to begin co-teaching
a course
on "Homeland Security" at the National War College. It's course syllabus draws from quotes on the imminent threat of bioterrorism
from Joshua Lederberg as well as Dark Winter participant and former CIA director James Woolsey, who called a biological weapons attack
"the single most dangerous threat to U.S. national security in the foreseeable future."
The course was also set to include its own lengthy use of the Dark Winter exercise, where students would re-enact the June 2001
exercise as part of an end-of-semester research project. However, given the events that took place on September 11, 2001, Kadlec
never went on to teach that course, as he instead went to the Pentagon to focus on the "bio-terror threat" in the weeks that preceded
the 2001 anthrax attacks.
THE AFTER (ANTHRAX) PARTY
Immediately after the events of September 11, 2001, Kadlec became
a special
advisor on biological warfare to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. In the days that followed,
Rumsfeld openly and publicly
stated that he expected America's enemies, specifically Saddam Hussein, to aid unspecified terrorist groups in obtaining chemical
and biological weapons, a narrative that was analogous to that used in the Dark Winter exercise that Kadlec had helped create.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Dark Winter's other co-authors -- Randall Larsen, Tara O'Toole and Thomas Inglesby -- personally
briefed Dick Cheney on Dark Winter, at a time when Cheney and his staff had been warned by another Dark Winter figure, Jerome Hauer,
to take the antibiotic Cipro to prevent anthrax infection. It is unknown how many members of the administration were taking Cipro
and for how long.
Hauer, along with James Woolsey and New York Times reporter Judith Miller (who also attended Dark Winter),
would spend the weeks
between 9/11 and the public disclosure of the anthrax attacks making numerous media appearances (and, in Miller's case, writing dozens
of reports) regarding the use of anthrax as a biological weapon. Members of the controversial think thank the Project for a New American
Century (PNAC), which included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among its ranks, also warned that a biological weapons attack was
set to follow on the heels of 9/11. These
included Richard Perle,
then advising the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon, and Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard .
One would think that all of these well-timed warnings would have left this clique of government insiders the least surprised once
the anthrax attacks were publicly disclosed on October 4, 2001. However, despite constantly warning of doomsday anthrax attack scenarios
for a decade and advising the Pentagon on this very threat immediately beginning just weeks prior, Robert Kadlec
would
subsequently claim to have yelled, "You gotta be sh*ttin' me!" when he first learned of the attacks.
Another pre-attack anthrax prophet, Judith Miller, would recall becoming distraught and despondent upon receiving a letter that
appeared to contain anthrax. Her first reaction
was to call William C. Patrick III, who calmed her down and told her that the anthrax powder contained in the letter "was most
likely a hoax." Indeed, Patrick would prove correct in his analysis as the powder in the letter Miller had opened was, in fact, harmless.
Kadlec quickly began contributing to the FBI's controversial investigation into the attacks, known by its case name "Amerithrax."
Kadlec
was tasked with following up on the alleged presence of bentonite in the anthrax used in the attacks. Bentonite was never actually
found in any of the anthrax samples tested by the FBI, but claims that it had been found were used to link the anthrax used in the
attacks to Iraq's alleged use of bentonite in its biological weapons program, the very existence of which still lacked conclusive
evidence.
This erroneous claim was
first
mentioned to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz by Peter Jahrling, a Fort Detrick scientist, who claimed during a briefings
that the spores "appeared to have been treated" with a "particular chemical additive" resembling bentonite. Jahrling then added that
Iraq's government had used bentonite to "suspiciously" produce bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a "nonlethal cousin" of anthrax
widely used in agriculture. "Everyone grabbed
on to that," Kadlec would later remember of Jahrling's haphazard link between bentonite and a harmless, distant cousin of anthrax.
Tasked by Wolfowitz with shoring up evidence for the bentonite "smoking gun," Kadlec
would
contact a Navy scientist that had accompanied him and William Patrick to Iraq in their unsuccessful efforts to find proof of
Iraq's biological weapons back in 1994, James Burans. Burans was unconvinced of the bentonite connection and other government scientists
soon agreed.
Nonetheless, media outlets continued to play up the bentonite-anthrax claim as proving Iraq's role in the anthrax attacks, despite
findings to the contrary. By late October 2001, one nationwide poll
found
that 74% of respondents wanted the U.S. to take military action against Iraq, despite a lack of evidence connecting the country
to either 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. A month later, Rumsfeld
would draw up plans in consultation with Wolfowitz
regarding justifications for initiating war with Iraq, including discovering links between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax attacks
and initiating disputes with Iraq over WMD inspections.
While the Kadlec-advised Pentagon was seeking to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq, the NTI – headed by Dark Winter "president"
Sam Nunn – kicked its agenda into over-drive,
earmarking "$2.4 million in initial grants to finance scientific collaboration with scientists who once worked in the former
Soviet Union's covert biological weapons program." NTI also set aside millions more for transforming former Soviet Union bioweapons
labs into "vaccine production facilities" and "helping identify Western drug companies willing to work with former Soviet bioweaponeers
on commercial ventures."
CLOSED DOOR INVESTIGATION
William C. Patrick III would also become involved the FBI's Amerithrax investigation, even though he was initially suspected of
involvement in the attacks. However, after having passed a lie detector test, he was
added to the FBI's "inner circle"
of technical advisors on the Amerithrax case, despite the fact that Patrick's
protege , Stephen Hatfill, was the FBI's top
suspect at the time. Hatfill was later cleared of wrongdoing and the FBI eventually blamed a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Ivins
for the crime, hiding a "mountain" of evidence exonerating Ivins to do so,
according
to the FBI's former lead investigator.
In the 1990s, Patrick had told associates of his desire to find someone who would carry on his work, eventually finding this person
in Stephen Hatfill. Hatfill and Patrick's friendship was close, with one bioterror expert
calling them "like father and son." Hatfill
traveled together often and, on occasion, Hatfill would drive Patrick to his consulting jobs at the military and intelligence contractor
SAIC. In 1999, Patrick would return the favor by helping Hatfill score a job at SAIC. A year later, Jerome Hauer, a friend to both
Hatfill and Patrick, would join
SAIC as a Vice President.
That same year, Hatfill offered Patrick another consulting job at SAIC and commissioned Patrick to perform a study describing
"a fictional terrorist attack in which an envelope containing weapons-grade anthrax is opened in an office."
The Baltimore Sun
would later report that Patrick's study for SAIC discussed the "danger of anthrax spores spreading through the air and the
requirements for decontamination after various kinds of attacks" as well as how many grams of anthrax would need to be placed within
a standard business envelope in order to conduct such an attack.
Patrick's involvement in this SAIC study is particularly interesting given that he was also involved in another project involving
anthrax at the time, this one managed by Battelle Memorial Institute. In 1997, the Pentagon created plans to genetically engineer
a more potent variety of anthrax, spurred
by the work of Russian scientists who had recently published a study that found that a genetically engineered strain of anthrax
was resistant to the standard anthrax vaccine, at least in animal studies.
The stated goal of the Pentagon's plan,
per a 2001
report in The New York Times , was "to see if the [anthrax] vaccine the United States intends to supply to its armed forces
is effective against that strain." Battelle's facility at West Jefferson, Ohio was contracted by the Pentagon to create the genetically-modified
anthrax, a task that was overseen by
Battelle's
then-program manager for all things bioweapons, Ken Alibek.
A 1998 article in the New Yorker
noted that William Patrick, also a consultant for Battelle and Alibek's "close friend," was working with Alibek on a project
involving anthrax at the time. It would later be revealed that access to the very anthrax strain used in the attacks, the Ames strain,
was controlled by Battelle.
In addition, the FBI's supposed "smoking gun" used to link Bruce Ivins' to the anthrax attacks was the fact that a flask in Ivins'
lab labeled RMR-1029 was determined to be its "parent" strain. Yet, it would
later be revealed that portions of RMR-1029 had been sent by Ivins to Battelle's Ohio facility prior to the anthrax attacks.
An analysis of the water used to make the anthrax also revealed that the anthrax spores had been created in the northeastern
United States and follow-up analyses narrowed down the only possible sources as coming from one of three labs: Fort Detrick, a lab
at the University of Scranton, or Battelle's West Jefferson facility.
After Ivins' untimely "suicide" in 2008, Department of Justice civil attorneys
would publicly challenge the FBI's assertions that Ivins had been the culprit and instead "suggested that a private laboratory
in Ohio" managed by Battelle "could have been involved in the attacks."
Patrick's work with Battelle on creating a more potent form of anthrax, as well as his work with SAIC in studying the effect of
anthrax sent through the mail, began around the same time that BioPort had secured a monopoly over the production of the anthrax
vaccine, recently made mandatory for all U.S. troops by the Pentagon. As detailed in
Part II of this series, BioPort's facility that produced its anthrax vaccine was, at the time, rife with problems and had lost
its license to operate. Despite the Pentagon having given BioPort millions to use for renovations of the factory, much of that money
instead went towards senior management bonuses and redecorating executive offices. Millions more simply "disappeared."
In 2000, not long after receiving its first Pentagon bail-out,
BioPort contracted none other than
Battelle Memorial Institute. The deal gave Battelle "immediate exposure to the vaccine" it was using in connection with the genetically-modified
anthrax program that involved both Alibek and Patrick. That program then began using the BioPort-manufactured vaccine in tests at
its West Jefferson facility. At the time, Battelle was also lending "technical expertise" to BioPort and hired 12 workers to send
to BioPort's troubled Michigan facility "to keep the operation running."
At the time, a BioPort spokeswomen stated "We have a relationship with Battelle to extend our reach for people we are trying to
attract for critical positions on our technical side. They're also assisting with our potency testing as really sort of a backup.
They're validating our potency tests." Reports on the BioPort-Battelle contract
stated that the terms of their
agreement were not publicly disclosed, but also noted that the two companies had "previously worked together on an unsuccessful bid
to make other vaccines for the government."
As previously noted in
Part II of this series, BioPort was set to lose its contract for anthrax vaccine entirely in August 2001 and the entirety of
its anthrax vaccine business was rescued by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which saw concerns over BioPort's corruption replaced with
fervent demands for more of its anthrax vaccine.
RUMSFELD SAVES BIOPORT
One of the post-attack advocates for salvaging the BioPort anthrax vaccine contract was Donald Rumsfeld,
who stated after the attacks that, "We're going
to try to save it, and try to fashion some sort of an arrangement whereby we give one more crack at getting the job done with that
outfit [BioPort]. It's the only outfit in this country that has anything under way, and it's not very well under way, as you point
out."
While Rumsfeld and others worked to salvage the troubled BioPort-anthrax vaccine deal, another recurrent figure in this sordid
saga, Jerome Hauer, would also play
a key role in pushing for increased purchases of BioPort's most lucrative and most controversial product. In addition to being
managing director of Kroll Inc. and a Vice President at SAIC, Hauer was also a national security advisor to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson
on September 11, 2001. It was also this same day that Hauer would also tell top administration officials to take Cipro to prevent
anthrax infection.
Hauer played a key role advising HHS leadership as the anthrax attacks unfolded. After the attacks, Hauer
pushed Thompson to create the Office of Public Health Preparedness (OPHP) within HHS, which was created later that year. It was
first headed by D.A. Henderson, a close associate of Joshua Lederberg and
the original founder of the Johns
Hopkins Working Group on Civilian Biodefense, which included Jerome Hauer and Henderson's protege Tara O'Toole. Hauer himself would
come to replace Henderson as OPHP just a few months later.
Subsequent legislation, shaped in part by Robert Kadlec, would see OPHP give way to the position of Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness (ASPHEP), a position Hauer would also fill. Hauer would use this post to push for the stockpiling of
vaccines, including BioPort's anthrax vaccine. Hauer and his deputy, William Raub, would then
help push
the Pentagon to restart vaccinating the troops, despite long-standing concerns over the vaccine's safety. Soon after leaving
HHS in 2004, Hauer would quickly be added to the board of directors of BioPort under its new name Emergent Biosolutions, a post he
still holds today.
ALL SYSTEMS GO
In the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, Robert Kadlec's doomsday predictions for bioterror incidents went into over-drive. "It's
not your mother's smallpox," Kadlec
would tell the LA Times in late October 2001, "It's an F-17 Stealth fighter – it's designed to be undetectable and to kill. We are flubbing our efforts
at biodefense. We don't think of this as a weapon – we look naively at this as a disease." As the article notes, this "stealth fighter"
strain of smallpox did not exist. Instead, Kadlec – who now had Rumsfeld's ear on issues of biodefense – expected that such a strain
might soon be genetically engineered.
Of course, at the time, the only government known to be genetically engineering a pathogen was the U.S.,
as reported by the New York Times ' Judith Miller . Miller reported in October 2001 that the Pentagon, in the wake of
the anthrax attacks, had approved "a project to make a potentially more potent form of anthrax bacteria" through genetic modification,
a project that would be conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute.
This was the continuation of the project, which had involved William Patrick and Ken Alibek, and the Pentagon moved to restart
it after the attacks, though it is unclear if either Patrick or Alibek continued to work on the subsequent iteration of Battelle's
efforts to produce a more virulent strain of anthrax. That project was paused a month prior when Miller and other journalists disclosed
the existence of the program in
an article
published on September 4, 2001.
After news broke of the Pentagon's plans to again begin developing more potent anthrax strains,
accusations were made that the U.S.
was violating the bioweapons convention. However, the U.S. narrowly avoided having to admit it had violated the convention given
that, just one month after the Dark Winter exercise in July 2001, the U.S.
had rejected an agreement that would
have enforced its ban on biological weapons.
The New York Times noted specifically
that the genetically-modified anthrax experiments being performed by Battelle's West Jefferson facility were a "significant reason"
behind the Bush administration's decision to reject the draft agreement and the U.S. government had
argued at the time that "unlimited
visits to pharmaceutical or defense installations by foreign inspectors could be used to gather strategic or commercial intelligence."
Of course, one of those "pharmaceutical or defense installations" was ultimately the source of the anthrax used in the attacks.
THE GROUNDWORK
On the heels of the chaos of late 2001, Kadlec's vision for U.S. biodefense policy was rapidly coming to fruition before his very
eyes. The first enabling statute for the SNS was the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, largely motivated
by the anthrax attacks, which directed the Secretary of HHS to maintain a "
Strategic National Stockpile (SNS)." The legislation
had been the direct result of a process begun years earlier when Congress earmarked funding for the CDC to stockpile pharmaceuticals
in 1998. The program was originally called the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (NPS) program.
Kadlec's role in directing subsequent developments in the SNS and other related legislative developments was considerable given
that, in 2002, he became director for
biodefense on the recently created Homeland Security Council. His work on the council, which he left in 2005, resulted in the Bush
administration's "National Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century," which unsurprisingly echoed the recommendations of the paper
Kadlec had sponsored at the National War College.
On March 1, 2003, the NPS became the Strategic National Stockpile program and was managed jointly by DHS and HHS after George
W. Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-5). Two days before, Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and
then Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson had presented the Project BioShield Act to Congress. It was a sweeping piece of legislation
that established what would become a government money teller-window for Big Pharma, called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA), among other entities and powers, not least of which was moving control of the SNS away from DHS and closer to
HHS.
Soon after BioShield was signed into law, BioPort/Emergent BioSolutions
co-founded a lobby group called the Alliance for Biosecurity as part of its strategy to easily secure lucrative BioShield contracts.
That lobby group saw Emergent BioSolutions join forces with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Biosecurity, which
was then-led by Tara O'Toole and advised by Randall Larsen.
With this framework in place, the Kadlec-drafted National Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century was used as the framework for
Bush's Homeland Security Presidential Directive 10 ( HSPD-10
), which further expanded BioShield, the SNS and other controversial programs. Project BioShield was made law in 2004 and, one
year later, Kadlec joined Senator Richard Burr's subcommittee on bioterrorism and public health. There, Kadlec served as staff director
on the committee that drafted the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), containing the specific policy directives for
the roll out of Project BioShield and creating Kadlec's future position at HHS.
PAHPA was passed the following year in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and established the statutory relationship between the
various agencies enacted or included in the
BioShield legislation . This includes
delegating to the newly creation position of HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) to "exercise the responsibilities
and authorities of the Secretary [of HHS] with respect to the coordination of "the stockpile and to oversee the advanced research
and development of medical counter-measures funded by BARDA, but conducted by Big Pharma. ASPR was also given the leadership role
in directing HHS' response to a national health emergency.
Serving alongside Kadlec in the White House throughout this entire process was Tevi Troy, a Special Assistant to the President
for Domestic Policy; a role which made him the White House's lead adviser on health care, labor, education and other issues with
a special focus on crisis management . Troy, who had come
up through the department of labor as
deputy assistant for policy was already a Senior fellow at both the Hudson Institute and its satellite think tank, the Potomac
Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS), where the real policy development work was undertaken.
Both Troy and Kadlec would exit the administration at the end of Bush's first term and not return until the latter half of his
second term. In the meantime, the wheels had been set in motion with the passing of Project BioShield and PAHPA and, soon after their
passage, panic over a "Bird flu" outbreak began, which had spread first in 33 cities in Vietnam and then led to an outbreak of the
poultry-killing disease that affected all of Eurasia, Africa and the Middle East. The outbreak
sparked panic in the U.S. in late 2005, thanks
in large part to over-the-top warnings made
by Tommy Thompson's successor as head of HHS, Michael Leavitt.
Despite the fact that Leavitt's claims were wildly inaccurate, some administration officials benefited financially from the fear-mongering,
such as Donald Rumsfeld, whose stock holdings in the pharmaceutical company Gilead
netted him $5 million once the scare had ended. Part of the reason for Gilead's jump in profitability resulted from the decision
of the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies to stockpile 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a drug promoted to treat the Bird Flu
that was originally developed by Gilead. Rumsfeld had been the top executive at Gilead before joining the George W. Bush administration.
Aside from those who benefited monetarily, the Bird Flu scare also gave a considerable boost to the biodefense "stockpile" agenda
that Kadlec and other insiders supported.
Kadlec would return to the White House as Special Assistant for Homeland Security and Senior Director for Biological Defense Policy
in 2007 to further solidify his eventual grip on the Strategic National Stockpile and the office of ASPR, along with his Hudson Institute/PIPS
sidekick, Tevi Troy, concurrently appointed Deputy Director of HHS. This put Troy in charge of implementing the very policies enshrined
in PAHPA and the departmental changes enacted as part of Project BioShield.
The Bush administration came to its inevitable conclusion as Barack Obama was elected and sworn in, early 2009. Kadlec and Troy,
once again, left their government posts and disappeared into their private sector lairs. But, that same year, the first practice
run for Kadlec's freshly retrofitted SNS took place when the "Swine Flu" (H1N1) pandemic
triggered its "largest deployment"
ever, distributing nearly 13 million antiviral regimens, as well as medical equipment and other drugs nationally and internationally
in conjunction with BARDA . Gilead (and Rumsfeld)
again profited
handsomely, as did other large pharmaceutical companies, which were eager to restock the SNS after its large-scale deployment.
The virus' origins have been a matter of controversy for several years, alternatively identified as having sprung from pigs in
Mexico or Asia. One of the last studies
conducted in 2016 claims to have definitively traced the source to hogs in Mexico. Regardless of its true origins,
interested observers were able to glean vital data
from the exercise to prepare for the "next one."
TROY'S HORSES
Departing HHS Deputy Director Tevi Troy soon took a gig as a
high-powered lobbyist for the JUUL e-cigarette company , which had run into some regulatory barriers as a result of the Tobacco
Control Act, which had just been signed by then-President Obama. Margaret Hamburg,
founding member of the NTI, was
then Commissioner of the FDA and
stalled enforcement of the new regulations; a tacit non-enforcement policy had persisted at the FDA until the recent vaping flavor
ban, which followed renewed health concerns raised by
a 2018 NIH report .
Why a former HHS official would take up the mantle to promote the use of a product known to be injurious to health can be answered
by looking at Dr. Troy's close links with PIPS and the Hudson Institute. Couched in free-market rhetoric, these institutions are
vehicles for the policy initiatives their billionaire funders want to see implemented, with its subsidiary think tanks, like PIPS,
serving as satellites orbiting closer to the center of power.
As an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute
and senior fellow at PIPS, Tevi Troy appears to play a pivotal role coordinating between the two. The Hudson Institute was founded
in 1961 by former RAND military strategist, systems theorist and Dr. Strangelove inspiration Herman Kahn. After Kahn's passing in
1983, the Institute was "heavily recruited" by the Lilly Endowment –
the largest private foundation in the United States , by far – and became a magnet for the same radical conservative billionaire
networks that patronize it today.
Among its biggest donors are familiar names like Microsoft, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Charles Koch Foundation, Boeing and
Emergent BioSolutions. In 2004, Lilly Endowment returned to Washington D.C., announcing it would "
return to its roots
of national security and foreign policy " as a result of the war on terror becoming an "overarching national concern".
PIPS and the Hudson Institute would come to play a central role in Kadlec's upcoming efforts to make biodefense a national priority
with him at the helm of a vastly expanded office of ASPR. But, it would be a few years yet. Meanwhile, there was more to be done
in the area of legislation, not to mention private enterprise.
Building on all previous versions of Kadlec's original PAHPA, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA)
of 2013 established two more instruments that strengthened his ultimate goal. First, the PHEMCE Strategy and Implementation Plan
(SIP) was codified into law, which formalized the original legislation's ties to the budget office and secondly, it streamlined the
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) facility for the FDA to fast-track drug approvals.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
Soon upon returning to the private sector, Robert Kadlec helped found a new company in 2012 called "East West Protection," which
develops and delivers "integrated all-hazards preparedness and response systems for communities and sovereign nations." The company
also "advises communities and countries on issues related to the threat of weapons of mass destruction and natural pandemics."
Kadlec formed the company with W. Craig Vanderwagen,
the first HHS ASPR after the post's creation had been largely orchestrated by Kadlec. The
other co-founder of East West Protection was Fuad
El-Hibri, the founder of BioPort/Emergent Biosolutions, who had just stepped down as Emergent's CEO earlier that year.
El-Hibri has numerous business connections to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he and his father, Ibrahim El-Hibri, had
once sold stockpiles of anthrax vaccine to the Saudi government for
an exorbitant price per dose. East West Protection chased after the opportunity to fit the Kingdom with a custom-built biodefense
system, but ultimately failed to finalize the deal despite El-Hibri's connections. Instead, East West Protection
sold its products to a handful of U.S. states.
Kadlec was
the firm's director from its founding
until
at least 2015 , later selling his stake in the company to El-Hibri. Upon being nominated to serve as ASPR in the Trump administration,
Kadlec failed to disclose his ties to East West Protection and El-Hibri and he has since claimed to only have been involved in the
founding of the firm,
despite
evidence to the contrary .
Robert Kadlec's forays into the private sector during this period went far beyond East West Protection. Kadlec's consultancy firm,
RPK Consulting, netted him in $451,000 in 2014 alone, where he
directly advised Emergent Biosolutions as well as other pharmaceutical companies like Bavarian Nordic. Kadlec was
also a consultant
to military and intelligence contractors, such as the
DARPA-backed firm Invincea and NSA contractor Scitor, which was
recently acquired
by SAIC.
Kadlec's consulting work for intelligence-linked companies earned him the praises of spooks turned entreprenuers, including Steve
Cash – a former CIA officer and founder of Deck Prism , itself
a consultancy firm that retained Kadlec. Cash
recently told The Washington Post that "Everybody loves Dr. Bob [Kadlec]," adding that he was a "national treasure."
ON BIOWARFARE'S EVE
Kadlec had certainly been accumulating a treasure chest of power aided by some very cozy relationships in the consulting business
and, by now, the stage had been set for a big push to create an official body within the halls of the legislature; an embedded consultancy
firm, of sorts, to promote the designs of the biowarfare clique.
That year, Robert Kadlec put together a Blue Ribbon Study Panel sponsored jointly by the Hudson Institute and a PIPS subsidiary
institution called the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies ( IUCTS
), managed by Dr. Yonah Alexander. Kadlec's Blue Ribbon Panel was chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman and included the indispensable
input of Tom Daschle, Donna Shalala and other members of the biowarfare policy club.
The study panel issued a report in late 2015 entitled "
A National Blueprint for
Biodefense " calling for 33 specific initiatives, such as the creation of a "
biodefense hospital system " and
implementing a "military-civilian collaboration for biodefense." In addition, the panel recommended that the office of the Vice President
lead a White House "Coordination Council" to oversee and guide biodefense policy.
An official body called the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense
would be formed shortly thereafter with all the Blue Ribbon Panel members and many others like Commission co-chair Tom Ridge
and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Tevi Troy and Yonah Alexander, who serve as Ex-officio members. Alongside them is Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
former Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney and Senior Vice President of the Hudson Institute, which also happens to be the fiscal sponsor
of the Commission.
In the acknowledgements
, the panel's 2015 report includes an homage to Robert Kadlec to whom they bestow credit for the achievement, which only "exists
because of the foresight, forbearance, and perpetual optimism of Dr. Robert Kadlec. Bob understood that as much progress as had been
made in the national effort to prevent and prepare for biological threats, it is not yet enough. He knew that with the right impetus,
we could do much more, and he envisioned this Panel as a means to that end. We are glad he did."
Kadlec mounted this last offensive while serving as Deputy Staff Director for Senator Richard Burr's Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, a position he would hold until the eve of Donald Trump's election in 2016. Trump would then nominate him to the office
of the ASPR and Kadlec would be confirmed in early August of the following year.
Only one piece of the puzzle was left, but it wouldn't be very long before Robert Kadlec would become the biggest capo of them
all with a subtle change that was introduced in the
2018 PAHPRA :
Title III – Sec 301
1) DELEGATION TO ASPR. -- Subsection (a)(1) of section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6b) is amended
by striking ''in collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention'' and inserting ''acting through
the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.''
Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed
the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will
eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.
Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr's Justice Department drop the charge. He's even thinking
of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask "whether the Court
should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for
perjury."
Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted
Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, "
The Flynn case isn't over until a judge says it's over ." Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN
and the New Yorker , one of the #Resistance crowd's favored legal authorities, described
Sullivan's appointment of Judge John Gleeson as " brilliant ." MSNBC legal
analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a " debt of gratitude ."
One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the
obvious, i.e. that Sullivan's decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in
Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to
say Sullivan's move could " could create a threat of a
judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants ."
Sullivan's reaction was amplified by a group letter calling for Barr's resignation
signed by 2000 former Justice Department officials (the melodramatic group email somberly
reported as momentous news is one of many tired media tropes in the Trump era) and the
preposterous "leak" of news that the dropped case made Barack Obama sad. The former president
"privately" told "members of his administration" (who instantly told Yahoo!
News ) that there was no precedent for the dropping of perjury charges, and that the "rule
of law" itself was at stake.
Whatever one's opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his "
Lock her up!" chants , his haircut, or anything, this case was never about much. There's no
longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia
conspiracy, as pundits once breathlessly expected. In fact, news that Flynn was cooperating
with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the " Is this the beginning
of the end for Trump ?" stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism Fucks
Up 101 textbooks.
The acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December
29th, 2016 in which he told the Russians not to overreact to sanctions. That's it. The
investigation was about to be dropped, but someone got the idea of using electronic
surveillance of the calls to leverage a case into existence.
"The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the
press," is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. "We wanted to sit down
with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were."
A Laurel-and-Hardy team of agents conducted the interview, then took three
weeks to write and re-write multiple versions of the interview notes used as evidence
(because why record it?). They were supervised by a counterintelligence chief who then
memorialized on paper his uncertainty over whether the FBI was trying to " get
him to lie" or "get him fired ," worrying that they'd be accused of "playing games." After
another leak to the Washington Post in early February, 2017, Flynn actually was fired, and
later pleaded guilty to lying about sanctions in the Kislyak call, the transcript of which was
of course never released to either the defense or the public.
Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false
statements charge constructed on the razor's edge of Miranda, and the use of never-produced,
secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding – this is the "rule
of law" we're being asked to cheer.
Russiagate cases were often two-level offenses: factually bogus or exaggerated, but also
indicative of authoritarian practices. Democrats and Democrat-friendly pundits in the last four
years have been consistently unable to register objections on either front.
Flynn's case fit the pattern. We were told his plea was just the " tip
of the iceberg " that would "take the trail of Russian collusion" to the "center of the
plot," i.e. Trump. It turned out he had no deeper story to tell. In fact, none of the people
prosecutors tossed in jail to get at the Russian "plot" – some little more than
bystanders – had anything to share.
Remember George Papadopoulos, whose alleged conversation about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
with an Australian diplomat created the pretext for the FBI's entire Trump-Russia
investigation? We just found out in newly-released testimony by McCabe that the FBI felt as
early as the summer of 2016 that the evidence " didn't
particularly indicate" that Papadopoulos was "interacting with the Russians ."
If you're in the media and keeping score, that's about six months before our industry lost
its mind and scrambled to make Watergate
comparisons over Jim Comey's March, 2017 "
bombshell " revelation of the existence of an FBI Trump-Russia investigation. Nobody
bothered to wonder if they actually had any evidence. Similarly Chelsea Manning insisted she'd
already answered all pertinent questions about Julian Assange, but prosecutors didn't find that
answer satisfactory, and threw her in jail for year anyway, only releasing her when she
tried to kill herself . She owed $256,000 in fines upon release, not that her many
supporters from the Bush days seemed to care much.
The Flynn case was built on surveillance gathered under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a
program that seems to have been abused on a massive scale by both Democratic and Republican
administrations.
After Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations about mass data collection, a series of internal
investigations
began showing officials were breaking rules against spying on specific Americans via this NSA
program. Searches were conducted too often and without proper justification, and the results
were shared with too many people, including private contractors. By October, 2016, the FISA
court was declaring that systematic overuse of so-called "702" searches were a "
very serious fourth Amendment issue ."
In later court documents it came out that the FBI conducted
3.1 million such searches in 2017 alone. As the Brennan Center put it, "almost certainly
the total number of U.S. person queries run by the FBI each year is well into the
millions."
Anyone who bothers to look back will find hints at how this program might have been misused.
In late 2015, Obama officials bragged to the
Wall Street Journal they'd made use of FISA surveillance involving "Jewish-American groups"
as well as "U.S. lawmakers" in congress, all because they wanted to more effectively "counter"
Israeli opposition to Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. This is a long way from using
surveillance to defuse terror plots or break up human trafficking rings.
I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn, but cases like this have
turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets
over the civil liberties implications of Cheney's War on Terror apparatus – into
defenders of the spy state . Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled
their eyes at
attorney-client privilege , the presumption of innocence, the right to face one's accuser,
the right to counsel and a host of other issues, regularly denouncing civil rights worries as
red-herring excuses for Trumpism.
I've written a lot about the Democrats' record on civil liberties issues in the past.
Working on I Can't Breathe, a book about the Eric Garner case, I was stunned to learn the
central role
Mario Cuomo played in the mass incarceration problem, while Democrats also often
embraced hyper-intrusive "stop and frisk" or "broken windows" enforcement strategies,
usually by touting terms like "community policing" that sounded nice to white voters. Democrats
strongly supported
the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and Barack Obama continued or expanded Bush-Cheney programs like
drone assassination , rendition , and warrantless
surveillance , while also
using the Espionage Act to bully reporters and whistleblowers.
Republicans throughout this time were usually as bad or worse on these issues, but Democrats
have lately positioned themselves as more aggressive promoters of strong-arm policies, from
control of Internet speech to the embrace of domestic spying. In the last four years the
blue-friendly press has done a complete 180 on these issues, going from cheering Edward Snowden
to lionizing the CIA, NSA, and FBI and making on-air partners out of drone-and-surveillance
all-stars like John Brennan, James Clapper, and Michael Hayden. There are now too many
ex-spooks on CNN and MSNBC to count, while there isn't a single regular contributor on any
of the networks one could describe as antiwar.
Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional
principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort
or Trump himself. In the process, they've raised a generation of followers whose contempt for
civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing
constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French
aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis, where the
almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte
death wish . The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere:
press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump, treason, and
racism, and conversely radiate a creepily gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency
measures and the problems some "
dumb " Americans have had accepting them.
On the campaign trail in 2016, I watched Democrats hand Trump the economic populism argument
by dismissing all complaints about the failures of neoliberal economics. This mistake was later
compounded by years of propaganda arguing that "economic insecurity" was just a
Trojan Horse term for racism . These takes, along with the absurd kneecapping of the Bernie
Sanders movement, have allowed Trump to position himself as a working-class hero, the sole
voice of a squeezed underclass.
The same mistake is now being made with civil liberties. Millions have lost their jobs and
businesses by government fiat, there's a clamor for
censorship and contact tracing
programs that could have serious long-term consequences, yet voters only hear Trump making
occasional remarks about freedom; Democrats treat it like it's a word that should be banned by
Facebook (a recent Washington Post headline
put the term in quotation marks , as if one should be gloved to touch it). Has the Trump
era really damaged our thinking to this degree?
My family is in quarantine, I worry about a premature return to work, and sure, I laughed at
that Shaun of the Dead photo
of Ohio protesters protesting state lockdown laws. But I also recognize the crisis is also
raising serious civil liberties issues, from prisoners
trapped in deadly conditions to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to
surveillance and snitching, etc. If this disease is going to be in our lives for the
foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not
less -- yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don't
understand why.
Matt Taibi says that "he doesn't understand why" the Democrats have suddenly given up on
Civil Liberties.
Of course her spent a lot of the '90s in Russia but he must have heard about the Clinton
administration and its many and varied assaults on the poor, mass incarceration and Welfare
'reform.' He can't have missed what the War Party was doing in Yugoslavia either. I guess it
just takes some people a long time to wake up.
The truth is that the Democrats-the old party of Jim Crow- have been laughing at civil
liberties and the rule of law for generations. There is nothing new about this. It goes back
to Truman and the Cold War- a deliberate choice that the party made then when Medicare for
All was the alternative on the table. A choice which involved Taft Hartley, which had so much
Democratic Party support that Congress over rode the veto, one of the most obvious assaults
on civil liberties and democratic rights in US History. And that is saying something.
As to this Taibi judgement
"..Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional
principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul
Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they've raised a generation of followers whose
contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent..."
Compare it with the MeToo movement which positively delights in trashing every one of the
cherished civil liberties that protect people from improper conviction and false
imprisonment. That is a Democratic Party initiative (or at least it until recently and the
Tara Read accusations) and wholly consonant with the treatment meted out to Flynn.
"... Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress ..."
"... We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other things. ..."
"... And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus, Rosenstein, too: what was he doing? ..."
"... We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual crimes. ..."
"... And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ. ..."
"... It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs. ..."
"... General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case. ..."
"... Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts. ..."
"... So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury" The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that. ..."
"... It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying pan. ..."
"... Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016 primary season. ..."
"... I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint Barry ..."
"... When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an article about that brazen move. ..."
Firstly, Larry Johnson and Robert Willmann know more about this case than I do. It now
appears, if this report today is to be believed, that Emmett Sullivan is now inclined to
charge General Flynn with contempt of court and perjury. I have to ask; for what? This is
Kafkaesque.
For agreeing to a plea deal that Flynn knew was false? For failing to plead innocence? For
reversing his plea when it was demonstrated that the prosecution case against him was utterly
untrue and corrupt?
"Judge", I use the term loosely, Sullivan seems to be so ensnared in the coils of judicial
procedure that he has forgotten that truth and justice matter. That is the nicest construct I
can put on it. I think it's time for Sidney Powell to rip this judge to shreds. I await Larry
and Roberts comments.
Flynn was told by his lawyers from Covington & Burling that he was guilty. Covington
& Burling were not only wrong they made no effort to get the exculpatory evidence and
purposely withheld what evidence they did possess - repeatedly - from Flynn's new lawyer.
But then that has already been reported on publicly and discussed here. Perhaps your
memory is faulty.
Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction
from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political
opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress, multiple governors and state health officials in response to China's
biological attack against the US and Western nations.
Yes, I agree with you. Sullivan trying to charge Flynn with perjury and contempt of court
is a deliberate distraction. I would have thought the people who should be charged are the
ones who constructed and prosecuted the bogus charge in the first place.
How many defendants automatically claim they are "not guilty, your honor" when asked to enter
their plea, even when there is still gunpowder on their hands?
Do they also get charged with perjury after their guilt is established, beyond a
reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers? You lied to the court - you said you were
innocent. Double time in the slammer for you.
Defendant statements of either their own guilt or innocence should be "privileged" and
therefore not actionable. Those statements are fundamental to our trust in our judicial
system, and should never later be claimed perjury or false statements if the defendant
changes their mind or a jury makes their ultimate finding.
Although different people at different times, and different circumstances: a
comparison.
Then CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing [she is currently a Democrat candidate for a New
Mexico congressional seat].
And, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [NSA-designee] outing.
Outing, that is: leaking their identities, by government officials[s], to . . . .and
release of classified information.
How do the actions taken by government compare and contrast, at the time of outing/leaking
crimes.
1] Both leaks went to the Washington Post.
2] Substance of the Plame and Flynn leaks related to . . .
WAP published Plame's identity, July 14, 2003. George Bush the younger, then president.
Robert David Sanders "Bob" Novak put his name to this at WAP. [Her husband, Joseph C. Wilson
4th, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, disputed
Bush/Cheney administration claims, their claims of WMD in Iraq.]
WAP published Flynn's identify, Jan. 12, 2017. Barack Obama, then president. David
Reynolds Ignatius put his name to it at WAP. Flynn disputed Obama administration "facts"
about their Syrian war in particular, and more generally, in west Asia/near East/middle
east.]
3] Investigation at the time or no investigation at the time.
Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981 requires actions on such matters.
In the Plame matter, the CIA, on July 24, 2003 made a phone call to the DOJ about this,
according to the CIA. They followed this up with a July 30, 2003 letter.
Government records show "on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the
Chief of the Counterespionage Section of DoJ noting concerns with recent articles on this
subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of
a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA
reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed DoJ that the
CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent
again to DoJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003."
Sept. 30, 2003, Bush famously stated, viz. the identities of the leaker[s]: "I want to
know who it is ... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dec. 30, 2003 a Special Counsel was also appointed to investigate the Plame matter, as
well.
Then AG John Ashcroft recused himself and thus declined to make this SC appointment.
Patrick Fitzgerald was named the Special Counsel by then Deputy AG James Comey. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We know many more details now about the Plame matter, than about what, if any,
investigation may, or may not have, begun, at the time of the Flynn outing and release of
classified information.
What we do know, so far, about the Flynn matter is that, at the time, there was no attempt
-- or at least, we don't know if there was -- any attempt from the Flynn outing on Jan. 12,
2017, to Jan. 20 of that year, when Obama was still president: a] if the CIA asked for an investigation b] if then AG Lynch did c] if DAG at the time Yates did d] if Obama did
We also don't know if, beginning Jan. 20 a] if then acting AG Yates did b] if President Trump did c] if the CIA did
Once Jeff Sessions was confirmed as AG, we don't know if he did, nor do we know if DAG Rod
Rosenstein did.
Nor do we know if the CIA did.
We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other
things.
And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus,
Rosenstein, too: what was he doing?
We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began
to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual
crimes.
It is a fair question to ask when he actually began investigation on the Flynn outing, and
leaking of classified material related to that.
And to ask when, or if, the CIA, since Jan. 20, 2017, ever did.
We do know there were many public enemies of Flynn at highest levels of DOJ, FBI, CIA, and
the office Clapper was in charge of at the time, Director of National Intelligence.
And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way
of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified
information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ.
As an aside: Judge Emmett Sullivan's ongoing tomfoolery and slapdash in the Flynn criminal
case puts in relief, sharp relief, just how upside down this entire issue has become.
It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of
villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs.
Flynn's guilty plea being sworn to under penalty of perjury is no small matter, and the
DOJs actions have been, in total, extremely odd.
It may be unwise to read too much into this at this point. The DOJ has wasted a couple of
years and no doubt millions of dollars worth of the court's time. Sullivan is providing a
platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in this matter. Both past and
present DOJs, that is.
As a general observation, there has been a tidal wave of criticism in American media over
the DOJ dropping the charges against Flynn.
I have made an attempt to follow what the American MSM are saying about this, and the
hostility to both Flynn and Barr is just overwhelming. Surely that overwhelming media opinion had an effect on Judge Sullivan's bad
decision.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I know the FBI can listen in on phone calls made to foreign
nationals, but how can the FBI legally listen in on phone calls made by the NSC Director of
the President-Elect, regardless of who he is talking to?
General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric
Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law
firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case.
My husband's default TV channel is MSNBC, programming which I often overhear. A fair-minded
observer can't help but notice that Obama apologists only mention that Flynn plead guilty
twice. They NEVER emphasize the beyond-mitigating aspects of the matter, e.g., that his
counsel at the time (which was a law firm also employing former Obama AG Eric Holder) was
either incompetent or purposefully negligent in advising him to do so. Nor do they mention
that Flynn was threatened with the prospect of his son being prosecuted using rarely-enforced
FARA laws. The apologists also fail to remind their audiences that the FBI investigation of
Flynn was about to be closed -- much less do they report that he was NEVER charged with
perjury in the first place!
The convenient and expedient failure to fully inform people has become typical among the
MSM/Democrats/NeverTrumpers, et al. Their efforts to misinform, to perpetuate ignorance,
continue to play out not only in the entire Obamagate scandal but it seems also when it comes
to COVID-19 policy. No wonder zombie-themed entertainment is so popular in recent years.
SMFH...
Flynn wasn't outed. He was a widely known public figure for years. Trump and Pence
announced Flynn lied to them and the FBI when he was fired. I'm not if this was mentioned in
the press before Trump's announcement.
Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then
swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the
conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the
answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know
if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be
liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr
is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts.
TTG, there is this legal thing called the litigation privilege that, I think, covers what an
accused can say in a trial. Plenty of people plead guilty to charges that they know to be
false without the slightest demur by anyone..
Furthermore, Flynn may have become convinced by his lawyers that he had, in effect lied to
the FBI. In addition, since he was not under oath or cautioned by the FBI at the time, even
if he deliberately did lie for perhaps political or strategic reasons how is that a crime?
People lie to people all the time.
To put that another way, is telling a female FBI agent "I'll still respect you in the
morning" going to get you 20 years?
So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because
prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are
mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury"
The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that
pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that.
Mark,
"Sullivan is providing a platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in
this matter."
So he is willfully refusing to dismiss the case so the DOJ can give him an explanation -
other than the one they already gave him in the motion to dismiss? Justice Sullivan, on
behalf of the Judiciary, is now taking it upon itself to determine what the executive branch
of government was thinking in this case? To get that explanation he has appointed a former
member of the judiciary, one who had previously worked side by side with Andrew Weissman. No
bias there. You don't need to be a lawyer to see how ludicrous the suggestion and the judges
actions appear.
Sullivan, like most of the Federal judiciary, is just another swamp creature. He apparently slept through the class in law school where they said that the state has to
prosecute the case, a judge can't - even as much as he may want to.
The issue is both: the criminal leak of classified information; and the criminal outing --
the identity of Flynn -- related to classified information leak. Those are indissolubly
linked.
The issue is also this, thanks to Judge Emmett Gilbert & Sullivan, who wrote May 13,
2020:
"ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show
Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. . . and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law."
Who would be charging Flynn with "criminal contempt for perjury"? And/Or, "and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law"?
Perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan will keep the case open until after the November
presidential election, or the November 2024 election, or the next one, so that another DOJ --
not headed by Bill Barr -- can so charge Flynn.
Or perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan is inviting Congress to name a Special Prosecutor.
Who might that be? James Comey? Andrew Weissmann? Sally Yates?
After all, how dare anyone expose Barry as anything but "the scandal free" administration.
This is Gilbert & Sullivan's motive, as I see it, my opinion, based on what I have seen
so far: To protect Barry, among others. And do that via keeping alive a prosecution of Flynn,
based on DOJ/FBI/CIA skullduggery. [Another theory is the judge wants to throw the book at
Covington for misconduct; perhaps both or one or the other are at play, I don't have the
evidence at this time to clearly say.]
As for Trump and Pence, that is grist for another mill.
For all we know, Trump and Pence may have wanted Flynn gone and they did not care how it
was done. And they did not want their finger prints on it; and for all we know, Trump and
Pence were not opposed to the Mueller SC appointment.
These are also things we actually just don't have clear answers to, just yet.
But that sideshow is irrelevant to this legal proceeding/circus per the May 13 order.
However, it may [or may not] be relevant to whether or not Trump and Pence actually wanted
Flynn gone – using the "Flynn lied" as an excuse to be rid of him.
Pence, at the time, had no business speaking about what was essentially classified
information, at the time, by the way; he did, on national TV, and Flynn was the patsy.
Did Trump and Pence, and their administration, sit on their hands as well, and do nothing
about the criminal leak of classified information linked to the outing of Flynn?
Claiming he lied could suggest they also were not interested in the crime of leaking
classified information and his outing.
At least Bush said or claimed to wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame matter. Did
Trump and Pence, at the time?
And if they did want to get to the bottom of it, I would like to see evidence that they
did so, and/or evidence that they were thwarted in doing so.
Surely, Trump and Pence can argue this was why they were not opposed to Mueller
appointment.
We don't know all the contents of the scope memo Rosenstein wrote, as the boss of Mueller,
-- whether or not investigation of the criminal leak and outing of Flynn was or was not part
of Mueller's scope of work.
We don't know because chunks of scope memo are still redacted and not available to the
public.
Presumably, AG Barr is investigation this; he came back on the scene last year.
What happened before him, going back to Jan. 20, 2017? And, what happened from Jan. 12 to
Jan. 2020, with respect to the Obama administration, on this crime?
Did anyone, prior to Barr, do anything, or try to do anything?
If this was not part of Rosenstein's scope memo to Mueller, what can one conclude? -30-
In recent years we have seen numerous individuals released from jail due to their innocence
being found by DNA and other scientific processes. A good number of those individuals had
plead guilty. In the Sullivan courtroom Flynn plead quietly twice (once to Sullivan the other
to Contreras) but now pleads innocent and the government has decided to drop the case. But
Judge Sullivan now questions what to do with Flynn and is asking for help from the legal
community to determine what to do. It has become a circus or Sullivan wants his pound of
flesh. Time will tell but if it is not to the benefit of Flynn then it's off to the Appeals
Court where it will be justly determined. After insinuating that Flynn was a traitor this Judge should drop the case quickly but no he
wants make himself like a bigger Idiot.
Flynn's case never went to trial. It went straight to a guilty plea and was awaiting the
sentencing phase. If the DOJ dropped charges before this guilty plea or at any time during a
trial, I doubt we would be in this mess. What Flynn signed onto is straightforward. I don't
know if this litigation privilege would apply to this Defendant's Acceptance.
"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a
factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the
facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and
because I am, in fact, guilty o f the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I
under the influence o f anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement o
f the Offense fully." "I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and
stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is
true and correct."
Sullivan is addressing the guilty plea by Flynn and his subsequent withdrawal of that plea.
creating the charge of perjury to the court.
Barr is opening up the DOJ to prosecutorial misconduct if the reason for the withdrawal is
exculpatory information that was not provided defendant prior to his guilty plea.
Sullivan is exploiting this discrepancy. I am neither a legal expert nor lawyer so will
stand corrected.
It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying
pan.
Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of
their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a
paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This
effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016
primary season.
I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked
bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint
Barry.
If Flynn does get off in the end, might he sue Obama and at some point depose him? An
interesting thought experiment.
I find this hilarious. It is like POTUS is a helpless bystander. Does he not realize it is
his DOJ that has "stolen or destroyed" the 302? Does he not know that he can declassify all
of "Obamagate"?
Or is his intent to just troll everyone?
And what about him throwing Flynn to the hyenas by firing him?
When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside
persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for
arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an
article about that brazen move.
Now Sullivan has abandoned that move and has exposed himself as an advocate singularly
against the defendant Flynn, which of course is not his role. His order of Wednesday, 13 May,
appointed John Gleeson, a former federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, to
present arguments against the motion to dismiss Flynn's case and whether Flynn should be the
subject of a proceeding for criminal contempt of court for perjury.
Judge Sullivan's new order indicates that he has improperly invested his ego in the case,
and that something is likely going on behind the curtain.
With all that is emerging from the recent releases of sworn testimony from various
actors surrounding the Flynn case, and the Russiagate hoohaw exposing the motivations of
these individuals, can it be doubted that given the depth of the duplicity on exhibit here
that it is entirely possible (indeed, likely) that something as incriminating as the
"missing" 302 was destroyed to cover the tracks?
Although some of the principals left of their own volition, and others were removed
through being fired, it is clear that others acted as "stay behind" forces of the Deep State
to continue the coup from inside the DOJ, FBI, and IC. Under these circumstances, it is not
at all clear that President Trump was (and is now) substantially in command of these
agencies. Incriminating documents and recordings may well have been preemptively destroyed on
the sayso of the "stay behind" plotters still in high positions, so calls for
declassification of already disappeared evidence would be futile.
No, it doesn't look good that Flynn was fired, but at the time, and with what was known
at that time , and given Flynn's plea, what could be expected? Now that things have
subsequently been revealed, it looks like a bad call; hindsight is, as the saying has it,
20/20.
Hawk Elliot Abrams, reborn as a U.S. envoy, is at the spear point of recent aggressive moves
in Venezuela. US Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams addresses the Atlantic
Council on the future of Venezuela in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2019. (Photo credit NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Called the "neocon zombie" by officials at the State Department, Abrams is known as an
operator who doesn't let anything stand in his way. He has a long history of pursuing
disastrous policies in government.
"Everything Abrams is doing now is the same thing he was doing during the Reagan
administration. He's very adept at manipulating the levers of power without a lot of
oversight," a former senior official at the State Department told The American
Conservative. The official added that Abrams is "singularly focused" on pursuing regime
change in Venezuela.
A little background on Abrams: when he served as Reagan's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, he concealed a
massacre of a thousand men, women, and children by U.S.-funded death squads in El Salvador.
He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal, helping to secure covert funding for Contra
rebels in Nicaragua in violation of laws passed by Congress. In 1991, he pled guilty to
lying to Congress about the America's role in those two fiascos -- twice.
But then-president George H.W. Bush pardoned Abrams. He went on to support "measures to
scuttle the Latin American peace process launched by the Costa Rican president, Óscar
Arias" and use "the agency's money to unseat the Sandinistas in Nicaragua's 1990 general
elections," according
to Brian D'Haeseleer.
Under President George W. Bush, Abrams promoted regime change in Iraq.
Abrams was initially blocked from joining the Trump administration on account of a Never
Trump op-ed he'd penned. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo succeeded in bringing him onboard
last year, despite his history of support for disastrous regime change policies.
It's no surprise that with Abrams at the helm, U.S. rhetoric and actions towards Venezuela
are constantly "escalating," Dr. Alejandro Velasco, associate professor of Modern Latin America
at New York University, said an interview with TAC.
In just the last month, Washington has placed bounties on the heads of President
Nicolás Maduro and a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials. The U.S. also
deployed the largest fleet ever to the Southern Hemisphere.
Meanwhile, Abrams announced the " Democratic
Transition Framework for Venezuela ," which calls on Maduro's government to embrace a
power-sharing deal. The plan doesn't explain how Venezuelan leaders with bounties on their
heads are supposed to come to the table and negotiate with Juan Guaido, whom the U.S.
recognizes as Venezuela's legitimate leader. Abrams has also said that the U.S. does not
support a coup.
A few days after recommending a power-sharing arrangement, and 18 years after the U.S.
backed a putsch against Hugo Chavez, Abrams
warned that if Maduro resisted the organization of a "transitional government," his
departure would be far more "dangerous and abrupt." To many, Abrams'
aggressive rhetoric against Maduro made it sound like the U.S. was "effectively threatening
him with another assassination attempt," like the one Washington had "tacitly
supported" in 2018.
Two weeks after Abrams' warning, Operation Gideon began. Jordan Goudreau, an American
citizen, former Green Beret, and three-time Bronze Star recipient for bravery in Iraq and
Afghanistan, along with Javier Nieto, a retired Venezuelan military captain, posted a video
from an undisclosed location saying they had launched an attack that was meant to begin a
rebellion that would lead to Maduro's arrest and the installation of Juan Guaido.
In a public relations coup for Maduro, the plot was quickly foiled. Given that American
citizens were involved and have produced a contract allegedly signed by Guaido,
the incident has severely harmed the reputations of both the U.S. and the Venezuelan
opposition.
Both President Trump and Pompeo have denied that the U.S. had any "direct" involvement with
Goudreau's plot.
However, the Trump administration has given billions of dollars from USAID to Venezuela, and
that money is largely untraceable due to concerns about outing supporters of Guaido.
"With all the cash and arms sloshing around in Venezuela," it is not hard to imagine how
U.S. funding could inadvertently wind up supporting something like this, said Velasco.
There are other signs that the U.S. may have been more involved in the plot than they are
saying publicly.
For one, American mercenaries don't carry passports identifying themselves as American nor
do they return to the U.S. where they can be brought up on charges for their work, said Sean
McFate, professor of war and strategy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and
the National Defense University.
In order to sell weapons or training to another nation, it is necessary to receive
permission from the State Department. It's unclear whether Goudreau and his band did so. But
Goudreau's social media posts look like a pretty "clear cut" violation of the International
Convention Against the Recruitment, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the U.S.
International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) said Peter Singer, a senior fellow at New
America.
We know that months before the fated coup, the CIA met with Goudreau in Jamaica and
allegedly warned him off the project. According to the AP, Goudreau is now under
investigation for arms trafficking . Members of Congress have asked the State Department
what they knew of Goudreau's plans. Given the illegal nature of the supposedly unauthorized
project, it's very strange that the ringleader is at present in Florida, talking to the press
and posting on social media.
Besides that warning, it seems no one in government tried to stop this calamitous
operation.
And it's not just regime change. Last year, Abrams
advocated granting special immigration status for the 70,000 Venezuelans residing illegally
in the U.S. as a way to "pressure Maduro" even though Trump ran on the promise to severely
limit the number of people granted Temporary Protected Status.
It was in pursuit of special status for Venezuelans that Abrams showed himself to be
"incredibly pompous, bull-headed, and willing to destroy anyone who opposes him, in a personal
way, including by trashing their reputations in the media," another senior State Department
official told TAC. Abrams is not above hiding policy options he doesn't like and
offering only those he favors to Pompeo to present to Trump, sources said.
Abrams ultimately prevailed and Venezuelans received refugee status from the Trump
administration, despite the fact that it betrayed Trump's campaign promises.
According to Velasco, there are some people in the administration who believe that
Venezuelans are the "new Cubans" -- that they will become a solid, loyal Republican vote in the
swing state of Florida if they're granted special status. They also believe that Venezuelan
expats want to see the U.S. remove Maduro. There are "many Cold Warriors" who believe all it
will take is a "little push" for Venezuelans to rise up and take out Maduro, said Velasco.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on whether Abrams is pursuing
a military confrontation in Venezuela.
"Cold Warrior" beliefs are dangerous. While "Operation Gideon" was especially clownish, had
it been more sophisticated, it could have easily sparked a world war. The Russians, Iranians,
and Chinese are all operating in Venezuela.
That specter is even more concerning now that Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov has
said that Russian special
services are on standby to help Venezuela's investigation of the mercenaries. about the
author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is
the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and
her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere.
Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
@BBatDC .
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
Although amica, or amicus briefs can be routine in civil cases, in a criminal case, it is
a prosecutor's duty to decide things as basic as whether to prosecute a case.
But in the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn matter, Sullivan says he now needs outside help.
The need, the judge says, came following the DOJ decision to end prosecution of the
general, having determined there was no crime; the heretofore prosecution of him was a
phantom of the opera.
Sullivan now wants an encore.
What might that be?
Pirates of Penzance?
Sullivan Flies Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
In a recent order the judge said he will invite outside parties -- outside of the DOJ --
to provide this judge "unique information or perspective that can help the court."
The absurdity of Sullivan notwithstanding, it could be: he recognizes he is sitting on a
volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy
Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1,
2017.
Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ
produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the
concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general
lied.
The DOJ never produced this. Ever.
Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to read those original 302s either, even
though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7, 2017.
After a year of sitting on the case, Flynn said he was ready to be sentenced: the
prosecutors had said they were fine with no jail time for him.
During this Dec. 18, 2018 hearing, Sullivan Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
[If you have not, read transcript of this hearing, it's at least a half-hour read.]
Sullivan told Flynn he could face 15 years in jail, implied he committed treason, was a
traitor to his country, blah blah blah.
The prosecutor at the time, Brandon Van Grack, told the Pirate of Penzance that more
assistance of Flynn was needed for the bogus Mueller investigation.
Sullivan [Gilbert was not in the courtroom] then allowed Flynn's sentencing hearing to be
continued, so long as Mueller submitted monthly progress reports to ascertain the general was
cooperating with the special counsel office's "investigation" of nonexistent "crimes" against
who knows what at that point.
To recap: Sullivan threatened Flynn with 15 years in prison; Flynn withdrew his
willingness to be sentenced at that time; Van Grack out of nowhere said the general needed to
cooperate some more with Mueller.
Had Sullivan not gone rouge at this hearing; had he demanded and gotten the original 302s,
I would give more credence to what I'll say next.
The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before consummating
the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple.
Sullivan knows he is sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat.
Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies of
justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court.
Put another way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his
Minute Order.
Reason I'm not necessarily opposed to this circus is practical: more sunshine can be
brought to this prosecution, this malicious and political perecution of Flynn –
sunshine, via the DOJ release document after document that just piles onto the record
DOJ/FBI/CIA lawlessness that was directed against and targeted Flynn. And perhaps other
delicious nuggets, too.
When the smoke clears, the fat lady finally sings, Sullivan can say or claim he did
everything to give everyone their say, blah blah blah, and hope like hell everyone forgets
this Pirate's dereliction of duty, as a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Perhaps, should this show go on, we might discover why Contreras mysteriously recused
himself right after the Flynn pleas.
Perhaps we will read all of the Covington law firm Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff
emails, and what they were saying about Flynn, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And, since Barry decided to directly and publicly insert himself in this fiasco last week,
with his remark about Flynn and "perjury," who knows what other documents will be filed on
the docket. [Obama's pre meditated use of "perjury" when he knows it was not about that,
indicates just how sinister his public involvement now is.]
I would like to see all of Sullivan's communications, work related and private, involving
the Flynn case.
Please file all of them on the docket, Judge Sullivan, un-redacted, you who opened this
can of worms. [So we can see if you, by your own "standards" might be a "security threat" or
"sold out your country," etc.]
Sullivan didn't start this fire; he did pour gasoline on it.
". . . .Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. . . ."[Epistle
to the Galatians]
There several fuzzy, unexplainable moments in this whole story:
1. Why Flynn intentionally violated White House protocol for questioning of Trump
administration officials? He was fired by Obama-Brennan mafia for questioning Obama policies
and during this period he should obtain more or less complete understanding of the modus of
operation of this mafia and should not have any illusions about them, should he ?
2. How he did not sense the danger? Why no lawyer was present during the interview? It is
impossible that Flynn did not understand that both Strzok and his boss were essentially
plants from CIA in FBI and indirectly reported to Brennan ?
3. Why in this chess party between former paratrooper and former DIA chief (who has a
Master of Business Administration in Telecommunications from Golden Gate University) and such
a sleazy, feminine second, if not third rate individual as Strzok, the simplest defensive
move was to ask for transcripts of his talks with conversations with Kislyak was not used?
Why Flynn so easily fall a victim of a primitive, textbook entrapment? It is inconceivable
that he does not understand that such a full transcript exist. Why he behaved like a 17 year
old detailed by a police officer?
4. On Jan 23, 2017 Russiagate hysteria was in full bloom. So any normal individual would
understand where are the legs of questions that Strzok asked him during the interview just
based on this simple fact. Also it is unconceivable that neither he, not Trump has no
information about the actions of Comey and his henchmen from former Flynn colleagues in DIA.
Why no preemptive strikes against McCabe and Strzok plot were fired?
5. How important was the fact that Comey and his henchmen have Flynn by the balls due to
his lobbing efforts for Turkey in this whole story ?
Over the past three years Donald J. Trump has delivered on his promise to be the "best
friend in Washington that Israel has ever had."
...That Trump was willing to highlight and promote a major pander to the Israel Lobby on the
very day he was inaugurated is more than just telling, it is bizarre.
Here is some theory from what I read/hear over there...No idea which side play the
informants, but so as to make some sense due the last tendences at least in Europe and the
moves y Trump and the "deep state"
According to Daniel Estulin ( and not sure whether I take him right, due his Spanish
)there is a current fight amongst the liberal financial banking elites and the old European
aristocratic elites and old ( very old )money, being the later those who lost the last WWII
by betting it all on fascism ( overtly or covertly ), and who try to redesign the world by
undoing current nation-states to then try to rebuilt and recover former European empires,
like Austro-Hungarian one ( in fact, there have been already moves these past days, even
during the pamdemic lockdown, amongst the Visegrads in this sense, on the part of Hungary and
Romania...), the IV Reich, and so on...
Trump would be, what he calls "international black", not an accident rised to power y the
deplorables, but a well planned move by those elites behind supporting him, who think the
world has become unmanageable under liberal democracy. These, what they seek, is a
middle-ageization of the world, with a hierarchical order kept tight through authoritarian
rule where, after the galloping advance of the 6th technological paradygm, about 90% of known
jobs will be lost, without time for the population to reconvert into something useful. To
justify that and advance it without intercourse of a decade or so, plus without facing any
resistance at all, the virus came, one would say, like fallen from the sky...
In the middle, are us all, the working class, the peasants, and the middle class ( upper,
middle, and low ) who never left being working class, eventhough the brainsucking by loans,
hollywood, hyperconsum through big malls cheap fashion clothes, a bit of travelling, and TV.
All disposable people....as got demonstrated during the "live exercise"....All jobs related
to services, tourism, clothing, cosmetics, will be lost if not those related to the luxury
sector, feed by the elites.
What is left for us is what got well illustrated in the hunger games, some will run to
aspire to get some crumbs, but at such price...
Of course, some amongst us, as always, are already positioning themselves as the new brown
shirts, online... and on terrain....
What all those calls for denouncing your breaking lockdown neighbor, or even the one not
clapping down at 8pm ( like authomats every day, during two months! )do you think were
for?
To test....
May 8, 2020 The latest outrage from the Trump White House is that the Justice
Department dropped its case against former national security adviser Mike Flynn for lying to
the FBI, even though Flynn pleaded guilty to the charges in 2017.
In its coverage of the exoneration, the New York Timesnotes that
Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying about a discussion with the Russian ambassador in December
2016 during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. Flynn asked Russia not
to overreact to sanctions
the Obama administration had placed on Russia for interfering in the election; Trump would
be in the White House in another three weeks.
Hmmm. The Times does not mention the other alleged lie– which involves
Israel. A week before the sanctions call, Flynn called the Russian ambassador, and
a "litany" of other countries , to try to get them to counter the U.S. decision to allow a
resolution highly critical of Israeli settlements to pass in the U.N. Security Council. That
resolution went through 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining– Obama's parting shot at
Netanyahu.
The FBI interviewed Flynn in January 2017, a month later, as part of the Russia probe. And
at that time, Flynn lied about his attempt to block the anti-settlements resolution (according
to his own guilty plea).
And former FBI director James Comey speculated that Flynn might have violated the Logan
Act– which criminalizes discussions by unauthorized American citizens with foreign
governments that are having a dispute with the United States.
The whole affair revealed Israel's unseemly influence over U.S. politics. Trump's transition
team "colluded
with Israel," as the Intercept put it– even as everyone was so obsessed with
Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The possible involvement or knowledge of Israel in the case will be one of many questions
that congressional investigators will pursue.
Well, I guess no one wanted that to happen. Certainly the Times doesn't seem to
want it. Two articles today about the Justice Department's collapse mention Russia repeatedly.
Says one, "The [FBI] questioning focused on his [Flynn's] conversations during the transition
after the 2016 election with the Russian ambassador about the Obama administration's imposition
of sanctions on Russia for its interference in the American election." That's just
half-true.
The Israel angle was also buried in the coverage on MSNBC today by Andrea Mitchell. Her
segment on the decision expressed a lot of outrage over Vladimir Putin and Russian influence;
but no mention of what else Flynn was up to.
Here's the original
Justice Department charge sheet to which Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017. It tells
the story of the settlements resolution.
On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security
Council on the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security
Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.
On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team
directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn
where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the
vote or defeat the resolution
On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending
vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to
the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.
That senior member of the team was apparently Jared Kushner, a friend of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and btw the president's son in law. Buzzfeed in
December 2017 :
In the run-up to the vote, both Flynn and [Jared] Kushner
called several officials of Security Council member states in order to block or delay the
resolution. Flynn personally called foreign ambassadors on the Security Council, including
representatives of Uruguay and Malaysia, according to a February
report by Foreign Policy.
Trump himself intervened in the matter, getting the Egyptian government to withrdraw its
anti-settlements resolution. The resolution was ultimately
proposed by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal.
Trump's biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is an ardent supporter of Israel and a friend to
Netanyahu. Adelson and other donors' influence over Middle East policy has been a running
theme of the Trump administration.
In dropping the case, even having obtained a guilty plea, the Justice Department now says
that the FBI had no business questioning Flynn in January 2017. The issues he was asked about
were not "material" to the ongoing investigation.
The Justice Department
filing of yesterday takes Flynn at his word in his original interview by the FBI: that the
many calls he made to foreign governments were just a "battle drill" by the Trump campaign
office in Washington to see how quickly it could get foreign leaders on the phone–Israel,
Senegal, Britain, France, Egypt, Russia -- and Flynn was just trying to suss out the Russians,
not pressure them to block the resolution. "Flynn stated he conducted these calls to attempt to
get a sense of where countries
stood on the UN vote "
But three years ago Comey and some congresspeople were concerned that the lobbying in
Israel's interests against the U.S. would violate the Logan Act. From a
hearing by the House Select Committee on Intelligence in March 2017:
Rep. Jackie Speier (of California):
"The fact that he actively was asking the Russians, through the Ambassador, to vote
against the United States at the U[N] . . with regard to Israeli settlements, have you
looked further into that issue? Because that clearly involves a private citizen conducting
foreign policy.
James Comey said it might be a Logan Act violation, but he wasn't sure.
That is one of the questions for the Department of Justice, is do you want further
investigation. That would be the Logan Act angle, not the false statements to
Federal agents angle I am not an expert, but I don't think it is something prosecutors have
used. But it is possible. That is one of the reasons we sent it over to them, saying look ,
here is this old statute. Do you want us to do further investigation?
Thursday brought other
bits of good news for the Trump administration. The House Intelligence Committee released its
Russiagate interviews, in which the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper,
admitted
he
"never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."
No wonder Intel chief Adam Schiff demanded absolute secrecy during his closed-door inquisition.
DOJ now says 2017 interview of Flynn was 'unjustified' DOJ now says it
had NO probable cause to spy on Carter Page in '17 Transcripts now show exculpatory evidence on
Papadopoulos/Page w/held frm FISAcourt Someone remind me y we needed $30M+ Mueller collusion
investigation?
Among Trump's close circle of colleagues brought down in the Democrats' big-game hunting
expedition, such as former campaign adviser Roger Stone and businessman Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn
was by far the most prized trophy. In hindsight, Trump may have believed that, by firing Flynn just
days into his job, the Russia-collusion story would just magically disappear as the Democrats gave up
the hunt. If that was the plan, it backfired in spectacular fashion: the Democrats sensed blood and
doubled down on their impeachment efforts.
What came next was a three-year political witch hunt against Trump that was never seriously
challenged by the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media – even after the US$30 million Mueller
probe finally put the conspiracy theory to bed. Today, although the media headlines conceal it, the
narrative is slowly beginning to swing in Trump's favor, as Flynn's release strongly suggests.
My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this
has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail
sentences, and this was TREASON!
As I
discussed
in a recent column, many Americans are blissfully ignorant of the fact that, back in May
2019, Trump
launched
an investigation into the origins of Russiagate. Tracking the scandal leads one into a
labyrinthine rabbit hole of intrigue, where it is believed that the Obama-led FBI misled the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act court to spy on the Trump campaign.
The potential list of
individuals who may eventually be forced to testify for their actions extends to the highest echelons
of the Democratic Party. And that would include even 'untouchables,' such as former president Barack
Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. In fact, it is not beyond the realms of possibility
that has-been politicians like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are still being considered as
presidential material simply to escape prosecution.
For anyone who doubts the severity of the possible charges would do well to consider recent
comments by Attorney General William Barr. In an interview last month with Fox News, Barr said the FBI
counterintelligence against Trump served to
"sabotage the presidency without any basis."
That
is about as close to the legal definition of sedition as one can get, and I am sure there are many
powerful people who have arrived at the same conclusion.
Is a former president involved in treason of a sitting president? 🤯
It should be remembered that Donald Trump was voted into office largely because of his pledge
to
"drain the swamp."
In other words, the Manhattan real-estate developer turned
rabble-rousing populist had a very negative attitude about the career politicians who make up
Washington, DC long before he entered the Oval Office.
Now, after being hounded and harassed for
the entirety of his first term, while watching colleagues such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul
Manafort have their lives and careers senselessly upended, Trump may be expected to take full
advantage of Flynn's exoneration to make those responsible pay a hefty legal penalty. If ever there
were a time for such a move, now would certainly be it.
Exactly what the charges against the architects of Russiagate will be, if there are any, will
probably be revealed in the next days and weeks, when William Barr and his assistant, John Durham, are
expected to make the findings of their year-long investigation public.
I am guessing we have not heard the end of the Russiagate drama yet with the freeing of Michael
Flynn, but, instead, are heading into Part II. Fasten your seatbelts – things could get interesting.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
@schnellandine OK, guys. To draw an analogy to a card game:
The Flynn affair has ended. Both sides (Trump & Establishment) have laid down their
cards. Trump wins. The only remaining question is whether he goes for the throat.
Remember, he pretty much has to. The Establishment has made it clear that Trump will be
attacked after he leaves office, and the Flynn affair shows that the attack would have
nothing to do with law or Trump's actions.
Still, has to isn't "did".
So Trump's remarks on "scum" and "treason" are important -- he's going for the throat.
Moreover, the Establishment has been weakened enough by inept COVID-19 preparation and
reaction, and the general public so afraid that the Establishment (what Feifer called the
"Anonymous Authority") will eat them next that a chance to rid themselves of it will receive
considerable backing, and the Establishment's urban power base become so -- well, Hellish,
that Trump actually has a fair chance. If he pulls the string the right way, prosecutes
serially and follows up on facts uncovered by the trials, follows up Epstein's trainl he
could discredit/imprison a good fraction of the Establishment's leaders and personnel. They
can see that as clearly as I can, and some of them, at least, will try to fight rather than
simply lose. They've always succeeded by all-out offensive, know little else.
Awhile back I mentioned that US political stability would drop considerably by early July
(by 2020-07-07, as I recall). Looks like that's really going to happen.
So -- Please do your best to stay safe. Remember, this won't do the food supply chain any
good, and that home invasions won't stop just because things are a bit chaotic.
Anti-Trump Government Officials Conflicted Over Not Being Able To Lie
The treasonous Mueller non-investigation now stands exposed. Those who lied to overthrow
the election are now in serious trouble.
All charges against Flynn are being dropped now that declassified documents show what
actually hapoened. Details including the transcripts can be found at these links.
To pretend that these people were "apolitical professionals" is absurd and Giraldi
knows it.
You can take that to the bank, Sir.
I hope he has the guts to dismiss (without medals or handshakes) a large percentage of
the senior intel community executives. Ditto for Trump and the military.
Every single thinking person of sound charactor with hopes for their children, agrees with
you.
And no doubt so does Dr. G. He just has a very sardonic way of saying it.
We've had traitors and scumbags running the CIA ever since the coup on November 22,
1963.
They've brought narcotics to this nation's young people, while fomenting wars and strife.
They've worked hand and hand with the (((media))) to lie to the American public, (and beyond,
see Ulfkotte, Udo).
Our 'intelligence community' knew about the USS Liberty, and helped to cover it up.
It was involved with the assassination of JFK at the highest levels. George H. Bush was
one of them, and we all remember his 'babies from the incubators'.
Worst of all, it was the Intelligence Community that helped the neocons perpetrate and
then cover up 9/11.
Anyone who could pretend that they are patriots (I almost couldn't even write that word,
it's an abomination to use it and the IC in the same sentence), are either dumber than a box
of rocks, or lying.
How am I wrong about that?
Who, in their right mind, would suggest that the CIA / FBI / ATF / DEA are anything other
than out-of-control thugs, especially after Waco and Ruby Ridge? And especially after
9/11.
They tried to take down a duly elected president of the United States. And I would
consider that a hanging offence, if true.
From what Mr. G has said in this article:
The 2016 election demonstrated that the FBI and CIA in particular were willing to get
involved in the game of who should be president, and in so doing they compromised major
foreign policy and national security norms, which produced Russiagate
It is true, and we all know it.
I suspect that Mr. G. knows a lot of former and current members of the CIA and others in
the IC.
And that is why he's trying to make it sound like he hates Trump as much as they no doubt
do. But I love the way he went about it, by pitting Trump's status and an outsider to the
Establishment, against the entrenched forces of the IC and Pentagon, to point out why the
deepstate hates him and wants him destroyed.
Just imagine how the former Secretary of the Navy feels about Trump today.
He joins Comey and Brenan and McCabe and Stzrok and Muller and Vindman and all those
entrenched diplomats and other scum who abused the levers of federal law enforcement power
for their own personal and political agendas going back at least to the Bush/Clinton
years.
And all of them are fuming with apoplectic rage at Trump, who's exposed the rot, and has
taken down a host of deepstate rats.
Hate Trump all you want, but how can you not at least applaud him for that?
"... Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil Russian lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, she cannot let go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming!" In screeching screed after screeching screech , Applebaum is, like most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money to counter the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc. ..."
"... Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is. ..."
Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil Russian
lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, she cannot let
go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming!" In
screeching
screed after screeching screech ,
Applebaum is, like most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money
to counter the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China,
Iran, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.
There is no doubt that Applebaum is a true believer that Putin wants to destroy our
democratic institutions, but there is also a more pedestrian way to understand her endless
obsession: it pays well to hype up big threats. In fact, according to a mandatory Polish
government
disclosure (her husband was Polish defense and foreign minister before being
forced out in disgrace after an eavesdropping scandal), Applebaum has
made out like a bandit for a humble journalist and think-tanker.
As I wrote when her scandal broke:
Interestingly, Applebaum demands transparency for everyone else while rejecting it for
herself. A recent mandatory income declaration of her husband to the Polish government shows
that her income has skyrocketed from $20,000 in 2011 to more than $800,000 in 2013. No
explanation was given for this massive influx of cash, though several ventures in which she
has a part
are tied to CIA and National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated organizations. Could
Applebaum be one of those well-paid propagandists about whom she complains so violently?
Applebaum's
latest Washington Post column is about...you guessed it: the danger of Russian
disinformation! Here is a synopsis of Applebaum's latest Cold War 2.0 propaganda piece from
this weekend:
1) The mainstream media has taken a beating. The old business model is no longer working.
There are too many new sources of information available, which makes it harder for people to
judge the accuracy of what they read.
My comment: Indeed, the US mainstream media no longer controls what we see, read, and think.
Applebaum cannot stand that there are websites challenging the central neoconservative foreign
policy paradigm. She hates organizations like the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
(she even blocked us on Twitter!).
She longs for the days when you could only pick up a Washington Post or a New York Times and
had no chance of discovering opposing opinions.
In other words, Anne Applebaum misses the Soviet-style monochrome media that she pretends to
despise so much.
2) As a result of mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post losing their monopoly
over shaping foreign policy opinion, as she writes: "authoritarian regimes, led by Russia but
closely followed by China, have begun investing heavily in the production of alternatives."
My comment: Applebaum is saying here that it's all our fault that the Russians are coming
because as soon as the Internet and alternative news and analysis sites offered a point of view
different from Applebaum's neocons, we played into the hands of the Russians by ignoring the
Washington Post and turning to alternatives. If we had only kept our faith in the neocon
worldview, the Russians would not be set to take us over.
3) This new Cold War is even worse than the old Cold War! Unlike back then, in the new Cold
War, as Applebaum writes, "Russia does not seek to promote itself, but rather to undermine the
institutions of the West, often using discordant messages."
My comment: Anne Applebaum offers no evidence or even clues to back her claim. But what she
is saying is that by allowing voices to be heard that run counter to the Washington Post and
neocon foreign policy paradigm, Russian-funded outlets like RT are seeking to sow "confusion"
among Western listeners and viewers. Applebaum does not want us to be "confused" by messages
that run counter to the neocon view of a US empire fighting endless wars against manufactured
enemies. We would be far less "confused" if we would all just read Anne Applebaum and stop
questioning the neocons!
4) Don't worry, this effort to sow confusion is being countered.
Applebaum writes:
Some countries are waking up to this, especially those that have been hardest hit. The
invasion, occupation and dismemberment of Ukraine in 2014 was preceded by a highly effective
propaganda blitz that fomented confusion in Russian-speaking areas and blinded both
Ukrainians and Westerners to what was really going on. In response, Ukrainian organizations
such as StopFake began to
expose and ridicule Russian propaganda.
My comment: She does not explain exactly what that "propaganda blitz" looked like.
Was it the release of
the tape of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland plotting the overthrow of a
democratically elected government in Kiev? Well, according to Applebaum, at least the noble,
independent NGOs are spontaneously springing up across Europe to counter this Russian
propaganda blitz!
Except for one problem: The "StopFake" organization that she praises is not a grassroots
Ukrainian organization as she would have us believe. In fact it's a George Soros astroturf
organization, funded by his
International Renaissance
Foundation . In other words, "StopFake" is fake.
5) In fact, when it comes to funding, Anne Applebaum knows which side of her bread is
buttered. As the Washington Post notes in the article's byline: "Anne Applebaum, a Post
columnist, and Edward Lucas, a senior editor at the Economist, are this week launching a
counter-disinformation initiative at the Center for European Policy Analysis, where they are,
respectively, senior vice president and senior adjunct fellow."
My comment: Who funds the (Washington, D.C.-based) Center for European Policy Analysis? The
United States Department of Defense and a handful of US defense contractors!
Bell Helicopter
Boeing
Chevron Corporation
FireEye
Lockheed Martin Corporation
New Vista Partners
Raytheon Company
Sikorsky Aircraft
Textron Systems
The East Tennessee Foundation
The Hirsch Family Foundation
The Hungarian Initiatives Foundation
The International Visegrad Fund
The Poses Family Foundation
The Smith Richardson Foundation
U.S. Department of Defense
There are one or two surprises on the above list. The Hungarian government of
Viktor Orban has been quite cautious about following the neocon line that any resistance to
massive refugee inflows from the Middle East are signs of unforgivable xenophobia and that
Russia and Putin must be resisted at all costs. In fact,
Orban's opposition in Hungary is furious that he is not following the Russia-bashing neocon
line. So why is the Hungarian government-funded Hungarian Initiatives Foundation backing Anne
Applebaum's neocon initiative to demonize Russia? Good question. Maybe Fidesz supporters will
want to ask their government why their tax money is going to such a worthless, anti-Fidesz
cause.
6) And again on funding, we come to the crux of Anne Applebaum's problem: the US government
does not spend nearly enough money creating its own propaganda to counter what she claims is
Russian propaganda. They are outspending us and outmaneuvering us!
She writes:
There is no modern equivalent to the U.S. Information Agency , an organization dedicated to
coping with Soviet propaganda and disinformation during the Cold War. Although there has been
some extra funding for U.S.-backed foreign broadcasters such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , they cannot provide a complete
response.
My comment: But that's not really true, is it? The idea that the US government is
pinching propaganda pennies while the Russians are going in for the whole fake news hog is not
backed up by those pernicious little things called facts. In fact, the Russian government spent
around $300 million on RT in 2016. Compare that with the US propaganda arm, the Broadcasting
Board of Governors, whose 2017 budget
runs to $777.8 million dollars, or more than two and a half that of RT. And Congress just
gave the green light to
another $100 million to "counter Russian influence" in its stop-gap omnibus budget. We are
out-spending them three-to-one. So why are we still "losing"?
Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington
Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune
warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still
views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer
interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and
she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as
the propagandist she is.
As for Russian "propaganda," like everything else in that vast cornucopia now thankfully
available for our consumption, we should read all we can while keeping our wits about us. There
is no one authoritative, unbiased source of information. That we do know. But we also know that
we are far more able to think for ourselves now that the neocon gatekeepers like Anne Applebaum
have been defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
"... Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is. ..."
"... "McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere." ..."
"... The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern. ..."
"... And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country. ..."
"... Note how unprepared the country was to COVID-19 epidemic. Zero strategic thinking as if the next epidemic was not in the cards at least since swine fly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States ). ..."
"... Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425 ..."
"... Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext, conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch. ..."
Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil
Russian lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold
War, she cannot let go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The
Russians Are Coming!" In screeching screed after screeching screech, Applebaum is, like
most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money to counter
the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran,
Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.
Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the
Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently
made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more.
The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she
herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in
defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every
intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is.
"McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said
about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump
administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His
aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China,
but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere."
And as a China scholar McMaster is not the best choice either:
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable
aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk.
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before
he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He
apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple,
deceptive narrative is more seductive.
-- Michael
likbez, May 7, 2020 6:22 pm
The main thrust here is the US abandoning the world to China and a much weaker Russia. I am calling for
the US to play a much broader role in the world as it has economic and strategic value
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is definitely above my pay grade, but the problem that I see here is that it is very unclear where "a
much broader role in the world" ends and where "imperial overstretch" starts.
The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its
foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern.
And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol
Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue
as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country.
Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what
does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international
law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of
Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning.
https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425
Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the
global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. That's how he got anti-war independents to vote for him.
And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext,
conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch.
Shortly after Brandon Van Grack, chief of the Justice Department's Foreign Agents
Registration Act division, filed a notice of his withdrawal in federal court in Washington, The
Justice Department has this morning filed a motion to drop the criminal case against President
Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn , abandoning the critical leg of
many leftists' belief in the Russia collusion bullshit.
And all it took was one line...
As Byron York notes, the Justice Department finally concedes it had no basis to interview
Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017 , with the move coming less than a week after unsealed
documents in the case fueled renewed claims by Flynn that FBI agents had cooked up a bogus case
against him, and as AP reports, is a stunning reversal
for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.
In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the
case "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including
newly discovered and disclosed information."
The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was
"untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr.
Flynn" and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied
to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview.
Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties
between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.
We are sure it will not take long before Trump tweet-celebrates, as has relentlessly tweeted
about the case, and just last week pronounced Flynn "exonerated."
As Sara Carter detailed
last week, U.S. District Court Judge
Emmet G. Sullivan unsealed four pages of stunning FBI emails and handwritten notes which
allegedly revealed that the retired three star general was targeted by senior FBI officials for
prosecution . Those notes and emails revealed that the retired three-star general appeared to
be set up for a perjury trap by the senior members of the bureau and agents charged with
investigating the now-debunked allegations that President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russia, said Sidney Powell, the defense lawyer representing Flynn.
Last week, after the FBI documents were unsealed, the president
tweeted :
"What happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to
a citizen of the United States again!"
It didn't take long, as Trump spoke to reporters saying "he is happy for Flynn," and adding
that Flynn "is an innocent man."
Your Logan Act investigation is over. The bums lost.
The OPCW is claimed to be an independent agency but we know that it suppressed the results of
its own engineers when it reported that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged
chemical attack in Douma. The former head of the agency has publicly asserted that when John
Bolton demanded that he step down, he added, "We know where your children live." The US has a
history of corruption and intimidation. Any investigation would result in finding China
responsible just as Russia was found to be responsible for the airliner that was shot down
over Ukraine.
"... In 2010, Flynn co-authored an important analysis, Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan . Flynn's key conclusion warned that the U.S. intelligence effort in Afghanistan was failing: ..."
"... The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade. ..."
"... lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches, using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S. intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion. ..."
"... During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress. ..."
"... Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support some of the Syrian rebels. ..."
"... This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker: ..."
"... "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. ..."
"... His refusal to downplay the ISIS threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA position in August 2014. ..."
"... Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East ..."
"... This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama political/intelligence hit squad : ..."
"... Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness" has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam " ..."
"... But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located. ..."
"... Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did. ..."
"... If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever got to a courtroom, they'd be facing - in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial. ..."
"... Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out. ..."
"... They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North Africa, to fill in the void ..."
"... It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned, precipitated these failures. ..."
"... Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly, he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead. ..."
"... ...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and titles of the people... ..."
"... At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ. ..."
"... Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK "expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism? ..."
"... Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory. ..."
"... Thanks for the excellent summary of how Flynn became "persona non grata" to various powers in the IC. But there is another powerful group in Washington whose fervent enmity he drew: the Democratic establishment. See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-mike-flynn-became-americas-angriest-general-214362 ..."
"... Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling on why there was such a push to find something to prosecute Flynn over was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up." "What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington. I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find something to prosecute Flynn over. ..."
Two and one-half years ago, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller unveiled charges against
Michael Flynn for "lying to Federal agents." At the time I gave Mueller the benefit of the
doubt and assumed, incorrectly, that the investigation was fair and honest. We now know without
any doubt that the so-called investigation of Michael Flynn was frame-up. It was a punishment
in search of a crime and ultimately led the FBI to manufacture a crime in order to take out
Michael Flynn and damage the fledgling Presidency of Donald Trump.
It is important to understand the lack of proper foundation to investigate Michael Flynn as
a collaborator with Russia as part of some bizarre plot to steal the 2016 Presidential election
for Donald Trump.
Flynn was perceived as a threat to the CIA and refused to cook the intelligence for the
Obama Administration while he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of
collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus
still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we
operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade.
Flynn's work did not sit well with Jim Clapper and John Brennan. John Schindler, a rabid
anti-Trumper, wrote a hit piece on Flynn in December 2017, that highlights the Deep State anger
at Flynn. Schindler characterizes Flynn's work in unflattering terms and
claims that Flynn :
lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches,
using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S.
intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion.
Flynn's honesty in that assessment did
not derail his next promotion -- he was sworn in as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
July 2012. Once in that position he refused to cook the intelligence. I saw this firsthand (at
the time I had access to the classified intelligence analysis by DIA with respect to the war in
Syria). During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the
Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media
reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of
ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain
and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress.
Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support
some of the Syrian rebels. The program was a failure and the attack on the CIA base in
Benghazi, Libya came close to exposing the covert effort. What the media was not reporting is
that the rebels the U.S. backed were inept. The only rebels achieving some success were the
radical jihadists aligned with ISIS and elements of Al Qaeda (e.g. Al Nusra).
This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you
recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014
interview with the New Yorker:
"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts
on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an
uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and
reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the
homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often
sectarian.
But that was not the story that Flynn's DIA was telling. His refusal to downplay the ISIS
threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA
position in August 2014.
Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed
policies in the
Middle East :
Since taking off his uniform last August, Flynn, 56, has been in the vanguard of those
criticizing the president's policies in the Middle East, speaking out at venues ranging from
congressional hearings and trade association banquets to appearances on Fox News, CNN, Sky News
Arabia, and Japanese television, targeting the Iranian nuclear deal, the weakness of the U.S.
response to the Islamic State, and the Obama administration's refusal to call America's enemies
in the Middle East "Islamic militants."
This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task
Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence
collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama
political/intelligence hit squad :
They question why the retired general, who has earned criticism for his leadership style but
has generally been regarded as a well-intentioned professional, would assist a candidate who
has called for military actions that would constitute war crimes.
"I think Flynn and Trump are two peas in a pod," one former senior U.S. intelligence
official who knows Flynn told The Daily Beast. "They have this naïve notion that yelling
at people will just solve problems."
Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness"
has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea
that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues
the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups
like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam "
His co-author, Michael Ledeen,
is a neoconservative author and policy analyst who was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Thanks to the document release on 30 April, 2020, we know that the FBI opened an
unsuccessful investigation of Flynn. Here are the key points from the memo recommending the
investigation be closed:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an particularly false factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR)
may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which
may constitute a federal crime· or threat to the national security.
The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received
during the course of the investigation.
The FBI queried the FBI databases and at least two other intelligence community databases
for incriminating information but found NO DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI used a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS probably Stefan Halper) to try to collect
incriminating information. The CHS claimed that Flynn was in contact with Svetlana Lokhova, a
British academic born in Russia, but a subsequent FBI search of their databases turned up NO
DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI memo concludes:
the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources
reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation.
But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find
something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the
author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the
investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is
where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located.
They decided to pursue two lines of attack. First, to go after Flynn for allegedly failing
to register as a "Foreign Agent" because of a report his consulting firm prepared on a Turk
living in the United States that Turkey named as a "terrorist." Second, the FBI had in hand the
transcript of Flynn's conversations with Russia's Ambassador and wanted to entrap him into
lying about those conversations.
Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National
Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure
act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to
UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did.
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement in late 2017 with special prosecutor Robert Mueller
was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn admitted to killing Kennedy or having unprotected sex
with Vladimir Putin. But read the actual indictment and the accompanying agreement.
Here is the chronology of Michael Flynn's entirely appropriate actions as the National
Security Advisor to President-elect Donald Trump. This is not what an agent of Russia would do.
This is what the National Security Advisor to an incoming President would do.
December 21, 2016 --Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on
the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution").
December 22, 2016-- a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly
Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia,
to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to
delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016-- FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that
if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to
withdraw the resolution (
link ).
[I would note that there is nothing illegal or wrong about any of this. Quite an appropriate
action, in fact, for an incoming President. Moreover, if Trump and the Russians had been
conspiring before the November election, why would Trump and team even need to persuade the
Russian Ambassador to do the biding of Trump on this issue?]
December 28, 2016-- President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take
effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called
General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016 , FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT
official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the
Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the
Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed
the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming
administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the
members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the
situation.
FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT
official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including
their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
December 31, 2016-- the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had
chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the
Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding
the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian Government and other members of the UN Security
Council in the month preceding Trump's inauguration was appropriate and normal. He did nothing
wrong. But President Obama's henchmen, including James Comey, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and
Susan Rice were out for blood and relied on the FBI to stick the shiv into General Flynn's
belly.
That travesty of justice is being methodically and systematically revealed in the documents
delivered to the Flynn defense team thanks to the efforts of Attorney General William Barr.
Barr is relying on the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri (EDMO) to review the
case and provide Brady material to the Flynn defense team. This is by the book. Doing it this
way provides the legal foundation for future prosecution of the FBI and prosecutors who abused
the General Flynn's rights and violated the Constitution. Stay tuned.
All true in my book but it would be very hard to prosecute and get convictions as the defense
would be "We were working in the best interests of the US against the dastardly Russkies"
At least half the country believes it goes the Russians interfered materially in the 2016
election. 2018 poll
Great analysis, your article added a lot of context on why Flynn was targeted. What a
horrible thing to do to a person.
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/ that has
been doing A+ work on the Flynn set up, linked to you.
If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever
got to a courtroom, they'd be facing -
in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial.
Bottom line: Until the swamp is drained and then burned (meaning all SES and over a certain GS level
bureaucrats gone), we will continue to live under the thumbs of this corrupt "ruling
class." And getting rid of all these people wouldn't make much of a difference to most
Americans; witness the notorious "shutdowns" in recent years.
Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing
his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right
thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan
was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out.
They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to
Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North
Africa, to fill in the void while they could before Russia remained weak and China yet to
fully emerge, to checkmate the grand chessboard Zbigniew wrote of while the US held
unchallenged supremacy.
Obama was very naive about what Muslims are really like in some of those parts. It's best
to liken them to Comanches. He bought into the Zbigniew/Neocon belief that they'll just be
another Taliban, but ask any Afghan who managed to escape the country at the time and they'll
tell you these guys are all devils, djinns.
It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed
like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like
situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was
part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over
American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that
they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure
to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned,
precipitated these failures.
Obama made a lot of mistakes, but thankfully he didn't make it worse by invading in spite
of his red line. I have to credit him that much, but his failures in Libya and Syria are on
par with Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe
these failures.
Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly,
he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his
ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead.
"... internal investigation unit". If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle
blower" to allow hearsay evidence that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the
Western world that still makes it okay to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot
about Horowitz and his IG report already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks
for the laugh.
As much as I would love to see this "ruling class" brought low, by which I mean burnt to the
ground, we face the problem of The Ruling System, outlined in this post on the Z-Man blog:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20405 A little snippet from the post:
...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up
on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one
thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one
another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when
they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and
titles of the people...
Z-Man examines this in various historical settings, Versailles, Communist Russia, before
arriving at The Swamp. Interesting angle.
Small world, speaking of Seymour Hersh's lengthy CIA gun-running to Syria expose in "The Red
Line and Rat Line", that all his prior media connections refused to publish at the time
(Benghazi-Obama days), until it finally appeared in the London Review of Books- or something
like that.
At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background
pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ.
Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK
"expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona
death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian
pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism?
Who was it that says there are no coincidences? Long time since I saw any media attention
given to AVAAZ, nor any final answers why the CIA was running such a big operation in
Benghazi in 2012. However, all the same names and players still swirling around gives one
pause.
Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be
connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory.
Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling
on why there was such a push
to find something to prosecute Flynn over
was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up."
"What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington.
I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find
something to prosecute Flynn over.
AVAAZ pushed FaceBook and Zuckerberg to ban about half of FB content on novel coronavirus,
starting last month, Politico gleefully reported. [Two medical doctors in California 'out of
step' with the diktats of some medical cartel's message, among those FB canceled, for
example.]
AVAAZ, which pushed regime change in Syria, no fly zone in Libya, spews hatred of Russia,
etc. is alive and well, working hard at increasing online censorship.
Their clicktivism business model and lock downs go hand in hand.
[[Avaaz discovered that over 40 percent of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found
on Facebook. . .]]
[[Avaaz said that these fake social media posts -- everything from advice about bogus
medical remedies for the virus to claims that minority groups were less susceptible to
infection -- had been shared, collectively, 1.7 million times on Facebook in six
languages]]
[[Avaaz tracked 104 claims debunked by fact-checkers to see how quickly they were removed
from the platform]]
" If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle blower" to allow hearsay evidence
that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the Western world that still makes it okay
to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot about Horowitz and his IG report
already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks for the laugh."
No laughing matter. The IG position is obviously politicized. It may be a surprise to you,
but many police forces have an internal investigation unit that has extremely wide powers
that. go far beyond those available in ordinary investigation. The staff of such units are a
rare and disliked breed and the units are managed by the natural enemies of the police -
criminal lawyers.
Given that I've seen what these units do here, I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others
were not apprehended and charged very quickly.
Jim, thank you for the further AVAAZ info. Call me gob-smacked. Hope the investigative media picks up this thread. Seymour Hersh, are
you listening? AVAAZ felt sinister during the Benghazi days - also reacll some connections
with Samantha Power and Susan Rice - Barry's Girls.
Maybe mistress Antonia Staats was on a mission; and not just being a scofflaw mistress? In
fact is she trying out to be the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E Bond Girl?
IG's are no surprise to me nor the politicalization, such as Baltimore and Chicago, cities
run by the same political party for decades. Or the "intelligence community" IG, who changed
to rules to allow the scam of Schiff's supersecret whistleblower fraud to go forward. But
then you probably forgot that guy like you did Horowitz.
"I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others were not apprehended and charged ...." Larry insists that will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
|
Ethan Paul dismantles H.R.
McMaster's "analysis"
of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his
own ends:
But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is
actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's
selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.
Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their
advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come
to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving
of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's
pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of
strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's
apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United
States).
McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the
world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world
in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that
McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been
likened to Kennan's seminal
article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves
to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment
strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of
expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster
bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of
Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article
prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he
wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently
ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is
more seductive.
McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the
official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near
the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and
like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy
and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats
it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to
China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary,
world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not
interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing
itself as the leading power in its region.
Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws
in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the
military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually
overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted
the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:
McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the
U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it
finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic
ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete
aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations,"
McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."
McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable
adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and
increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something
that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different
issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to
get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the
threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures
everywhere.
As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of
confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made
in Vietnam:
Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself
about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to
pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.
McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the
past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British
Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and
then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his
classic study
Myths of Empire thirty years ago:
Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but
fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that
can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once
implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen
the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous
to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the
New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
RADDATZ: Do you believe it was manmade or genetically modified?
POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to
disbelieve that at this point.
RADDATZ: Your -- your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus
was not manmade or genetically modified.
POMPEO: That's right. I -- I -- I agree with that. Yes. I've -- I've seen their analysis.
I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt
that that is accurate at this point.
To summarize: Pompeo does not doubt that the virus has been genetically modified, but he
also does not doubt that is has not been genetically modified.
Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??
Those incompetent neo-confederates leading america into oblivion will jumble strategic
defeats with winning. So much for accountability, hard work and personal responsability...
Seems they can't compete fairly without superior military variable of adjustment and threat
of violence against adversaries. Orange springs eternal and their great white hope has now
adopted a paralizing rhetoric of victimization - republican lawmakers follow suit and are
going so far as invoking a western bid for monetary reparations from Chinese depredations. #
the art of winnig for maggots, derp.
"... Presidential determinations based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings or calamities abroad. ..."
"... In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78 day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31 congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph of American benevolence. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." ..."
Fifty years ago, President Richard Nixon popped up on national television on a
Thursday night to proudly announce that he invaded Cambodia. At that time, Nixon was selling
himself as a peacemaker, promising to withdraw U.S. troops from the Vietnam War. But after the
sixth time that Nixon watched the movie "Patton," he was overwhelmed by martial fervor and
could not resist sending U.S. troops crashing into another nation.
Presidents had announced military action prior to Nixon's Cambodia surprise but there was a
surreal element to Nixon's declaration that helped launch a new era of presidential
grandstanding. Ever since then, presidents have routinely gone on television to announce
foreign attacks that almost always provoke widespread applause -- at least initially.
Back in 1970, congressional Democrats were outraged and denounced Nixon for launching an
illegal war. In his televised speech, Nixon also warned that "the forces of totalitarianism and
anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." Four days after
Nixon's speech, Ohio National Guard troops suppressed the anarchist threat by gunning down
thirteen antiwar protestors and bystanders on the campus of Kent State University, leaving four
students dead.
Three years after Nixon's surprise invasion, Congress passed the War Powers Act which
required the president to get authorization from Congress after committing U.S. troops to any
combat situation that lasted more than 60 days. Congress was seeking to check out-of-control
presidential war-making. But the law has failed to deter U.S. attacks abroad in the subsequent
decades.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton launched a missile strike against Sudan after U.S. embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists. The U.S. government never produced any
evidence linking the targets in Sudan to the terrorist attacks. The owners of the El-Shifa
Pharmaceutical Industries plant -- the largest pharmaceutical factory in East Africa -- sued
for compensation after Clinton's attack demolished their facility. Eleven years later, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit effectively dismissed the case:
"President Clinton, in his capacity as commander in chief, fired missiles at a target of his
choosing to pursue a military objective he had determined was in the national interest. Under
the Constitution, this decision is immune from judicial review." Presidential determinations
based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings
or calamities abroad.
In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78
day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic
tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter
Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest
television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The
House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31
congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the
lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the
U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph
of American benevolence.
After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush acted entitled to attack anywhere to "rid
the world of evil." Congress speedily passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
which the Bush administration and subsequent presidents have asserted authorizes U.S. attacks
on bad guys on any square mile on earth. Congressional and judicial restraints on Bush
administration killing and torturing were practically nonexistent.
Bush's excesses spurred a brief resurgence of antiwar protests which largely vanished after
the election of President Barack Obama, who quickly received a Nobel Peace Prize after taking
office. That honorific did not dissuade Obama from bombing seven nations, often based on secret
evidence accompanied by false denials of the civilian casualties inflicted by American bombings
of weddings and other bad photo ops.
In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar
Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge
ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the
mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that
congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." Obama
"had the constitutional authority" to attack Libya "because he could reasonably determine that
such use of force was in the national interest," according to the Justice Department's Office
of Legal Counsel. Yale professor Bruce Ackerman lamented that "history will say that the War
Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the
campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking."
On the campaign trail in 2016, Donald Trump denounced his opponent as "Trigger Happy
Hillary" for her enthusiasm for foreign warring. But shortly after taking office, Trump reaped
his greatest inside-the-Beltway applause for launching cruise missile strikes against the
Syrian government after allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.
The following year, the Trump administration joined France and Britain in bombing Syria
after another alleged chemical weapons attack. Several officials with the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons leaked information showing that the chemical weapons
accusations against the Syria government were false or contrived but that was irrelevant to the
legality of the U.S. attack.
Why? Because the Justice Department ruled that President Trump could "lawfully" attack Syria
"because he
had reasonably determined that the use of force would be in the national interest." That
legal vindication for attacking Syria cited a Justice Department analysis on Cambodia from 1970
that stated that presidents could engage U.S. forces in hostilities abroad based on a "long
continued practice on the part of the Executive, acquiesced in by the Congress." The Justice
Department stressed that "no U.S. airplanes crossed into Syrian air-space" and that "the actual
attack lasted only a few minutes." So the bombs didn't count? If a foreign government used the
same argument to shrug off a few missiles launched at Washington D.C., no one in America would
be swayed that the foreign regime had not committed an act of war. But it's different when the
U.S. president orders killings.
In the decades since Nixon's Cambodia speech, presidents have avoided repeating his
reference to America being perceived as "a pitiful, helpless giant." But too many presidents
have repeated his refrain that failing to bomb abroad would mean that "our will and character"
were tested and failed. Unfortunately, the anniversary of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia passed
with little or no recognition that the unchecked power of American presidents remains a grave
threat to world peace.
About Jim Bovard Jim Bovard is the author
of Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The
Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and 7 other books. He is a member of the USA Today
Board of Contributors and has also written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Playboy, Washington Post, and other publications. His articles have been publicly denounced by
the chief of the FBI, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of HUD, and the heads of the DEA,
FEMA, and EEOC and numerous federal agencies.
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
In his rush to accuse Beijing of unleashing the scourge of Covid-19 on an unsuspecting
world, the US Secretary of State said the coronavirus was man-made, before making a U-turn
without even blinking. "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have
reason to disbelieve them at this point," Mike Pompeo told ABC's 'This Week' when
asked about a statement from the US intelligence community that unequivocally said the
opposite.
Host Martha Raddatz twice asked Pompeo to clarify whether his view differed from that of
American intelligence, and he voiced his total support for the spies – though he stopped
short of actually saying "I don't believe the virus was man-made."
"There is a disconnect between what average people feel as threats to their security and
what the Beltway does," said Khanna, "I don't dismiss traditional challenges. Obviously you
have Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia, and Russian election interference. Obviously,
you have the rise of China authoritarian capitalism and their foray into Africa and their
potential disruption of the navigation of the seas."
Khanna said his constituents understand the challenges posed by Russia and China, but they
want the country to balance these priorities against the need to prepare for future pandemics,
the effects of climate change and the risks posed by cyberattacks and emerging
technologies.
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security strategy - and
federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
Joe Cirincione is the president and Zack Brown a policy associate at Ploughshares Fund, a
global security foundation.
Representative Ro Khanna (D.-CA) recently laid down some new rules for the Pentagon budget:
Fund public health over weapons; freeze defense programs at current levels; resist Senate
pressure to cave on House priorities; and develop a "modern, expansive definition of national
security that includes the risk of pandemics and climate change." High on his list of possible
cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald Trump,
including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
High on his list of
possible cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald
Trump, including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). He will also
press for sound national security policies to be included in the annual Pentagon spending bill
and for the House leadership to defend these priorities.
"One place we're looking is to limit the modernization of ICBMs," he said in an interview on
the national security podcast, Press The Button . Instead, Khanna
wants Congress to "put that money into coronavirus research, or vaccine research, or developing
manufacturing capacity for masks. I think those types of red lines are not only possible but
would be politically very popular."
Khanna's views carry great weight with his colleagues and within national security circles.
Serving his second term in the House, he is the first vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , a member of the
House Armed Services
Committee , and was co-chair for Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.
His opposition to the new missile comes just weeks after the U.S. Air Force announced it
seeks to
accelerate the missile program marked by cost overruns and a controversial
bidding process that left Northrop Grumman as the sole contractor. The new missile could
cost as much as
$150 billion . Air Force program managers are speeding "to get things awarded on contract
as quickly as possible,"
noted budget expert Todd Harrison, "so that becomes harder to reverse if there's a new
administration."
Khanna called the land-based leg of the nuclear triad "one of the greatest threats of
nuclear war," noting that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once
testified to their "false alarm danger." He said he is working with another former defense
secretary, William Perry, who has
termed these missiles "some of the most dangerous weapons in the world," and called for
their phase-out.
Khanna's new rules could thwart the furious lobbying by defense contractors for
billions of dollars in the next COVID aid package. He says these funds should be put into
more critical areas and that defense contractors should get "not a dime." "We should not be
increasing funding for industries that don't need it, that aren't critical to coronavirus, that
aren't critical to our national security, that are just going to the defense industrial base,"
Khanna said. "It's just not the priority right now."
Khanna picked up some heavyweight support for this position when Rep. Adam Smith (D.-WA),
the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
announced last Wednesday that he, too, was opposed to new funds for defense
contractors.
"The defense [budget] last year was $738 billion," said Smith. "I'm not saying that there
aren't needs within the Department of Defense, I'm saying they have a lot of money and ought to
spend that money to meet those needs." A letter by 62 national organizations to the House
leadership last week also
opposed any additional funds to the Pentagon this year.
This opposition by a leader of the Progressive Caucus and by the highest-ranking national
security Democrat in Congress, moreover, comes
amid growing calls for a fundamental rethink of U.S. national security in response to the
pandemic.
... ... ...
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security
strategy - and federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna
said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
For any intelligence professional, especially for a person who was the head of DIA, Flynn
behaviour is unexplainably naive. The idea that he did not understand that he is dealing with
Clinton mafia, as well as that Clinton mafia will try to implicate him is just absurd. So his
behaviour is mystery. As well as the fact that he allowed them to come bypassing regular channels
in President administration.
As we do not have the whole picture we can only speculate. Probably he was already on the
hook for his Turkish lobbing and that was exploited.
"New Documents Show Strzok Countermanded Closure Of Flynn Case For Lack Of Crime" [
Jonathan Turley ]. "It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn
did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the
conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored
and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
There was no reason to hide such a discussion.
Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more
positive posture with them. It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field
Office issued a 'Closing Communication' indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE
RAZOR" -- the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok
intervened." • Read on for detail, which is ugly.
Ah, the FBI. The FBI no matter how much you look a their propaganda shows on the TV, the FBI
has always been crooked, ergo the need for TV shows saying how great they are. Anyway,
regarding Flynn, this was nothing new about setting him up. The FBI has a long sorted history
with setting people up, but usually the poor, mentally deranged, or simply not intelligent.
If you review the number of of anti terror cases where someone was going to blow up a
hospital, a church or some other structure, the suspect always gets caught because of an FBI
informant, who made up the plot, gave the person a fake bomb, money or materials to make the
plot come true.
I would venture a guess that 90% of arrests for terror are along those lines. So, the FBI
as great crime fighters is a myth. I worked with them before and they were a joke.
I hope Comey, Strzok, and et.al goes to jail. But two sets of laws exist for the powerful.
Cheers!!
>Anyway, regarding Flynn, this was nothing new about setting him up.
There are only about three phrases to say to FBI:
No Comment.
Am I under arrest?
I want a lawyer.
The problem with people like Flynn is they think they are the smartest ones in the room
and can outsmart the FBI. They forget that FBI doesn't record interrogations and the agents
are free to write up the summaries however they like. In this case, they actually re-wrote
the original interview months later.
And as the case against Flynn continues to unravel, perhaps the most important dots have
been connected by investigative researcher @JohnWHuber , better known as "Undercover Huber" on
Twitter, who makes a cogent argument that Stefan Halper - the portly spy who the FBI used to
conduct espionage on the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election - may have sparked the
Flynn investigation after lying to the FBI .
What's more, IG Michael Horowitz's report makes no mention of the lie, or the
recently-learned fact that the FBI tried to close the Flynn case, dubbed 'Crossfire Razor', in
Jan. 2017, only for agent Peter Strzok to go '
off the rails ' and demand it not be closed.
Why did the IG Report completely ignore Stefan Halper's lies to the FBI about @GenFlynn , and leave
open the possibility that Halper may even have triggered the opening of the CI case against
him?
According to the IG, Stefan Halper (referred to as "Source 2") met with the Crossfire
Hurricane team twice (in Aug 11 and 12, 2016) and told them "he had been previously
acquainted with @GenFlynn". *This was immediately before the FBI opened a case on Flynn on
Aug 15, 2016*
The IG report is silent on anything Source 2 might have said specifically about Flynn.
It's also silent on the fact the Washington Field Office of the FBI tried to close the Flynn
case on 01/04/2017. Both are going to be important in a second.
We now know from the FBI's draft "Electronic Communication" dated 01/04/2017 (trying to
close the Flynn CI case, stopped by Strzok at the direction of Comey, McCabe or both)
confirms the "CH" team "contacted an established FBI CHS to query about" Gen Flynn & held
a "debriefing"
This "event" very likely refers to when Flynn spoke at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
in Feb 2014, and the suspicious Russian-linked person supposedly in the cab was @RealSLokhova (who
also attended, and briefly spoke to Flynn)
Except that story is a *lie*. Halper wasn't at that event . He witnessed nothin g,
because he wasn't there. And the cab ride almost certainly didn't happen either, because
@RealSLokhova says she was picked up from the event by her Husband . And she's willing to say
that under oath.
There are multiple pictures of that Cambridge Seminar event (attended by about 20
people). Flynn was there, as was Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6), and Christopher
Andrew (then mentor of @RealSLokhova and "unofficial" historian of MI5). But Halper wasn't.
Not in any photos.
"No one remembers Halper attending the event because, in truth, Halper was not there"
Halper's lawyers never challenged that statement . Even when the federal Judge dismissed
@RealSLokhova's case (for other reasons), he did not challenge that claim, only saying that
"even assuming it was false" that Halper "attended" the dinner, it wasn't defamatory to claim
he did
Halper's lawyers even noted @RealSLokhova 's claim it was a
"falsehood" to say Halper attended the Feb, 2014 Cambridge event, and then NEVER defended it
as *true*, just that it wasn't *defamatory*, and non-actionable.
And the FBI trying to close the case on Flynn is great evidence Halper's "attendance" at
this event so he could see this suspicious cab ride is false . The FBI never tried to
interview @RealSLokhova, or anyone at the dinner. Why? Because it would have proven their own
source lied.
FYI, WaPo, WSJ and NYT have all published stories claiming that Halper attended that Feb
2014 event . None have any evidence that's true. All the stories are anonymously sourced to
Halper or Halper's buddies. There never will be any evidence Halper was there, because he
wasn't.
So when Halper told the FBI that he was "previously acquainted" with Flynn, and
"witnessed" this suspicious cab ride, HE WAS LYING TO THE FBI . And at the time, he was a
paid Confidential Human Source - the only one cited in the @carterwpage
FISA, other than Steele.
That's big.
But what's arguably bigger is WHEN Halper told this lie about Flynn. When else could
Halper claimed to have been "acquainted" with Flynn if not this Feb 2014 dinner (the only
time Flynn attended the Cambridge seminar Halper helped organize)?
Now, maybe Halper told the FBI about the dinner after the CI case was opened. But that's
NOT in the IG report, despite Halper's other meetings with the FBI being in there. In fact
the IG report says nothing about Halper and Flynn, other than what I quoted
In addition, FBI's Jan 4, 2017 draft Closing EC doesn't say when this "debriefing" with
Halper happened either. The wording sort of implies it was after the case was opened, but
never says it
So it is possible that a lie from Halper actually triggered opening the case on
Flynn?
What else did the FBI have? Their own laughable "predicate" appears to be that Flynn
worked for Trump, attended an RT dinner (at the time, @RepAdamSchiff
had previously appeared on RT!), and was "linked" to Russians (Er, he was the former head of
DIA under "Russian reset" Obama)
Ah, but all of those things were already true between Aug 1 and Aug 10, 2016, which is
when the FBI opened cases on Page, Papadopoulos and Manafort - BUT NOT FLYNN. That didn't
happen until Aug 15. He's the odd one out.
Flynn obviously already worked for Trump. He already had these "links", and he'd already
attended the RT dinner long ago. The thin gruel of Russian "links" and working for Trump was
enough to open cases on all the others, but NOT Flynn.
But what did the FBI have extra before they opened the case? Stefan Halper telling them
about being "previously acquainted" with Flynn - which almost certainly refers to that Feb
2014 Cambridge dinner, where he was never "acquainted" with Flynn at all.
Oh, & even if Halper told this lie *after* the case was opened on Flynn, the FBI
mustn't have found it credible because they never tried to properly investigate it , and then
even tried to close the case anyway. So that means at best the lie came between Aug 15, 2016
& Jan 4, 2017
What else was happening between Aug 16 & Jan 17? Oh yeah, the FBI was using a person
they should have suspected of lying to dirty people up - Halper - as a CHS wearing a wire on
@carterwpage, @GeorgePapa19 and others, AND relying on Halper as "Source #2" in the FISA
warrant apps
Then, incredibly after their own source lies to them about Flynn to dirty him up, the FBI
have the audacity to charge Flynn with lying to them! Corrupt dirty cops isn't an adequate
description. And for all we know, Halper is STILL on Wray's FBI books as a paid confidential
source
Finally, IG Horowitz blew this line of inquiry, and didn't mention anything about the FBI
trying to close the case on Flynn in Jan 2017 . Horowitz also admitted hasn't seen any
evidence that any of Halper's information was ever corroborated during his entire time as an
FBI source
Durham can do what the IG didn't, and solve this mystery quite easily with a few
interviews and record checks.
Or, the DOJ/USG can keep Halper on his retainer and ignore this. Either way, we'll know
what's up
/ENDS
UPDATE: It gets worse @SidneyPowell1 says that "SSA 1"
(Joe Pientka) wrote that Jan 4, 2017 EC closing the Flynn case
AND according to the IG report, Pientka personally approved those Aug 2016 meetings with
Halper & his handler & was briefed on both meetings
Yes. Intrigue and infighing among the deep state conspirators.
Why would the government keep delaying Flynn's sentencing after he agreed to the
deal?
But I think another explanation is simply excellent legal representation by Sidney
Powell.
In order to make the whole corrupt charade go down, a lot of "looking the other way" on
the part of the courts, the DOJ, and the media had to occur.
Sidney Powell, I assume, was relentless and committed in pulling on every loose thread and
questioning every alleged "fact" which led to the unravelling of the whole corrupt
enterprise.
At the end of the day, she will be one of the heroes in the movie about how the Republic
was saved, along with NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and Congressman Devin Nunes.
xxx 2 hours ago
I believe she has some eyes on the inside as well......She is good and she is making
Sullivan have to walk a fine line.
The case of General Flynn, which has dragged on for years now, may finally be reaching a
denouement. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI
during the Russian collusion hoax. For reasons that have not been clear, he was never
sentenced. Now it appears he may never see jail and will instead see his case dropped and his
guilty plea vacated. New evidence shows he was framed by members of the FBI and Department of
Justice.
As is standard procedure in this age, state media has been silent on the matter, but
alternative media sources are
reporting on the release of classified documents hidden by the government from Flynn's
defense team in violation of the law.
Thousands of documents held by his former defense team and hidden from Flynn and his new
attorney's until now have also been released in what appears to be a damage control operation
by the law firm Covington & Burling.
What these new FBI documents reveal is the FBI and Department of Justice carefully planned
to entrap General Flynn by tricking him into making inaccurate statements about his
activities during the campaign. They did this because they wanted to remove him from his post
in the White House and hoped he could be manipulated into making accusations against other
administrative officials. Then they systematically lied about what Flynn said to them in his
interview with the FBI.
Compounding this is the fact that the FBI and Departmental of Justice systematically
withheld all documents that could be used by Flynn in his defense. One way they did this was
to hide them in the special counsel operation. This prevented anyone, not just Flynn's
defense team, from discovering the plot. The sudden release of long withheld documents by
Covington & Burling suggest they may have been part of the plot to entrap Flynn and get
him to plead guilty to a crime.
At this stage, only a partisan fanatic thinks the principals in this whole Russian
collusion caper were operating in good faith. You could make the argument that their behavior
was unethical, but not necessarily illegal. Even if their actions violated the law, you could
argue they did so in the belief they were within the bounds of the law. With these new
revelations, it is clear they knew they were breaking the law in an effort to frame General
Flynn as part of a much larger conspiracy.
One thing that is now confirmed with these new revelations is that the Special Counsel was
always just part of a larger effort to cover-up this conspiracy. In fact, that was the whole
point of it. The FBI and DOJ officials involved in the conspiracy would hide all of the
evidence inside the counsel's operation. This would make it impossible for the defense
lawyers to access and very difficult for Congress to access. It would also prevent the
administration from looking into it.
Another outrageous aspect to this case is that it appears that Flynn's original defense
team, Covington & Burling, may have been in on the plot to frame him. It's not all that
clear at this point, but the best that can be said of their actions on behalf of their client
is they are the worst law firm in the country. They exist because they have resources and
know how things work in Washington. Despite this, they made the sorts of errors TV writers
would find too ridiculous for a legal drama.
There's also the fact that this sort of behavior by the FBI and DOJ is business as usual,
which underscores the corruption. This is not a couple of renegades. This is just how things
are done by the government. They frame people for crimes then work to prevent them from
getting a proper defense. The FBI has a long history of framing the innocent, but it was
always confined to the field offices. Now it is clear that the institution is rotten from the
head to the tail. It is hopelessly corrupt.
It is also increasingly clear that the weaselly Rod Rosenstein was the man tasked with
orchestrating the cover-up after the election. He manipulated Sessions and Trump into firing
Comey and then agreeing to the Mueller charade. The only purpose to that operation was to
cover up the illegal spying. Then there is Comey, who claimed under oath to be the guy who
ordered the Flynn investigation. He may have arrogantly admitted to initiating multiple
Federal crimes.
Of course, the big question in all of this is whether Washington is so hopelessly corrupt
that none of this amounts to anything. In banana republics, the judge in the case would be
assassinated or intimidated into ignoring the facts and sentencing Flynn to jail. We may not
be there yet, but the lack of any substantive investigation into the FBI corruption suggests
no one will be charged with anything. The principals in this scandal are now in high six
figure positions in Washington, living the good life.
Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that has
been revealed in this case . He may have truly thought it was a few bad apples that went off
on their own. Once the scale of the corruption was known, he had to change course and bring
in outside help. It's just as possible that he is part of the problem. He is friends will
most of these people. His role in this could simply be part of the how Washington is
neutralizing Trump and preparing him for expulsion.
There is one puzzle that gets no attention. Why would the government keep delaying Flynn's
sentencing after he agreed to the deal? They said he was cooperating, but he had nothing to
offer them and they knew it. Perhaps he was just a prop to maintain the greater narrative of
the Russian hoax. By dragging out his process they could feed fake news to state media,
claiming it was from Flynn. That's seems to be a too cute by half, given the reality in
Washington, but it is possible.
Ineptitude is always a possibility. There's also the fact that highly corrupt institutions
tend to have lots of internal intrigue and conflict. The old line about thieves sticking
together is a myth. The corrupt man has no honor. As a result, the last stage for the corrupt
institution is when the people inside beginning to scheme against one another to the point
where they undermined their mutual efforts. Maybe that's where things are in Washington now.
It's just one big game of liar's poker.
xxx Radiant. 3 minutes ago
What did Flynn plead guilty to?
"Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that
has been revealed in this case."
Really? Anyone who has been in Washington awhile must realize how things are there.
Anyway, remove those people from their posts, allow them their benefits and pensions and
let them keep their security clearance. That will teach them a lesson.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and security apparatus organized into regional commands that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. ..."
"... The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization. ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
"... Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness. ..."
"... The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy. And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America, $17.5 billion is set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace. ..."
"... To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United
States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the
name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that
300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then
called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite
decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for
presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any
other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's
military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as
though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as
aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it
frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect
a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the
details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
FBI memos show case was to be closed with a defensive briefing before a second interview
with Flynn was sought.
Evidence withheld for years from Michael Flynn's defense team shows the FBI found "no
derogatory" Russia evidence against the former Trump National Security Adviser and that
counterintelligence agents had recommended closing down the case with a defensive briefing
before the bureau's leadership intervened in January 2017
In the text messages to his team, Strzok specifically cited "the 7th floor" of FBI
headquarters, where then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCane worked,
as the reason he intervened.
"Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet," Strzok texted on Jan. 4,
2017
####
JFC.
Remember kids, the United States is a well oiled machine that dispenses justice equitably
along with free orange juce to the tune of 'One Nation Under a Groove.'
So, I think Mark asked about 'legal action', but as you can see Barr and others are going
through this stuff with a fine tooth comb so it is as solid when it goes public. More
importantly, it can be used as evidenec to reform such corruption and put some proper
controls in place to stop it happening again at least for a few years
And meanwhile everybody who thinks they might be in the line of fire at some future moment is
destroying evidence as fast as they can make it unfindable.
"... Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over" to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case. ..."
"... In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general ..."
"... Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt. ..."
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling
blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but
sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of
those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen
a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the
fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a "deep state" conspiracy.
One note reflects discussions within the FBI shortly after the 2016 election on how to
entrap Flynn in an interview concerning his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. According to Fox News, the note was written by the former FBI head of
counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with Comey and his deputy director, Andrew
McCabe.
The note states, "What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?" This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation
behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when
he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over"
to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.
The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking
the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to
intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used
to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.
In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing
illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd,
although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it.
Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant
general .
Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the
legal version of a canned trophy hunt.
It is also disturbing that this evidence was only recently disclosed by the Justice
Department. When Flynn was pressured to plead guilty to a single count of lying to
investigators, he was unaware such evidence existed and that the federal investigators who had
interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he
denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his
team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially
then threatened to charge his son.
Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed,
President Trump publicly
discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions. But
Flynn still ultimately pleaded guilty to the single false statement to federal investigators.
This additional information magnifies the doubts over the case.
Various FBI officials also lied and acted in arguably criminal or unethical ways, but all
escaped without charges. McCabe had a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution. He was then
later found by the Justice Department inspector general to have repeatedly lied to
investigators. While his case was referred for criminal charges, McCabe was fired but never
charged. Strzok was also fired for his misconduct in the investigation.
Comey intentionally leaked FBI material, including potentially classified information but
was never charged. Another FBI agent responsible for the secret warrants used for the Russia
investigation had falsified evidence to maintain the investigation. He is still not indicted.
The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is galling and grotesque.
Even the judge in the case has added to this disturbing record. As Flynn appeared before
District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be
charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Pointing to
a flag behind him, Sullivan declared to Flynn, "You were an unregistered agent of a foreign
country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States.
That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country
out."
Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent. But when Sullivan
menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there, Flynn wisely passed. It is a record
that truly shocks the conscience. While rare, it is still possible for the district court to
right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced. The Justice Department can invite the
court to use its inherent supervisory authority to right a wrong of its own making. As the
Supreme Court made clear in 1932, "universal sense of justice" is a stake in such cases. It is
the "duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself to
protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its
courts."
Flynn was a useful tool for everyone and everything but justice. Mueller had ignored the
view of the investigators and coerced Flynn to plead to a crime he did not commit to gain
damaging testimony against Trump and his associates that Flynn did not have. The media covered
Flynn to report the flawed theory of Russia collusion and to foster the view that some sort of
criminal conspiracy was being uncovered by Mueller. Even the federal judge used Flynn to rail
against what he saw as a treasonous plot. What is left in the wake of the prosecution is an
utter travesty of justice.
Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution. But whatever the "goal" may have been in
setting up Flynn, justice was not one of them.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source "
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President
Trump's former national security advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory
evidence in his case. Flynn is defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their
investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally
coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that
guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case, US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will
dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen.
One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI, lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election
has been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6
officer Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing
fraud against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level
Trump advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator
envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather
part and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and
current Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it
was carried out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the
assistance of national security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a
conspiracy that would rival any investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years
of honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama
ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation
was intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian
communications. Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden, so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances
deemed critical to national security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an
investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy
of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of
the actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion
scandal, is currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era
officials in relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served
as the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist
for then acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn
then-White House Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his
conversations with Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet
the available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when
interviewed on January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI
parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official
testimony clearly show that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared
contemporaneously, and that he had shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case
prepared against him by the Department of Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven
months after the interview – was cited as the evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal
agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea
agreement, in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in
Giglio v. United States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators
constitutes a violation of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and
prosecutorial misconduct. Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the
government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule
of law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping
U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting
and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.
There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level
offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about
the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring,
sounds insincere, and defensive.
This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC
bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton
thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.
2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.
3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into
wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.
Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that
we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.
/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even
more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The
American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially
Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are
easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America
can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so
the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American
public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia,
Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily
banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can
win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are
many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an
example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.
what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is
where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use
it to their benefit.
Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.
"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US
military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So
why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and
center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot
by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he
witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very
overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.
DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take
place in CDC and Fort Detrick.
--
Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates
Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man
that "Nature has already weaponized them!".
So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the
critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A
wet market, you know.
Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project
Officer.
Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational
thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!
"... Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was both extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S. recourse to using force. ..."
"... After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further" into the future than others. ..."
It was 22 years ago when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly declared the
United States to be the "indispensable nation": "If we have to use force, it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
In a recent
interview with The New York T imes, Albright sounded much less sure of her old
position: "There's nothing in the definition of indispensable that says "alone." It means that
the United States needs to be engaged with its partners. And people's backgrounds make a
difference." Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was
both extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S.
recourse to using force.
After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and
foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look
back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further"
into the future than others. Not only are we no better than other countries at
anticipating and preparing for future dangers, but judging from the country's lack of
preparedness for a pandemic we are actually far behind many of the countries that we have
presumed to "lead." It is impossible to square our official self-congratulatory rhetoric with
the reality of a government that is incapable of protecting its citizens from disaster.
Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with
arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
Just as i said many times, it is Trump driving US hostility and escalation in the world, and
not only those around him. He is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years.
A racist white man goes crazy the moment he understands he does not have the "biggest
dick" anymore, and is humiliated due to that, since this wasn't supposed to happen to the
people who ruled the world for 500 years.
What will happen is that american white male right wingers will start going crazy. Lashing
out in hatred against the world, after understanding they are no longer "number 1", and that
their fate will not be pretty.
You should expect US right wingers to go crazy as the US further declines. These people
thought they would rule the world. Instead they started to decline. This wasn't supposed to
happen to such superior people.
US elite will simply go crazy as the "best country in the world" loses its power.
Expect anglo craziness, outbursts of hate and hysteria. The US elite will become a mental
institution. If not for nukes, they would have started a world war already.
Devastating flashback clip of Comey just aired on @marthamaccallum show.
When asked who went around the protocol of going through the WH Counsel's office and instead decided to send the FBI agents
into White House for the Flynn perjury trap ...
...Comey smugly responds "I sent them."
Here is the clip:
@comey is preparing for prison and hoping to avoid
the death penalty. Will Obama be brought down too?
Imagine having your life and reputation ruined by rogue US govt. officials. Then years later when the plot finally comes to
light the first thing you do is post an American flag. This is the guy they wanted you to believe was a Russian asset. 🙄
https://t.co/TI768Vijn2
U.S. District Court Judge
Emmet
G. Sullivan unsealed four pages of stunning FBI emails and handwritten notes Wednesday, regarding former Trump National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, which allegedly reveal the retired three star general was targeted by senior FBI officials for prosecution,
stated Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell. Those notes and emails revealed that the retired three-star general appeared to be
set up for a perjury trap by the senior members of the bureau and agents charged with investigating the now-debunked allegations
that President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, said Sidney Powell, the defense lawyer representing Flynn.
Moreover, the
Department of Justice release 11 more pages of documents Wednesday afternoon, according to Powell.
While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even
more appalling that the Friday production. We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate pic.twitter.com/YPEjZWbdvo
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill Barr and
U.S. Attorney Jensen , we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as Mr. Van Grack and the prosecutors have opposed
every request we have made," said Powell.
It appears, based on the notes and emails that the Department of Justice was determined at the time to prosecute Flynn, regardless
of what they found, Powell said.
"The FBI pre-planned a deliberate attack on Gen. Flynn and willfully chose to ignore mention of Section 1001 in the interview
despite full knowledge of that practice," Powell said in a statement.
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing stating 'what is our goal? Truth/ Admission
or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired."
The documents, reviewed and obtained by SaraACarter.com , reveal that
senior FBI officials discussed strategies for targeting and setting up Flynn, prior to interviewing him at the White House on Jan.
24, 2017. It was that interview at the White House with former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka that
led Flynn, now 61, to plead guilty after months of pressure by prosecutors, financial strain and threats to prosecute his son.
Powell filed a motion earlier this year to withdraw Flynn's guilty plea and to dismiss his case for egregious government misconduct.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017, under duress by government prosecutors, to lying to investigators about his conversations
with Russian diplomat
Sergey Kislyak about sanctions on Russia. This January, however, he withdrew his guilty plea in the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C. He stated that he was "innocent of this crime" and was coerced by the FBI and prosecutors under threats that would charge his
son with a crime. He filed to withdraw his guilty plea after DOJ prosecutors went back on their word and asked the judge to sentence
Flynn to up to six months in prison, accusing him of not cooperating in another case against his former partner. Then prosecutors
backtracked and said probation would be fine but by then Powell, his attorney, had already filed to withdraw his guilty plea.
The documents reveal that prior to the interview with Flynn in January, 2017 the FBI had already come to the conclusion that Flynn
was guilty and beyond that the officials were working together to see how best to corner the 33-year military veteran and former
head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bureau deliberately chose not to show him the evidence of his phone conversation to
help him in his recollection of events, which is standard procedure. Even stranger, the agents that interviewed Flynn later admitted
that they didn't believe he lied during the interview with them.
Powell told this reporter last week that the documents produced by the government are "stunning Brady evidence' proving Flynn
was deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI to target President Trump.
She noted earlier this week in her motion that the evidence "also defeats any argument that the interview of Mr. Flynn on January
24 was material to any 'investigation.' The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution
-- knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Powell told this reporter Wednesday that the order by Sullivan to unseal the documents in Exhibit 3 in the supplement to Flynn's
motion to dismiss for egregious government conduct is exposing the truth to the public. She said it's "easy to see that he was set
up and that Mr. Flynn was the insurance policy for the FBI." Powell's reference to the 'insurance policy,' is based on one of the
thousands of texts exchanged by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her then-lover former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
In an Aug. 15, 2016, text from Strzok to Page he states, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's
(former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) 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 you die before 40."
The new documents were turned over to Powell, by U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea. They were discovered after an extensive review by
the attorneys appointed by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review Flynn's case, which includes U.S. Attorney of St. Louis,
Jeff Jensen.
In one of the emails dated Jan. 23, 2017, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who at the time was having an affair with Strzok and who worked
closely with him on the case discussed the charges the bureau would bring on Flynn before the actual interview at the White House
took place. Those email exchanges were prepared for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the DOJ for lying
multiple times to investigators with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's office.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump for his conduct, revealed during an interview with Nicolle Wallace
last year that he sent the FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House under circumstances he would have never done to another
administration.
"I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration,"
Comey said. "In the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation
for over the last two years."
In the Jan 23, email Page asks Strzok the day before he interviews Flynn at the White House:
"I have a question for you. Could the admonition re 1001 be given at the beginning at the interview? Or does it have
to come following a statement which agents believe to be false? Does the policy speak to that? (I feel bad that I don't know this
but I don't remember ever having to do this! Plus I've only charged it once in the context of lying to a federal probation officer).
It seems to be if the former, then it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.
"Of course as you know sir, federal law makes it a crime to "
Strzok's response:
I haven't read the policy lately, but if I recall correctly, you can say it at any time. I'm 90 percent sure about that, but
I can check in the am.
In the motion filed earlier this week, Powell stated "since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired
to destroy Mr. Flynn. These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they
could prosecute or at least get him fired. Then came the incredible malfeasance of Mr. Van Grack's and the SCO's prosecution despite
their knowledge there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Attached to the email is handwritten notes regarding Flynn that are stunning on their face. It is lists of how the agents will
guide him in an effort to get him to trip up on his answers during their questioning and what charges they could bring against him.
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide," state the handwritten notes.
"Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it."
The next two points reveal that the agents were concerned about how their interview with Flynn would be perceived saying "if we're
seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious."
"Protect our institution by not playing games," t he last point on the first half of the hand written notes state.
From the handwritten note:
Afterwards:
interview
I agreed yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn (redacted) if he didn't admit
I thought @ it last night, I believe we should rethink this
What is (not legible) ? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
we regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
I don't see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide
Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it
If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious
Protect our institution by not playing games
(Left column)
we have case on Flynn & Russians
Our goal is to (not legible)
Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth or if he lies @ relationship w/ Russians
can quote (redacted)
Shouldn't (redacted
Review (not legible) stand alone
It appears evident from an email from former FBI agent Strzok, who interviewed Flynn at the White House to then FBI General Counsel
James Baker, who is no longer with the FBI and was himself under investigation for leaking alleged national security information
to the media.
The email was a series of questions to prepare McCabe for his phone conversation with Flynn on the day the agents went to interview
him at the White House. These questions would be questions that Flynn may ask McCabe before sending the agents over to interview
him.
Email from Peter Strzok, cc'd to FBI General Counsel James Baker: (January 24, 2017)
I'm sure he's thought through these, but for DD's (referencing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) consideration about how to answer
in advance of his call with Flynn:
Am I in trouble?
Am I the subject of an investigation?
Is it a criminal investigation?
Is it an espionage investigation? Do I need an attorney? Do I need to tell Priebus? The President?
Will you tell Priebus? The President? Will you tell the WH what I tell you?
What happens to the information/who will you tell what I tell you? Will you need to interview other people?
Will our interview be released publically? Will the substance of our interview be released?
How long will this take (depends on his cooperation – I'd plan 45 minutes)? Can we do this over the phone?
I can explain all this right now, I did this, this, this [do you shut him down? Hear him out? Conduct the interview if he starts
talking? Do you want another agent/witness standing by in case he starts doing this?]
President Donald Trump has bashed former FBI Director James Comey, after unsealed documents
revealed an agency plot to entrap Gen. Michael Flynn in a bid to take down the Trump
presidency. "DIRTY COP JAMES COMEY GOT CAUGHT!" Trump tweeted on Thursday morning, in
one of a series of tweets lambasting the FBI's prosecution of retired army general Michael
Flynn, which he called a "scam."
Flynn served as Trump's national security adviser in the first days of the Trump presidency,
before he was fired for allegedly lying about his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak.
An FBI investigation followed, and several months later, Flynn pleaded guilty to Special
Counsel Robert Mueller about lying during interviews with agents. He has since tried to
withdraw the plea, citing poor legal defense and accusing the FBI and Obama administration of
setting him up from the outset.
Documents unsealed by a federal judge on Wednesday seem to support that argument. In one
handwritten note, dated the same day as Flynn's FBI interview in January 2017, the unidentified
note-taker jots down some potential strategies to use against the former general.
"We have a case on Flynn + Russians," the note reads. "What's our goal?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
#FLYNN docs just
unsealed, including handwritten notes 1/24/2017 day of Flynn FBI interview. Transcript: "What
is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
Read transcript notes, copy original just filed. @CBSNews
pic.twitter.com/8oqUok8i7m
The unsealed documents also include an email exchange between former agent Peter Strzok and
former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in which the pair pondered whether to remind Flynn that lying to
federal agents is a crime. Page and Strzok were later fired from the agency, after a slew of
text messages emerged showing the pair's mutual disdain for Trump, and discussing the
formulation of an "insurance policy" against his election.
Flynn's discussions with Kislyak were deemed truthful by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe. Additionally, a Washington Post
article published the day before Flynn's January 2017 interview revealed that the FBI had
tapped his calls with the Russian ambassador and found "nothing illicit."
Still, Section 1001 of the US Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to lie to a federal
agent, is broad in its scope. Defense Attorney Solomon Wisenberg
wrote that "even a decent person who tries to stay out of trouble can face criminal
exposure under Section 1001 through a fleeting conversation with government agents."
Early January 2017 Recommendation To Close Case on General Flynn Rebuffed by FBI Leaders
by Larry C Johnson
The document dump from the Department of Justice on the Michael Flynn case continues and the
information is shocking and damning. It is now clear why previous leaders of the Department of
Justice (Sessions and Rosenstein) and current FBI Director Wray tried to keep this material
hidden. There is now no doubt that Jim Comey and Andy McCabe help lead and direct a conspiracy
to frame Michael Flynn for a "crime" regardless of the actual facts surrounding General Flynn's
conduct.
The most stunning revelation from today's document release is that the FBI agents who
investigated Michael Flynn aka "Crossfire Razor" RECOMMENDED on the 4th of January 2017 that
the investigation of Flynn be closed. Let that sink in. The FBI agents investigating Flynn
found nothing to justify either a criminal or counter-intelligence investigation more than two
weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated as President. Yet, FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Director McCabe, with the help of General Counsel Jim Baker, Assistant Director for Counter
Intelligence Bill Priestap, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok decided to try to manufacture a crime
against Flynn.
The documents released on Wednesday made clear that as of January 21st, the FBI Conspirators
were scrambling to find pretext for entrapping and charging General Flynn. Here is the
transcription of Bill Priestap's handwritten notes:
Apologists for these criminal acts by FBI officials insist this was all routine. "Nothing to
see here." "Move along." Red State's Nick Arama did a good job of reporting on the absurdity of
this idiocy (
see here ). Former US Attorney Andy McCarthy cuts to the heart of the matter:
"They did not have a legitimate investigative reason for doing this and there was no
criminal predicate or reason to treat him [Flynn] like a criminal suspect," McCarthy
explained.
"They did the interview outside of the established protocols of how the FBI is supposed to
interview someone on the White House staff. They are supposed to go through the Justice
Department and the White House counsel's office. They obviously purposely did not do that and
they were clearly trying to make a case on this."
"For years, a number of us have been arguing that this looked like a perjury trap," McCarthy
said.
Today's (Thursday) document dump reinforces the validity of McCarthy's conclusion that this
was a concocted perjury trap. The key document is the "Closing Communication" PDF dated 4
January 2017. It is a summary of the FBI's investigation of Crossfire Razor (i.e., Mike Flynn).
The document begins with this summary:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an articulable factual basis that Crossfire Razor
(CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation
which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security. . . . Specifically, .
. . CR had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by
open source information; and CR traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source
information.
The Agent conveniently fails to mention that Flynn's contacts with Russia in December 2015
were not at his initiative but came as an invitation from his Speaker's Bureau. Moreover,
General Flynn, because he still held TS/SCI clearances, informed the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) of the trip, received permission to make the trip and, upon returning to the
United States from Russia, was fully debriefed by DIA. How is that an indicator of posing a
threat to the national security of the United States?
The goal of the investigation is stated very clearly on page two of the document:
. . . to determine whether the captioned subject, associated with the Trump campaign, was
directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian federation in a
manner which is a threat to the national security and/or possibly a violation of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, 18 U.S.C. section 951 et seq, or other related statutes.
And what did the FBI find? NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO. The Agent who wrote this report played it
straight and the investigation in the right way. He or she concluded:
The Crossfire Hurricane team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable
candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation. If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the
activities of CROSSFIRE RAZOR, the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if
warranted.
This document is dated 4 January 2017. But Peter Strzok sent a storm of text messages to the
Agent who drafted the report asking him to NOT close the case.
This is not how a normal criminal or counter-intelligence case would be conducted. Normally
you would have actual evidence or "indicia" of criminal or espionage activity. But don't take
me word for it. Jim Comey bragged about this outrageous
conduct:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NxNhjFrjXqI
Comey is a corrupt, sanctimonious prick. I suspect he may not think what he did was so funny
in the coming months. He may have forgotten saying this stupidity, but the video remains
intact.
The documents being released over the last week provide great insight into Attorney General
William Barr's strategy. He is not going to entertain media debates and back-and-forth with the
apologists for treason. He is letting the documents speak for themselves and ensuring that US
Attorneys--who are not part of the fetid, Washington, DC sewer--review the documents and
procedures used to prosecute political figures linked to President Trump. Then those documents
are legally and appropriately released. Barr is playing by the rules.
We are not talking about the inadvertent discovery of an isolated mistake or an act of
carelessness. The coup against Trump was deliberate and the senior leadership of the FBI
actively and knowingly participated in this plot. Exposing and punishing them remains a top
priority for Attorney General Barr, who understands that a failure to act could spell the doom
of this Republic.
No indictments.
Not for this bunch of swamp rats.
One set of laws for the swamp, another for America.
And now the same swamp - the bureaucrat pinhead version - are destroying the economy and
shutting down the country?.
Why?
Terrible decisions based on worse "data" AND tank the economy and Trump's re-election
chances.
Flynn has been bankrupted. He has fought valiantly to restore his honor ALONE. His fate is in
many ways in the hands of Judge Sullivan.
Trump other than tweet has done what for someone that brought military and national
security cred to his campaign? Let's not forget that Flynn was fired ostensibly for lying to
VP Pence. Exactly what the putschists wanted to accomplish.
blue peacock
Flynn is a nice Irish Catholic boy from Rhode Island whose father a retired MP staff sergeant
and branch manager of a local bank successfully cultivated the ROTC staff at U of RI so that
his two sons were given army ROTC scholarships in management, something their father could
understand. Michael and his brother, both generals are NOT members of the WP club and
therefore available for sacrifice. Michael Flynn occupied a narrow niche in Military
Intelligence. He was a targeting guy in the counter-terrorism bidness and rode that train to
the top without much knowledge or experience of anything else. He and his boss Stan
McChrystal, soul mates. He was singularly unqualified to be head of one of the major agencies
of the IC. IMO Martin Dempsey, CJCS (a member of the WP club) used Flynn to stand up to
Brennan's CIA and the NSC nuts at the WH while standing back in the shade himself. That is
why Obama cautioned Trump to be wary of North Korea and Michael Flynn. And this "innocent"
was then mousetrapped by people he thought were patriots.
True then, but what was not expected was Trump neither resigning nor being impeached nor
getting a new AG who would launch the Durham investigation. I wonder what FISA warrants are
out related to the Chinese virus and associated communications with US and Chinese nationals.
At least we don't have Obama's cast of characters involved in that, unless we have his "j.v."
team.
Someone that doesn't show up much in The NY Times or the Washington Post now but was the
central character in numerous scurrilous stories. Svetlana Lokhova was falsely slandered for
having an affair with Gen.Flynn and accused as a Russian agent by CIA/FBI agent Stefan
Halper.
What we learned today from the STUNNING document release in the case of @GenFlynn 1. FBI
opened a full-blown counterintelligence investigation in 2016 on the ex head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency while he was working for a political campaign based on one piece of
false intel
Its mind blowing the vast tentacles of this conspiracy at the highest levels of our law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is even more mind blowing that the miscreants have
profited so handsomely with book deals, media sinecures, GoFundMe campaigns. None have been
prosecuted.
...In fact Kennedy was a particularly nasty warmongering President who had run for office
on a programme of increasing military expenditure to 'catch up'(cue laughter in The Kremlin)
with Soviet expenditure on arms. (To understand the poignancy of Eisenhower's Farewell
Address with its warnings against militarism and the corrupting influence of the MIC, it is
important to see it in the context of Kennedy's hawkishness.)
He had not only ordered the invasion of Cuba but authorised dozens of attempts to
assassinate Fidel and other key figures in the still very recent revolution. As to Vietnam it
was Kennedy who first ordered large numbers of troops into the country, who authorised the
assassination of Diem and presided over the build up which his successor (murderer?) LBJ
turned into a slow moving genocide.
What is common to all three groups-those who believe that Kennedy was killed to prevent
him from making peace and changing the course of Cold War history; those who believe that
9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by agents of the US government; and those who
regard the Covid-19 pandemic as a fraud and a smokescreen behind which a raft of new measures
designed to reduce humanity to the level of tamed animals is being implemented- is that all
of those promoting these ideas seem to believe that the mere publication of the "truth" will
lead to fundamental changes.
There is no conception of building a movement consisting of people, no notion of a political
party, parliamentary or otherwise, no notion of taking any action-apart from that which comes
from right wing militias etc sponsored by the most reactionary elements in society, and
approved by Bolsonaro and Trump.
For years it has been a feature of the comment section of this blog that it has brought
together critics of The Establishment not only from the left but from the right. And, on the
whole, this cross fertilisation has proved fruitful: the left has told the right, what nobody
else ever did, that those who rule this society are members of a class which owes its power
to its control over the means of production. And that both the media and the
educational/indoctrination system are propagandists for a method of exploitation motivated
entirely by immediate greed. A system which denies the ability of humanity to control its
destiny and worships a god blind to any considerations but the satisfaction of short term
desire.
The right, for its part, has told us that this society defies not just those utopian
conceptions of the future for which socialists have long been suckers but, more importantly,
millennia of traditional societies. Societies grounded in families, clans, communities, with
time tested rules of behaviour that deserve to be conserved unless there is very good reason
given for changing them.
Instead of the superficial progressivism of the liberal 'left'- one of whose roots goes
back to the crimes of the Jacobins- which sees in the utter corruption of late
capitalist/imperialism a model for the rest of the world to emulate- voices from the past
have reminded us that capitalism destroyed a great deal, which we ought to be rediscovering,
when it wiped out traditional societies from Surrey to Sumatra, from the Great Barrier Reef
to the ice caps.
While the liberal 'left' has been fascinated by the possibilities of men castrating
themselves and women transforming themselves into husbands and other fin de siecle aspects of
a bourgeoisie unable to come to grips with realities, the right has reminded us that, for
nine tenths of the human race,
economic survival-the next meal- is the cardinal question.
In a sense it has been a neat reversal from the dialogue which preceded it in which the
left were proponents of material realities while the right were obsessed with mystical and
religious nonsense hypnotising starving masses and preventing them from taking the practical,
communal, steps towards self liberation.
As to the current divide. Surely we have now reached the stage at which we can ask what
the argument is all about? If there are millions out of work and in danger of actual
starvation does it matter why-whether the capitalists wrecked their economy or the economy
collapsed because it could not survive a month or two of shut down? The important point is
what needs to be done, firstly to bring society back from the brink of disaster and secondly
to rebuild in such a way that future generations will be insulated from the perils of one
harvest failure, one brief interruption in the economic cycle and, thirdly, to democratise a
society in which there is genuine dispute as to who is making the decisions upon which our
lives depend.
Newly unsealed documents indicate that the FBI targeted former National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn for prosecution, showing senior officials at the bureau discussing ways to
ensnare him in a "perjury trap" before an interview.
The four pages of documents were
unsealed by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday, revealing in handwritten notes
and emails that the FBI's goal in investigating Flynn may have been "to get him to lie so we
can prosecute him or get him fired."
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing,"
Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell said in a statement.
Sullivan also ordered another 11 pages of documents unsealed, which, according to Powell ,
may soon be redacted and published.
How they planned to get Flynn removed:1) Get Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act";
or2) Catch Flynn in a lie.Their end goal was a referral to the DOJ - not to investigate
Flynn's contacts with the Russians. pic.twitter.com/Vty3FYaSt9
The potentially exculpatory documents were inexplicably denied to Flynn's defense team for
years, despite numerous requests to the government.
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill
Barr and US Attorney Jensen, we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as ...
the prosecutors have opposed every request we have made," Powell said.
The role of the FBI in instigating the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the criminality of its conduct, and
the encouragement it received in doing so from senior Obama officials should offend everyone.
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President Trump's former national security
advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory evidence in his case.Flynn is
defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their investigation into allegations of
Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which
includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's
son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case,
US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of
prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen. One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI,
lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election has
been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6 officer
Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing fraud
against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level Trump
advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather part
and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and current
Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it was carried
out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the assistance of national
security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a conspiracy that would rival any
investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years of
honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador to the
United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama ordered
the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation was
intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian communications.
Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden,
so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances deemed critical to national
security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of the
actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion scandal, is
currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era officials in
relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served as
the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist for then
acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn then-White House
Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with
Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet the
available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when interviewed on
January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official testimony clearly show
that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared contemporaneously, and that he had
shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case prepared against him by the Department of
Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven months after the interview – was cited as the
evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea agreement,
in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in Giglio v. United
States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators constitutes a violation
of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and prosecutorial misconduct.
Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule of
law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing
the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on
Twitter @RealScottRitter
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The Trump administration has been desperately trying to kill the nuclear deal for the last two years after reneging on it. Now
they will try to kill it by
pretending to
be part of it again:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument that the United States remains a participant in the Iran nuclear
accord that President Trump has renounced, part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend
an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country.
The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about
this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it. It is just the latest in a series
of administration moves that tries to have things both ways. They want to renege on U.S. commitments while still refusing to allow
Iran to benefit from the agreement, and they ultimately hope to make things difficult enough for Iran that their government chooses
to give up on the agreement. It reeks of bad faith and contempt for international law, and all other governments will be able to
see right through it. Some of our European allies have already said as much:
European diplomats who have learned of the effort maintain that Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo are selectively choosing whether
they are still in the agreement to fit their agenda.
It is significant that the Trump administration feels compelled to go through this charade after telling everyone for years that
the U.S. is no longer in the deal. Until now, Trump administration officials have been unwavering in saying that the U.S. is out
of the deal and can't be considered a participant in it:
Can't wait to see the tortured memo out of State/L claiming that somehow the U.S. is still a participant in the JCPOA. The
May 8, 2018 announcement is literally titled "Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA ."
https://t.co/I5t8LaC7dN
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
The US is very good at making enemies and loosing friends, simply due to their treatment of
other nations in the same manner they treat their domestic population.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
"... I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect, international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English Language then it can say anything and do anything. ..."
"... The power of the United States is rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. ..."
"... Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas about human inequality. ..."
... is that akin to the portion of a George Carlin comedy sketch ?
"From 1778 to 1871, the United States government
entered into more than 500 treaties with
the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated
in some way or outright broken by the US government,
while at least one treaty was violated
or broken by Native American tribes."
The EU rapprochement with Iran is all about the huge market the EU wants. Their interest in
the JCPOA was always about Iran developing, and the EU benefiting for its trade and
investment potential.
Crippling Iran again with snapback sanctions certainly would end Iran-EU relations for a
decade or longer.
With the EU economy in the toilet due to the pandemic, now more than ever the EU needs
Iran free of sanctions, not laden with crippling new ones.
Only one country benefits from the economic strangulation of Iran--Israel.
In these times of memory holes, sometimes it pays to remember:
As much as I'd like to be optimistic that justice might actually be served for both
Epstein and his myriad clients/co-conspirators, I think the powers-that-be will again
squash this - or liquidate Epstein - before things get out of hand for them.
The American justice system has been corrupted in much the same way the political
system has been, and it's primary objective is to protect the rulers from the common
folk, not to actually deliver true justice.
I'll watch with anticipation, but I haven't had any satisfaction from either a
political or justice perspective since at least the 2000 coup d'etat, so I won't hold my
breath this time.
Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch,
where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military
occupation.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
Before any aggression, the United States want Iran to be hermetically sealed with sanction
just like Iraq was before our invasion. Everybody knows the US's intentions because we've
seen it before. There will be NO domestic support for war on Iran as Americans die due to
no public healthcare and massive unemployment and poverty. Iran and the Middle East view a
war on Iran as an Israeli wet dream. Israel is viewed as the intellectual author of
aggression against Iran, and Iran will respond appropriately. So, is AIPAC willing to get
Israel destroyed? Is AIPAC on a suicide mission? Looks that way.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are de facto allies aiming to carve up the entire Middle East
between them. Forget about Sunni / Shia / Hebrew, that is a manufactured excuse to war for
resources (oil first, then water).
Proof? Mutual "enemies" (oil-rich Iran and Syria, which is the nexus for pipelines) and
mutual ally (Uncle Sam). Also not a single complaint from Israel over the $100b US-Saudi
Arms deal. As to Palestine, that is a human rights issue and has no weight because water is
not recognized as a strategic resource (yet).
I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect,
international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English
Language then it can say anything and do anything.
"The Iranians are not helping the Palestinians one iota. They are splitting the
opposition."
Glasshopper@29
Whoever has been helping Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians. And whoever has
been holding Syria together, despite the pressure of the imperialists and their sunni-state
puppets, has also been helping the Palestinians by bringing some kind of balance into
regional power calculations.
It is imperative that Iran continues not only to provide political support to the
Palestinian cause but to democratise the Gulf, to the extent of bringing about the demise
of the autocracies, and the Arabian world generally.
Israel has already exerted its maximum influence. The power of the United States is
rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class
fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. (There will be no war to
divert attention from the crisis.) And Israel will be left to solve its own problems as its
'allies' find themselves increasingly pre-occupied with real problems.
Supporting Israel and building it up as an imperialist base has been part of an era in
which the empire was hegemonic and thus able to define international events in terms of
domestic politics.
That era has ended. The USA is still powerful but it is no longer anything more than one
of the major participants in geopolitical competition. Even to maintain its position it is
going to have to do, what other powers have done and concentrate its resources on its real
needs.
Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the
tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas
about human inequality. Israel has one choice, to divest itself of its fascist
government and its fascistic culture and seek accommodation within the neighbourhood or to
wither away as its population emigrates leaving only the committed fascists to play with
Armageddon.
Long before that happens the imperialists will have taken its weapons away from it.
It may very well be the case that the ordinary Iranian is no more committed to fighting
on behalf of Palestinians than the average American is committed to risking all, or
anything, for the sake of Israel. But Iran's commitment to Palestine is a powerful
political statement and one that counters the divisive tactics of the wahhabis and their
imperial friends. Iran has taken up the mantle that Nasser briefly wore, in the vanguard of
a muslim and Arab nationalist movement. This makes it very difficult for the sunni tyrants
actually to commit forces to defend Israel or attack Iran. Their duplicity is a measure of
their own weakness.
Does anyone imagine that the pro-Israeli policies pursued by the Sauds are actually
popular? The Gulf and Saudi policies of sucking up to Israel are far more damaging to them
than Iran's stance is to it.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
Iran should sign a peace deal with the Israelis.
Posted by: Glasshopper | Apr 27 2020 16:42 utc | 8
Some people should stick to what they do well, like hopping on glass. A simple
observation: peace deal with "the Israelis" is not possible. Gulfie princes tried. No
cigar. They genuinely tried to be nice with Israel, out of "anti-Semitic delusion that Jews
control USA". I conjecture that Glasshopper made a similar assumption -- why would Iran
consider a "peace deal with the Israelis" if its direct conflict is with USA (and the
Gulfies)? How it would help them unless "Jews control USA"?
As a mental experiment, let Grasshopper sketch a putative "deal with Israelis". Kushner
plan?
@70 BraveNewWorld, you haven't added up the numbers correctly. Take China, Russia and Iran
out of the equation leaves you with five (including the EU as a whole, which is not a
given). Take the USA out as well and it doesn't matter how sycophantic the Europeans are,
Pompeo can only muster four votes.
And he needs five to refer the issue to the UNSC.
That's why Pompous wants to waddle his way back in: no matter which way he looks at
this, without the USA sitting at the table he is one-short.
Actually, I've just read the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 and neither has any mention of
a "majority vote" requirement for a referral to the UNSC for a vote on "snapping back"
sanctions. It appears that any one JCPOA participant can refer the issue of alleged
non-compliance to the UNSC, provided that they first exhaust the Joint Commission dispute
mechanism.
But I do note this in the JCPOA (my bold): "Upon receipt of the notification from the
complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith
efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this
JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a
resolution to continue the sanctions lifting"
Seems to me that there is a procedural "out" there for the UN Secretariat i.e. it may
use that highlighted section to decide that the participant is a vexatious litigant whose
participation in the Joint Commission was not in good faith, ergo, the UN can refuse to
even take receipt of the complaint.
Everything else then becomes moot.
The USA would raise merry-hell, sure, it would. But that would be no more outrageous a
ploy by the UN than was the USA's own argument that it can have its cake and eat it
too.
After all, if a participant to the JCPOA referred its complaint to the UNSC without
first going through the Joint Commission then it is a given that the UNSC is under no
obligation to receive that complaint. No question.
So why can't the UNSC also refuse to accept a complaint when it is clear that the
complainant has not gone through the Joint Commission process in "good faith"?
One for the lawyers and ambassadors to argue, I would suggest, but it is not a given
that the USA can ram this through even if everyone were to agree that it were still a
participant in the JCPOA.
@61 Arch: "This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA
in detail"
Arch, the crux of that CRS legal paper boils down to this:
.."under current domestic law, the President may possess authority to terminate U.S.
participation in the JCPOA and to re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran, either through
executive order or by declining to renew statutory waivers"..
All the other fluff in that paper is inconsequential compared to this question posed by
that quote: can the US claim to be half-pregnant?
I suspect not.
Note that at the time the CRS paper was written (May 2018) it did have a valid point
i.e. while Trump *had* refused to re-certify Iranian compliance, he had *not* reimposed US
sanctions on Iran, and so the CRS paper could credibly argue that Trump wasn't pregnant, he
just talking dirty to the Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and - as b points out - Executive Order 13846 is the
smoking gun because in it Trump is OFFICIALLY stating that he has decided to " cease the
participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ".
That EO is clearly the killing blow to Pompeo's nonsense, and even the CRS legal paper
you linked to would agree.
As I see it, the historical problem with European fascism has been that when push comes to
shove the knife comes out and its either give in to enforced collaboration or take a
stabbing, it's your choice. Even if that means helping murder millions of your neighbours
or being murdered. As Celan said "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland."
The US has been enforcing a morally sanitised Disney Adult version of this old world
order since at least the 2003 Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq. Sooner or later as
this global pandemic, political, and financial crisis unfolds, the US leaders will be
forced to choose whether or not the UN is a viable vehicle through which to continue the
elite lunatic project for planetary full spectrum dominance of 21st C financial and
military affairs.
So I reckon the Pentagon at some point either gets to finally execute the long awaited
'Operation Conquer Persia' or the politicians and their chickenhawk ideologues will back
off again and continue the death by a thousand cuts of the last 40 years. I'd probably bet
the latter but that's the trouble with genuine psychopaths, push comes to shove they will
go for it if they think they'll get away with it.
This last 2 decades has been like watching a reality TV series about a fat drunken
psychopath with a bloody knife going around and stabbing people at a party, but now the
psycho is starting to stagger and everyone in the house is watchful trying to keep their
distance. House rules are that anyone starts an actual fight to the death with the psycho
then everyone dies!
I more or less trust that if we ever get there, a multipolar world order won't collapse
into outright fascism but we're closer to collapse every year, especially from this year
on, and most especially in the Persian Gulf.
In current US political system, it is not necessary to propose a valid claim, or proposal
or argument - they intend to act from a position of authority. They know where you live.
I am a retired Teamster in Syracuse, New York, who joined the civil rights, antiwar, and
environmental movements as a teenager in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s. In 1984, I
co-founded the Green Party. In 2010, I was the first U.S. candidate to campaign for a Green
New Deal in the first of three campaigns for New York governor that won Green Party ballot
lines.
To end the climate crisis, I have detailed an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to create 38
million new jobs, 100% clean energy, and zero carbon emissions by 2030.
To end poverty and economic insecurity, I propose an Economic Bill of Rights: job
guarantee, guaranteed minimum income, affordable housing, improved Medicare for all,
tuition-free public education pre–K to college, and secure retirement by doubling
Social Security.
To end endless wars, I support 75% military spending cuts, U.S. troops home, diplomacy,
international law, human rights, and a Global Green New Deal.
To end the new nuclear arms race, I favor no first use, minimum credible deterrent, and
ratification of the new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
I support unions, $20 minimum wage, worker co-ops, public banks, public energy, public
railroads, progressive taxation, net neutrality, internet privacy, ending mass surveillance,
no nukes, no fracking, abortion rights, student and medical debt relief, decriminalizing
drugs, ending mass incarceration, police under community control, immigrant amnesty,
African-American reparations, Indian and Mexican-American treaty rights, whistleblower and
political prisoner pardons, and presidential elections by National Popular Vote using
Ranked-Choice Voting. [Ranked Choice Voting is a huge fraud -- which many well-meaning people
fall for]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gloves are now off as China has called out Pompeo quite correctly saying, "Pompeo an enemy to world
peace" --and we ought to expect more disruptions here at MoA. Here's just one of several
slaps in Pompeo's face:
"The former top intelligence official is steering the US Department of State into becoming
the Central Intelligence Agency. He is playing with fire, making the 21st century an era of
major power confrontation and undermining the foundations for peace. Despite being the chief
diplomat of the US, he totally betrayed the basic responsibility with which he is entrusted
to promote international understanding. He has become the enemy of world peace."
What's most unfortunate is few seem to consult Global Times , as I was rather
surprised this major editorial wasn't already linked. Here's yet another slap:
"Geopolitics cannot dominate the world anymore. Pompeo and his like are desperately
pulling the world backwards. They are unable to handle a diverse and complicated new century
and so they attempt to resume the Cold War. They can only 'realize their ambition' in
polarized confrontation."
And that clearly wasn't enough as yet another slap's delivered in the closing two
sentences:
"Lies may fulfill Pompeo's personal ambition, but they will never accomplish the US dreams
to be "great again." Pompeo is not only a figure harmful to world peace, but also should be
listed as the worst US secretary of state in its history."
Hmm... Don't know if he qualifies as "worst" yet as he must still top Ms. Clinton, but she
certainly didn't treat China as has Pompeo.
We live at a time when the terrors of life suggests the world has descended into darkness.
The COVID-19 crisis has created a dystopian nightmare which floods our screens and media with
images of fear. Bodies, doorknobs, cardboard packages, plastic bags, and the breath we exhale
and anything else that offers the virus a resting place is comparable to a bomb ready to
explode resulting in massive suffering and untold deaths. We can no longer shake hands, embrace
our friends, use public transportation, sit in a coffee shop, or walk down the street without
experiencing real anxiety and fear. We are told by politicians, media pundits, and others that
everyday life has taken on the character of a war zone.
The metaphor of war has a deep sense of urgency and has a long rhetorical history in times
of crisis. Militarization has become a central feature of the pandemic age and points to the
dominance of warlike values in society. More specifically, Michael Geyer defines it as the
'contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organizes itself for the
production of violence' (Geyer, 1989: 9). Geyer was writing about the militarization of Europe
between 1914-1945, but his description seems even more relevant today. This is clear in the way
right-wing politicians such as Trump promote the increasing militarization of language, public
spaces, and bodies. Terms such as 'war footing', 'mounting an assault', and 'rallying the
troops' have been normalized in the face of the pandemic crisis. At the same time,
the language of war privileges the proliferation of surveillance capitalism, the defense of
borders, and the suspension of civil liberties.
As the virus brings the engines of capitalism to a halt, the discourse of war takes on a new
significance as a medical term that highlights the struggles to grapple with underfunded public
health care systems, the lack of resources for testing, the surge towards downward mobility,
expanding unemployment and the ongoing, heart-wrenching, efforts to provide protective
essentials for front line and emergency workers. At the heart of this epic tragedy is an
understated political struggle to reverse and amend decades of a war waged by neoliberal
capitalism against the welfare state, essential social provisions, public goods, and the social
contract. The failure of this oppressive death-dealing form of casino capitalism can be heard
as Arundhati Roy observes
in:
the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in the US, of underpaid, overworked nurses having to
make masks out of garbage bin liners and old raincoats, risking everything to bring succor to
the sick. About states being forced to bid against each other for ventilators, about doctors'
dilemmas over which patient should get one and which left to die.
The language of war is used by the mandarins of power to both address the indiscriminate
viral pandemic that has brought capitalism to its knees and to reinforce and expand the
political formations and global financial system that are incapable of dealing with the
pandemic. Rather than using rage, emotion, and fear to sharpen our understanding of the
conditions that abetted this global plague and what it might mean to address it and prevent it
in the future, the ruling elite in a number of right wing countries such as the U.S. and Brazil
use the discourse of war either to remove such questions from public debate or dismisses them
as acts of bad faith in a time of crisis. Amartya Sen is right in
arguing that '[o]vercoming a pandemic may look like fighting a war, but the real need is
far from that'.
Instead the language of war creates an echo chamber produced in both the highest circles of
power and the right-wing cultural apparatuses that serve to turn trauma, exhaustion, and
mourning into a fog of conspiracy theories, state repression, and a deepening abyss of darkness
that ' serves the
ends of those in power' . Edward Snowden is right in warning that governments will use the
pandemic crisis to expand their attack on civil liberties, roll back constitutional rights,
repress dissent and create what he calls an '
architecture of oppression' . He
writes :
As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we
also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do
you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the
coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these
datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what' is being built is the
architecture of oppression.
There is no doubt that the Covid-19 crisis will test the limits of democracy worldwide.
Right-wing movements, neo-Nazis, authoritarian politicians, religious fundamentalists and a
host of other extremists are energized by what Slavoj Zizek
calls the 'ideological viruses [lying] dormant in our societies'. These include closing of
borders, the quarantining of so-called enemies, the claim that undocumented immigrants spread
the virus, the demand for increased police power, and the rush by religious fundamentalists to
relegate women to the home to assume their 'traditional' gendered role.
On the economic level and under the cover of fear, the U.S. in particular, is transferring
what Jonathan
Cook refers to as:
huge sums of public money to the biggest corporations. Politicians controlled by big
business and media owned by big business are pushing through this corporate robbery without
scrutiny – and for reasons that should be self-explanatory. They know our attention is
too overwhelmed by the virus for us to assess intentionally mystifying arguments about the
supposed economic benefits, about yet more illusory trickle-down.
This constitutes a politics of 'opportunistic authoritarianism' and is already in play in a
number of countries that are using the cover of enforcing public health measures to enforce a
range of anti-democratic policies and wave of repression. The pandemic has made clear that
market mechanisms cannot address the depth and scope of the current crisis. The failure of
neoliberalism not only reveals a profound sense of despair and moral void at the heart of
casino capitalism, but also makes clear that the spell of neoliberalism is broken and as such
is in the midst of a legitimation crisis. The coronavirus pandemic has both made clear that the
neoliberal notion that all problems are a matter of individual responsibility and that each of
us are defined exclusively by our self-interest has completely broken down as the effects of
neoliberalism's failure to deal with the pandemic unfold in shortages in crucial medical
equipment, lack of testing, and failed public health services, largely due to austerity
measures.
One consequence the failed neoliberal state is an uptake in levels of oppression in order to
prevent the emergence of massive protests movements and radical forms of collective resistance.
The suspension of civil rights, repression of dissent, upending of constitutional liberties,
and the massive use of state surveillance in the service of anti-democratic ends has become
normalized. Many of the countries driven by austerity policies and a culture of cruelty are
using the pandemic crisis as a way shaping their modes of governance by drawing from what
activist Ejeris Dixon calls elements of a '
fascist emergency playbook' . These
include :
Use the emergency to restrict civil liberties -- particularly rights regarding movement,
protest, freedom of the press, a right to a trial and freedom to gather. Use the emergency to
suspend governmental institutions, consolidate power, reduce institutional checks and
balances, and reduce access to elections and other forms of participatory governance. Promote
a sense of fear and individual helplessness, particularly in relationship to the state, to
reduce outcry and to create a culture where people consent to the power of the fascist state;
Replace democratic institutions with autocratic institutions using the emergency as
justification. Create scapegoats for the emergency, such as immigrants, people of color,
disabled people, ethnic and religious minorities, to distract public attention away from the
failures of the state and the loss of civil liberties .
The evidence for the spread of this ideological virus and its apparatuses and polices of
repression are no longer simply dormant fears of those fearful of the rise of authoritarian
movements and modes of governance. For instance, Viktor Orbán, Hungary's prime minister
passed
a bill that gave him 'sweeping emergency powers for an indefinite period of time .The
measures were invoked as part of the government's response to the global pandemic'. What is
becoming obvious is that the pandemic crisis produces mass anxiety that enables governments to
turn a medical crisis into a political opportunity for leaders across the globe to push through
dictatorial powers with little resistance.
For instance, as Selam
Gebrekidan observes : 'In Britain, ministers have what a critic called 'eye-watering' power
to detain people and close borders. Israel's prime minister has shut down courts and begun an
intrusive surveillance of citizens. Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied
by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections'. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte,
who has flagrantly violated civil rights in the past, was given emergency powers by the
congress. Under the cloak of invoking public health measures because of the threat posed by the
coronavirus plague, China has broken up protests in Hong Kong and arrested many of its leaders.
In the United States, Trump's Justice Department has asked
Congress 'for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial
during emergencies -- part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads
through the United States'.
In the U.S. Trump blames the media for spreading fake news about the virus, attacks
reporters who ask critical questions, packs the courts with federal sycophants, dehumanizes
undocumented immigrants by labeling them as carriers of the virus, and claims that he has
'total authority' to reopen the economy, however dangerous the policy, in the face of the
coronavirus pandemic. In this instance, Trump markets fear to endorse elements of white
supremacy, ultra-nationalism, and social cleansing while unleashing the mobilizing passions of
fascism. He supports voter suppression and has publicly stated that making it easier to vote
for many Americans such as blacks and other minorities of color would
mean 'you would never have a Republican elected in this country again'. In the midst of
economic hardships and widespread suffering due to the raging pandemic, Trump has tapped into a
combination of fear and a cathartic cruelty while emboldening a savage lawlessness aimed at the
most vulnerable populations. How else to explain his calling the coronavirus the '
Chinese virus' , regardless of the violence it enables by right wingers against
Asian-Americans, or his call to reopen the economy to hastily knowing that thousands could die
as a result, mostly the elderly, poor, and other vulnerable.
Militarizing the Media and the Politics of Pandemic Pedagogy
In the age of the pandemic, culture has been militarized. Donald Trump and the right-wing
media in the United States have both politicized and weaponized the coronavirus pandemic. They
have weaponized it by using a state of emergency to promote Trump's political attacks on
critics, the press, journalists, and politicians who have questioned his bungling response to
the pandemic crisis. They have politicized it by introducing a series of policies under the
rubric of a state of exception that diverts bailout money to the ruling elite, militarizes
public space, increases the power of the police, wages attacks on undocumented immigrants as a
public health threat, and promotes voter suppression. In addition Trump has further
strengthened the surveillance state, fired public servants for participating in the impeachment
process, and initially claimed that the virus was a hoax perpetuated by the media and Democrats
who were trying to undermine Trump's re-election.
Trump's language of dehumanization coupled with his appalling ignorance and toxic
incompetence appears as a perfect fit for the media spectacle that he has made a central
feature of his presidency. Trump's 'anti-intellectualism has been simmering in the United
States for decades and has now fully boiled over' and when incorporated as a central feature of
the right-wing social media becomes 'a tremendously successful tool of hegemonic control,
manipulation, and false consciousness'. Trump's apocalyptic rhetoric appears to match the tenor
of the moment as there is a surge in right-wing extremism, anti-Semitism, explosive racism, and
a culture of lies, immediacy, and cruelty. What we are witnessing as the pandemic intensifies
in the United States, and in some other countries across the globe, is the increasing threat of
authoritarian regimes that both use the media to normalize their actions and wage war against
dissidents and others struggling to preserve democratic ideas and principles.
Given his experience in the realms of Reality TV and celebrity culture,
Trump is driven by mutually reinforcing registers of spectacular fits of self-promotion,
joy in producing troves of Orwellian doublespeak, and the ratings his media coverage receives.
One of the insults he throws out at reporters in his coronavirus
briefings is that their networks have low ratings as if that is a measure of the relevance
of the question being asked. Unlike any other president, Trump has used the mainstream media
and social media to mobilize his followers, attack his enemies, and produce a twitter universe
of misinformation, lies, and civic illiteracy. He has championed the right-wing media by both
echoing their positions on a number of issues and using them to air his own. The conservative
media such as Fox News has been enormously complicitous in justifying Trump's call for the
Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political rivals, including the impeachable offense of
extorting the Ukrainian government through the promise to withhold military aid if they did not
launch an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. Moreover, they have supported his
instigation of armed rebellions via his tweets urging his followers to liberate Minnesota,
Michigan, and Virginia by refusing to comply with stay-at-home orders and
social distancing restrictions . Ironically, he is urging anti-social distancing protests
that violate his own federal guidelines.
Trump has used the police powers of the state, especially ICE to round up children and
separate them from their parents at the border. Placing loyalty above expertise, he surrounds
himself with incompetent sycophants, and makes policy decisions from his gut, often in
opposition to the advice of public health experts. All of this is echoed and supported by the
conservative and right wing eco-system, especially Fox News, Breitbart News, and what appears
to be a legion of right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who falsely claimed the virus
is a common cold and Laura Ingraham, who deceitfully compared Covid-19 to the flu. Fox News not
only produced conspiracy theories such as the claim the virus was the product of the 'deep
state' and was being used by Democrats to prevent Trump from being re-elected, it also produced
misinformation about the virus and represented what 74 journalism professors and leading
journalists described as ' a danger to
public health' . Like most authoritarians, Trump does everything to control the truth by
flooding the media with lies, denouncing scientific evidence, and critical judgment as fake
news. The latter is a direct attack on the free press, critical journalists, and the notion
that the search for the truth is crucial to any valid and shared notion of citizenship.
The crisis of politics is now matched by a mainstream and corporate controlled digital media
and screen culture that revels in political theater, embraces ignorance, fractured narratives,
and racial hysteria (cf. Butsch, 2019). In addition, it authorizes and produces a culture of
sensationalism designed to increase ratings and profits at the expense of truth. As a
disimagination machine and form of pandemic pedagogy, it undermines a complex rendering of
social problems and suppresses a culture of dissent and informed judgments. This pandemic
pedagogy functions so as to shape human agency, desire, and modes of identification both in the
logic of consumerism while privileging a hyper form of masculinity and legitimating a
friend/enemy distinction. We live in an age in which theater and the spectacle of performance
empty politics of any moral substance and contribute to the revival of an updated version of
fascist politics. Thoughtlessness has become a national ideal as the corporate controlled media
mirror the Trump administration demand that reality be echoed rather than be analyzed,
interrogated and critically comprehended. Politics is now leaden with bombast, words strung
together to shock, numb the mind, and images overwrought with self-serving sense of riotousness
and anger. Trump shamelessly reinforces such a politics by showing propaganda videos at
presidential news conferences.
What is distinct about this historical period, especially under the Trump regime, is what
Susan Sontag has called a form of aesthetic fascism with
its contempt of 'all that is reflective, critical, and pluralistic'. One distinctive element of
the current moment is the rise of what we call hard and soft disimagination machines. The hard
disimagination machines, such as Fox News, conservative talk radio, and Breitbart media,
function as overt and unapologetic propaganda machines that trade in nativism,
misrepresentations, and racist hysteria, all wrapped in the cloak of a regressive view of
patriotism.
As
Joel Bleifuss points out , Fox News , in particular, is 'blatant in its contempt for
the truth, and engages nightly in the 'ritual of burying the truth in 'memory holes' and
spinning a new version of reality [that keeps] the spirit of 1984 alive and well . This, the
most-watched cable news network, functions in its fealty to Trump like a real-world Ministry of
Truth from George Orwell's 1984 , where bureaucrats 'rectify' the historical record to
conform to Big Brother's decrees'. Trump's fascist politics and fantasies of
racial purity could not succeed without the disimagination machines, pedagogical
apparatuses, and the practitioners needed to make his 'vision not merely real but grotesquely
normal'. What Trump makes clear is that the weaponization of language into a discourse of
racism and hate is deeply indebted to a politics of forgetting and is a crucial tool in the
battle to undermine historical consciousness and memory itself.
The soft disimagination machines or liberal mainstream media such as NBC Nightly News,
MSNBC, and the established press function largely to cater to Trump's Twitter universe,
celebrity culture, and the cut throat ethos of the market, all the while isolating social
issues, individualizing social problems, and making the workings of power superficially
visible. This is obvious in their mainstream's continuous
coverage of his daily press briefings, which as Oscar Zambrano puts it 'is like watching a
disease in progress that is infecting us all: a parallel to coronavirus' (Zambrano, 2020).
Unfortunately, high ratings are more important than refusing to participate in Trump
disinformation spectacles. Politics as a spectacle saturates the senses with noise, cheap
melodrama, lies, and buffoonery. This is not to suggest that the spectacle that now shapes
politics as pure theater is meant merely to entertain and distract.
On the contrary, the current spectacle, most recently evident in the midst of the
coronavirus crisis functions as a war machine, functioning largely to nurture the notion of war
as a permanent social relation, the primary organizing principle of society and politics merely
one of its means or guises. War has now become the operative and defining feature of language
and the matrix for all relations of power.
The militarization of the media, and culture itself, now function as a form of social and
historical amnesia. That is, in both form and content it separates the past from a politics
that in its current form has turned deadly in its attack on the values and institutions crucial
to a functioning democracy. In this instance, echoes of a fascist past remain hidden, invisible
beneath the histrionic shouting and disinformation campaigns that rail against alleged 'enemies
of the state' and 'fake news', which is a euphemism for dissent, holding power accountable, and
an oppositional media. A flair for the overly dramatic eliminates the distinction between fact
and fiction, lies and the truth.
Under such circumstances, the spectacle of militarization functions as part of a culture of
distraction, division, and fragmentation, all the while refusing to pose the question of how
the United States shares elements of a fascist politics that connects it to a number of other
authoritarian countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. All of these countries in
the midst of the pandemic have embraced a form of fascist aesthetics and politics that combines
a cruel culture of neoliberal austerity with the discourses of hate, nativism, and state
repression. The militarization of culture and the media in its current forms can only appeal to
the state of exception, death, and war. Under such circumstances, the relationship between
civil liberties and democracy, politics and death, and justice and injustice is lost. War
should be a
source of alarm, not pride , and its linguistic repositories should be actively
demilitarized.
Conclusion
Under the Trump regime, historical amnesia is used as a weapon of (mis)education, politics,
and power and is waged primarily through the militarization and weaponization of the media.
This constitutes a form of pandemic pedagogy -- a pedagogical virus that erodes the modes of
agency, values, and civic institutions central to a robust democracy. The notion that the past
is a burden that must be forgotten is a center piece of authoritarian regimes, one that allows
public memory to wither and the threads of fascism to become normalized. While some critics
eschew the comparison of Trump with the Nazi era, it is crucial to recognize the alarming signs
in this administration that echo a fascist politics of the past. As
Jonathan Freedland points out , 'the signs are there, if only we can bear to look'.
Rejecting the Trump-Nazi comparison makes it easier to believe that we have nothing to learn
from history and to take comfort in the assumption that it cannot happen once again. Democracy
cannot survive if it ignores the lessons of the past, reduces education to mass conformity,
celebrates civic illiteracy, and makes consumerism the only obligation of citizenship. Max
Horkheimer added a more specific register to the relationship between fascism and capitalism in
his
comment 'If you don't want to talk about capitalism then you had better keep quiet about
fascism.'
The lessons to be learned from the pandemic crisis have to exceed making visible the lies,
misinformation, and corruption at the heart of the Trump regime. Such an approach fails to
address the most serious of Trump's crimes. Moreover, it fails to examine a number of political
threads that together constitute elements common to a global crisis in the age of the pandemic.
The global response to the pandemic crisis by a number of authoritarian states when viewed as
part of a broader crisis of democracy needs to be analyzed by connecting ideological, economic,
and cultural threads that weave through often isolated issues such as white nationalism, the
rise of a Republican Party dominated by right-wing extremists, the collapse of the two party
system, and the ascent of a corporate controlled media as a disimagination machine and the
proliferation of corrosive systems of power and dehumanization.
Crucial to any politics of resistance is the necessity to take seriously the notion that
education is central to politics itself, and that social problems have to be critically
understood before people can act as a force for empowerment and liberation. This suggests
analyzing Trump's use of politics as a militarized spectacle not in isolation from the larger
social totality -- as simply one of incompetence, for instance- but as part of a more
comprehensive political project in which updated forms of authoritarianism and contemporary
versions of fascism are being mobilized and gaining traction both in the United States and
across the globe. Federico Mayor, the former director general of UNESCO once stated that 'You
cannot expect anything from uneducated citizens except unstable democracy'. In the current
historical moment and age of Trump, it might be more appropriate to say that what can be
expected from a society in which ignorance is a virtue and civic literacy and education are
viewed as a liability, one cannot expect anything but fascism.
The pandemic crisis should be a rallying cry to create massive collective resistance against
both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the naked brutality of the political and
economic system they have supported since the 1970s. That is, the criminogenic response to the
crisis on the part of the Trump administration should become a call to arms, if not a model on
a global level, for a massive protest movement that moves beyond the ritual of trying Trump and
other authoritarian politicians for an abuse of power. Instead, such a movement should become a
call to put on trial a capitalist system while fighting for structural and ideological reforms
that will usher in a radical and socialist democracy worthy of the struggle.
What is crucial to remember is no democracy cannot survive without an informed citizenry.
Moreover, solidarity among individuals cannot be assumed and must fought for as part of a wider
struggle to break down the walls ideological and material repression that isolate,
depoliticize, and pit individuals and groups against each other. Community and a robust public
sphere cannot be built on the bonds of shared fears, isolation, and oppression. Authoritarian
governments will work to contain both any semblance of democratic politics and any attempts at
large scale transformations of society. Power lies in more than understanding and the ability
to disrupt, it also lies in a vision of a future that does not imitate the present and the
courage to collectively struggle to bring a radical democratic socialist vision into
fruition.
References.
Butsch, R. (2019). Screen Culture: A Global History . London: Polity.
Geyer, M. (1989). 'The Militarization of Europe, 1914-1945', in J. R. Gillis (ed)
Militarization of the Western World . New Brunswick: NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Zambrano. O. (2020). Personal correspondence. March 20.
This article first appeared on E-International Relations .Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Henry Giroux –
Ourania FilippakouHenry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for
Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the
Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include
American
Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018), On Critical Pedagogy , 2nd
edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); The Terror of the
Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), and Neoliberalism's
War on Higher Education , 2nd edition (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2020).Ourania
Filippakou is Reader and Director of Teaching and Learning in the Department of Education at
Brunel University London. Her most recent book, co-authored with Ted Tapper, is '
Creating the Future? The 1960s New English Universities ' (Dordrecht: Springer, 2019). Her
forthcoming books are: 'Higher education and the Crisis of Europe' (2021) and 'Restructuring
Knowledge in Higher Education' (with Ted Tapper) both to be published by Routledge. She is
co-editor of the British Educational Research Journal
Dangerous pathogens are captured in the wild and made deadlier in government biowarfare labs. Did that happen here?
There has been no scientific finding that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered, but its origins are not entirely clear. Deadly
pathogens discovered in the wild are sometimes studied in labs – and sometimes made more dangerous. That possibility, and other plausible
scenarios, have been incorrectly dismissed in remarks by some scientists and government officials, and in the coverage of most major
media outlets.
Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside
of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future.
While much of the media and political establishment have minimized the threat from such lab work, some hawks on the American right
like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark ., have singled out Chinese biodefense researchers as uniquely dangerous.
The current dynamics of the biological arms race have been driven by US government decisions that extend back decades. In December
2009, Reuters
reported that the Obama administration was refusing even to negotiate the possible monitoring of biological weapons.
Much of the left in the US now appears unwilling to scrutinize the origin of the pandemic – or the wider issue of biowarfare –
perhaps because portions of the anti-Chinese right have been so vocal in making unfounded allegations.
Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between "biowarfare" and "biodefense,"
as if to paint such "defense" programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.
"Biodefense" implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight
them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such "defense"
research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.
The legal scholar who drafted the main US law on the subject, Francis Boyle, warned in his 2005 book "
Biowarfare and Terrorism " that an "illegal biological arms
race with potentially catastrophic consequences" was underway, largely driven by the US government.
For years,
many scientists have raised concerns regarding bioweapons/biodefense lab work, and specifically about the fact that huge increases
in funding have taken place since 9/11. This was especially true after the anthrax-by-mail attacks that killed five people in the
weeks after 9/11, which the FBI ultimately blamed on a US government biodefense scientist. A 2013 study found that biodefense funding
since 2001 had totaled at least $78 billion
, and more has surely been spent since then. This has led to a
proliferation of laboratories , scientists and new organisms,
effectively setting off a biological arms race.
Following the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, the US government
paused
funding for what are known as "gain-of-function" research on certain organisms. This work actually seeks to make deadly pathogens
deadlier, in some cases making pathogens airborne that previously were not. With little notice outside the field,
the pause on such research was lifted
in late 2017 .
During this pause, exceptions for funding were made for dangerous gain-of-function lab work. This included work jointly done by
US scientists from the University of North Carolina, Harvard and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This work – which had funding from
USAID and EcoHealth Alliance not originally acknowledged – was published in
2015 in Nature Medicine .
A different Nature Medicine article about the origin of the current pandemic, authored by five scientists and
published on March 17, has been touted by major media
outlet and some officials – including current National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins – as definitively disproving
a lab origin for the novel coronavirus. That journal article, titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," stated unequivocally: "Our
analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." This is a subtly misleading
sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory "signature" in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to
take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.
Indeed, there is also the question of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article,
as well as a February 2020
Lancet letter condemning
"conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" – which seemed calculated to minimize outside scrutiny
of biodefense lab work – have troubling ties to the biodefense complex, as well as to the US government. Notably, neither of these
articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural origin and then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before
being let loose, either intentionally or accidentally – which is clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.
Facts as "rumors"
This reporter raised questions about the subject at a news conference with a Center for Disease Control (CDC) representative
at the now-shuttered National Press Club on Feb. 11. I asked if it was a "complete coincidence" that the pandemic had started in
Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety
mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens. As I mentioned, it was odd that the ostensible origin of the novel coronavirus
was bat caves in Yunnan province – more than 1,000 miles from Wuhan. I noted that "gain-of-function" lab work can results in more
deadly pathogens, and that major labs, including
some in the US, have had accidental releases .
CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat said that based on the information she had seen, the virus was of "zoonotic origin."
She also stated, regarding gain-of-function lab work, that it is important to "protect researchers and their laboratory workers as
well as the community around them and that we use science for the benefit of people."
I followed up by asking whether an alleged natural origin did not preclude the possibility that this virus came through
a lab, since a lab could have acquired a bat virus and been working on it. Schuchat replied to the assembled journalists that "it
is very common for rumors to emerge that can take on life of their own," but did not directly answer the question. She noted that
in the 2014 Ebola outbreak some observers had pointed to nearby labs as the possible cause, claiming this "was a key rumor that had
to be overcome in order to help control the outbreak." She reiterated: "So based on everything that I know right now, I can tell
you the circumstances of the origin really look like animals-to-human. But your question, I heard."
This is no rumor. It's a fact: Labs work with dangerous pathogens. The US and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs.
China has major facilities at Wuhan – a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs. (See "
Preventing a Biological Arms Race ,"
MIT Press, 1990, edited by Susan Wright; also, a partial review in
Journal of International Law from October 1992.)
Much of the discussion of this deadly serious subject is marred with snark that avoids or dodges the "gain-of-function" question.
ABC
ran a story on March 27 titled "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct.'" That
story did not address the possibility that the virus could have been found in the wild, studied in a lab and then released.
On March 21, USA Today
published a piece headlined "Fact Check: Did the Coronavirus Originate In a Chinese Laboratory?" – and rated it "FALSE."
That USA Today story relied on the Washington Post, which published a widely cited article on
Feb. 17 headlined,
"Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." That article quoted public comments from
Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, but out of context and only in part. Specifically, the story quoted
from Ebright's tweet that the coronavirus was not an "engineered bioweapon." In fact, his full quote included the clarification that
the virus could have " entered human population
through lab accident ." (An email requesting clarification sent to Post reporter Paulina Firozi was met with silence.)
Bioengineered ≠ From a lab
Other pieces in the Post since then (
some heavily sourced to
US government officials ) have conveyed Ebright's thinking, but it gets worse. In a private exchange, Ebright – who, again, has
said clearly that the novel coronavirus was not technically bioengineered using known coronavirus sequences – stated that other forms
of lab manipulation could have been responsible for the current pandemic. This runs counter to much reporting, which is perhaps too
scientifically illiterate to perceive the difference.
The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has no signatures of human manipulation.
This rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures of human manipulation in genome sequences
(e.g., use of recombinant DNA methods to construct chimeric viruses), but does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave
signatures (e.g., serial passage in animals). [emphasis added]
Very easy to imagine the equivalent of the Fouchier's "10 passages in ferrets" with H5N1 influenza virus, but, in this case,
with 10 passages in non-human primates with bat coronavirus RaTG13 or bat coronavirus KP876546.
That last paragraph is very important. It refers to virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who performed
research on intentionally increasing rates of viral mutation rate by spreading a virus from one animal to another in a sequence.
The New York Times wrote about this in an
editorial in January 2012,
warning of "An Engineered Doomsday."
"Now scientists financed by the National Institutes of Health" have created a "virus that could kill tens or hundreds of millions
of people" if it escaped confinement, the Times wrote. The story continued:
Working with ferrets, the animal that is most like humans in responding to influenza, the researchers found that a mere five
genetic mutations allowed the virus to spread through the air from one ferret to another while maintaining its lethality. A separate
study at the University of Wisconsin, about which little is known publicly, produced a virus that is thought to be less virulent.
The word "engineering" in the New York Times headline is technically incorrect, since passing a virus through animals is
not "genetic engineering." This same distinction has hindered some from understanding the possible origins of the current pandemic.
Fouchier's flu work, in which an H5N1 virus was made more virulent by transmitting it repeatedly between individual ferrets, briefly
sent shockwaves through the media. "Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful
of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free," wrote Science magazine
in 2011 in a
story
titled "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies." It continues:
The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets,
the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in
nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.
In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team
created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make" – and why he wants to publish a paper describing
how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment
with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.
Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that
could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health
benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.
Despite objections, Fouchier's article was published by Science
in June 2012 . Titled "Airborne Transmission
of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets," it summarized how Fouchier's research team made the pathogen more virulent:
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the
ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet ("airborne transmission") between humans. To address the concern that
the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis
and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately
becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.
In other words, Fouchier's research took a flu virus that did not exhibit airborne transmission, then infected a number
of ferrets until it mutated to the point that it was transmissible by air.
In that same year, 2012, a similar study by Yoshihiro
Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin was published in Nature :
Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 influenza A viruses occasionally infect humans, but currently do not transmit efficiently among
humans. Here we assess the molecular changes that would allow a virus to be transmissible among mammals. We identified a virus with
four mutations and the remaining seven gene segments from a 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus – that was capable of droplet transmission in
a ferret model.
Recent experiments that create novel, highly virulent and transmissible pathogens against which there is no human immunity
are unethical they impose a risk of accidental and deliberate release that, if it led to extensive spread of the new agent, could
cost many lives. While such a release is unlikely in a specific laboratory conducting research under strict biosafety procedures,
even a low likelihood should be taken seriously, given the scale of destruction if such an unlikely event were to occur. Furthermore,
the likelihood of risk is multiplied as the number of laboratories conducting such research increases around the globe.
Given this risk, ethical principles, such as those embodied in the
Nuremberg Code , dictate that such experiments would be
permissible only if they provide humanitarian benefits commensurate with the risk, and if these benefits cannot be achieved by less
risky means.
We argue that the two main benefits claimed for these experiments – improved vaccine design and improved interpretation of
surveillance – are unlikely to be achieved by the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP), often termed "gain-of-function"
(GOF) experiments.
There may be a widespread notion that there is scientific consensus that the pandemic did not come out of a lab. But in fact many
of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field are notably silent. This includes Lipsitch at Harvard, Jonathan A. King at MIT
and many others.
Just last year, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote a
paper
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled "Human Error in High-biocontainment Labs: A Likely Pandemic Threat." Wrote
Klotz:
Incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security laboratories often known by their
acronyms, BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) and BSL4. Lab incidents that lead to undetected or unreported laboratory-acquired infections can
lead to the release of a disease into the community outside the lab; lab workers with such infections will leave work carrying the
pathogen with them. If the agent involved were a potential pandemic pathogen, such a community release could lead to a worldwide
pandemic with many fatalities. Of greatest concern is a release of a lab-created, mammalian-airborne-
transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the airborne-transmissible H5N1 viruses created in the laboratories
of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Madison, Wisconsin.
"Crazy, dangerous"
Boyle, a professor of international
law at the University of Illinois , has condemned Fouchier, Kawaoka and others – including at least one of the authors of the
recent Nature Medicine article in the strongest terms, calling such work a "criminal enterprise." While Boyle has been embroiled
in numerous controversies, he's been especially dismissed by many on this issue. The "fact-checking" website
Snopes has described him as "a lawyer with
no formal training in virology" – without noting that he wrote the relevant U.S. law.
The law Boyle drafted states: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction
over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States."
Boyle also warned:
Russia and China have undoubtedly reached the same conclusions I have derived from the same open and public sources, and have
responded in kind. So what the world now witnesses is an all-out offensive biological warfare arms race among the major military
powers of the world: United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, inter alia.
We have reconstructed the Offensive Biological Warfare Industry that we had deployed in this county before its prohibition
by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, described by Seymour Hersh in his groundbreaking expose "
Chemical
and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal ." (1968)
Boyle now states that he has been "blackballed" in the media on this issue, despite his having written the relevant statute. The
group he worked with on the law, the Council for Responsible Genetics, went under several years ago, making Boyle's views against
"biodefense" even more marginal as government money for dual use work poured into the field and critics within the scientific community
have fallen silent. In turn, his denunciations have grown more sweeping.
In the 1990 book " Preventing a Biological
Arms Race ," scholar Susan Wright argued that current laws regarding bioweapons were insufficient, as there were "projects in
which offensive and defensive aspects can be distinguished only by claimed motive." Boyle notes, correctly, that current law he drafted
does not make an exception for "defensive" work, but only for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes."
While Boyle is particularly vociferous in his condemnations, he is not alone. There has been irregular, but occasional media attention
to this threat. The Guardian ran a piece in 2014, "
Scientists
condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus ," after Kawaoka created a life-threatening virus that "closely
resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people":
"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said Lord May, the former president
of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising from
the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."
Boyle's
charges
beginning early this year that the coronavirus was bioengineered – allegations recently mirrored by French virologist and
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier – have not been corroborated by any publicly produced findings of any US scientist. Boyle even
charges that scientists like Ebright, who is at Rutgers, are compromised because the university got a
biosafety level
3 lab in 2017 – though Ebright is perhaps the most vocal eminent critic of this research, among US scientists. These and other
controversies aside, Boyle's concerns about the dangers of biowarfare are legitimate; indeed, Ebright shares them.
Some of the most vocal voices to discuss the origins of the novel coronavirus have been eager to minimize the dangers of lab work,
or have focused almost exclusively on "wet markets" or "exotic" animals as the likely cause.
The media celebrated Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
when she declared on Twitter on March 3 (in a since-deleted tweet) that the origin of the pandemic was discovered: "It's pangolins.
#COVID19 Researchers studied lung tissue from 12 of the scaled mammals that were illegally trafficked in Asia and found #SARSCoV2
in 3. The animals were found in Guangxi, China. Another virus+ smuggled sample found in Guangzhou."
She was swiftly corrected by Ebright:
"Arrant nonsense. Did you even read the paper? Reported pangolin coronavirus is not SARS-CoV-2 and is not even particularly close
to SARS-CoV-2. Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is much closer to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% identical) than reported pangolin coronavirus (92.4% identical)."
He added: "No reason to invoke pangolin as intermediate. When A is much closer than B to C, in the absence of additional data, there
is no rational basis to favor pathway A>B>C over pathway A>C." When someone asked what Garrett was saying, Ebright
responded : "She is saying she is scientifically
illiterate."
The following day, Garrett corrected herself (
without acknowledging Ebright ): "I blew
it on the #Pangolins paper, & then took a few hours break from Twitter. It did NOT prove the species = source of #SARSCoV2. There's
a torrent of critique now, deservedly denouncing me & my posting. A lot of the critique is super-informative so leaving it all up
4 while."
At least one Chinese government official has
responded to the allegation that the labs in Wuhan could be the source for the pandemic by alleging that perhaps the US is responsible
instead. In American mainstream media, that has been reflexively treated as even
more ridiculous
than the original allegation that the virus could have come from a lab.
Obviously the Chinese government's allegations should not be taken at face value, but neither should US government claims – especially
considering that US government labs were the apparent source for the
anthrax attacks in 2001 . Those attacks sent panic through
the US and shut down Congress, allowing the Bush administration to enact the
PATRIOT Act and ramp up the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, in October 2001, media darlings like
Richard Butler and
Andrew Sullivan propagandized for war
with Iraq because of the anthrax attacks. (Neither Iraq nor al-Qaida was involved.)
The 2001 anthrax attacks also provided much of the pretext for the surge in biolab spending since then, even though they apparently
originated in a US or U.S.-allied lab. Indeed, those attacks remain
shrouded in
mystery .
The US government has also come up with elaborate cover stories to distract from its bioweapons work. For instance, the US government
infamously claimed the 1953 death of Frank Olson, a scientist at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was an
LSD experiment gone wrong; it now appears to have been an execution to cover up for US biological warfare.
Regardless of the cause of the current pandemic, these biowarfare/biodefense labs need far more scrutiny. The call to shut them
down by Boyle and others needs to be clearly heard – and light must be shone on precisely what research is being conducted.
The secrecy of these labs may prevent us ever knowing with certainty the origins of the current pandemic. What we do know is this
kind of lab work comes with real dangers. One might make a comparison to climate change: We cannot attribute an individual hurricane
to man-made climate disruption, yet science tells us that human activity makes stronger hurricanes more likely. That brings us back
to the imperative to cease the kinds of activities that produce such dangers in the first place.
If that doesn't happen, the people of the planet will be at the mercy of the machinations and mistakes of state actors who are
playing with fire for their geopolitical interests.
If the new coronavirus pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we need to rethink what
we need to do to keep America safe. That's why Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's recent
tweet calling modernization of U.S. nuclear forces a "top priority ... to protect the
American people and our allies" seemed so tone deaf.
COVID-19 has already
killed more Americans than
died in the
9/11 attacks and the Iraq and Afghan wars combined, with projections of many more to come.
The pandemic underscores the need for a systematic, sustainable, long-term investment in public
health resources,
from protective equipment , to ventilators and hospital beds, to research and planning
resources needed to deal with future outbreaks of disease.
As Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, has
noted : "We're going to see enormous downward pressure on defense spending because of other
urgent American national needs like health care." And that's as it should be, given the
relative dangers posed by outbreaks of disease and climate change relative to traditional
military challenges.
... ... ...
ICBMs are dangerous because of the short decision time a president would have to decide
whether to launch them in a crisis to avoid having them wiped out in a perceived first strike
-- a matter of
minutes . This reality greatly increases the prospect of an accidental nuclear war based on
a false warning of attack. This is a completely unnecessary risk given that the other two legs
of the nuclear triad -- ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-armed bombers -- are more than
sufficient to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate, should the unlikely scenario of a
nuclear attack on the United States occur.
... ... ...
Eliminating ICBMs and reducing the size of the U.S. arsenal will face strong opposition in
Washington, both from strategists who maintain that the nuclear triad should be sacrosanct, and
from special interests that benefit from excess spending on nuclear weapons. The Senate
ICBM Coalition , composed of senators from states with ICBM bases or substantial ICBM
development and maintenance work, has been particularly effective in fending any changes in
ICBM policy, from reducing the size of the force to merely studying alternatives, whether those
alternatives are implemented or not.
Shimizu Randall Personally I don't see why the Trident subs cannot be refurbished and have
a extended life. I think the Minuteman missiles need to be replace. But I don't understand why
the cost is exorbitant. Terry Auckland
OMG.....what a sensible idea..Other nuclear capable countries will fall into line if this is
adopted....peace could thrive and flourish ...sadly it could never happen..too much money at
state...too many careers truncated...and too many lobbyists and thinktank type's and loyalist
senators to cajole and appease..
A pipe dream I think. ..situation normal will continue to annhilation...
"... The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world. ..."
"... Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order ..."
More than 10 years ago, the columnist Charles Krauthammer
asserted that American
"decline is a choice," and argued tendentiously that Barack Obama had chosen it. Yet looking back over the last decade, it has become
increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want.
The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after
the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves
into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently
husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world.
There was a brief period during the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. could claim to be the world's hegemonic power. America
had no near-peer rivals; it was at the height of its influence across most of the globe. That status, however, was always a transitory
one, and was lost quickly thanks to self-inflicted wounds in Iraq and the natural growth of other powers that began to compete for
influence. While America remains the most powerful state in the world, it no longer dominates as it did 20 years ago. And there can
be no recapturing what was lost.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon explore these matters in their new book,
Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order . They make a strong case for distinguishing between the
old hegemonic order and the larger international order of which it is a part. As they put it, "global international order is not
synonymous with American hegemony." They also make careful distinctions between the different components of what is often simply
called the "liberal international order": political liberalism, economic liberalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism. The first
involves the protection of rights, the second open economic exchange, and the third the form of international order that recognizes
legally equal sovereign states. Cooley and Nexon note that both critics and defenders of the "liberal international order" tend to
assume that all three come as a "package deal," but point out that these parts do not necessarily reinforce each other and do not
have to coexist.
While the authors are quite critical of Trump's foreign policy, they don't pin the decline of the old order solely on him. They
argue that hegemonic unraveling takes place when the hegemon loses its monopoly over patronage and "more states can compete when
it comes to providing economic, security, diplomatic, and other goods." The U.S. has been losing ground for the better part of the
last 20 years, much of it unavoidable as other states grew wealthier and sought to wield greater influence. The authors make a persuasive
case that the "exit" from hegemony is already taking place and has been for some time.
Many defenders of U.S. hegemony insist that the "liberal international order" depends on it. That has never made much sense. For
one, the continued maintenance of American hegemony frequently conflicts with the rules of international order. The hegemon reserves
the right to interfere anywhere it wants, and tramples on the sovereignty and legal rights of other states as it sees fit. In practice,
the U.S. has frequently acted as more of a rogue in its efforts to "enforce" order than many of the states it likes to condemn. The
most vocal defenders of U.S. hegemony are unsurprisingly some of the biggest opponents of international law -- at least when it gets
in their way. Cooley and Nexon make a very important observation related to this in their discussion of the role of revisionist powers
in the world today:
But the key point is that we need to be extremely careful that we don't conflate "revisionism" with opposition to the United
States. The desire to undermine hegemony and replace it with a multipolar system entails revisionism with respect to the distribution
of power, but it may or may not be revisionist with respect to various elements of international architecture or infrastructure.
The core of the book is a survey of three different sources for the unraveling of U.S. hegemony: major powers, weaker states,
and transnational "counter-order" movements. Cooley and Nexon trace how Russia and China have become increasingly effective at wielding
influence over many smaller states through patronage and the creation of parallel institutions and projects such as the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). They discuss
a number of weaker states that have begun hedging their bets by seeking patronage from these major powers as well as the U.S. Where
once America had a "near monopoly" on such patronage, this has ceased to be the case. They also track the role of "counter-order"
movements, especially nationalist and populist groups, in bringing pressure to bear on their national governments and cooperating
across borders to challenge international institutions. Finally, they spell out how the U.S. itself has contributed to the erosion
of its own position through reckless policies dating back at least to the invasion of Iraq.
The conventional response to the unraveling of America's hegemony here at home has been either a retreat into nostalgia with simplistic
paeans to the wonders of the "liberal international order" that ignore the failures of that earlier era or an intensified commitment
to hard-power dominance in the form of ever-increasing military budgets (or some combination of the two). Cooley and Nexon contend
that the Trump administration has opted for the second of these responses. Citing the president's emphasis on maintaining military
dominance and his support for exorbitant military spending, they say "it suggests an approach to hegemony more dependent upon military
instruments, and thus on the ability (and willingness) of the United States to continue extremely high defense spending. It depends
on the wager that the United States both can and should substitute raw military power for its hegemonic infrastructure." That not
only points to what Barry Posen has
called "illiberal hegemony,"
but also leads to a foreign policy that is even more militarized and unchecked by international law.
Cooley and Nexon make a compelling observation about how Trump's demand for more allied military spending differs from normal
calls for burden-sharing. Normally, burden-sharing advocates call on allies to spend more so the U.S. can spend less. But that isn't
Trump's position at all. His administration pressures allied governments to increase their spending, while showing no desire to curtail
the Pentagon budget:
Retrenchment entails some combination of shedding international security commitments and shifting defense burdens onto allies
and partners. This allows the retrenching power, in principle, to redirect military spending toward domestic priorities, particularly
those critical to long-term productivity and economic growth. In the current American context, this means making long-overdue
investments in transportation infrastructure, increasing educational spending to develop human capital, and ramping up support
for research and development. This rationale makes substantially less sense if retrenchment policies do not produce reductions
in defense spending–which is why Trump's aggressive, public, and coercive push for burden sharing seems odd. Recall that Trump
and his supporters want, and have already implemented, increases in the military budget. There is no indication that the Trump
administration would change defense spending if, for example, Germany or South Korea increased their own military spending or
more heavily subsidized American bases.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how misguided our priorities as a nation have been. There is now a chance to change course,
but that will require our leaders to shift their thinking. U.S. hegemony is already on its way out; now Americans need to decide
what our role in the world will look like afterwards. Warmed-over platitudes about "leadership" won't suffice and throwing more money
at the Pentagon is a dead end. The way forward is a strategy of retrenchment, restraint, and renewal.
Yeah. US just happened to decline, a completely natural process, some universal constant, like gravity of which we have no control.
No. A decadent US population, informed by clueless media, put in charge incompetent and self-serving leaders, who made a series
of very poor choices for the nation, but financially beneficial for themselves.
And thus our betrayed America's version of the White Man's Burden. It's sad to think our children having to endure living in a
world where they aren't called to die in God-forsaken hellholes for reasons that have nothing to do with this nation's core principles.
Sad!
Lol. Sort of. Except the very oligarchs you speak of, on both sides, set the stage for all of it.
This is the inevitable result of voting as a right, ans they knew it. Universal suffrage is a tool of control, not liberty.
The oligarchs are really just like other Americans, who got their hands on a whole lot of money. I have no doubt the rest of the
population would behave like oligarchs if given the same resources.
We don't have universal suffrage and voting is no where named as a right in the Constitution. The most it has to say is that voting
can not be denied to people based on their membership in certain classes, nor limited based on the payment of a tax.
"it has become increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want."
It isn't "irrespective of". It is because of what they wanted. They wanted and aggressively pushed for US foreign policy
to serve the narrow regional interests of client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia. They got what they wanted, in spades, and
now America's geopolitical and economic fortunes are in a tail-spin.
If America had ignored these people, with their stupid interventionism, their almost blatant service of foreign interests by
demanding "no daylight" with "allies" who did nothing but suck our blood, we would have been far better off. We would have been
far better able to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic. It's impossible not to think ruefully of the trillions
we wasted on Middle East wars and other interventions, money now so badly needed here at home.
The US will pursue a similar path to Israel. Advantage is relative. Rather than repair the US economy it is simpler to destroy
those of one's rivals. I see war as the only attractive option for the US elite as that is the only area where they still enjoy
clear superiority (or believe they do, same thing policy-wise.)
Cooley and Nevon's book appears to be a good read - I will put it on my 'to read so buy' book list. China is the next hegemon
- this is inevitable due to design. As time goes by during this 'coronavirus pandemic' I have been waiting to hear a politician,
any politician, assert that they will support legislation to require 'essential supply lines' to be returned to the U.S. Aside
from 'murmurs', not a 'lucid' peep. Just 'sue china' legislation, or smoke and mirrors blame on those within the U.S. via the
media or politicians. This is just embarrassing and surreal.
The priority should be to bring these supply lines back to the U.S. [i.e., medical]. Too hell if I am going to be forced to
pay for 'Obamacare' or 'Medicare For All' like a Russian Serf, to the Corporations [vassals] of China [Tatars] - enforced by their
'Eunuchs', greedy politicians in Washington. {Eunuchs were castrated lackies of Emperors]. Yet Chinese slave labour on these medical
products, including pharmaceutical ingredients, and precious metals for parts for the Department of Defense, keep profit margins
very high.
Because of their cowardice one must ask: Why increase defense spending on any project - or be concerned with Iran or Venezuela
or Russia or keeping NATO afloat? Allowing China to continue to be the 'sole source' provider of essential goods is just asking
for another scenario like the one before us. If so, I am convinced that my country is nothing more than a 'dead carcass' being
ripped apart by 'Corporate Vassals of China'. This, of course, includes the Tech Companies as well.
China does not have ideal geography to be world hegemon.
For one thing, it is too easy to prevent any ships from leaving the South China Sea.
The fact that China has not gone to war with anyone since 1953, except for two sharp but short border conflicts in 1962 and
1979, should tell you something. Contrast with the peace-loving liberal democracy of the United States.
The answer of course is a functional international system--environmental protection, world health, a transparent financial system,
world court, and policing. All agreed on by at least the major players which makes it costly for others not to participate.
With good reason many 'mistrust' this int'l system given the threat to sovereignty of a country, most importantly the freedom
of its citizens. An int'l system is asymmetrical, a radical 're-distribution' program that preys on citizens of the 'pseudo-wealthy'
west. The United States will be, post-Corona Virus, potentially $30T in debt. Yet they contribute the most to the WHO. The largest
contribution to the UN comes from the United States. This fact seems to rebut your 'costly for others not to participate'.
The Paris Agreement, like the UN and WHO, will rely on most of the funds coming from the U.S. and redistributed to other countries.
And this will further destroy the standard of living in this country to the degree of crashing the economy. The expected Utopian
Outcome for this so-called 'One-World' order will be a great disappointment to those that advocate for it. Because, after all,
it is nothing more than a Utopian dream gambling on the cohesive nature of different demographic groups combined with significant
reduction in freedoms for all - based on flawed models, including so-called 'man made global warming' models. To define the Demographic
is use in the context of my response: does not = race; it equals culture. Right now this is being demonstrated in the super state
of the EU. There can be no harmony in a world like this. It is like forcing a 'square peg' into a 'round hole'.
And who are these major players? The Eunuch Politicians in Washington and Western Europe? What are their priorities? Their
wallets or their constituents? And I do not mean in a parental way. That is not the role of government.
Viewed from a global perspective at this time, there is a decline in American power and influence, but the vanity of politicians
prevents them from seeing it and they don't want to let go.
The British government makes the same mistakes as it clings to an imaginary "prestige" as a world power - a power that vanished
in 1914.
After Eden was removed as PM post-Suez the new PM Harold McMillan came in and was honest with the British ppl in explaining their
new role in the world, just 10-15 years after the triumph of WW2 a UK Prime Minister had the courage to tell the British people
that they were no longer at the top table, that the age of Empire was over and to put in place the policies required to remove
the burden of empire from Britain and adjust to its new role in the world. Do you see an American politician with the capability
to tell some uncomfortable home truths to the American people and still win an election?
i think that is why voters elected Trump. The citizens of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin have lived the decline of the
United States. At least under trump there have been no new wars but the withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan NATO, Japan, Korea needs
to occur with the Military-Industrial-Media Complex kicking and screaming.with each step. Also ending sanctions on Iran, Cuba,
North Korea and Venezuela.
We are in Japan because it allows us to patrol the sea lanes which is vital for our economy and it gives us a large force ready
to respond in case of Chinese or North Korean aggression. The Status of Forces Agreement and other treaties with Japan stipulate
what percentage of costs are born by Japan.
Allowing Japan to destroy consumer electronics, damage steel and automotive is vital to our economy? Could we not patrol the sea
lanes if we wanted to from Guam? Is not freedom of the sea just as vital to Japan, Europe and India? How is China or North Korea
the aggressor when Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been client states of China with the US thousands of miles away?
Imperialism has bankrupt the United States just as it did Europe. The time has come to end these treaties.
Ultra protectionism, retreat to our island and no one can find us, 'make America great again' I dare say, thinking is naive and
unrealistic.
America wil be poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable if it tried to only make its own goods and had to rely on only its own labor.
Trade is profit and profit is the ability to develop, build, and defend what we have. Where do the profits go is the question.
Who loses in the trade is another question. Does the benefit from the former outweigh the latter?
I don't see Japanese trade as making much of a dent in employment rates. The profits go to the Japanese state and industry,
who are important counterweights to Chinese ambitions in Asia, a mutual interest. So, the costs are few, and the profits are used
in significant measure to mutual benefit.
The liberal hegemon is dead, yes our imperialism is dead even if it doesn't know it, but it is essential to remain strategically
involved in the world around us. Even if we stop playing the game, the world around us does not. Did Russia have the luxury of
turning into a turtle after the Cold War? No. Nations, which are all wolves, smell weakness. Yet the Trumpian right wants to hide,
put its finger in its ear, and pretend that everything will be fine it seems.
What are these withdrawals from Iraq & Afghanistan you speak of? They just have not happened, like not even a little bit, so tired
of people pushing this completely false narrative as if it is true, just maddening. A democracy cannot function if people exist
in their own worlds with their own facts that are just not true
The Brits after WW2 offer a lesson here. Hurt badly by WW1, their whole system began teetering as that illusion of the "natural
superiority" of the British took massive hits in the various colonies of the Empire. By exposing the ordinariness of the administrators
and soldiers, it encouraged revolt (see Gandhi in India). But WW2 arguably devastated the UK. It's "win" over Germany was Pyrrhic,
as it needed both the USSR and the USA , and each took a chunk of prestige and of the "hegemon". George VI recognized this, and
British politicians encouraged the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. (Which, if they had never involved themselves in the EU
beyond trade and had kept up the Commonwealth as it was intended, would have been a better path than what they did, IMHO.) Nevertheless,
they handled it better than I think we will.
As Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
But to get there, we have a lot of nonsense -- damned nonsense - - to overcome.
Excellent review and outlook on an encouraging transition from the compulsion of hegemony within a generally agreeable paradigm
of economic liberalism (rules-based international markets).
Well this present regime is actively smashing "international organizations" constructed largely by the Americans after WW2. This
makes it even easier for the Chinese to fill the vacuum we have created. It would be better to hold them in a Western biased "international
organization"
All indications are that ship has sailed. Will there be hegemons? Yes, but more than one. The US will not be the only hegemon
and the COVID-19 helped the world see the emperor has no clothes.
I think that's the likely course, unless the US remains especially incompetent in ensuring that China isn't the one cleaning up
at all the empire liquidation sales.
No nation should be entrusted with anything like the power the US has had.
Until they start shooting down our airliners, sinking our cruise ships, attacking our Naval Bases, and invading their neighbors
and committing genocide against people of other races and religions.
Then, the doves will wake up and realize that the Big Stick is what kept us safe afterall.
You mean fight people who actually threaten us rather than attack people because we dream up scenarios where it's possible or
we just don't like them? I'll take that over preemptive genocide.
If we focused on actual defense 9/11 would not have happened. We ignored Al Qaeda despite the fact the bombed us multiple times
because we were too busy bombing Serbia, blowing up their TV stations and expanding NATO to gobble up former Russian Republics.
The United States routinely ignores any international laws, whenever it sees fit. Anyway, the idea that United States hegemony
is obligatory because muh international order is an argument from consequences.
Lol, America Is what's in the rear view, not just our status as the sole superpower.
People better get ready, this empire is getting ready to collapse.
Meh, people better get ready, we're getting ready to muddle along for the next several decades.
The American state is way too tasty a prize. No one is going to dismantle it, and people will unite against any threat that
has the potential to. Eventually someone will figure out a Bernie/Trump fusion and that person will be our Peron or Putin. Radical
leftists will be crushed by the police if they try anything, and the white nationalists will all be in prison.
We're somewhere between Argentina and Russia heading forward.
Sell the empire. Ignore the Middle East outside of the oil trade lanes. Reorient our trade networks on SE Asia, India, and Latin
America - no more feeding China. End of hostile moves towards Russia - let Europe reconcile with Russia. Fully support multipolar
world order.
Militarily we don't need the plodding battleship of a force we have now. No need to occupy whole countries with 'boots on the
ground'. Maintain top notch special forces, advisor and coordination programs with allies, and anything useful for blowing up
Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles.
Lots of good ideas here. Would trading with India involve a "reorient[ation]?" (I don't know.) That is to say, would still trading
with India mean that we have to maintain our current naval position, or would that still be consistent with some sort of drawdown?
Or are you saying that since India is not a hostile force, we would not have to worry about it? Or does is that problem met with
the "anything useful for blowing up Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles." Conceivably, China could
increase its presence in the Indian Ocean to create problems, no? Overall, agree with a lot of it--I'm just curious about the
logistics.
India in the longer term could ostensibly do much of what China does for us now trade wise. Needs to finish developing its infrastructure
and its manufacturing tech. SE Asia and Mexico are closer short term.
I think due to the commercial value of the seas our navy is our most cost effective means of force projection. Patrolling the
Persian Gulf means we have our thumb on the number one petroleum artery. I would focus more on cost effective means to deny China
(and Chinese trade) access to the seas in the event of tension. Carriers are expensive targets when subs and strategic missile
emplacements can inspire even more fear due to unpredictability. But yes we still need bases and partnerships throughout the Indian
and Pacific Oceans. China can roam around in peacetime as it wishes, what matters is that it stays totally bottled up in port,
along with its maritime trade, in a conflict.
Allow these places to run up trade surpluses with us rather than China.
I think Mr. Larison is on the right track. However, even if the logic of abandoning the Liberal International Order (LIO) is accepted--and
the LIO most certainly should be abandoned--the entire story or narrative of post-World War II America narrative must be either
abandoned or refashioned. It seems that the LIO functions as some sort of purpose for American citizens, and a higher-level theology
for those who work in the United States Government, especially those who are involved in foreign policy making. Countering or
reshaping the narrative of United States foreign policy and its link with domestic policy will be a challenge, but one that needs
to be taken up, and taken up successfully. In personal conversations with those who support the LIO, they seem to take [my] criticisms
of the LIO as some sort of ad hominem attack. This reaction is obviously illogical, but it is one that those who see the
wisdom of abandoning the LIO must tactically and tactfully counter. Regrettably, supporting the LIO is conflated with being an
American, or conflated with the raison d'etre of the existence of the United States. Many think the abandonment of the
LIO cannot rationally be replaced and will necessarily be replaced with some sort of nihilism or the most cynical form of "realism,"
of which they mistakenly believe they possess understanding. For a start, reforming the educational system, insofar as it not
already dominated by incorrect-but-fashionable far-leftist ideas that advocate a narrative of American history and purpose as
false as it is pernicious, would seem to necessary. Many children grow into adulthood falsely thinking maintaining the LIO is
their responsibility. It is, at root, a theological sickness.
I hope it is over. To hell with the Europeans who have made a national sport of mocking Americans and all things America, while
we risk nuclear war on their behalf. Let them face Putin and the Islamic invasion on their own - those problems are Europe's,
not ours.
The United States is ramping up for the "Great Final War' with both Russia and China. Throw in Iran, Syria, North Korea etc. as
an afterthought. The U.S. will bring the temple down on itself rather than give up the goal of 'Full Spectrum Dominance'.that
it has been pursuing since the end of WWII.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon may think the glory days are coming to an end, but I don't think Trump and the neocons got the
memo yet. I see no evidence of any intent to change.
There is no "international order." That's just rhetoric that is useful for certain economic interests. A world without american
hegemony will be divided and filled with conflict. Globalization can't work politically.
Listen to America's imperial proconsuls long enough and they often let slip something
approaching truth -- perhaps exceptionalist confession is more accurate. Take Admiral Craig S.
Faller, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with responsibility for all of Latin
America. Just before the COVID-19 crisis shifted into full gear, on March 11 he testified
before the House Armed Services Committee and admitted
, "There will be an increase in the U.S. military presence in the hemisphere later this year."
Naturally, admiral, but why?
Well, if one can push past the standard, mindless military dialectics -- i.e. "bad guys" --
the admiral posits a ready justification: Russia and (most especially) China. With his early
career molded in the last, triumphalist Reagan-era Cold War, Faller may be a true believer
in new dichotomies that must feel like coming home for the 1983 Naval Academy graduate. Before
the committee, he described
China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela as "malign state actors" who constitute "a vicious
circle of threats." Faller is right about the circle, but it is his own country that produces
it.
These are strange bedfellows, no matter how hard a criminally ahistorical White House and
Pentagon try to sell such disparate nations as naturally allied antagonists. A few of these
countries have tortured recent pasts, and three of them are several thousand miles from the
very hemisphere they ostensibly contest. The truth is that it's U.S. imperialism,
intransigence, and hyper-intervention -- anywhere and everywhere -- that links these
historically and geopolitically unnatural partners together. This holds true both in policy and
imagination. In the Corona Age, the Trump team -- anti-interventionist populist
campaign rhetoric aside -- have outed themselves as
pandemic-opportunists and gleeful slaves to the " New Cold War
."
Today, Washington sets policies that consistently make mountains out of "malign" molehills,
and quite literally construct the Orwellian enemies it
needs. It's hardly anything new. From
Reagan's "confederation of terrorist states" in a new "international Murder Inc." and Bush
II's "axis of evil," to Trump's (or actually
John Bolton's ) recent "troika of tyranny," the utility of the nuance-absent idiom is
clear: manufacture public fear, demonize opponents, and link the otherwise unlinked. Only
there's a catch: Decry a concocted connection often enough and one drives inorganic rivals into
each other's arms.
Exhibit A is East Asia. China and Russia are hardly historically simpatico. During the Cold
War, the Sino-Soviet split put the lie to communism as mythical monolith and resulted in a
shooting war
along the immense border between them. Furthermore, Beijing -- the rising regional power --
won't forever acquiesce to the archaic imperial boundaries, especially as a demographic
tipping point nears whereby Russia's scant Siberian population is overrun by Chinese
migrants. And Putin knows it.
Luckily for Vlad, U.S. demonization of China and Uncle Sam's insistence on perpetual
preeminence in the Western Pacific places that impending conflict on ice as Xi Jinping seeks
out Moscow as an ally of convenience. Remove the American challenge, as the East-West Center's
Denny Roy recently wrote
, and "the primary strategic motivation for Sino-Russian cooperation would fade," and relations
return to "their historically more normal adversarial character."
Back in Latin America, Washington inverts the spatial relationship, but adheres to the
formula of countering -- and creating -- " imagined
communities " of distant enemy "alliances." Though neither Russia or China (and certainly
not Iran) have any meaningful military
presence, Admiral Faller sees these nefarious ghosts behind every palm tree in his area of
responsibility. Their essential crime: trading with and recognizing regimes Washington doesn't
particularly care for in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. The SOUTHCOM chief spoke of how "Russia
once again projected power in our neighborhood ," and that his "aha moment" this past
year was "the extent to which China is aggressively pursuing their interests right here in
our neighborhood ." (emphases added)
That's some fascinating language. As was Faller's reference to Chinese regional loans as
"predatory financing." Pot meet kettle! Surely, even the "
company man " admiral must know that his own navy right now
-- as always -- cruises warships through the disputed South China Sea, and that
Washington has long set the gold
standard in predatory loans through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Besides, even assume that, say, Russia is wrong to back what Faller had the temerity to
label
the "former Maduro regime," in Venezuela, what of Washington's support for Bolivia's military
coup-installed extremists
in Bolivia, and of the right-wing strongman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil?
Faller's "neighborhood" fallacy illustrates an American hypocrisy without recognizable
bounds. How instructive -- and disturbing -- it is to hear a purportedly educated four-star
flag officer peddle foolish binaries and prattle on in such coarse platitudes. The ease with
which this nonsense passes public and congressional muster is surely symptomatic of an obtuse
U.S. militarist disease. For if the admiral counts as one of those (establishment darling) "
adults
" in the Trumpian room, then the republic is in even bigger trouble than many thought. Either
way, it's high time to recognize Faller and his ilk for what they usually are: staggeringly
"small" thinkers without an inkling of strategic imagination.
It is, however, regarding Iran that the U.S. makes the bed for the most absurd of fellows.
Trump's withdrawal from a functioning nuclear deal, and recent
off-the-rails escalations , accomplish little more than
driving Tehran into Russia's arms. Incidentally, these are decidedly
unnatural friends, seeing as they fought repeated wars over the last few centuries, Moscow
occupied northern Iran after World War II, and their respective contours of regional influence
have long been contested.
Furthermore, it was U.S. complicity in
the Saudi terror war on Yemen that deepened ties between the Houthis and a Tehran that had
hardly given them much thought previously. Not only were Iranian military and religious (the
two peoples actually follow
different strands of Shia Islam) ties initially
exaggerated , but the sequence of increased support is usually confused. Serious support
from Tehran postdated the Saudi assaults.
Lastly, Trump's seemingly self-sabotaging actions decisively empower
the very hardliners in Tehran whom they purport to loathe. Rather than encourage nascent
moderates like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, The Donald's
unnecessary pugnacity
led to conservative legislative victories in Tehran, and so increased the popularity of the
Supreme Leader that Iranian people are apt to believe the ayatollah's insane
COVID-conspiracy theories.
If the rank absurdity of today's U.S. military posturing, and its outcomes, tend to confuse,
it is important to remember that Trump's audience is us -- the public and the media that
serves it -- not Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or even Ayatollah Khomeini. After all, not even
Trump (I think?) believes the "harassing" Iranian speedboats in the Persian Gulf, that he just
ordered the navy to "to shoot down and destroy" if they misbehave, are headed for
Baltimore. Should Washington's policies appear incoherent, and consequently near masochistic,
well, that might be precisely the point, or, conversely (if unsatisfyingly), all there actually
is to say about that.
If the ultimate goal, as I'm increasingly persuaded, is simply to manufacture the enemy
coalitions necessary to frighten (thus discipline) the people and ensure endless profits for
the military-industrial complex that funds the resultant buildup -- well, then, Mr. Trump's
policies are far more lucid and effective than they're usually credited to be.
On the other hand, if chaos and contingency reign -- as they often have -- in Washington,
then U.S. foreign policy represents nothing less than counter-productivity incarnate. Lord only
knows which is worse.
I'm sure you still remember them. The president regularly called them " my generals
." They were, he claimed , from "central casting"
and there were three of them: retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, who was first
appointed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and then White House chief of
staff; Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who became the president's national security
advisor; and last (but hardly least) retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, whom Trump
particularly adored for his nickname "
Mad Dog " and appointed as secretary of defense. Of him, the president said, "If I'm
doing a movie, I pick you, General Mattis, who's doing really well."
They were referred to in Washington and in the media more generally as "
the adults in the room ," indicating what most observers (as well as insiders) seemed to
think about the president – that he was, in effect, the impulsive, unpredictable,
self-obsessed
toddler in that same room. All of them had been commanders in the very conflicts that
Donald Trump had labeled "
ridiculous Endless Wars " and were distinctly hawkish and uncritical of those same wars
(like the rest of the U.S. high command). It was even rumored that, as "adults," Kelly and
Mattis had made a
private pact not to be out of the country at the same time for fear of what might happen
in their absence. By the end of 2018, of course, all three were gone. "My generals" were no
more, but the toddler remained.
As TomDispatch regular , West Point graduate (class of 2005), and retired Army Major
Danny Sjursen explains in remarkable detail today, while the president finally tossed "his"
generals in the nearest trash can, the "adults" (and you do have to keep that word in
quotation marks) didn't, in fact, leave the toddler alone in the Oval Office. They simply
militarized and demilitarized at the same time. In fact, one class from West Point, that of
1986, from which both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
graduated, is essentially everywhere in a distinctly militarized (if still officially
civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the Trumpian moment. ~ Tom
"Courage Never Quits"? : The Price of Power and West Point's Class of 1986
By Danny Sjursen
Every West Point class votes on an official motto. Most are then inscribed on their class
rings. Hence, the pejorative West Point label " ring knocker ." (As
legend has it, at military meetings a West Pointer "need only knock his large ring on the
table and all Pointers present are obliged to rally to his point of view.") Last August, the
class of 2023 announced theirs: "Freedom Is
Not Free." Mine from the class of 2005 was "Keeping Freedom Alive." Each class takes pride in
its motto and, at least theoretically, aspires to live according to its sentiments, while
championing the accomplishments of fellow graduates.
But some cohorts do stand out. Take the class of 1986 (" Courage Never Quits
"). As it happens, both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
are members of that very class, as are a surprisingly
wide range of influential leaders in Congress, corporate America, the Pentagon, the
defense industry, lobbying firms, Big Pharma ,
high-end financial
services , and even security-consulting firms. Still, given their striking hawkishness on
the subject of American war-making, Esper and Pompeo rise above the rest. Even in a pandemic,
they are as good as their class motto. When it comes to this country's wars, neither of them
ever quits.
Once upon a time, retired Lieutenant General Douglas Lute (Class of '75), a former US
Ambassador to NATO and a senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, taught both Esper and
Pompeo in his West Point social sciences class. However, it was Pompeo, the class of '86
valedictorian, whom Lute singled out for praise,
remembering him as "a very strong student – fastidious, deliberate." Of course, as
the Afghanistan Papers, released by
the Washington Post late last year, so starkly revealed ,
Lute told an interviewer that, like so many US officials, he "didn't have the foggiest notion
of what we were undertaking in Afghanistan." Though at one point he was President George W.
Bush's "Afghan war czar ," the
general never expressed such doubts publicly and his record of dissent is hardly an
impressive one. Still, on one point at least, Lute was on target: Esper and Pompeo are
smart and that's what worries me (as in the phrase "too smart for their own good").
Esper, a former Raytheon lobbyist, had
particularly hawkish views on Russia and China before he ever took over at the Pentagon
and he wasn't alone when it came to the urge to continue America's wars. Pompeo, then a
congressman, exhibited a striking pre-Trump-era foreign policy pugnacity
, particularly vis-à-vis the Islamic world . It has
since solidified into a veritable
obsession with toppling the Iranian regime.
Their militarized obsessions have recently taken striking form in two ways: the secretary
of defense
instructed US commanders to prepare plans to escalate combat against Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq, an order the mission's senior leader there, Lieutenant General Robert "Pat"
White,
reportedly resisted; meanwhile, the secretary of state evidently is
eager to convince President Trump to use the Covid-19 pandemic, now devastating Iran,
to bomb that country and further strangle it with sanctions. Worse yet, Pompeo might be just
cunning enough to convince his ill-informed, insecure boss (so open to clever flattery) that
war is the answer.
The militarism of both men matters greatly, but they hardly pilot the ship of state alone,
any more than Trump does (whatever he thinks). Would that it were the case. Sadly, even if
voters threw them all out, the disease runs much deeper than them. Enter the rest of the
illustrative class of '86.
As it happens, Pompeo's and Esper's classmates permeate the deeper structure of
imperial America . And let's admit it, they are, by the numbers, an impressive crew. As
another '86 alumnus, Congressman Mark Green (R-TN), bragged
on the House floor in 2019, "My class [has] produced 18 general officers 22-plus presidents
and CEOs of major corporations two state legislators [and] three judges," as well as "at
least four deans and chancellors of universities." He closed his remarks by exclaiming,
"Courage never quits, '86!"
However, for all his gushing, Green's list conceals much. It illuminates neither the
mechanics nor the motives of his illustrious classmates; that is, what they're actually doing
and why. Many are key players in a corporate-military machine bent on, and reliant on,
endless war for profit and professional advancement. A brief look at key '86ers offers
insight into President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-industrial complex in 2020 – and
it should take your breath away.
The West Point Mafia
The core group of '86 grads cheekily
refer to themselves as "the West Point mafia." And for some, that's an uplifting thought.
Take Joe DePinto, CEO of 7-Eleven. He
says that he's "someone who sleeps better at night knowing that those guys are in the
positions they're in." Of course, he's an
'86 grad, too .
Back when I called the academy home, we branded such self-important cadets "
toolbags ." More than a decade later, when I taught there, I found my students still
using the term. Face facts, however: those "toolbags,"
thick as thieves today, now run the show in Washington (and despite their busy schedules,
they still find time to socialize as a group).
Given Donald Trump's shady past – one doesn't build an Atlantic City
casino-and-hotel empire without "
mobbing-it-up " – that Mafia moniker is actually fitting. So perhaps it's worth
thinking of Mike Pompeo as the president's latest consigliere . And since gangsters
rarely countenance a challenge without striking back, Lieutenant General White should watch
his back after his prudent attempt to stop the further escalation of America's wars in Iraq
and Iran in the midst of a deadly global pandemic. Worse yet for him, he's not a West Pointer
(though he did, oddly enough, earn his Army commission on the
very day that class of '86 graduated). White's once promising career is unlikely to be
long for this world.
In addition to Esper and Pompeo, other Class of '86 alums serve in key executive branch
roles. They include the
vice chief of staff of the Army General Joseph Martin, the director of the Army National Guard,
the commander of NATO's Allied Land
Command, the
deputy commanding general of Army Forces Command, and the
deputy commanding general of Army Cyber Command. Civilian-side classmates in the Pentagon
serve as: deputy assistant
secretary of the Army for installations, energy, and environment; a
civilian aide to the secretary of the Army; and the director of stabilization and peace
operations policy for the secretary of defense. These Pentagon career civil servants aren't,
strictly speaking, part of the "Mafia" itself, but two Pompeo loyalists are indeed charter
members.
Pompeo brought
Ulrich Brechbuhl and Brian Butalao, two of his closest cadet friends, in from the corporate
world. The three of them had, at one point, served as CEO, CFO,
and COO of Thayer Aerospace, named for the " father" of West Point, Colonel
Sylvanus Thayer, and started with Koch Industries
seed money . Among other things, that corporation sold
the Pentagon military aircraft components.
Brechbuhl and Butalao were given senior
positions at the CIA when Pompeo was its director. Currently, Brechbuhl is the State
Department's counselor (and reportedly
Pompeo's de facto chief of staff), while Butalao serves as under secretary for
management. According to his official bio, Butalao is responsible "for managing the State
Department on a day-to-day basis and [serving as its] Chief Operating Officer." Funny, that
was his exact position under
Pompeo at that aerospace company.
Still, this Mafia trio can't run the show by themselves. The national security structure's
tentacles are so much longer than that. They reach all the way to K Street and Capitol
Hill.
From Congress to K Street: The Enablers
Before Trump tapped Pompeo to head
the CIA and then the State Department, he represented Wichita, Kansas, home to Koch Industries, in the House of
Representatives. In fact, Pompeo rode his ample
funding from the political action committee of the billionaire Koch brothers straight to
the Hill. So linked was he to those fraternal right-wing energy tycoons and so
protective of their interests that he was
dubbed "the congressman from Koch." The relationship was mutually beneficial. Pompeo's
selection as secretary of state solidified
the previously
strained relationship of the brothers with President Trump.
The '86 Mafia's current congressional heavyweight, however, is Mark Green. An early
Trump supporter, he regularly tried to
shield the president from impeachment as a
minority member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The Tennessee congressman
nearly became Trump's secretary of the Army, but ultimately
withdrew his nomination because of controversies that included sponsoring
gender-discriminatory bills and commenting
that "transgender is a disease."
Legislators like Green, in turn, take their foreign-policy marching orders from the
military's corporate suppliers. Among those, Esper, of course, represents the gold standard
when it comes to " revolving-door " defense
lobbying. Just before ascending the Pentagon summit, pressed by Senator Elizabeth Warren
during his confirmation hearings, he patently
refused to "recuse himself from all matters related to" Raytheon, his former
employer and the nation's third-largest defense contractor. (And that was even before its
recent
merger with United Technologies Corporation, which once employed another Esper classmate as a senior
vice president.) Incidentally, one of Raytheon's " biggest
franchises " is the Patriot missile defense system, the very weapon being
rushed to Iraq as I write, ostensibly as a check on Pompeo's favored villain, Iran.
Less well known is the handiwork of another '86 grad, longtime lobbyist and CNN paid
contributor David Urban, who first met the president in 2012 and still
recalls how "we clicked immediately." The consummate Washington insider, he backed Trump
"when nobody else thought he stood a chance" and in 2016 was his senior campaign adviser in
the pivotal swing state of Pennsylvania.
Esper and Urban have been
close for more than 30 years. As cadets, they served in the same unit during the Persian
Gulf War. It was Urban who introduced Esper to his wife. Both later graced the Hill 's
list of Washington's top lobbyists. Since 2002, Urban has been a partner and is now
president of a
consulting giant, the American Continental Group. Among its clients : Raytheon and 7-Eleven.
It's hard to overstate Urban's role. He seems to have
landed Pompeo and Esper their jobs in the Trump administration and was a key go-between
in marrying class of '86 backbenchers and moneymen to that bridegroom of our moment, The
Donald.
Greasing the Machine: The Moneymen
Another '86er also passed through that famed military-industrial revolving door. Retired
Colonel Dan Sauter left his position as chief of staff of the 32nd Army Air and Missile
Defense Command for one at giant weapons maker Lockheed Martin as business developer for the
very systems his old unit employed. Since May 2019, he's directed Lockheed's
$1.5 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program in Saudi Arabia.
Lockheed's THAAD systems have streamed
into that country to protect the Kingdom, even as Pompeo continually threatens Iran.
If such corporate figures are doing the selling, it's the Pentagon, naturally, that's
doing the buying. Luckily, there are '86 alumni in key positions on the purchasing end as
well, including a retired brigadier general who now serves as the Pentagon's principal
adviser to the under secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Finally, there are other key consultants linked to the military-industrial complex who are
also graduates of the class of '86. They include a senior vice
president of Hillwood – a massive domestic and international real estate
development company, chaired by Ross Perot, Jr. –
formerly a consultant to the government of the United Arab Emirates. The Emiratis are US
allies in the fight against Pompeo's Iranian nemesis and, in 2019,
awarded Raytheon a $1.5 billion contract to supply key components for its air force
missile launchers.
Another classmate is a managing partner for Patriot Strategies,
which consults for corporations and the government but also separately lands hefty defense contracts itself. His
previous " ventures " included
"work in telecommunications in the Middle East and technical security upgrades at US
embassies worldwide."
Yet another grad , Rick
Minicozzi, is the founder and CEO of Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG), which prides
itself on "building" corporate leaders. TLDG clients include:
7-Eleven, Cardinal Glass, EMCOR, and Mercedes-Benz. All either have or had '86ers at the
helm. The company's CEO also owns the Thayer
Hotel located right on West Point's grounds, which hosts many of the company's
lectures and other events. Then there's the retired colonel who, like me, taught on the West
Point history faculty. He's now the CEO of Battlefield
Leadership , which helps corporate leaders "learn from the past" in order to "prepare for
an ever-changing business landscape."
A Class-wide Conflict of Interest
Don't for a moment think these are all "bad" people. That's not faintly my point. One
prominent '86 grad, for instance, is Lieutenant General Eric Wesley, the
deputy of Army Futures Command. He was my brigade commander at Fort Riley, Kansas, in
2009 and I found him competent, exceptionally empathetic, and a decidedly decent man, which
is probably true of plenty of '86ers.
So what exactly is my point here? I'm not for a second charging conspiracy or even
criminal corruption. The lion's share of what all these figures do is perfectly legal. In
reality, the way the class of '86 has permeated the power structure only reflects the nature
of the carefully
crafted , distinctly undemocratic systems through which the military-industrial complex
and our political world operate by design. Most of what they do couldn't, in fact, be more
legal in a world of never-ending American wars and national security budgets that eternally
go
through the roof . After all, if any of these figures had acted in anything but a
perfectly legal fashion, they might have run into a classmate of theirs who recently led the
FBI's corruption unit in New Jersey – before, that is, he retired and became CEO of a
global security consulting firm
. (Sound familiar?)
And that's my point, really. We have a system in Washington that couldn't be more lawful
and yet, by any definition, the class of '86 represents one giant conflict of interest (and
they don't stand alone). Alums from that year are now ensconced in every level of the
national security state: from the White House to the Pentagon to Congress to K Street to
corporate boardrooms. And they have both power and a deep stake, financial or otherwise, in
maintaining or expanding the (forever) warfare state.
They benefit from America's permanent military mobilization, its never-ending economic
war-footing ,
and all that comes with it. Ironically, this will inevitably include the blood of future West
Point graduates, doomed to serve in their hopeless crusades. Think of it all as a macabre
inversion of their class motto in which it's not their courage but that of younger graduates
sent off to this country's hopeless wars that they will never allow to "quit."
Speaking of true courage, lately the only exemplar we've had of it in those wars is
General "Pat" White. It seems that he, at least, refused to kiss the proverbial rings of
those Mafia men of '86.
But of course, he's not part of their "family," is he?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Everyone has heard, ad nauseam, about the "
Special Relationship " between the United States and Britain. Accordingly, the few
Americans who dare identify their country as an empire – past or present – tend
to analogize with the British model. While the similarities between Washington and
London-style imperialism are manifold – along with the distinct differences – in
other important ways, the more appropriate parallel is with France. For the French,
unlike
the Brits (for the most part), and like modern Americans (in a more indirect way),
imagined their colonial subjects as vital, moldable constituents (if rarely citizens) of a
grand francophone project for good.
I know, I know, the French and Americans can't stand each other, right? Well, sure, theirs
has been a contentious relationship for centuries – politically, culturally, you name
it. True enough, but lest we forget that the U.S. formed in opposition to British
Empire, and – though rarely mentioned in the dominant memories of American
Revolutionary
triumphalism – the colonists' military victory would've been far more difficult (if
not impossible) without French intervention on their behalf.
No doubt, the relationship between the US and its first, and longest, ally has been filled
with ups and downs: one thinks of the
Quasi-War (1798), FDR-Charles De Gaulle world war
drama , Paris' semi-" withdrawal " from NATO (1966),
and, of course, the Iraq War dispute-" freedom fries " charade
(2003), for starters. Still, in key ways, I'd submit that it is precisely because the French
and American models of governance and global policy have so much in common that they –
like rival siblings – so often squabble.
Peas in an Exceptional Pod of Delusion
While all historical analogizing must proceed cautiously – and with recognition of
the limits of deduction – the broad similarities are staggering. It is the very
grandiose idealism – and consequent universalism – in the wake of their
inextricably
connected revolutions, that has set the French and American hegemons (and empires) apart.
While the American variety has tended more towards (at least an aspirational) multiculturalism than that
of the French, both post-revolutionary nations have been certain of – and applied
– the necessary and proper exportability of their universally "positive"
cultural-political systems.
Indeed, in spite of their rather different ( theoretical )
approaches to internal immigrants, with some far-right wing exceptions
, to be French or American – rather uniquely – has been as much idea as
nationality. There have, of course, been both positive and negative applications inherent to
this notion. One common output has been a common dedication to the nebulous canard of
national "greatness." Indeed, Donald Trump – and Ronald Reagan
before him – can be said to have channeled none other than Charles De Gaulle, who
wrote in his war
memoirs, way back in 1954, that "France cannot be France without greatness."
Consequently, by extension, there have been (necessarily) tragic consequences for the
millions of victims of an imperialism that assumes not only metropole superiority, but that
inside every Algerian (or Afghan) is a Frenchman (or American) waiting to be unzipped .
Such is the logical conclusion of exceptionalism – that most treacherous of all
imperial brands.
There are more specific Franco-American likenesses worth noting as well. Despite the cozy
rhetoric of US multiculturalism and France's assimilation, both states ultimately adhere to a
notion that national values – however vaguely framed – heat their
respective citizen melting pots. And both fill their prisons with the detritus of that
program's historical failures. By now, the reality, and broad contours of, America's world-
record mass incarceration
– particularly of black and brown bodies are widely reported. Less well known, but of a
piece with the US model, is that by 2003, France's Muslims accounted for seven percent of the
population but
70 to 80 percent of its prisoners.
Furthermore, both have lengthy records of post-colonial and neo-imperial adventurism
across far-flung swathes of the the globe. In fact, American and French wars have been the
West's bloodiest since 1945, and also often complimentary – whereby, for example,
Washington quite literally took up Paris' mantle in
Vietnam. Furthermore, even today, France – though it pales in comparison to America's
veritable " empire of bases "
– maintains perhaps
the world's second largest network of overseas military footholds. That deployment and
intervention bonanza has all "blown back" at the French and American homelands, as both have
been targeted – recently at two of the highest Western rates – by transnational (or
foreign-influenced) "terrorists" from the very regions where they most often militarily
intervene.
Joint Exhibit Africa
Lastly, and most relevant to the current moment, both Paris and Washington have had a
tragic tortured relationship with – and become the favorite targets of – the more
violent flavors of political Islam. Of late, for the Americans, and more longstanding for the
French, that has particularly been the case in Africa. The truth is there are only two
countries which station – and unleash – significant numbers of troops in Africa
today: France and the United States.
The post-colonial pervasiveness of the French presence in Africa was itself exceptional
– at least until the United States truly got in the game in a more overt post-9/11 way.
As late as 1990, France had troops stationed in a remarkable 22
African countries. Even the once great British Empire's postcolonial role paled
in comparison. Furthermore, in a tactic the U.S. would later – and continue
to – make its own, France signed military defense pacts with 27
African states during the period 1961-92, including with three former British, and a few
Belgian, colonies. Paris also spearheaded three further
tactics common to Washington throughout and beyond the decolonization and Cold War eras:
fomenting coups, empowering dictators, and " dancing "
with heinous (sometimes genocidal) monsters. In several repulsive cases, some combination of
all three were waged as joint Franco-American exercises.
Paris and Washington "Behind the Scenes"
Since the end of the Second World War, when a defeated France sought to regain the
physical space, and glory, of its empire – most of which was in Africa – it
unleashed its external intelligence service, then known as the SDECE , first to stifle colonial nationalism, and
then, begrudgingly, to sustain real power over the newly independent states. Whereas
the equivalent US CIA spent the Cold War working behind the scenes to counter even the whiff
of Soviet influence, the SDECE was more concerned with stifling any true hints of economic or
political autonomy in its former domains. Nonetheless, not always, but more often than not,
Paris' and Washington's goals were symbiotic.
In the period after the " Year of Africa " –
when 14 French (and 17 total) colonies gained independence – the SDECE (after 1981
known as the DGSE) instigated
several coups , and been implicated
in more than a few presidential assassinations. In more farcical cases – take the
Central African Republic (CAR) – the SDECE even planned coups against leaders it had
previously "couped" into office in the first place. The losers were always the common
people, mind you, and it should thus come as little surprise that France was drawn back into the CAR over
this past decade in response to spiraling religious and ethnic conflict. Naturally, the CIA
played the same game all over the continent – toppling a few governments of its own
and
planning to assassinate prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo – but for the
most part, Paris guarded its "special," depraved, role in Francophone West and Central
Africa.
During the Cold War, and – albeit with some different motives – ever since,
Franco-American intel and diplomatic services have gleefully backed any strongman willing to
support Western goals or oppose the West's (perceived) external enemies. The outcomes have
repeatedly been tragic. Both Washington and Paris helped install and then backed Zaire's
(Congo's) brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko's vicious 35 year reign – the French to the
bitter end, even after the US cut him lose after he'd outlived his Cold War usefulness. Paris
even
ran one final covert operation – which included three fighter aircraft and European
mercenaries – in an unsuccessful attempt to stem the rebel tide in 1997. Previously,
France installed and/or backed dictators who banned political parties, and tortured or
murdered opponents in Cameroon, Niger, Chad, and the Central African Republic, among
others.
In the particularly odious case of Chad, Paris and Washington alternately worked at cross
or joint purposes to back one authoritarian thug after another. Both the SDECE and CIA
funneled cash and weapons to a slew of leaders who exploited and widened ethnic and religious
(Muslim north vs. Christian and animist south) conflicts and waged war on their own people.
Much of this unfolded in the name of a lengthy proxy war with Libya's Ghadafi regime –
which France would take a leading role in toppling
along with the US in 2011 – that ultimately destabilized the entire North African
region. The unintended perils of backing military strongmen was on stark display again
recently when a U.S.-trained captain
led a 2012 coup in Mali which drew both American and French troops back
into a prolonged indecisive intervention.
The rarely recounted record of French support for African monsters – usually vicious
rebel groups – is exceptionally hideous. For starters, Paris
backed Biafran separatists in Nigeria's bloody civil war (1967-70) with 350 tons of
weapons, and was the prime backer of the Rwandan Hutu regime – and its later rebel
manifestations in the extended Congo civil wars (1996-2003) – that perpetrated the
worst genocide (1994) since the Nazi Holocaust. If the US didn't always side with France in
these cases, it scantly opposed the macabre missions.
The Franco-American (Exceptionalist) Forever War Curse
In Africa, both France's (since 1960) and America's (after 2001) foreign policy has been
veritably defined by hyper-interventionism, and low-intensity forever wars. The French
have militarily intervened no less than 50 times – in at least 13 countries
– since official decolonization. It has waged its own lengthy or seemingly forever wars
in Chad (1968-75, 77-80 83-84),
Ivory Coast (2002-present), and Mali
. (2013-present) In Chad, the US has recently
taken the baton from France and continues to bolster a regime ranked by Transparency
International in 2010 as the sixth most corrupt on earth.
Indeed, today the French and American militaries are engaged in a joint adventure chasing
Islamist "terror" ghosts across Francophone West and Central Africa. According to AFRICOM's
own internal
documents , the US military now has "enduring" "footprints" in six, and "non-enduring"
presence in four, former French colonies in the region. Taking that incestuous overlap a step
further, Washington and Paris are together simultaneously engaged in
active operations in four of those countries, and jointly station troops in at least
two
others . Britain, by contrast, has troops in only four African countries in any
abiding sense, and is far less active in combat. While hardly any Americans –
and to a lesser extent Frenchmen – can locate, or in certain cases pronounce, Djibouti,
Gabon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Chad, Tunisia, Mali, or Cameroon, the stark fact is that
both countries are meddling, and often at war, in each of those distant locales.
American and French soldiers, alike, continue to die in these, at best, tangential
hot spots in the name of domestic populations that don't give a damn and hardly take any
notice. In Africa, at least (though not the Middle East), French military losses have been
even higher than American casualties. Since 2013, 30 French troops have
died in Mali alone. For all that cost in French blood and treasure – more than
$750 million annually – the Sahel is even today " slipping out of control ." The same
could be said of the American investment – ample billions spent and thousands of troops
extensively deployed
in some 15 countries as of 2019 – in Africa since 9/11.
The result of all this has been a joint Franco-American counter-productivity crisis both
for the region and homeland security. The blowback synergy is perhaps best illustrated in the
linked Libyan-Mali debacle, especially since Paris and Washington (along with London)
shamelessly masked an
outright (Ghadafi) regime change in Tripoli under the guise of the UN's Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) concept.
From 2007-08, US special forces inserted themselves and
assisted the Malian government in its decidedly local ethnic fight with Tuareg
separatists in the country's north. Simultaneously, US trained and backed forces in nearby
Niger committed atrocities against fellow Tuareg civilians – which only added to their
ethnic grievances. Then, that temporarily tamped-down insurgency exploded when it was
bolstered in 2012 by fighters and weapons which flooded south from the chaos induced by
NATO's 2011 regime change war in Libya. A year later, the French army was back in its former
colony. They've yet to leave.
So, essentially, France – through its earlier colonial divide and rule policies
– and the US, by militarily meddling and choosing sides in local matters (and
catalyzing instability in Libya), created the Tuareg "problem" in Mali (and Niger)
that both Western powers then intervened in, and are still trying, to solve.
Taking stock of this recent U.S.-backed Francophone African history repeated
as farce , one is reminded of the
rejoinder of a long dead French Algerian settler philosopher: "Each act of repression
each act of police torture has deepened the despair and violence of those subjected [and] in
this way given birth to terrorists who in turn have given birth to more police." Or, one
might add in the contemporary African context: more French and American soldiers .
The Questions We (Both) Dare Not Ask
In another absurd commonality, the French and Americans have come to uncritically
accept the inevitability of interminable warfare in Africa without asking why. Neither
Paris nor Washington has much bothered to self-pose the salient question at hand: Why
has violent Islamism exploded in Africa (or the Mideast, for that matter); and why now
? It certainly can't be as simple as the Bush-era
trope : "They hate us for our freedoms."
If that were the case, one would expect the jihadi wave sooner, since, after all, French
and American democracy – such as it is – is far older than the post-colonial, or
post-9/11 eras. See, but there's the rub: exceptional entities don't trouble
themselves with such questions; that sort of doubt or reflection wouldn't occur to a
universalist policymaker in Paris or Washington.
Naturally, if French or American leaders had lowered themselves to such base (you
know, human) levels, and even deigned to touch a toe in some self-awareness waters, a few
inconvenient causation explanations might ripple outward. Like that, perhaps, the spread of
Islamist "terror" has deep roots in the phenomena of colonization, decolonization, neo-colonialism
and global-financial debt-imperialism
. And that there is a proven counterproductive
relationship between the level of foreign troop deployments and overall violence in Africa
– I.e. more French Foreign Legionnaires, and more (disturbingly similar) American "
Praetorians
" of the special operations command, has only sent regional jihadism skyrocketing.
Finally, there's the minor matter that the " Washington
consensus " response – through influence over IMF and World Bank policies –
to the post-1973 oil shocks and free-fall of global commodity prices, didn't (and wasn't
designed) to stop the number of Global Southerners living on less than a dollar a day rising
from 70 to 290 million by 1998. In the face of such poverty, locals can be forgiven for their
sneaking suspicion that both the Declarations of Independence, and of the Rights
of Man , offer rather paltry answers. Now, whether the West, however constructed, bears
all the blame for that might be debatable; but through African eyes, what's certain is the
recent infusion of Franco-American troops and corporations is not seen as a net
positive for the people. Jihadis may be monsters – and we must admit they often are
– but at least they are African (or Arab) monsters.
To distant, exceptionalist ears in the comfort of the White House (or the Élysée
Palace ), such sentiments seem resoundingly blasphemous. The cultural and political
universalism of American or French "values" – even if neither society ever manages to
internally agree about what those are – seem a given. To reject Washingtonian or
Parisian liberty largesse is seen as almost proof-positive that intransigent Africans were
communists – or now "terrorists" – after all. Furthermore, the unsophisticated
locals must've been put up to it by "real" enemies: the Soviets (pre-1991), or today,
obviously the Chinese. According to this prevailing logic, more's the reason to flood the
region with ample troops and around and around we go.
Passing the Torch?
Today, and quite
historically , both the French and Americans simplify a gray, complex world to their own
– and global peoples' – detriment. Elizabeth Schmidt's two recent exhaustive
studies of foreign interventions in Africa –
during and since the
Cold War – concluded that such actions "tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate
African conflicts." Consider that a scholarly understatement. In the case of exponentially
increased US military involvement since the founding of AFRICOM, credible
recent analyses demonstrate how strikingly counterproductive such missions have been on
the continent.
When it comes to the discrete – and often joint – French and American
interventions in Africa these days, sequence and timing matter. Until 2007, the generally
limited US military actions on the continent fell under the responsibility of United States
European Command (EUCOM) – which in addition to countering the Russian Bear, had
jurisdiction over 43 (what were seen as) backwater sub-Saharan African countries. When it
came to actual troop "boots-on-the-ground," France was still the military meddler
extraordinaire. All that changed, slowly after 9/11, and with immediacy when President Bush
announced the creation of the Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007.
This was the pivotal moment, a changing of the economic and military neo-imperial guard of
sorts. It is unlikely coincidental that the permanent US military presence became official at
almost precisely the tipping point moment (2008) when China eclipsed France
as Africa's largest trading partner. Indeed, the ostensible "threat" of the Chinese Dragon
– despite it still having just
one base there – as much as "terrorism," has easily replaced the convenient canard
of Soviet infusion as the justification for perpetual US military intervention in Africa. In
the futile and inessential attempt to "defeat" Islamist jihadism and exclude China, France is
now the junior – but essential, given its existing local "knowledge" and neocolonial
relationships – partner on the continent.
With respect to Paris' incessant and indecisive warfare – and ineffective strategy
– in Africa, Hannah Armstrong, of the International Crisis Group, lamented
that "In the same way that French reality TV and pop music is 15 years behind the US, French
counterterrorism mimics US counterterrorism of 15 years ago." That may be strictly accurate
with respect to the recent failures in the Sahel that she analyzed – but widen the lens
a bit, and it becomes clear Armstrong has it backwards. Historically, since 1960, the French
have tried it all before; Uncle Sam was often behind (or backing) them, then (as in Vietnam)
willingly took the torch, and now fails where Paris already has.
In Africa, given that most of the current fighting is in the Francophone sphere upon which
Paris – uniquely
among former European imperialists – has maintained an historic
politico-military-economic post-colonial grip, it is worth asking just who is using
who in the relationship.
In other words, qui ( really ) bono?
Author's Note: As some readers may have noticed, I have (accidentally) embarked on a
sort of informal empire-analogy series, with a particularly African-inflection. In case
you've missed them, check out the links below to the previous articles (in a variety of
outlets) on contemporary American connections to past and present empires:
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.comHis work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
There was nothing illegal in the Ukraine call, therefore no need for the IG to report
it. And until someone got a bee under their bonnet, 2nd hand information did not legally
qualify as "whistle-blowing" but someone changed the reporting form (a piece of paper not a
law of Congress) to hide that little problem.
Exactly. Yes, Trump put people in in charge who wouldn't try to sabotage his agenda
– how awful. Trump also put people in charge to stop the corruption and money
laundering of the Obama appointees. For example, EPA funneling money to environmental
groups by settling instead of fighting lawsuits and then these environmental groups taking
that settlement money and funneling it back to Obama and the Democrats.
The people elected Trump not any of these technocrats. Philip Giraldi seems to be
applauding their subversion of the Republic.
But I can't help thinking that it's payback time for those who wasted Americans' time and
mental energy on the impeachment circus. Anyone who advanced the "get rid of Trump" agenda
should have expected to get canned down the road if the game plan didn't work out.
the idea of Israeli companies feeding at the trough is stomach-churning. Again, those who
do not like this picture maybe should have considered that trying to cut trump off at the
knees and breaking a whole bunch of rules to do so might have blowback in the future. And,
there doesn't seem to be anyone in congress with the stomach or cojones or even conviction to
end the Zionist chumming.
Who in Congress is standing up for the interests of Americans as against those of rich
Israeli entrepreneurs who are taking this country for a ride?
I don't give a flying eff about anyone who participated in the "Get Trump" theatrics. Or
about anyone who gave Obama a pass of the same s -- that Trump does.
The show is all ending very badly for the American people, and the world.
@Anonymous
True enough, but neocons -- or neo-Trots, which is more accurate -- are not loyal to Trump,
or anyone else except each other and Israel. And they are certainly not populists, patriots,
or nationalists.
Trump has hired a bunch of fifth columnists, who will stab him in the back at every
opportunity.
If anything, the greatest failing of Trump was that, after he took office, he surrounded
himself with advisors who were opposed to his agenda – and the agenda that the American
people elected him to enact.
It is true, government officials should not be personally loyal to the president. But they
should dutifully try to enact his policies, or else resign in protest. To do less is to
subvert democracy (or at least, whatever is left of it). Although it must be admitted Trump
is increasingly doing the worst of both worlds: surrounding himself with hostile officials
for things the people want (like no more pointless foreign wars), and surrounding himself
with sycophants when its for crony capitalism
As far as stopping immigration being unconstitutional, with respect, unconstitutional is
whatever 500 billionaires don't want. So you see, separating the alleged children of people
illegally crossing the border from their parents is clearly unconstitutional, but separating
people convicted of any other crime from their children is perfectly OK. Because the rich
want cheap labor.
But if the rich no longer need massive immigration to lower wages – which may be the
case for the near future – then the rich will no longer care about 'immigrants.'
Indeed, if illegal immigration hurt the profits of the rich, it would be legal to machine gun
migrants at the border – in fact, it would then be unconstitutional not to!
The Obama-Trump continuities you cite are very relevant here. Both heads of state behave as
figureheads, knuckling under to permit continued CIA impunity (Obama w.r.t. widespread and
systematic torture and murder and aggression, Trump w.r.t. ARCA.) They behave identically in
terms of abuse of function and trading in influence, subjecting all regulators to industry
control.
The only difference between Obama and Trump is their inside v. outside strategy. Obama was
third-generation dynastic CIA nomenklatura, and after his early misstep of promising to obey
the supreme law of the land on torture, Obama took CIA direction without demur, up to and
including the crime of aggression of TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump, by contrast, follows the Nixon
template, attempting to replace CIA focal points surrounding him with "loyalists." When Nixon
did it, CIA cadres leveled the same charge. But Nixon put Schlesinger in as DCI to extract
the crown jewels and shitcan a bunch of the worst criminals. Carter took the outsider's path
too.
Nixon was purged in the CIA's bloodless Watergate coup; Carter was ousted by CIA's October
Surprise. We should consider whether COVID-19 collateral damage will be used to discredit
Trump, who evidently has less workplace discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. At a key
juncture of the outbreak CIA frogmarched Trump through the synthetic crisis of the Soleimani
assassination.
So of course the government is criminal. It was chartered as a criminal enterprise at
inception in Sction 202, 73 years ago. In the resulting kleptocracy, IGs perform a
superfluous function. And every CIA inspector general is paid specifically to be a criminal
scumbag. The IG reviewing CIA's most open-and-shut crime against humanity, its torture gulag,
criticized it because it didn't work, intently ignoring the supreme law of the land that says
nothing justifies torture.
So let's not get all verklempt about some IGs. IGs are nothing but a Gehlen-type apparat
generating legal pretexts for manifestly illegal acts. Fuck em if they can't take a joke.
"... To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community, which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after he was elected, his presidency ..."
"... While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly everyone surrounding the president ..."
"... Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People. ..."
The 24/7 intensified media coverage of the coronavirus story has meant that other news has
either been ignored or relegated to the back pages, never to be seen again. The Middle East has
been on a boil but coverage of the Trump administration's latest
moves against Iran has been so insignificant as to be invisible. Meanwhile closer to home,
the declaration by the ubiquitous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that current president of
Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is a drug trafficker did generate somewhat of a ripple, as did
dispatch of warships to the Caribbean to intercept the alleged drugs, but that story also
died.
Of more interest perhaps is the tale of the continued purge of government officials,
referred to as "draining the swamp," by President Donald Trump as it could conceivably have
long-term impact on how policy is shaped in Washington. Prior to the virus partial lockdown,
some of the impending shakeup within the
intelligence community (IC) and Pentagon were commented on in the media, but developments
since that time have been less reported, even when several inspectors-general were removed.
To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency. Whether one argues that what took place was due to a "Deep
state" or Establishment conspiracy or rather just based on personal ambition by key players,
the reality was that a number of top officials seem to have forgotten the oaths they swore to
the constitution when it came to Donald Trump.
Be that as it may, beyond the musical chairs that have characterized the senior level
appointments in the first three years of the Trump administration, there has been a concerted
effort to remove "disloyal" members of the intelligence community, with disloyal generally
being the label applied to holdovers from the Bush and Obama administrations. The February
appointment of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard "Ric" Grenell as interim Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a position that he will hold simultaneously with his ambassadorship, has
been criticized from all sides due to his inexperience, history of bad judgement and
partisanship. The White House is now claiming
that he will be replaced by Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe after the interim appointment
is completed.
Criticism of Grenell for his clearly evident deficiencies misses the point, however, as he
is not in place to do anything constructive. He has already initiated a purge of federal
employees in the White House and national security apparatus considered to be insufficiently
loyal, an effort which has been supported by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many career officers have been sent back to their home agencies
while the new appointees are being drawn from the pool of neoconservatives that proliferated in
the George W. Bush administration. Admittedly some prominent neocons like Bill Kristol have
disqualified themselves for service with the new regime due to their vitriolic criticism of
Trump the candidate, but many others have managed to remain politically viable by keeping their
mouths shut during the 2016 campaign. To no one's surprise, many of the new employees being
brought in are being carefully vetted to make sure that they are passionate supporters of
Israel.
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump
does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is
nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president, even several layers down into the administration where
employees are frequently apolitical. As the Trump White House has not been renowned for its
adroit policies and forward thinking, the loss of expertise will be hardly noticeable, but
there will certainly be a reduction in challenges to group think while replacing officials in
the law enforcement and inspector general communities will mean that there will be no one in a
high enough position to impede or check presidential misbehavior. Instead, high officials will
be principally tasked with coming up with rationalizations to excuse what the White House
does.
... ... ...
Subsequent to the defenestration of Atkinson, Trump went after another inspector general
Glenn Fine, who was principal deputy IG at the Pentagon and had been charged with heading the
panel of inspectors that would have oversight responsibility to certify the proper
implementation of the $2.2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief package. As has been noted in the
media, there was particular concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding the $500
billion Exchange Stabilizing Fund (ESF) that had been set aside to make loans to corporations
and other large companies while the really urgently needed Small Business Loan allocation has
been failing to work at all except for Israeli
companies that have lined up for the loans. The risk that the ESF would become a slush fund
for companies favored by the White House was real, and several investigative reports observed
that Trump business interests might also directly benefit from the way it was drafted.
Four days after the firing of Atkinson, Fine also was let go to be replaced by the EPA
inspector general Sean O'Donnell, who is considered a Trump loyalist. On the previous day the
tweeter-in-chief came down on yet another IG, the woman responsible for Health and Human
Services Christi Grimm, who had issued a report stating that the her department had found "severe"
shortages of virus testing material at hospitals and "widespread" shortages of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Trump quipped to reporters "Where did he
come from, the inspector general. What's his name?"
On the following day, Trump unleashed the tweet machine, asking "Why didn't the I.G., who
spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu
debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others
in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!"
A comment about foxes taking over the hen house would not be amiss and one might also note
that the swamp is far from drained. A concerted effort is clearly underway to purge anyone from
the upper echelons of the U.S. government who in any way contradicts what is coming out of the
White House. Inspectors general who are tasked with looking into malfeasance are receiving the
message that if they want to stay employed, they have to toe the presidential line, even as it
seemingly whimsically changes day by day. And then there is the irony of the heads at major
agencies like Environmental Protection now being committed to not enforcing existing
environmental regulations at all.
Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory
agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and
industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several
times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations
have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government
regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like
government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
I yield to no one in my contempt for the fraud-failure of God Emperor Bush III but the author
has to be aware that talk of "impeachable" offenses is meaningless in American politics.
There has never been and never will be an impeachment effort that's not primarily
political rather than process-motivated. It's an up-or-down vote based on a partisan
head-counting and opportunism and public dissatisfaction. All the Article-this-and-that is
Magic Paper Talmudry.
Trump is a somewhat rogueish, somewhat rival Don and faction-head in the same criminal
(((Commission))) that's been running America for well over a century. He's Jon Gotti to their
Carlo Gambino, and his gauche nouveaux-elite style offends the sensibilities of the more
snobbish Davoise, but he's just angling for a seat at the table and a cut of the spoils, not
a return of power to the people.
Impeachment would serve no purpose but what we've seen so far with Russiagate, etc..
– a sideshow distraction from the real backroom, long-knife action going down, ala the
"settling scores" montage in Godfather III.
"To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency." -- Yes to this. This is OBVIOUS to all but the dullest rubes
or those who are in on it and trying to escape what they tried to do in attempting to over
throw the US Government. The rest?
Once you have this stated– that an actual Coup which was certainly plotted/sprung by
the last occupant of the Presidency along with Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and many other NWO
Globalists throughout the Government (FBI, CIA, DOJ ) and outside of it (the Globalist NWO
MEDIA) the rest is drivel -- they tried to take him out–JFK they used a bullet, here
not yet– so to say he shouldn't put in people he absolutely trusts at this time into
any position he can? Are you kidding or what? You can't be serious– I've actually had
someone try and kill me they were quite serious about it– my reaction after was not
anything like what I see you suggesting or mirrored in your "analysis". This is how the CIA
"counsels" in response to a murderous Coup -- an attempt to overthrow the duly elected
Government?
How do you overreact to a group of the most powerful people in the World getting together
to try to murder you? That's your argument basically– he's over reacting to that? He
shouldn't have "Loyalists". He needs to work with these other people -- the ones who want to
murder him -- keep some of those "non-Loyalists" on board who time after time have plotted
against him in every way possible during the last nearly 4 years?
You seem to be one strange dude from my life's vantage point any way, what a perspective
.Maybe you would actually deal with people of this magnitude trying to destroy you in the way
you state but no sane/fairly intelligent person would -- I can't get past you have that
sentence in there and then follow it with all the rest -- you seem to live in some alternate
reality where when someone tries to murder you the right reaction is to blow it off and work
with them– give them another few shots at you– say what? You learned this from
your years at the CIA– this is how they train/advise things like this should be dealt
with up at Langley? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that they get another shot at
him?
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as
Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration
is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president
True enough. Trump has also injected into Washington his own nest of swamp creatures and
Wall St. bigwigs. However it is also true that Trump has been under unrelenting attack since
the day he announced his candidacy. This is not fair. With the possible exception of Nixon,
I've never seen a more ruthless campaign by political insiders to demean a public figure.
But to whom must Trump show ceaseless and attentive loyalty to?–no matter what?
I can't get too worked up about the firing of the prison guards; I rather enjoy the
charade.
The real problem is that: 'It's the system, stupid!' and no amount of tinkering or puting
the 'right' people in these positions will ever do anything more than just changing the
illusion that something is being done.
It reminds me a little of that late Soviet Union film "Burned by the Sun" about Stalin's
purges of the criminals that had ridden his coat tails to power. Try as the movie makers did,
I could not and would not feel an ounce of sorrow for those (these) scumbags who had wielded
immoral, arbitrary, and disproportionate power over their subjects.
The government has been against the people for my entire lifetime (I'm an old man now). One
of the only glimmers of light in that time, JFK was snuffed out. After all, who did he think
he was, trying to stop the elites from having their war in Vietnam?
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
The Vindman twins are a perfect example of the Deep State.
While I can understand your loathing of Trump's middle East policies, I do also, what he has
blatantley done vis a vis the Zionist Entity is very little different than what slick Obama
did under the table, outside of the Iran deal.
And to tell you the truth, as much as I loathe Israel the Iran deal was definitely flawed and
should have been more advantageous to America and the West. Iran should have seen the
advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with mad Zionists in their
neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips.
@Getaclue
The idea that Trump is fighting the Deep State is ludacris this is a charade if the Deep
State didn't want Trump to be President he wouldn't be. Trump is a Deep State minion. No
matter the existential threat to the US the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
That supposes that Trump is not a Deep Stater as was Obama this is a poor supposition.
Iran should have seen the advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with
mad Zionists in their neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles,
sans nuclear tips.
Ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips are useless. Did anybody care when North Korea had
ballistic missiles before they had something worthwhile to put on the tip? Hell no.
Trump has had two open coup attempts in three years, and a constant barrage of leaks etc. His
purges are clearly at least three years too late.
Also, to an outsider, it's strange how some right-wing American journalists write in a way
which indicates that they have faith in the due process, checks-and-balances etc afforded by
the American system. I don't understand how any American right-winger could maintain their
faith in the U.S. political system, it seems corrupt approaching the point that it is
beyond-repair.
Trump's MAGA For The People efforts, must take steps to undo the damage done by the
prior criminal admistration.
Here is an detailed explanation of how Barack Hussein intentionally undermined the rule of
law:(1)
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.
The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application
still contains "sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause" to
approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still
valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found.
On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA
redactions:
DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA
authority. That's the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were
fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a
result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller's poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there's a strong possibility some, perhaps
much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated and cases were pending. The
solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
I am not sure why Giraldi is defending Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton's behaviour
& staff choices. All rational human beings see the damage that Hillary created at the
State Department.
=>
List of
Bookmarks ◄
► ◄ ► ▲
▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count, while the death-toll continues to rapidly
mount. Meanwhile, measures to control the spread of this deadly infection have already cost 22
million Americans their jobs, an unprecedented economic collapse that has pushed our
unemployment rates to Great Depression levels. Our country is facing a crisis as grave as
almost any in our national history.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or minimized
this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest disaster, they have
naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
The obvious choice is China, where the global epidemic first began in late 2019. Over the
last week or two our media has been increasingly filled with accusations that the dishonesty
and incompetence of the Chinese government played a major role in producing our own health
catastrophe.
Even more serious charges are also being raised, with senior government officials informing
the media that they suspect that the Covid-19 virus was developed in a Chinese laboratory in
Wuhan and then carelessly released upon a vulnerable world. Such "conspiracy theories" were
once confined to the extreme political fringe of the Internet, but they are now found in the
respectable pages of my morning New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications, and
there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its trillions of
dollars in economic losses. A new global Cold War along both political and economic lines may
soon be at hand.
I have no personal expertise in biowarfare technology, nor access to the secret American
intelligence reports that seem to have been taken seriously by our most elite national
newspapers. But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over
the last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the late 1990s, America seemed to reach the peak of its global power and prosperity,
basking in the aftermath of its historic victory in the long Cold War, while ordinary Americans
greatly benefited from the record-long economic expansion of that decade. A huge Tech Boom was
at its height, and Islamic terrorism seemed a vague and distant thing, almost entirely confined
to Hollywood movies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of large scale war
seemed to have dissipated so political leaders boasted of the "peace dividend" that citizens
were starting to enjoy as our huge military forces, built up over nearly a half-century, were
downsized amid sweeping cuts in the bloated defense budget. America was finally returning to a
regular peacetime economy, with the benefits apparent to everyone.
At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of that period, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed.
Although our limited bombing campaign seemed quite successful and soon forced the Serbs to
the bargaining table, the short war did include one very embarrassing mishap. The use of old
maps had led to a targeting error that caused one of our smart bombs to accidentally strike the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three members of its delegation and wounding dozens more.
The Chinese were outraged by this incident, and their propaganda organs began claiming that the
attack had been deliberate, a reckless accusation that obviously made no logical sense.
In those days I watched the PBS Newshour every night, and was I shocked to see their
U.S. Ambassador raise those absurd charges with host Jim Lehrer, whose disbelief matched my
own. But when I considered that the Chinese government was still stubbornly denying the reality
of its massacre of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square a decade earlier, I concluded
that unreasonable behavior by PRC officials was only to be expected. Indeed, there was even
some speculation that China was cynically milking the unfortunate accident for domestic
reasons, hoping to stoke the sort of jingoist anti-Americanism among the Chinese people that
would finally help bind the social wounds of that 1989 outrage.
Such at least were my thoughts on that matter more than two decades ago. But in the years
that followed, my understanding of the world and of many pivotal events of modern history
underwent the sweeping transformations that I have described in my American Pravda series . And some
of my 1990s assumptions were among them.
Consider, for example, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which every June 6th still evokes an
annual wave of harsh condemnations in the news and opinion pages of our leading national
newspapers. I had never originally doubted those facts, but a year or two ago I happened to
come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews entitled "The Myth of
Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated by
so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true. Instead, as near
as could be determined, the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just
as the Chinese government had always maintained. Indeed, leading newspapers such as the New
York Times and the Washington Post had occasionally acknowledged these facts over
the years, but usually buried those scanty admissions so deep in their stories that few ever
noticed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
ORDER
IT NOW
Matthews himself had been the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington Post ,
personally covering the protests at the time, and his article appeared in the Columbia
Journalism Review , our most prestigious venue for media criticism. This authoritative
analysis containing such explosive conclusions was first published in 1998, and I find it
difficult to believe that many reporters or editors covering China have remained ignorant of
this information, yet the impact has been absolutely nil. For over twenty years virtually every
mainstream media account I have read has continued to promote the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Hoax, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Even more remarkable were the discoveries I made regarding our supposedly accidental bombing
of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. Not long after launching this website, I added former Asia
Times contributor Peter Lee as a columnist, incorporating his China Matters blogsite
archives that stretched back for a decade. He soon published a 7,000 word
article on the Belgrade Embassy bombing, representing a compilation of material already
contained in a
half-dozen previous pieces he'd written on that subject from 2007 onward. To my
considerable surprise, he provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that the American attack
on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had always claimed.
According to Lee, Beijing had allowed its embassy to be used as a site for secure radio
transmission facilities by the Serbian military, whose own communications network was a primary
target of NATO airstrikes. Meanwhile, Serbian air defenses had shot down an advanced American
F-117A fighter, whose top-secret stealth technology was a crucial U.S. military secret.
Portions of that enormously valuable wreckage were carefully gathered by the grateful Serbs,
who delivered it to the Chinese for temporary storage at their embassy prior to transport back
home. This vital technological acquisition later allowed China to deploy its own J20 stealth
fighter in early 2011, many years sooner than American military analysts had believed
possible.
Based upon this analysis, Lee argued that the Chinese embassy was attacked in order to
destroy the Serbian retransmission facilities located there, while punishing the Chinese for
allowing such use. There were also widespread rumors in China that another motive had been an
unsuccessful attempt to destroy the stealth debris stored within. Later Congressional testimony
revealed
that the among all the hundreds of NATO airstrikes, the attack on the Chinese embassy was the
only one directly ordered by the CIA, a highly-suspicious detail.
I was only slightly familiar with Lee's work, and under normal circumstances I would have
been very cautious in accepting his remarkable claims against the contrary position universally
held by all our own elite media outlets. But the sources he cited completely shifted that
balance.
Although the American media dominates the English-language world, many British publications
also possess a strong global reputation, and since they are often much less in thrall to our
own national security state, they have sometimes covered important stories that were ignored
here. And in this case, the Sunday Observer published a remarkable expose in October
1999, citing several NATO military and intelligence sources who fully confirmed the deliberate
nature of the American bombing of the Chinese embassy, with a US colonel even reportedly
boasting that their smartbomb had hit the exact room intended.
This important story was immediately summarized in the Guardian ,
a sister publication, and also covered by the rival Times of London and many of the
world's other most prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our
own country. Such a bizarre divergence on a story of global strategic importance -- a
deliberate and deadly US attack against Chinese diplomatic territory -- drew the attention of
FAIR, a leading American media watchdog group, which published
an initial critique and
a subsequent follow-up . These two pieces totaled some 3,000 words, and effectively
summarized both the overwhelming evidence of the facts and also the heavy international
coverage, while reporting the weak excuses made by top American editors to explain their
continuing silence. Based upon these articles, I consider the matter settled.
Few Americans remember our 1999 attack upon the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and if not for
the annual waving of a bloody June 6th flag by our ignorant and disingenuous media, the
"Tiananmen Square Massacre" would also have long since faded from memory. Neither of these
events has much direct importance today, at least for our own citizens. But the broader media
implications of these examples do seem quite significant.
These incidents represented two of the most serious flashpoints between the Chinese and
American governments during the last thirty-odd years. In both cases the claims of the Chinese
government were entirely correct, although they were denied by our own top political leaders
and dismissed or ridiculed by virtually our entire mainstream media. Moreover, within a few
months or a year the true facts became known to many journalists, even being reported in fully
respectable venues. But that reality was still completely ignored and suppressed for decades,
so that today almost no American whose information comes from our regular media would even be
aware of it. Indeed, since many younger journalists draw their knowledge of the world from
these same elite media sources, I suspect that many of them have never learned what their
predecessors knew but dared not mention.
Most leading Chinese media outlets are owned or controlled by the Chinese government, and
they tend to broadly follow the government line. Leading American media outlets have a
corporate ownership structure and often boast of their fierce independence; but on many crucial
matters, I think the actual reality is not so very different from that in China.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and the
reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones. American news and entertainment
completely dominate the global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So
China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and as the far weaker
party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed.
Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over global information may inspire considerable
hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods
in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for any mistakes.
These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the accounts of our often
unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of extracting the true circumstances of the current
coronavirus epidemic. Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our
analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any conclusions are necessarily
very preliminary ones. But given the high stakes, such an attempt seems warranted.
When my morning newspapers first began mentioning the appearance of a mysterious new illness
in China during mid-January, I paid little attention, absorbed as I was in the aftermath of our
sudden assassination of Iran's top military leader and the dangerous possibility of a yet
another Middle Eastern war. But the reports persisted and grew, with deaths occurring and
evidence growing that the viral disease could be transmitted between humans. China's early
conventional efforts seemed unsuccessful in halting the spread of the disease.
Then on Jan. 23rd and after only 17 deaths, the Chinese government took the astonishing step
of locking down and quarantining the entire 11 million inhabitants of the city of Wuhan, a
story that drew worldwide attention. They soon extended this policy to the 60 million Chinese
of Hubei province, and not longer afterward shut down their entire national economy and
confined 700 million Chinese to their homes, a public health measure probably a thousand times
larger than anything previously undertaken in human history. So either the China's leadership
had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new virus as an absolutely deadly national
threat, one that needed to be controlled at any possible cost.
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they generated,
the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had attempted to minimize
or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous as to defy rationality.
In any event, the record shows that on December 31st, the Chinese had already alerted the World
Health Organization to the strange new illness, and Chinese scientists published the entire
genome of the virus on Jan. 12th, allowing diagnostic tests to be produced worldwide.
Unlike other nations, China had received no advance warning of the nature or existence of
the deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles. But their government implemented
public health control measures unprecedented in the history of the world and managed to almost
completely eradicate the disease with merely the loss of a few thousand lives. Meanwhile, many
other Western countries such as the US, Italy, Spain, France, and Britain dawdled for months
and ignored the potential threat, and have now suffered well over 100,000 dead as a
consequence, with the toll still rapidly mounting. For any of these nations or their media
organs to criticize China for its ineffectiveness or slow response represents an absolute
inversion of reality.
Some governments took full advantage of the early warning and scientific information
provided by China. Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and
Singapore had been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and
energetic responses allowed them to almost completely suppress any major outbreak, and they
have suffered minimal fatalities. But America and several European countries avoiding adopting
these same early measures such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have
paid a terrible price for their insouciance.
A few weeks ago British Prime Minister Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own disease
strategy for Britain was based upon rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially
encouraging the bulk of his citizens to become infected -- then quickly backed away after his
desperate advisors recognized that the result might entail a million or more British
deaths.
By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total incompetence
of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the Western media
attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining international
credibility it still possesses.
I do not think these particular facts are much disputed except among the most blinkered
partisans, and the Trump Administration probably recognizes the hopelessness of arguing
otherwise. This probably explains its recent shift towards a far more explosive and
controversial narrative, namely claiming that Covid-19 may have been the product of Chinese
research into deadly viruses at a Wuhan laboratory, which suggests that the blood of hundreds
of thousands or millions of victims around the world will be on Chinese hands. Dramatic
accusations backed by overwhelming international media power may deeply resonate across the
globe.
News reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have been reasonably consistent. Senior Trump Administration
officials have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading Chinese biolab, as the
possible source of the infection, with the deadly virus having been accidentally released,
subsequently spreading first throughout China and later worldwide. Trump himself has publicly
voiced similar suspicions, as did Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo in a
FoxNews
interview. Private lawsuits against China in the multi-trillion-dollar range have already
been filed by
rightwing activists and Republican senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have raised similar
governmental demands.
I obviously have no personal access to the classified intelligence reports that have been
the basis of these charges by Trump, Pompeo, and other top administration officials. But in
reading these recent news accounts, I noticed something rather odd.
ORDER IT NOW
Back in January, few Americans were paying much attention to the early reports of an unusual
disease outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which was hardly a household name. Instead,
overwhelming political attention was focused on the battle over Trump's impeachment and the
aftermath of our dangerous military confrontation with Iran. But towards the end of that month,
I discovered that the fringes of the Internet were awash with claims that the disease was
caused by a Chinese bioweapon accidentally released from that same Wuhan laboratory, with
former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and ZeroHedge , a popular right-wing
conspiracy-website, playing leading roles in advancing the theory. Indeed, the stories became
so widespread in those ideological circles that Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading Republican Neocon,
began promoting them on Twitter and FoxNews, thereby provoking an
article in the NYT on those "fringe conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it may be more than purely coincidental that the biowarfare theories which
erupted in such concerted fashion on small political websites and Social Media accounts back in
January so closely match those now publicly advocated by top Trump Administration officials and
supposedly based upon our most secure intelligence sources. Perhaps a few intrepid
citizen-activists managed to replicate the findings of our multi-billion-dollar intelligence
apparatus, and did so in days while the latter required weeks or months. But a more likely
scenario is that the wave of January speculation was driven by private leaks and "guidance"
provided by exactly the same elements that today are very publicly leveling similar charges in
the elite media. Initially promoting controversial theories in less mainstream outlets has long
been a fairly standard intelligence practice.
Regardless of the origins of the idea, does it seem plausible that the coronavirus outbreak
might have originated as an accidental leak from that Chinese laboratory? I am not privy to the
security procedures of Chinese government facilities, but applying a little common sense may
shed some light on that question.
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a fatality rate of 1%
or less, it is extremely contagious, including during an extended pre-symptomatic period and
also among asymptomatic carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe are now suffering heavy
casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have devastated their national
economies. Although the virus is unlikely to kill more than a small sliver of our population,
we have seen to our dismay how a major outbreak can so easily wreck our entire economic
life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China's mushrooming health crisis regularly
emphasized that the mysterious new viral outbreak had occurred at the worst possible place and
time, appearing in the major transport hub of Wuhan just prior to the Lunar New Year holiday,
when hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant family homes for
the celebration, thereby potentially spreading the disease to all parts of the country and
producing a permanent, uncontrollable epidemic. The Chinese government avoided that grim fate
by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy and confine 700 million
Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But the outcome seems to have been a very near
thing, and if Wuhan had remained open for just a few days longer, China might easily have
suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet the
outbreak seems to have begun during the precise period of time most likely to damage China, the
worst possible ten-day or perhaps thirty-day window. As I noted in
January, I saw no solid evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the
timing of the release seemed very unlikely to have been accidental.
If the virus was released intentionally, the context and motive for such a biowarfare attack
against China could not be more obvious. Although our disingenuous media continues to pretend
otherwise, the size of China's economy surpassed that of our own several years ago, and has
continued to grow much more rapidly. Chinese companies have also taken the lead in several
crucial technologies, with Huawei becoming the world's leading telecommunications equipment
manufacturer and dominating the important 5G market. China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative
has threatened to reorient global trade around an interconnected Eurasian landmass, greatly
diminishing the leverage of America's own control over the seas. I have closely followed China
for over forty years, and the trend-lines have never been more apparent. Back in 2012, I
published an article bearing the provocative title "China's Rise, America's Fall?" and
since then I have seen no reason to reassess my verdict.
China's Rise, America's Fall Which
superpower is more threatened by its "extractive elites"? Ron Unz • The American Conservative,
April 17, 2012 • 7,000 Words
For three generations following the end of World War II, America had stood as the world's
supreme economic and technological power, while the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years
ago left us as the sole remaining superpower, facing no conceivable military rival. A growing
sense that we were rapidly losing that unchallenged position had certainly inspired the
anti-China rhetoric of many senior figures in the Trump Administration, who launched a major
trade war soon after coming into office. The increasing misery and growing impoverishment of
large sections of the American population naturally left these voters searching for a
convenient scapegoat, and the prosperous, rising Chinese made a perfect target.
Despite America's growing economic conflict with China over the last couple of years, I had
never considered the possibility that matters might take a military turn. The Chinese had long
ago deployed advanced intermediate range missiles that many believed could easily sink our
carriers in the region, and they had also generally improved their conventional military
deterrent. Moreover, China was on quite good terms with Russia, which itself had been the
target of intense American hostility for several years; and Russia's new suite of revolutionary
hypersonic missiles had drastically reduced any American strategic advantage. Thus, a
conventional war against China seemed an absolutely hopeless undertaking, while China's
outstanding businessmen and engineers were steadily gaining ground against America's decaying
and heavily-financialized economic system.
Under these difficult circumstances, an American biowarfare attack against China might have
seemed the only remaining card to play in hopes of maintaining American supremacy. Plausible
deniability would minimize the risk of any direct Chinese retaliation, and if successful, the
terrible blow inflicted to China's economy would set it back for many years, perhaps even
destabilizing its social and political system. Using alternative media to immediately promote
theories that the coronavirus outbreak was the result of a leak from a Chinese biowarfare lab
was a natural means of preempting any later Chinese accusations along similar lines, thereby
allowing America to win the international propaganda war before China had even begun to
play.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare in
hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely reckless act,
but extreme recklessness has become a regular aspect of American behavior since 2001,
especially under the Trump Administration. Just a year earlier we had kidnapped the
daughter of Huawei's founder and chairman, who also served as CFO and ranked as one of China's
most top executives, while at the beginning of January we suddenly assassinated Iran's top
military leader.
These were the thoughts that entered my mind during the last week of January once I
discovered the widely circulating theories suggesting that China's massive disease epidemic had
been the self-inflicted consequence of its own biowarfare research. I saw no solid evidence
that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, China was surely the innocent victim of
the attack, presumably carried out by elements of the American national security
establishment.
Soon afterward, someone brought to my attention a very long article by an American ex-pat
living in China who called himself "Metallicman" and held a wide range of eccentric and
implausible beliefs. I have long recognized that flawed individuals can often serve as the
vessels of important information otherwise unavailable, and this case constituted a perfect
example. His piece denounced the outbreak as a likely American biowarfare attack, and provided
a great wealth of factual material I had not previously considered. Since he authorized
republication elsewhere I did so, and
his 15,000 word analysis , although somewhat raw and unpolished, began attracting an
enormous amount of readership on our website, probably being one of the very first
English-language pieces to suggest that the mysterious new disease was an American bioweapon.
Many of his arguments appeared doubtful to me or have been obviated by later developments, but
several seemed quite telling.
He pointed out that during the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered
serious blows from other mysterious new diseases, although these had targeted farm animals
rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large
portions of China's poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had
devastated China's pig farms, destroying 40% of the nation's primary domestic source of meat,
with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones. My
morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories, noting
that the sudden collapse of much of China's domestic food production might prove a huge boon to
American farm exports at the height of our trade conflict, but I had never considered the
obvious implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely impacted by strange
new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was
merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.
The writer also noted that shortly before the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, that city had
hosted 300 visiting American military officers, who came to participate in the 2019 Military World
Games , an absolutely remarkable coincidence of timing. As
I pointed out at the time, how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had
paid an extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had
suddenly broken out in that city? Once again, the evidence was merely circumstantial but
certainly raised dark suspicions.
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its origins in a bat
virus, leading to widespread media speculation that bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets
had been the original disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated waves of anti-China
accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same viral source. But we soon
published
a lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of
America's own enormous biowarfare research efforts, which had similarly focused for years on
bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News , but that publication had
strangely declined to publish her important piece, perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions
it directed towards the US government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our
platform, her major contribution to the public debate might have attracted relatively little
readership.
Around the same time, I noted another
extremely strange coincidence that failed to attract any interest from our somnolent national
media. Although his name had meant nothing to me, in late January my morning newspapers carried
major stories on the
sudden arrest of Prof. Charles Lieber, one of Harvard University's top scientists and Chairman
of its Chemistry Department, sometimes characterized as a potential future Nobel Laureate.
The circumstances of that case seemed utterly bizarre to me. Like numerous other prominent
American academics, Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint
appointments and receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of
financial reporting violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications
-- the most obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by
the FBI in an early-morning raid on his suburban Lexington home and dragged off in shackles,
potentially facing years of federal imprisonment.
Such government action against an academic seemed almost without precedent. During the
height of the Cold War, numerous American scientists and technicians were rightfully accused of
having stolen our nuclear weapons secrets for delivery to Stalin, yet I had never heard of any
of them treated in so harsh a manner, let alone a scholar of Prof. Lieber's stature, who was
merely charged with technical disclosure violations. Indeed, this incident recalled accounts of
NKVD raids during the Soviet purges of the 1930s.
ORDER IT NOW
Although Lieber was described as a chemistry professor, a few seconds of Googling revealed
that some of his most important work had been in virology, including technology for the
detection of viruses. So a massive and deadly new viral epidemic had broken out in China and
almost simultaneously, a top American scholar with close Chinese ties and expertise in viruses
was suddenly arrested by the federal government, yet no one in the media expressed any
curiosity at a possible connection between these two events.
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
concurrent coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing
China of having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly research.
But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder whether the epidemic
in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and was perhaps a little too
free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of our national security
establishment. Inflicting such extremely harsh treatment upon a top Harvard scientist would
greatly intimidate all of his lesser colleagues elsewhere, who would surely now think twice
before broaching certain controversial theories to any journalist.
By the end of January, our webzine had published a dozen articles and posts on the
coronavirus outbreak, then added many more by the middle of February. These pieces totaled tens
of thousands of words and attracted a half million words of comments, probably representing the
primary English-language source for a particular perspective on the deadly epidemic, with this
material eventually drawing many hundreds of thousands of pageviews. A few weeks later, the
Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have been
brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication.
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another development
occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly
where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February
Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its
political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire
Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political
elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they
died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else
in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander
on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became
infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence.
Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing such expertise are
unlikely to candidly report their classified research activities in the pages of our major
newspapers, perhaps even less so after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to prison in chains. My own
knowledge is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments
on the coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood his background was
exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments in the form of
a 3,400 word
article , which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words of further
comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover of
the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere. One important point he made was that
high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing
large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a
biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words "a high
communicability, low lethality disease is perfect for ruining an economy," suggesting that the
apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard. Those so
interested should read his analysis and judge for themselves his possible credibility and
persuasiveness.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that reports of
the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and orchestrated
campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media platforms to identify the
cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more
plausible hypothesis that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had received
virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to take shape as I gradually located
and republished relevant material, usually drawn from very obscure quarters and often
anonymously authored. So it seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active
information war. The outbreak of the disease and the nearly simultaneous launch of such a major
propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove that an actual biowarfare attack had occurred,
but I do think it tends to support such a theory.
When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed will not respect national borders, thus raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems very doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China.
But as we see absolutely demonstrated in our daily news headlines, America's current
government is grotesquely and manifestly incompetent , more incompetent than one could
almost possibly imagine, with tens of thousands of Americans having now already paid with their
lives for such extreme incompetence. Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be
found among the Deep State Neocons that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial
positions throughout our national security apparatus.
Moreover, the extremely lackadaisical notion that a massive coronavirus outbreak in China
would never spread back to America might have seemed plausible to individuals who carelessly
assumed that past historical analogies would continue to apply. As
I wrote a few weeks ago:
Reasonable people have suggested that if the coronavirus was a bioweapon deployed by
elements of the American national security apparatus against China (and Iran), it's difficult
to imagine why the they didn't assume it would naturally leak back in the US and start a huge
pandemic here, as is currently happening.
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but here's another point
to consider
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus but that was far
more deadly and somewhat different in other characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of
Chinese and spread into a few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The
impact on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of cases and only a
death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China,
isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
coronavirus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed
so implausible at the time?
As some must have surely noticed, I have deliberately avoided investigating any of the
scientific details of the coronavirus. In principle, an objective and accurate analysis of the
characteristics and structure of the virus might help suggest whether it was entirely natural
or rather the product of a research laboratory, and in the latter case, perhaps whether the
likely source was China, America, or some third country.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event and those questions obviously have
enormous political ramifications, so the entire subject is shrouded by a thick fog of complex
propaganda, with numerous conflicting claims being advanced by interested parties. I have no
background in microbiology let alone biological warfare, so I would be hopelessly adrift in
evaluating such conflicting scientific and technical claims. I suspect that this is equally
true of the overwhelming majority of other observers as well, although committed partisans are
loathe to admit that fact, and will eagerly seize upon any scientific argument that supports
their preferred position while rejecting those that contradict it.
Therefore, by necessity, my own focus is on evidence that can at least be understood by
every layman, if not necessarily always accepted. And I believe that the simple juxtaposition
of several recent disclosures in the mainstream media leads to a rather telling conclusion.
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has presumably
encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese documents.
Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful timeline of
those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of emphasis or minor
disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became aware
of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January, with the first known death
occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public health measures later that
same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
sources within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones
asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back
as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency
had produced a report revealing than an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the
Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television revealed that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a
report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC story and its several
government sources.
ORDER IT NOW
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government
itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I
think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of
future fires.
Back in February, before a single American had died from the disease,
I wrote my own overview of the possible course of events, and I would still stand by it
today:
Consider a particularly ironic outcome of this situation, not particularly likely but
certainly possible
Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent.
So perhaps the coronavirus outbreak was indeed a deliberate biowarfare attack against
China, hitting that nation just before Lunar New Year, the worst possible time to produce a
permanent nationwide pandemic. However, the PRC responded with remarkable speed and
efficiency, implementing by far the largest quarantine in human history, and the deadly
disease now seems to be in decline there.
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US, and despite all the advance
warning, our totally incompetent government mismanages the situation, producing a huge
national health disaster, and the collapse of our economy and decrepit political system.
As I said, not particularly likely, but certainly a very fitting end to the American
Empire
But their government implemented public health control measures unprecedented in the
history of the world and managed to almost completely eradicate the disease with merely the
loss of a few thousand lives
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet
the outbreak seems to have begun during precise period of time most likely to damage
China
It almost sounds like putting a virus lab in the middle of twelve million people was a bad
idea.
Lol. I can't believe you're doubling down on this jackassery.
Mr Unz, also have you read David Cole's theory on this (at TakiMag)? I know you and him got
in blog beef a couple years ago over your Pravda article on Holocaust, but his theory also
criticized the Wuhan "lab leak" and believes the wet markets originated the virus while the
state lab was trying to cover up the "natural market" zoonotic mess. Would be fun to (again)
watch you 2 debate notes.
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
"When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed are not prone to respect national borders, raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems quite doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China."
Unless, of course, those in power knew exactly what that 'blowback' would entail, as they
had modeled it over and over, for years, maybe decades.
They would be in a position to crash the stock market (and get out at the very top),
assure a new alliance between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury (allowing the elites to
use the American taxpayers to fund their losses indefinitely), destroy the middle and lower
classes through government ordered 'lockdowns' (driving down wages yet again, and making
Americans frightened, unemployed and angry, and thereby easily mislead like in the 9/11
aftermath), create a world political environment allowing medical tyranny to make universal
yearly vaccines and mandatory microchipping of everyone acceptable to the masses (ala Bill
Gates/Tony Fauci/WHO and their Pig Pharma vaccine brigade), drop the price of oil
indefinitely to fatally weaken Iran, hurt Russia and allow our predator capitalist banks to
scoop up the failing US shale oil industry for pennies (which they are fully preparing to
do), and ultimately allow the elites to perfectly time the inevitable deflation of the
world's derivatives bubble, further sending the commoners into complete panic mode (and
making their primal fears easily directed against the Western world's now common enemy, the
Red Yellow Hordes.)
Doesn't sound very 'incompetent' to me. Sounds like utterly evil, but undeniably
brilliant, military-economic planning. And it is looking like they may pull this one off,
just like 9/11, and get the scared and terminally gullible Western plebes on board for their
own further destruction economically, politically, and very possibly physically.
End Result: the PTB get to blame China for everything; make China foot the bill (or else);
and when China balks, prepare the West's gullible, easily controlled citizens for military
conflict if the Chinese don't roll over and cough up to the West's satisfaction.
Incompetence?
Sure looks to me like a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist wet dream come true ..
@Otto von Komsmark If you believe that the virus originated in a wet market, what's your
theory on why China immediately allowed wet markets to open back up (albeit with guards
posted to prevent pics). Are they just exceptionally slow learners or do they realize that
the wet market theory was always bogus?
" the Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have
been brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication" not at all
improbable since said publication has a very deep current of slavish devotion to the Chinese
state; such that one might even strongly suspect that the publication is getting its ideas
from the Chinese totalitarians as much as the other way round. But since 'false flag'
theories are another popular concept in such discussions, it might be conceivable that the
human rights regime in Beijing deliberately released the mystery bug in China & Iran
first, in order to throw suspicion on the U.S. The Chinese & Iranian tallies so far have
been surprisingly low despite starting there earlier, so if they're not suppressing the
facts, maybe they knew what to expect & were prepared. And the brunt of it would then be
borne by their Western 'adversaries'. Not to mention, that the Chinese despots could
reinforce their iron grip on Chinese society with their customary contempt for civil
liberties. China's "current government is grotesquely and manifestly" incompatible with
personal freedom, more incompatible than "one could almost possibly imagine", with tens of
millions of Uighurs, Tibetans, dissidents, workers having now already paid with their lives
& freedom for such extreme incompatibility.
"Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be found among the Deep State Neocons
that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial positions throughout our
national security apparatus" and certainly rationality, competence, humanity are never to be
found among Neo-cons anywhere. The President has been wise to largely ignore them. If Trump
had been President in '99, it's very likely that the absolutely unnecessary, devastating war
on Serbia by Hillary & Bill – based on deliberate lies – would never have
gotten off the ground.
President Trump now faces the daunting dilemma of how to protect the society while at the
same time not displaying the same disdain for political & civic freedom that is the
hallmark of the CCP. An end to America Empire would be a good thing – the President
knows that, as he again reiterated the trillions misspent in the M.E. at his daily press
conference today – but this isn't the way to do it. Only a Chinese communist or fellow
traveler could believe that.
"At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of those years, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed." And why should one believe our
government and media about "safeguard(ing) the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and
massacre" any more than one should believe their other lies?
For most of this post, I can't say one way or the other. I personally think this was either
the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China – long known to be the primary
source of the annual flu epidemics (why the heck haven't they been shut down??) or a
criminally NEGLIGENT release from a research lab.
But.
"China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and so as the
far weaker party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be
immediately exposed. Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over information may lead to
considerable hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and
ridiculous falsehoods in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for
any mistakes."
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year. Herd immunity is likely now widespread,
so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or without continued population incarceration.
Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own coronavirus plan for Britain was based upon
rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially encouraging the bulk of his citizens to
become infected -- then quickly backed away after his desperate advisors recognized that
the result might entail a million or more British deaths.
LOL. Neil Ferguson an Imperial College epidemiologist with an awesomely bad track record
in predicting the course of epidemics, made some such prediction which he soon modified to a
very much smaller number – 20,000 I believe, a number not yet reached.
In fact, the original plan was abandoned for fear that unrestricted spread of the virus
would result in a concentration of infections, which at the peak, would overload hospitals by
that minority of cases requiring hospital treatment.
Not just NWO ChiCom China of course– they're just the tool, the NWO
"Elites"/Globalists, who shipped USA Manufacturing to China and destroyed the Middle Class in
the USA etc., have made China the "Model" for us all -- "Social Credit Scores" for the Peons,
an authoritarian "Party" of "Elites" with all power, Peons having to get a "green" signal on
their cell phones every time they go outside . -- NWO Globalist "Elites" actually running the
CVirus show/"Production"/911 "Event" Part 2 -- "Invisible Terrorists Forever"–
meanwhile most "journalists" are cheering the loss of freedoms and anyone who points out what
is going on wants to "kill Grandma" is "Selfish" it's all about on a Junior High School level
but after getting away with 911 Demolition anyone not a rube, grifter/or in on it knew they'd
be back to finish it off– and so they are here with the Plandemic:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/elite-covid-19-coup-against-terrified-humanity-resisting-powerfully/5709479
Side note: Interesting the Mainslime Media is not all over China's Racism towards Blacks
as evidenced in their Ad here against "Diversity" and "Race Mixing"– they aren't
kidding! Seems ChiComs can do what YT could never .: https://twitter.com/sadir_Palwan/status/1250570077163925509
The Nanjing protests were groundbreaking dissidence for China and went from solely
expressing concern about alleged [sic] improprieties by African men to increasingly calling
for democracy or human rights. They were paralleled by burgeoning demonstrations in other
cities during the period between the Nanjing and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989,
with some elements of the original protests that started in Nanjing still evident in
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, such as banners proclaiming "Stop Taking Advantage of
Chinese Women" even though the vast majority of African students had left the country by
that point.
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
It's very true that China's numbers is perhaps the best numbers that you could trust.
Moritz Kraemer, a scholar at Oxford University who is leading a team of researchers in
mapping the global spread of the coronavirus, says China's data "provided incredible detail,"
including a patient's age, sex, travel history and history of chronic disease, as well as
where the case was reported, and the dates of the onset of symptoms, hospitalization and
confirmation of infection.
The United States, he said, "has been slow in collecting data in a systematic way.". The
article not only showing the chaotic situation in different states, but highlights the
limited information shared with scientific community. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/coronavirus-data-privacy.html
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
The only parties challenging these are Trump, Mike Pompeo, and the US Intelligence. Make a
pick who to trust.
But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments on the
coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood that his
background was exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments
in the form of a 3,400 word article, which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and
80,000 words of further comments.
Although the writer said that he had absolutely no proof, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover
of the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere.
Oh God, that crap again. Some geezer who may or may not have any relevant expertise, had a
suspicion, but absolutely no proof, of a goofy theory that to launch a biowarfare attack on
China the US Government had the brilliant idea of having the agent released by a contingent
of 300 American soldiers participating in the international military games held in Wuhan,
China.
Is that a stupid idea, or what?
And anyhow, there is evidence just published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy
of Sciences that the viral epidemic in China did not begin in Wuhan and, furthermore, it
began earlier than originally believed, i.e., before the Military Games.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event
Not really. Just a new disease out of China, one of many from China since the year dot,
which has a lethality comparable to the seasonal flu. The event is cataclysmic only because
of the economic consequences of the public policy response in most Western states, though not
Sweden.
@Ozymandias Hey Ozy, The Australians claimed to have suffered only 120 wu-wu virus deaths
total. The South Koreans claim only 250 wu-wu deaths total. In Ozy world, are they liars too
along with the Chinese? Or is it possible they have a functional public health system and
moderately competent politicians who decided to fix the wu-wu virus problem .instead of
playing golf and bullshitting the public for six weeks. The wu-wu virus death total in the
essential exceptional nation is now 42,000 and rising. No other country is even close. It's
like Trumpie heard the experts advise "fatten the curve" instead of "flatten the curve".
So, you "fully endorsed" Clinton Administration 1999 NATO air war against Serbia, and you
don't even know that it wasn't "intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic
cleansing and massacre",
because war in Bosnia was already done long before 1999 (war finished in 1995).
a year or two ago I happened to come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews
entitled "The Myth of Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated
by so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true.
the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just as the Chinese
government had always maintained.
the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
This is like saying the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a hoax because most of the
deaths occurred overnight, past midnight, no longer St. Bartholomew's Day, ergo "the St.
Bartholomew's Day Massacre" was a Hoax. Throwing the baby out with a technicality.
Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this:
Hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a
different place and under different circumstances.
The Chinese government estimates more than 300 fatalities. Western estimates are
somewhat higher. Many victims were shot by soldiers on stretches of Changan Jie, the Avenue
of Eternal Peace, about a mile west of the square, and in scattered confrontations in other
parts of the city
Regarding SARS inability to spread further, that's why the glycoprotein 120 was added:
it's an external protein they borrowed from HIV and CRISPR'd onto the Covid-19.
Interesting enough by including this mechanism in the novel virus they have perhaps laid
the ground for future AIDS type syndromes in those who get the virus or some variant of it.
That's another topic deserving it's own crowd funded public research.
Much of the suddenly far reaching effects of this novel virus derive from the advent of
CRISP technology and the ability to fuse different parts of virus into one. Of course,
zoonotic transmission still needs to occur hence all the special grants to Wuhan Institute
and North Carolina in doing this type of research, going out and collecting the special virus
out of bat shit 600 miles away from Wuhan in caves in remote China, and feeding it to pigs
and chimps who die and the process is repeated until a stable virus is developed.
Interesting enough Dr Fauci is an expert on HIV and specifically glycoprotein 120. He's
worked to run private trial tests while working in the government probably for his Fort
Detrick buddies.
Everyone reading this article and still intrigued for more information out to check out
two key players that researching the origins of the virus and it's likely bioengineered
origins:
This virus has links to Fauci, research at Fort Detrick, as well as research carried out
in North Carolina and Wuhan that was paid for by grants from Fauci while running major
government groups.
It appears part of this operation utilized the NATO transport network for transporting
deadly diseases and nuclear material. In fact, one such courier was in Wuhan as an American
cyclist for the military games
But I digress.
The blowback part Ron mentions being the consequence of stupidity from the government are
possible but I think unlikely. If you follow parallel developments in geopolitics and,
specifically, finance (not withstanding all of Bill Gates work with companies to have a
vaccine ready to go ), you'll see perhaps the makings of a grand conspiracy to (1) cement the
strength of the dollar and (2) sequester Chinese economic growth and power all at once.
For this to work most of the government would not know what's going on and that probably
includes Trump. Plus, what better way to hide culpability than to inflict a wound on
yourself?
For links to articles discussing this topic see below:
Everyone is enjoying the screaming and paranoia but China (East Asia) has been producing new
and "wonderful" diseases for several thousand years. They used to have bacterial variations
but in the last few centuries have moved to designer viruses.
South China has wall-to-wall rice paddies where wild and migratory animals feed, drink and
sh*t with farm animals under the care of a billion or so humans with primitive concepts of
sanitation and minimal, to no, modern healthcare, so "rare" or "unlikely" bug mutations and
species "jumps" are just a matter of time. The wild birds of China Summer in Siberia and
Alaska with all the other birds of the world. The "Real" Globalism ..
The appearance of Corona variants in Kazhakstan, Iran, the Gulf States, and Israeli
ckickens, or the appearance of "pig flu" in Mexico, or the Spanish Flu (1918?) in Kansas, all
under major bird migratory routes, should not be too much of a surprise. Even if a US, UN or
Chinese agency finds it. Be aware that this used to happen before Boeing and AirBus joined
the game.
Be careful cleaning the poop off your windshield and/or yard furniture.
Damn flying dinosaurs are dangerous. If you find some poop with a "made in China" label,
call the authorities. They will love the warning about the poison from a flying Chinese
Communist dragon.
The coronavirus is serial! Thooper serial! Look at all these in depth political analyses
and ignore the facts in plain view!
Blowback is a particularly telling choice of word, since I remember Noam Chomsky using the
same term. He used it to add weight to the official 9/11 story by claiming the events were a
direct result of US foreign policy, which re-enforced the Muslim terrorist angle and stopped
people from looking for the real culprits.
Another great installment in the American Pravda series. I use to work in the federal
government and always wondered why employees of the Nationals Archives* needed a top secret
U.S. government clearance and why employees of Presidential libraries needed to have the same
security clearance as a nuclear submarine commander (top secret- sensitive compartmented
information). What secrets could there possibly be from 60 years ago?? Then it dawned on me
that it could never be known by the general public how their country behaves toward other
countries and why and how we go to war. We would lose all faith in our government.
I have only one small correction:
[Charles Lieber] was seized by the FBI in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home
and dragged off in shackles, potentially facing decades of federal imprisonment.
He lives in a wooded suburban neighborhood in Lexington, MA, not in the city of
Cambridge.
On the one hand a bio-warfare attack on China is something I can absolutely see the American
elites post 9/11 do. Their track-record speaks for itself.
There have also been significant shifts in Europe's alignment, on which US global
dominance critically depends: the continuation of Northstream 2 against the explicit wishes
of the Americans, 5 G expansion and Huawei cooperation in the European market, plans of
replacing NATO with a European army (talks on the fringe of the right about a defense pact
with Russia), the Belt and Road trillion dollar project which has its better European name as
"The New Silk Road". Eurasian integration goes directly against the global dominance strategy
of the US Empire. Europe is also now caught between an intense and visible propaganda warfare
of the USA and China/Russia.
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at minimum
a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against Libya; yet
not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer, closest
adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back in 2015.
Wimmer had been part of several war games in Langley in his time in the German government,
quite clearly reasoning that in modern warfare you cannot initiate a conflict without knowing
where the refugees will go – it is part of the planning process.
On the other hand we must recognize the long term and massive investments of for example
Blackrock and Vanguard into China; the ambitions to liberalize Chinese society and further
open their economy for foreign, especially US investments; the attempts of Zionism to set up
shop in China; the key role of Israel in the Belt and Road project and the admiration the
Chinese have for Jews and their material success.
If it was a bio-warfare attack and if the ambition is to lock the USA and China in
a new Cold War with potential proxy wars, then Americas financial and Jewish elite, which so
very much dominate the deep state neocons, must be of the opinion that their profits will not
be affected by it.
And if it was the long-term plan of Zionism and much of Americas financial, largely
Jewish, elite to shift their power-base from the USA which they have effectively subjugated
to the less secured China, then a bio-warfare attack would hardly be a smart move to keep the
transition as quiet as possible.
@if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China, isn't
it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never significantly
leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the coronavirus?
Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed so implausible
at the time?
Albert Einstein: "Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting
Different Results".
Moreover, in establishing whether a crime was committed, the criminal investigation has to
establish first that there was a motive, the means and the opportunity to commit the crime.
All these criteria are satisfied in this case pointing to a biological attack against China
and its allies.
The possibility of biowarfare (and its desirability) was unequivocally formulated in
September 2000 when the 'Project for the New American Century' released "Rebuilding America's
Defenses", a report that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend
its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
The report also states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful
tool".
The first bioweapons research program was initiated in America by Sir Frederick Banting with
corporate sponsorship in 1940.
From Wikipedia (no secrets): In 1942 "U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson requested that
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) undertake consideration of U.S. biological warfare. In
response the NAS formed a committee, the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC), which issued a
report on the subject in February 1942.The report, among other items, recommended the
research and development of an offensive biological weapons program.
The British, and the research undertaken by the WBC, pressured the U.S. to begin biological
weapons research and development and in November 1942 U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt
officially approved an American biological weapons program. In response to the information
provided by the WBC, Roosevelt ordered Stimson to form the War Research Service (WRS).
Established within the Federal Security Agency, the WRS' stated purpose was to promote
"public security and health", but, in reality, the WRS was tasked with coordinating and
supervising the U.S. biological warfare program. In the spring of 1943 the U.S. Army
Biological Warfare Laboratories were established at Fort (then Camp) Detrick in
Maryland".
The Chinese read their James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times
is enemy action".
It doesn't make sense to me that the US would fly drones over chinese pig farms half way
around the world in order to infect half the pigs in China with African swine flu.
Smithfield is the largest producer of pork in the US. Smithfield is owned by a Chinese firm.
So China is making up for their lack of domestic pork by buying their own US pork. How would
this risky venture benefit the US? Yet this was the accusation labelled against the US by
many Chinese. With zero proof.
The timing of this pandemic is very beneficial to the deep state, and the MSM is hyping
the heck out of it; and the CDC et al are pumping up the numbers to make it seems as bad as
possible. It's like they WANT a global pandemic. To crash the market and make DJT look bad?
That is what the Biden for drooling pres campaign videos are hyping already.
If there is a germ war going on, it is China doing it to its communist shit-hole self. I
don't know why anybody trades with them. The Chinese state literally kills Uyghurs and Falun
Gong and steals their organs, but they have favored nation trading status? wtf
It is fairly congruent with my own writeup from a few weeks back. Although I did not go so
far as to definitively endorse any particular theory. The idea of this all being an American
strike on China is the interesting hypothesis to me and fits my understanding of how
America's geopolitical toolbox might work best. There is also a case to be made that the
blowback stateside is a feature not a bug.
The United States could come out ahead in terms of the great game with China. But only if
it can play its cards correctly.
Ultimately, what enough people think about this whole situation is what will define
outcomes and right now things are on track for the bulk of the Chinese population to think
that this is an American attack and for a significant number of Americans to believe that
this is either accidental or deliberate Chinese action.
I think those popular attitudes are very valuable to their respective governments.
Devil's advocacy is always an important intellectual activity, but you seemed to have pretty
much pointed out the hole in your grand theory yourself.
If we're going to imagine the US gov't apparatus is competent enough to start the virus in
China, one would have to presume (if their collective IQ's approach anywhere near 90) that
they would also set up for the contingency that it might come to the US too.
Imagining otherwise is akin to thinking the US top brass have the intelligence of some of
those bonehead crooks who sometimes make the news for their stupid (and funny) attempts at
crime. The US top brass might be dumb, but c'mon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5CvDgaZSc
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing China of
having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly
research. But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder
whether the epidemic in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and
was perhaps a little too free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of
our national security establishment.
Or alternatively, who would a laboratory whistleblower turn to other than a respected
Harvard professor, who would understand the technical aspects, and who he may actually
already have known and trusted?
Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then
just a few weeks later large portions of the Iran's ruling elites became infected by a
mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any
rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
An irresistible add-on like Larry Silverstein's extra insurance cover and payout.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that
reports of the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and
orchestrated campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media to identify
the cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country.
Again similar to 9/11 with an instant media explanation trumpeted around the world (no
investigation necessary).
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese
government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of
precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
Agreed – they really messed it up – and it would be a world class irony if it
was their own virus that wrecks the US economy.
The Chinese embassy in Serbia is an interesting side story. However, as much as I disagreed
with why we were there, another Clinton abuse of office, China was apparently participating
as a combatant providing crucial signals support to the Serbian military. Topped off by
handling sensitive F117 residuals that we wanted destroyed. Or perhaps only some of US, given
various conflicts of interests in both Clinton globalism and sharing/planned obsolescence by
arms makers .
CV19
The "US did it" is a possibility that certainly should be addressed in the continuum of many
possibilities. I certainly would look for linkages between BHO
administration/Gates/academia/DeepGreen/China. China certainly does not act innocent,
covering up the early patients' stories and physical evidence a la our JFK scale.
As for US incompetence, the globalist media favors CCP; liberalism; Big Tech; Big
Medicine; the Democratic Party; along with the O/Clintonista FDA and CDC, have done
everything possible to hamstring accurate CV19 information amongst the citizenry, and
specifically against Trump. Huge TDS.
Months of near total shutdown on IV vitamin C, bowel tolerance dosing of vitamin C, high
dose vitamin D, quercetin and orthomolecular cocktails for prophylaxis and treatment. As well
as censorship and savage attacks on people trying to evolve the HCQ+AZM+zinc cocktail.
Prof Lieber's greatest "crime" is probably because he is responsible for saving untold
numbers of potential infectees, at least in the early stages https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/10/sensor-detects-identifies-single-viruses/
ie his work on virus detection & identification is why the Chinese government was able to
deal with the pandemic so quickly & effectively.
A bioweapon does Not have to have a high bodycount to work as intended; weapons of mass
destruction – even nukes (despite western brainwashing that they "ended WWII") –
have very few military applications and primarily target civilians.
Their main effect is disruption & demoralisation; in this Covid-19 has succeeded beyond
possible expectations.
The USA has patents for coronaviruses going back to 2003, post-SARS: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7220852B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en https://patents.justia.com/patent/10130701
Whilst these are Not the Covid-19 variant, it goes to show that they can indeed be
vat-grown.
Even should the current coronavirus be a natural mutation, it can still be weaponised.
Many of the most fearsome pathogens such as smallpox, anthrax and the bubonic plague are also
natural-born killers. Supposedly they have been eradicated from the face of the planet,
safely existing only in military laboratories around the globe, for research purposes of
course.
The circumstantial evidence that Cov19 is a bioattack is enormous, and the likelihood of
US origin is pretty damning. The US government will be desperate to point fingers everywhere
else, and is using the tried&tested trial by media +obfuscation, rather than logic and
reasoning.
If hard proof of US culpability manifests then the appropriate level of China's response will
be "nuclear" (I don't mean actual nukes, but something like dumping US treasury bonds).
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US
How?
Is there specific information tracing this "leak" to China?
Is it possible -- is it even conceivable -- that the same logic that you detailed to tip
the scales in favor of US biowarfare against China can also suggest that the bioweapon did
not "naturally leak" into the US but was deliberately deployed against the people of the
United States?
Follow the money: the goal of (speculated) biowar against China was, as you wrote,
not to kill but to economically devastate a formidable competitor-turned-adversary (same
thing the US has been doing to Iran by sanctions since at least 1995 with Clinton's executive
order, made permanent by the D'Amato Iran Libya Sanctions Act).
The goal of biowar against the people of the USA is to cripple the economy, to Weimarize
American commerce and enable those left standing to scoop up the life's work and investment
of millions of entrepreneurs for pennies on the dollar, with the added travesty that those
left standing are supplied with dollars by the very taxpayers whose assets are being
snapped up!
The Chinese government lied and continues to lie about the virus.
The Wuhan leadership knew in mid December and arrested doctors who leaked the info and
destroyed lab records.
Xi likely knew no later than January 1.
There are thousands of wet markets in southern China and SE Asia, but only the one a short
walk from the Wuhan Institute of Virology allegedly was the source.
Chinese researchers worked in America to develop this exact virus, adding HIV to SARS, and
left in 2015 to work in Wuhan.
Chinese national was arrested in 2018 in Detroit while carrying live SARS and MERS
viruses.
Chinese scientists working in Canada were kicked out in 2019 for shipping stolen
biological material to Wuhan.
It was developed in the lab, but I suspect the release was accidental. The cover up and
letting the virus spread around the world was intentional.
Xi is fighting to maintain power. He might not succeed
The US government did fund the research of those Chinese researchers at UNC. They
continued to fund them in China.
China's economy had already stalled. Then it lost the trade war. Banks were failing.
Foreign companies were moving out. Xi used the opportunity of the virus to avoid the disaster
of economic collapse and to hurt the rest of the world after the Century of Humiliation,
China would rather take the rest of the world down rather than go down alone.
Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore had
been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and energetic
responses .
Japan's reaction to the Corona virus is/was not competent and energetic, unless you want
to count the way how the Japanese government dealt with the cruise ship 'Diamond Princess' as
a resounding success. Send army recruits without protection to the ship, start with 10
patients, quarantine the entire ship, end up with 765 infected individuals, and then send
people [tourists] home. I live on one of the 4 big islands and there is no lock down here.
Below is a picture I took just now [what they refer to as a Junior High School], Tuesday, 21
April, 2020 ~16:00 P.M. fro the window of my apartment.
Judge for yourself.
No masks. No distance. No governmental guidance. Japan is run by bureaucrats and it
shows.
Thanks for the article. It was a pleasure to read.
According to this reconstruction, the Chinese government first became aware of the
seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan. 14th, but delayed taking any major action
until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the number of infections greatly
multiplied.
This also fits in with an alternative explanation, which is admittedly wild but which I
would say is considerably less wild than the bioweapon-blowback theory:
J.Ross has proposed [ ] this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the
sense that while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was
at least 1000x what was necessary to deal with a bad flu strain and that China played it up
to scare people, especially the US. China's actions (mass shutdown) triggered a series of
events that scared everyone. But none of the data we have corroborate the Mass Killer
Apocalypse Virus fears. So what was this?
[MORE]
[This] theory would have it that the CCP's sudden about-face on The New Virus -- a
literally overnight about-face [Jan. 20] from "not a big deal" to "shut down a region with
60 million people, cue the Virus Apocalypse Movie film reels and the hazmat suits" -- was a
calculated bid to hurt the US and to hurt Western economies. By the time of the unexpected
about-face, they had 100% certainty it had spread to the US and elsewhere, AND that these
countries had the kind of media that would go into hysteria mode AND had the technological
capacity to do "testing."
This theory would attribute to the CCP a calculated bid to create a false virus panic
with plausible deniability ("so sorry! we didn't have the data! it was early; we reacted
the best we could; and hey even the highly-neutral WHO are calling us heroes") which would
scare people and trigger a series of events that throw the US and its satellites in Western
Europe into chaos, making the latter easier pickings for Belt & Road and Huawi
colonization, etc.; countries dazed by a mass-hysteria-recession are suddenly beggars, not
choosers.
The Chinese Communist Party's calculation would have been, on that fateful 'about-face'
evening, that the West was much less ready to handle a panic than Communist China would be.
It was a risk to them but it worked.
If this theory is right, in fact, the CCP succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. A case
of the dog finally catching the car bumper; what the heck now? The results for China's
regime itself are unclear, given that the cynical triggering of mass-hysteria-recessions in
major trading partners equates to a drought that sinks all boats.
The alternative, and many would say more plausible theory, is that the Chinese Communist
Party panicked, too, and reacted highly irrationally, taking a sledgehammer to a handful of
mosquitoes and then salting the earth where the flattened bodies of the mosquitoes landed.
Or a synthesis of the two may be true. It's hard to disentangle motivations. But the
unexplained 'about-face' is real and needs explanation.
In the end, does it matter? Even if we take the more innocuous version at face value: the
virus had nothing to do with bioweapons and simply mutated naturally from bats to humans, the
response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
We're now seeing a Yellow Peril 2.0 campaign ramped up at astonishing speed. The so-called
"liberal class", posturing as tolerant and sophisticated, is now trying to run on Trump's
right flank on China. Joe Biden's campaign ads on China are Cold War-style cariactures.
I've been seeing the consequences play out even in neutral places. I frequent quite a few
technology-related subreddits and the unmitigated hatred of China is truly a sight to be
hold. Even the most tangential topics get hijacked by zealots. For all the talk about how the
media's power is supposedly dimishing, the cattle is still very much influenced by what the
MSM tells them to think.
I hope Unz can syndicate some stories from The Grayzone, which I find to be the only
publication on the left which isn't in thrall with the DNC. Even Democracy Now! and Jacobin
are pushing state department scare stories on China. The total collapse of the American left
over the last 10-15 years is a greatly undertold story.
The alleged report by National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) is the most damning
piece of evidence if the report does exist. Here is the official denial:
"As a matter of practice, the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment
publicly on specific intelligence matters," Day said. "However, in the interest of
transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting
about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence
Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI
product exists."
So we are in the "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."
territory.
What is important is not that Channel 12 (in Israel) followed the ABC article but that it
added an extra bit of information which was not in the original ABC article that the report
was passed to Israel and that the IDF held a first discussion about it still in November.
Fooling some ABC reporter by offering her Trump damaging leak that Trump knew but did
nothing could be easy but getting a confirmation from Israel where presumably sources in the
IDF had to be involved it does not seem as a simple get Trump operation.
I don't think people understand the extent of collaboration between US and China including
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) , It actually goes back to the early 1980's with
cooperation between USAMIID and WIV on Hanta Viruses. More recently extensive collaboration
between China and US on gain of function studies and virus hunting, especially with corona
viruses from bats. Ralph Baric UNC and Shih Zhengli from Wuhan have published papers together
. Funding of joint studies from USAMIID, NIAID, DARPA. NIH, etc. George Gao the Director of
Chinese CDC participated in the Event 201 simulation. There are many more ties. Google Wuhan
Biolake -a lot of global biotech companies there.
I dont think anyone can know the extent of the disease in China. After all a super
spreading virus from as early as November circulating in heavily polluted Wuhan, a city more
populated than NYC , which was also a major domestic and international transportation hub
with millions leaving the city for other destinations in China and internationally in the
weeks before Wuhan was locked down just before the New Year when everything shuts down for 2
weeks anyways. And yet the disease only spreads to Europe and US but not to any degree
outside Hubei province? Not believable.
And as for US deaths from COVID-19 being undercounted. Where is the evidence for that. CDC
has basically informed everyone to count a case as COVID based on suspicions (no positive
test needed). If a heart disease patient of 80 years old has a heart attack while also having
pneumonia its COVID-19. And those tests, they haven't been validated. There are many
different tests. We don't know the specificity of any of them. Very likely there are many
false positives. Also if a hospital can collect more money from medicare with a covid-19
diagnosis, guess whats going to be diagnosed more often.
So I am skeptical.
Now 30,000 deaths attributed to covid in 2 weeks is a lot. In a normal 2 week period there
would be 110,000 total deaths. So have there been 140,000 deaths in total, or just 110, 000
deaths with 30, 000 called Covid deaths? I dont know.
I actually expect more deaths than normal even without covid. Suicides. More deaths from
heart attacks and stroke due to financial stress and people delaying treatment out of fear of
getting the virus. More cancer deaths for same reason. Increased alcoholism and obesity
should trigger more deaths in the next few months.
One has to consider this an event on an international scale on a par with 9/11 in
magnitude and impact on freedoms. Curious how WHO declares pandemic on 3/11. Coincidence I
guess.
Lot of players in the Virus Industrial Complex stand to make a lot of money in coming
years as a result. The Globalists will push through digital ID and mandatory vaccination for
international travelers if not everyone and the Global Health Security Alliance (GHSA) will
be strengthened. The right will get tighter immigration controls and more bailouts for Big
Business. The left gets a taste of universal income and perhaps medicare for all (2009
pandemic helped get Obamacare approved). And the technocrats will get more toys for the
Surveillance and Tracking Industry with Big Data monitoring all the chipped individuals
health among other things. Cashless society to minimize virus spread pushed through so all
transactions can be logged. Everyone wins but the little guy.
And you can bet the Greenies will capitalize on this
Since the Virus Industrial Complex took over the Public Health Agencies in the 1970's we
have had endless Virus Scares, Swine Flu in 1976, Hepatitis B (1978) , AIDS in 1980,
MS-ME/CFS outbreaks (1984), HPV/Cervical Cancer (1984), HHV-6 (1986) , SARS (2003) , Bird Flu
(2005), Swine Flu (2009) , MERs (2012) Zika (2014) Measles (2014) Ebola (2015) and now
COVID-2019
See a pattern here?
We got virus finders/makers in academia and security /military agencies in the interest of
biowarfare defense and science working with vaccine and drug companies who receive funds to
develop treatments for these newly found/made viruses, in some cases before any human has
been infected. Reminds me of the time when those working for anti-virus software companies
were suspected of generating computer viruses to sell more software and be fastest to provide
the patch (since they created the virus). In any case, certainly a lot of interlocking
conflict of interests among members of the Virus Industrial Complex.
The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) of Ft.
Detrick fame has been partnered with the Wuhan Virlogy Lab since 1981. The Wuhan Lab has also
been partnered with college basketball powerhouse Duke University. Check out the Lab's
website. This facilityis a diagnostic lab not a bioweapons lab. The USA has bioweapons labs
located on the Chinese and Russian borders in Kazakhstan. Oh what a tangled web we weave .
I just want to say that we need to distinguish between conspiracy theory and conspiracy
hypothesis.
The out of Wuhan lab is a conspiracy hypothesis, or much closer to it. There is no
plausible benefit to the Chinese, and saying 'a disgruntled employee may have dun it to get
at dem dictators' is just speculation in the sky.
On the other hand the anectodal evidence for it being US action – the obvious
benefit, the time and place of the outbreak, the military games team, the precognition, as
well as how the CDC is not tracing patient zero in the US (if it was in China in Nov, surely
it could have been in the US then too, and then the whole propaganda story falls apart)..
Even the US crying wolf again, after so many times, is almost enough for me.
They are all anecdotal of course, but perfectly in line with the MO and historical
practice of the US government.
I now thank my friends when they call me a conspiracy theorist loon, as I point out that
Russiagate, Skripal, and so many of the government lines are pure conspiracy hypotheses
– one step further away from Kansas than my take!
Thanks for this first attempt to dig through the growing tale of corona. However, as we are
still in the fog of war, there can be no more then a preliminary assessment.
My take is still that Corona is far less of a threat then commonly believed, and that it
has been deliberately saddled with diverse agendas, so in any countries the leadership have
no interest in telling the truth.
1) I think there is sufficient proof that need not be repeated, and
2) it is better for everyones' mental health not to believe in killer viruses that force us
to abdicate even our most basic freedoms.
I believe that either a) the Chinese leadership thought that they were being attacked and
undertook their lockdown in good faith, or b) they played an outright GAMBIT to force western
countries into their own, more economically damaging lockdowns. The clue would be that China
is so strong that it can weather the blow, while Europe and to a lesser extend the US
cannot.
The director of the Chinese CDC, Dr Gao was part of Event 201 and studied in Oxford. Are
there dual loyalties in China? And then, in which direction?
Possibly, something minor was indeed released as a bioweapon, before, calculably, western
government incompetence and hysteria took over. I also believe that Israel used corona as a
screen for biowarfare-targeted killings in Iran, whose case is definitely a story apart.
The Russian lockdown can be explained by the serious assumption that if they did not lock
down they would be accused as the authors of a biowarfare attack on the US. At this point,
antirussian hostility in the West is so severe that they had to comply!
The coordinated actions across opposed political systems CAN be explained, and it does not
take a nutter to do it.
The majority of the American public still believe that a small group of Islamic
fundamentalists wielding only box cutters atomized the World Trade Center into dust –
in a cartoonish act of sorcery. If the lie is so big it has to become believable
– that amount of cognitive dissonance is simply just too much to bear. An already duped
population of such magnitude doesn't have much of a chance of coming out of this kind of
stupor, especially under the bubble of the most powerful propaganda machine in the history of
propaganda, therefore, I don't think this story is going to go anywhere.
Hi Ron! Your article for me is a breath of fresh air! Amidst what you accurately call the fog
of war it has been very hard to discern precisely what is going on in regards to this virus
situation. It's been extremely difficult to assert the "truth" or the "red pill" as some call
it when it comes to this pandemic. For that reason in fact, I would caution everyone that
cares about having a well calibrated "perception" sensor to tread with extreme caution when
it comes to this topic, as there isn't nearly enough evidence in any direction to assume one
theory over another. Faithfully adopting any one theory at the moment can only lead you to
become the equivalent of a 9/11 truther (the kind that obsesses about missiles, physics,
instead of the paper trail leading directly to Israel and Saudi Arabia).
Having said that there are just too many statistical improbabilities to simply brush aside
the Bioweapon possibility. I know quite a few influential figures in the alternative media
have unequivocally rejected all Bioweapon theories (specially the theory that the US/Israel
could ever conspire to spread a bioweapon) which is why I am very glad to see someone of your
Intellectual authority provide a credible well thought-out case supporting this increasingly
unpopular position (even in alternative circles). I get it, there is ZERO evidence to show
the US/Israel or even China are behind covid-19. But there is equally ZERO evidence to
support the official story (which is completely ridiculous until they provide more details)
about the guy that supposedly ate the covid bat.
With that disclaimer I will freely speculate below but keep in mind this is all
conjecture:
1. Anyone that claims is "impossible" for the US to let lose a bioweapon that would
destroy the US economy and kill Americans for the sake of hurting their "perceived" enemies
more needs to seriously examine EVERYTHING we know about the rulers of the American empire.
The first obvious question is who exactly rules the American empire? Are they righteous
rulers that make decisions based on what is best for the American people? The answer to this
question is a clear and resounding NO. The rulers of America follow a religion that states
anyone that is not part of their tribe is "cattle" and dispensable. On this grounds alone the
Rulers of America would have very little issue releasing a virus that kills (mostly) "cattle"
Americans. And then comes to "why would they tank their own economy" objection. To this
objection I'll simply point out that AMERICA IS RULED through financial coercion. A crisis is
very good for the rulers of America because they get to FURTHER consolidate their power over
America. Gaining more power over America, hurting your geopolitical rivals and ultimately
using the panic and confusion to pass draconian and more authoritarian rules are all
INCENTIVES for American elites to release a bioweapon.
Lastly, to everyone that says it's impossible for the American elites to tank their
economy and/or kill Americans in order to achieve a political objective has forgotten about
9/11! Our current rulers in Tel-Aviv paid a few saudi mercenaries to fly two airplanes into
the twin towers to kill a few thousands of people in order to go to war! Of course the
atrocity does not end there. A lot more Americans died as consequence of 9/11, even more were
affected economically and even a lot more lost civil liberties and standing in American
society. Right then and there you have a blatant and relatively recent event that almost word
for word matches the consequences of this virus. Considering this as a possible escalation of
tactics by the US/Israel against their enemies is a possibility. The US did drop the nuke of
an innocent, already defeated enemy. What makes anyone so sure this is beyond their "moral
code"
2.China decides to strongly stick by Iran, suddenly the Hong Kong protest springs out of
control, 50 percent of their pork is wiped out by a weird disease and now of course, the
mother of all "unforeseen" events kick starts a cascade of negative consequences for
China.
This is by far the most alarming set of "coincidences" of all. I remember last year
reading the Iran-China saga, as the Chinese refused to stop buying Iranian oil even as Japan
stopped buying oil after a Japanese tanker "coincidentally" was hit by a bomb in the Persian
gulf. Soon enough (if I am recalling correctly) a strange disease wipes out 50% of Chinese
pork causing possible food insecurity. Then came the Hong Kong riots that although started
for very legit reasons by the people of Hong Kong, soon enough had full on CIA spooks
speaking in the US congress, attacking people on the streets of Hong Kong! Lastly against all
odds these horrible events are somewhat weathered China and suddenly we have a pandemic that
not only damages China in the world stage, but serves as the perfect excuse to possibly
sanction, attack and possibly destabilize china.
Maybe I am completely paranoid or skeptical, but what are the chances of such a string of
events? Is there some data I am not privy to that can explain some of these coincidences? Is
there something to Chinese cultural norms that could explain these strange viruses literally
wrecking their economy and political stability? What are the chances all of these viruses
occur in a very short period and their severity and consequences directly correlated to
China's defiance of US orthodoxy on Iran/US hegemony?
Unlike some people here, I do not share the opinion that the Chinese government is some
sort of Angel or ideological ally. They are a government that ultimately acts on it's
interests and it's full of flaws (including exerting degrees of tyranny on their own people).
Having said that you don't have to be a communist to notice how strange this sequence of
events truly is. Bad things keep happening to China as it opposes US Hegemony. It might even
be statistically impossible for some of these things to happen by "chance", but maybe China
is just really unlucky, right?
But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over the
last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the Korean war, China used their Cats Paw North to invade the South then the
Chinese army intervened under the pretense of being volunteers. Although Chinese ground
troops were not directly involved, Vietnam was otherwise a rerun of Korea with China not only
defeating the US but forcing it to cease isolating China. Carter issued a presidential order
for officials to aid Chinese growth., and within a few decades as the internal unrest Western
pundits predicted failed to amount to much, it became obvious that China's growth was at the
expense of the workers of the US made jobless and suffering deaths of despair not least by
illegal synthetic opioids from China. But then, by the begining of new millennium all
manufacturing was in China, including the burgeoning fortunes of the already wealthy, who
rose on a high tide of inequality. If history was any guide a new Gilded Age must end with a
visit from the Four Horsemen. Pressaged by the appearance of the SARS-CoV virus eighteen
years before, SARS-CoV-2 appears likely to end China's run of successes, because of the
disruption it has caused to the US.
"The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus named RaTG13, "However, RaTG13
was sampled from a different province of China (Yunnan) to where COVID-19 first appeared
and the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to
an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change."
The important thing about the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not its lethality, which is about an
order of magnitude less than the original SARS-CoV of 2002, but rather SARS-CoV-2's extreme
transmissibility which is two orders of magnitude greater than its predecessor's. Anthony
Fauci warned the incoming US government administration in January 2017 of a newly mutated
coronavirus with extreme transmissibility and, apart from the greatly reduced lethality of
the massively more contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus, that is exactly what happened.
Unlike other nations, China had had no advance warning of the nature or existence of the
deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles.
They had the WHO and Fauci's public statements. Much more usefully China had the 2002
epidemic, caused by SARS-CoV which originated in China that year. In Singapore, there were
238 cases and 33 deaths from the SARS outbreak, in 2015 the worlds largest MERS-CoV outbreak
occurred in South Korea, and only the other year Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it was
only a matter of time before Singapore had its first MERS-CoV case, so they had to be well
prepared. These countries were all set up and waiting to eradicate a disease just like
COVID-19.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare
in hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely
reckless act
Excuse me? With the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus having a puny death rate yet
colossal infectiousness a centralised authoritarian state like China would be relatively
speaking best able to suppress it. A bioweapon would be tested on Whites as well as Chinese
before being released. There is no way in Hell that they would not understand that releasing
the SARS-CoV-2 virus in China would result in it sweeping through the US.
If an "out-of-control disease epidemic occurring in the Wuhan area" back in November 2019 was
the same corona virus, then toss the idea it was intentionally timed to mess with the Chinese
New Year in 2020. But then figure the deaths in China have been greatly under reported.
Furthermore, China may well have allowed carriers to travel abroad, especially to USA once
the outbreak was well under way.
However, as regards the whole biocrime aspect of the corona virus pandemic we really
cannot rely much on either US government/media or the Chinese. And if it was a bioweapon, who
among "us" would be so keen to target Iran where over ten percent of their parliament got
sick very early on? That is an Israel First kind of agenda. Or maybe it was Japan? Good
investigators keep an open mind.
Note (This is not a subject change) Over the last several decades the American public
health system has regularly failed to adequately warn our citizens about the causes and risks
of numerous epidemics that have claimed many millions of lives. Or were all sugar drenched
foods advertised as "Fat Free" really a "healthy choice"? So I do not quite understand why
Ron Unz considers the corona virus the one instance of stellar government incompetence, as if
to imply the current lock down has not nearly severe enough?!? Thank god he did not invoke
the party line panacea of the Gates vaccine!
Meanwhile, what about Kushner's fast tracking mass surveillance? Will it only be
temporary? Will it only be used for containing CV19? Ha. Let's all step in the van with the
nice man who will give us a teddy bear
On top of this alleged biocrime, examples are abounding where the opportunists are eager
to grab more power, and make killings of a sort, not least of which are the banks, Wall
Street and the war mongers.
Remember, the farther the tide goes out, bigger the tsunami that charges back in.
I don't buy it. If the US was going to go to the extreme length of releasing a highly
contagious virus into the territory of its new Deep State certified arch-enemy China, the
risk of contagioning yourself is extremely high. Especially with global trade and travel as
it is these days. Preparations would have been made in advance to make sure it would not blow
back by putting appropriate people and methods in place. Its too easy to blame incompetence
for this oversight.
If you're looking for plotters, look no further than Wall St. They are making out like
bandits in the latest bailout.
@dimples Unless of course the blow back is a feature and not a bug, which it must be
admitted, it usually is. If the US economy takes an enormous hit due to blow back, which it
has, then China is set up as the next ultra-bad guy to replace Russia, Russia Russia!. It
then becomes the new fixation of the Deep State's wet dreams, a new Cold War where plenty of
money goes down the toilet into the MIC's pockets and plenty of opportunity for the heroic
Special Ops types to keep the Hollywood grist mill grinding.
The original source went to great lengths to make it clear a massacre did in fact occur
that night/morning, only it was taking place in other areas of Beijing and the victims were
mostly protesting workers, not students. (At least 300 of them, by Chinese official figures.)
A person reading Unz's summary will come out believing this did not take place, although the
Chinese themselves don't really deny it did.
@dimples This is a reasonable view in my opinion. If you look at previous US false flag
events, they come at periods when new directions are needed to perpetuate the US war
machine's supposed usefulness. The 1990 Gulf War was clearly a set up that came just as the
old Cold War was ending and prepared the way for 911 and the Iraq War, which capitalized on
the US bases that had been set up during the Gulf War.
Currently the Russia, Russia Russia! narrative is petering out. The US Deep State wants to
perpetuate it but the Euros don't really want a war with Russia, a huge market for them. So
continuation of Russia Russia Russia! risks a split with the Euros.
But China, a nice new up and coming enemy there. Yum yum. So Covid-19 could be a US false
flag effort in that direction it has to be admitted. Damage to US economy? Who cares, the
Deep State doesn't. Its immune, rolling as it does in government loot.
My issue with the 'it's not china's fault"argument revolves around the secrecy in the
beginning. And then the arrests of those sounding the alarm inside China. One would think
that if this was from elsewhere the CCP would be screeching bloody murder from day one NOT
trying to downplay it and outright lie about it. Didn't China use the same playbook with
SARS? Silence and then misdirection.
The actual number is 43000 dead Americans. The China narrative lacks hard evidence. There is
mounting evidence that COVID-19 pandemic originated in the U.S. and may have been a terror
attack perpetuated by the U.S., which is pursuing a massive expansion of biological weapons
program. According to scholar Kevin Barrett: "It also may be a coincidence that the primary
U.S. bioweapons lab, Fort Detrick, was shut down in summer 2019 over fears that weaponized
pathogens might escape. It may be a coincidence that absurdly under-performing U.S. military
athletes came to Wuhan for the World Military Games in October and have since been accused by
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be a
coincidence that at the same time those 'athletes' were in Wuhan, the World Economic Forum,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, and other Establishment titans
were hosting a pandemic simulation called Event 201".
Furthermore, "It may be purely coincidental that the virus appeared in Wuhan, home of
China's biggest biodefense laboratory, and China's biggest transportation hub, just in time
for the Chinese New Year, when most Chinese travel to visit relatives. Likewise, it could be
coincidental that the real-life COVID-19 pandemic almost perfectly mimics Lockstep, the
Rockefeller Foundation's recipe for a global police state emerging on the back of a
coronavirus-style pandemic", added Kevin Barrett. The U.S. regime unleashed this disease on
the world, and the U.S. regime has to be held accountable.
Your suspicions on this matter echo my own. I remember the Russian Government warning a
few years back that Western NGO's inside Russia had been discovered to be collecting DNA
samples of Russian citizens and that it was the opinion of the Russian Intelligence Services
that this information was being collected ny Western Intelligence Services for the purpose of
future biological warfare. When this outbreak in China made international news I remembered
the warning from the Russian Government. Then came the outbreak in Iran that killed many
Iranian political figures. Quite a damned coincidence if there ever was one?
If you ever run for state or national office and are on the ballot (or not) herr in
California you have my vote.
Look at a very partial list of the Chinese history of lying, almost by habit, just
in the last two decades alone!
China lied in 1999 about "massacres" committed by Serbia and bombed Belgrade to set up the
narcomafia organ-smuggling so called state of "Kosovo".
China lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and invaded Iraq in 2003.
China lied about "imminent massacres" and "Viagra rape" in Libya in 2011, and deliberately
misused a UN Security Council resolution to bomb and destroy that country and hand it over to
slave trading jihadi headchopper gangs.
China lied about Syria using chemical weapons from 2013 onwards, armed and trained and
financed terrorist gangs, conducted missile strikes on the country, and continues to occupy
and steal oil from East Syria.
China organised a blatant Nazi coup in Ukraine in 2014 and lied about it being a "popular
democratic revolution".
China murdered Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani in 2020 and lied about him being about
to conduct terrorist attacks when he was actually on a peace mission.
With just this partial list of Chinese lies in the last two decades alone, who would
believe anything China has to say?!?!?
Interesting article.
Especially, interesting for me, the aggressive arrest of a Harvard Prof' of chemistry for
technical irregularities in Grant paperwork, coincidentally at the time the virus emerges.
(we assume he personally wrote up those applications ? Imagine if everyone who had
written up a Grant application, which contained an error or two, in the US were to be dragged
off in chains by the FBI ? )
And also interesting the Belgrade Chinese embassy attack -- Mr Unz's materials put it in a
totally new perspective for me.
I suspect US gov been planning this attack for years. SARS outbreak in 2003, I suspect, was a
test, to test Chinese gov's response to bio attack. Note that SARS virus and the current
covid-19 virus aren't that different to be considered different viruses, hence covid-19 also
known as SARS-2. But the difference, SARS-1 had "kill switch", it wouldn't be able to infect
humans after a while.
During 2003 SARS, China acted swiftly causing the virus to be contained within China and
according to US gov simulation, covid-19 should've been the same, contained within China. But
China didn't act as swiftly as expected, causing the virus leaking back to US, this is why US
gov is furious, had China acted earlier, the virus wouldn't travel back to US.
The killing of Iranian general, it wasn't act of recklessness, it was diversion, so that
the Iran gov would be occupied by it while ignoring coronavirus spreading silently in their
country.
Ron, my friend (sort of), if you think you have trouble now what with COVID-1, impending
national bankruptcy, and a general flow of information that seems to have been some of the
most creative fiction in our lives, just wait until you manage to invite China into US civil
disputes. Our present difficulties are as nothing compared difficulties subsequent to direct
Chinese involvement in civil matters.
Historically, third party intervention quite often leads to foreign domination. Examples: US
in Afghanistan, US in Iraq (twice). Both time, native citizens thought it a great idea to
invite the US in.
And why do I say this? Well, you're presenting China as morally wronged. In your frame of
reference, that's an absolute, more important than anything else. But it's not the only
interpretation. Perhaps China committed an act of war by giving tactical help to the Serbs.
Perhaps that violation became severe when China gathered F117A wreckage. Perhaps China is
lucky that bombing the embassy was all that happened, and we are all lucky that things did
not escalate. This is actually less of a fantasy than your account, which is at best a bit
one sided, almost a "point and sputter".
In the US, such accounts are the precursor to advocacy. You should consider carefully the
consequences of advocacy in this case.
While I think the first part of the article is very interesting, and I acknowledge the
theoretical benefits that could exist from the US using COVID as a bioweapon, I find the
argument unpersuasive for the following reasons:
Obvious blowback : If the US infected China with a highly spreadable disease, why
did we not put in more aggressive measures to stop it from spreading in the US? Otherwise,
what's the point of hurting your enemy if you also get hurt? If the US was going to attack
China with a bioweapon, why would they not engineer a genetic/ethnic bioweapon that targeted
Han Chinese, as oppose one that could also kill everyone? Seeing the economic damage this has
done to us, it seems unlikely that such a contagious weapon would be the one an actor would
pick, as it would risk damaging their own homeland.
China has always been a hotbed of disease : A third of China's history has them
facing an epidemic of some sort. The 1957 "Asian flu" , 1968 "Hong Kong flu" and 1977
"Russian flu" all started in China. The black death probably started in China. Seems far more
likely that recent disease outbreaks are part of a historic trend, or gross Chinese
conditions, rather than a bioweapon attack.
On April 11, 2020, Gilad Atzmon published here an excellent article titled "A Viral Pandemic
or A Crime Scene?", in which he suggests circumstances have now created 'a paradigm change'
in the perception of the current viral pandemic.
He states: "Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a
potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the
perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal
proportions." I concur.
All Americans (and others) who believe in China's culpability for the emergence of this
virus, should welcome such an investigation. And Mr. Pompeo, who so firmly plants the full
responsibility on China's doorstep, would receive vindication of his claims. I believe that
the governments and the people of China, Italy, Spain, France, and Iran, especially would
like to know the results of such a criminal investigation.
All nations of the world should band together now, and proceed jointly with this endeavor.
It needn't be approached with presumption of cause or intent, but simply to uncover the
entire truth of this event. That will be sufficient, and it is possible the results of this
worldwide investigation will prompt others into similar past events which have to date gone
unquestioned and unexamined.
I believe there are yet many truths about COVID-19 (and many other epidemics) still to
emerge. Perhaps one of the many people with personal knowledge of the source and method of
distribution will be sufficiently brave to come forward, perhaps another Edward Snowdon or
Chelsea Manning. We will then see how truly the US treasures its whistle-blowers.
**
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world would
demand the answer to this.
**
In early March the US government declared as classified all COVID-19 information, with all
communication to be rerouted through the White House and coordinated with NSC officials. Only
specified individuals with security clearance are permitted to attend secret meetings, with
no mobile phones or computers allowed. Excluded staff members claimed they were told virus
information was classified "because it had to do with China". The US needs to explain the
need for such extreme secrecy (while condemning China for lack of transparency), and how
coping with a domestic virus epidemic would involve China.
China, Italy, and several other nations in Asia and Europe have documented proof that
COVID-19 was circulating in their populations for several months before the outbreak in
Wuhan. And there are many, many reports, including from physicians, that infections in the US
were occurring as early as September, of 2019. These claims are too numerous, too detailed,
and too similar to be ignored. Japanese TV and press documented that Japanese tourists
returning from Hawaii were coming home infected with COVID-19 in September.
Why was Dr. Helen Chu issued a threatening "cease and desist" order to stop testing nasal
swabs her flu research team had taken in Washington State from October 2019 onward? The only
possible result would be to prevent the knowledge emerging that the virus had already been
circulating months earlier. As a rule, the reason we don't ask a question privately is
because we already know the answer, and the reason we don't ask the question publicly is
because we don't want anyone else to know the answer.
The US government needs to address the now-certain existence of the virus being widespread
in America and much of the world from September, 2019.
Your globalists and anti American tendencies come out in the first part and the last few
paragraphs of your piece. I didn't read most of the rest of your long winded article.
Bottom line, the Chinks infected the world whether by incompetence or deliberately. They then
intimidated the world with their economic might and with the help of their lackeys in the WHO
and the PC/shit lib elite in the West to keep the flow of infected people to keep coming into
the West. Italy is the tragic example but you can include the rest of the West including
America where that old bag Nancy Pe-lousy was celebrating in China Town in late February.
They, the PRC, should be made to pay reparations.
Not to dismiss Ron Unz's reasoning outright, but it has been claimed that the virus cannot be
the product of direct genomic manipulation.
That's barring any breakthrough in genomic manipulation techniques, a breakthrough that
would have to be kept secret. What these scientists have said is that publicly available
techniques would have left traces in the viruses genome. They claim that any such traces are
absent from the virus's genome.
If that holds up, then the only remaining possibility would be a virus that was bred. It
could have been bred by taking the bat virus and passing it through other types of animals,
selecting for increased virulence. It has been claimed that ferrets would fit the bill since
they have the same ACE2 receptor as humans. Ferrets are easy to handle under laboratory
conditions.
If the US deep state did something like this, then their reasoning would have to be on
what lines? "Let's take this virus that we have bred to dock very easily onto the human ACE2
receptor and set it loose on the Chinese. The virus will devastate them will they still be
able to contain it – so that there won't be too much blow back."
Maybe they misjudged the product of their virus enhancement effort. Still, it needs be
kept in mind what presuppositions have to be put in place for the blow back theory to
work.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and
the reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones.
Their reasons are extremely practical:
1. In the absence of national elections they are free to make realistic promises. Since
they have kept every promise they've made to date they have an investment in staying honest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China
,
2. In the absence of factions like our Republicans and Democrats, there's no-one to blame
or pass the buck to, nor lie competitively, nor attack proposed or existing policies. There's
no 'them,' there's only 'us.'
3. The Chinese have always been willing to make sacrifices now for benefits later, which
incentivizes being honest up front.
4. Telling the truth is cheaper in the long run, which is one reason China has the
cheapest government on earth.
5. People are much more willing to cooperate with truth-tellers. Governing is infernally
difficult and being truthful makes it vastly easier.
6. Straight talk, especially from leaders, is attractive (Trump's appeal to his base is
that he occasionally blurts out something true). Asked on TV how it felt to be President, Xi
said, "People who have little experience with power–those who are far from
it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the
superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention
houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level."
Imagine an American politician talking like that.
7. Smart people tell the truth more often than dumb people. People out of their
intellectual and experiential depth, which our politicians usually are, tend to lie. The
average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140 and all of them have 25 years
successful governing experience. They're professionals who are less likely to lie than your
brain surgeon.
@Otto von Komsmark I've read the Chinese are proud that they'll "eat everything under the
sun". China is a very old culture. People might have differing opinions, but I think it
strange that now we have all these cross-overs from the animal kingdom.
@animalogic I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese
funding, making him in effect an agent of China. That's not some burocratic form error.
I think the article is a good summary but the author is also guilty of embellishment. For
example, he used the word "concerted" at least twice, when he has no proof of that.
Having grown up with in the University of Chicago South Side Chicago neighborhood , then
lived in racial, criminal, immigration anarchy New York City 1985-91
, I m rarely if ever surprised about national or international events. The seemingly
incomprehensible views and policies of American, diaspora, Neo Conservative, Hollywood,Wall
Street Jews makes sense in awful ways:
They hate us – want us replaced
Madeline Albright (How did this ugly woman from Central Europe get to be USA Secretary of
State? Why did she demand bombing the sh&$ out of the Serbs to creat a Muslim beach head
in Central Europe ? What is she ? Catholic? Episcopalian Christian? Oh she s Jewish again but
wants to convert to Islam to protest President Trump s proposed Muslim immigration plan).
I look at this Chinese Kung Flu Coronavirus and just note how sensible nationalist
governments/societies in Japan, Taiwan, Hungary, Slovakia and of course Israel handle it:
Strict, zero tolerance immigration, student visas from Coronavirus plague infected areas
– also no millions of Muslim young male migrants.
Pretty much no one in these sensible nationalist societies care if Jews at the SPLC, The
Atlantic Magazine, or National Review, CPAC or the Wall Street Journal scream that they
are:
RACISTS
FASCISTS
NAZIS
It s probably too late in my life to try to learn Hungarian or Japanese.
But I think I/we should all try to learn translations of :
"Shut up Jews"
"Support Israel the homeland of the Jews so go home"
Life isn t complicated .
It s the same with terrible Black AA ga g murders in my Chicago . same with TB, bubonic
plague heroin addicts street people in LA's Skid Row, Gypsy no go places in Romania or
France.
From Ron Unz's article linked above on the Canadian kidnapping of the Huawei billionaire's
daughter, Ron himself said something which points to the perhaps deeper truth here
In that piece our host Ron suggested that the clear best course for China, was to put the
squeeze on USA Jewish billionaire and political king-maker Sheldon Adelson, the big political
funder of Trump and US Republicans etc Adelson being the casino king of Macau who earns most
of his billions there under Chinese authority, Adelson being able to get the Huawei exec
released with just a phone call to Trump, if Chinese would just walk into Sheldon's casinos
and threaten shutdown
China never moved to touch Sheldon's businesses in China, and as I said at the time, this
is because of the deeper frightening truth, that the big powers tend to work together behind
the scenes, even whilst in public disputes, like high school football teams in rivalry
Chinese media accuse the US of creating a bio-weapon, US media accuses China of the same,
the classic rivalry of Orwell's 1984
Both governments share motives of culling pensioners as covid-19 does; distracting from
incipient collapse of excessive economic debt; establishing greater elite surveillance and
control; and enabling elites to buy and own ever larger sectors of global economic life; in
other words the classic 'NWO' of conspiracy talk.
Half a century ago, Antony Sutton proved that 1940s-1970s USA had been transmitting tech
to the old Soviet Union (often via Israel), to create the 'Best Enemy Money Can Buy' the Cold
War was essentially fake, and Putin came out of that, and continues trading favours with the
USA Putin doesn't question 9-11, USA doesn't question false flags in Chechnya etc
Sites like the 'Secret Life of Jews in China' show how European Jews were part of China's
Mao revolution, even becoming politburo members Chabad centres abound in China despite few
nominal Jews there, linking hotlines to Jared Kushner's Chabad centre in DC and 'Putin's
rabbi' Berel Lazar in Moscow
One has to go one level above the US vs China mudslinging, and consider it is all likely
as fake and staged as was US-Soviet rivalry China and the USA may well be working together on
covid
--
The idea that Covid-19 was a bio-weapon deployed in China by the US visitors to the late
2019 military games, was promoted early on by Veterans Today (VT) where Unz's Kevin Barrett
hails from. VT is a website widely-read by world governments, despite its partly kooky and
ridiculous articles about space aliens etc
Gordon Duff, co-chief of VT, said out loud in a radio interview – where he also
outed himself with a chuckle as a 'self-hating Jew' – that 30% of the material on his
site is intentionally false and ridiculous, as the price he must pay for publishing true
'intel drops' without getting shut down / murdered by the US gov't in intel-speak, this is
called 'poisoning the well', you publish the most damning truths on self-discrediting sites
like VT or David Icke, where the typical reader easily dismisses truth because it's published
next to articles about space alien lizards ruling planet earth
@Mustapha Mond Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its
society and economy but to make the whole world angry with China. Ron Unz article is the
voice crying out in the desert which will not stop the tsunami of memes: WuFlu ,
China did it , China must pay for our sufferingWe must punish China.
that has been whipped up from the very beginning and only will be getting loader and
stronger.
Some of the things you list are to benefit the insiders. No little thing that could bring
profit will be left to chance. It is just like when World Trade Center being transferred from
Port Authority before 9/11. Was it critical to the operation? Could they get the terror event
if WTC was not owned by Larry Silverstein? Yes, they could but few extra bucks could have
been made with Larry Silverstein being the front man. Or just when American troops were
entering Bagdad, who and when organized special outfits who systematically were visiting
Bagdad museum and looting it according to the shopping list?
Ron Unz is underestimating their evil and abilities.
@Ozymandias If "they" were going to do such a thing, how would they go about it, and what
would have been their thinking?
Deliberately engineered biological agents can often be detected by careful analysis of the
pathogen's genome. Bioinformatic programs can detect odd sequences that shouldn't belong; the
chances of a purely natural explanation for the inclusion of some sequences are rare, for
instance. Let's say I wanted to create a super virus capable of destroying humanity. One
obvious way to do this would be to take viral sequences from certain dangerous pathogens and
combine them into one. That might do the job, but obviously there is a risk that comes along
with doing with that: current sequencing and bioinformatic techniques may quickly discover
such an act and invite retaliation by the victim. " That shouldn't be there! " If half
of China started dying of a mysterious virus composed of sequences from various unrelated
viruses, then obviously there is an attack underway because the chances of such elements
coming together in nature is very low, practically zero. A response would likely follow in
short order.
Is there a way around this? Maybe.
There are several odd things about Sars2 (Covid-19) that I haven't seen before: 1) it
spreads in contravention to how -- some -- previous viruses we've dealt with in recent memory
have spread. Specifically, there are a higher-than-expected number of cases are transmitted
before the patient become symptomatic with this virus. This is why initial airport screenings
failed to stop the virus from entering the United States, aside from lax screening*. In the
past, most of these viruses like MERS and SARS weren't particularly contagious when the
infected carriers were asymptomatic, so simply checking their body temperature with a
thermometer and following up with contact tracing was enough to stop the spread. 2) unlike
both SARS and MERS, this virus is remarkably contagious for a novel pathogen, even moreso
than the flu 3) this virus may have a very long asymptomatic phase, up to two weeks in some
people. One explanation is that something similar is true of other viruses that cause the
common cold and the flu but we haven't really noticed it before because those viruses are
comparatively less lethal. If you believe in a conspiracy, on the other hand, this would be a
feature deliberately engineered to ensure maximum transmission.
Elements of the conspiracy:
1. This outbreak happened just before Donald Trump's reelection campaign got underway and
during crucial trade negotiations. Maybe they wanted to put pressure on the Chinese
government to increase Trump's chances of getting reelected. His approval ratings according
to 538 have been stuck in the low to mid 40s for essentially his entire presidency. He needs
a consistent approval rating above 47% or so to ensure a high chance of reelection.
2. This happened just after a failed Hong Kong color revolution by youthful protestors.
Many of the signs held by protesters included the kinds of things a boomer FBI agent might
think would curry favor with the 4chan crowd -- pepe the frog, various slogans. It failed, in
part, because that crowd didn't buy it. Hong Kong protestors were relentlessly mocked on some
alt-right websites as morons wanting to deliver their people the "freedom" enjoyed by the
West: dozens of genders, speech laws, feminism The case of a Canadian waxing salon being
forced to wax a male-to-female transgendered person's genitals was prominently used to mock
Hong Kong protesters demanding Western freedom.
Conspiracy:
The CIA may have bred a virus to be easily transmissible but much less lethal than the
original SARS virus that made the headlines years ago. They may have expected the virus to
spread quickly in China and panic the Chinese population, undermining faith in the government
so the CIA could once again try to overthrow their rival. They never expected it to come back
on them.
If one were going to create a viral agent guaranteed to escape detection as an artificial
construction, one might do the following: take a known virus indigenous to the targeted area
and breed it in animals native to the area (bats) so that it spreads undetected until
symptoms present while having a traceable lineage when examined with bioinformatic software /
select it against human tissue samples in vitro so that in infects human cells easily.
The former technique might leave behind a tale tell signature: the virus has a long
incubation time within the host. Why? Well, some animals have lower resting body temperatures
than humans. This can affect which pathogens are able to infect them. Pathogens that have
evolved to replicate at one temperature may not replicate very well under another one.
Animals like opossums and hibernating bats are less likely to die from rabies infection, for
instance, because they have lower body temperatures, among other factors. Humans and dogs are
not so lucky because both have higher body temperatures where the virus can replicate more
easily. It's sort of strange how SARS2 (Covid-19) takes so long to clear in some patients --
up to two weeks or more. Maybe this occurs because, despite being able to easily infect human
cells, it replicates poorly at first because it is adapted to bats, which often have a lower
resting body temperature. Although, it is possible this could occur naturally as well.
The latter can be done by infecting cell cultures in dishes and examining which cultures
became infected and to what degree. This can be done by measuring viral titers -- dilute
extracted cell culture liquid, filter out cells and bacteria, apply diluted mixes to new
cultures, examine results, selected superior viral lines for continued manipulation. There
are lots of ways to set this up. Maybe you tag your viral proteins with a florescent protein
and examine after some period of time; the more virus that is being made, the stronger the
signal. Select that particular culture and continue.
Point: there are lots of ways to do this, some pretty simple (but probably expensive,
dangerous, and time-consuming nonetheless -- which is why dumb Middle Eastern terrorists
haven't tried it so far). The important thing is that such a set up would avoid including
obviously unnatural elements that could never be explained by random chance -- the inclusion
of sequences from other viruses, for example. This might come off looking natural, even if
remaining mysterious to the outside observer.
*The American government was warned about this virus but didn't take it seriously.
Explanation 1: Trump and his advisers are greedy imbeciles (more likely). Explanation 2: the
American government didn't expect this to be a big deal because they created it to be less
lethal than previous viruses, perhaps not understanding that a lower death rate over a larger
population would result in higher casualties (less likely).
Americans arriving at JFK from locked-down Italy are shocked by the lack of US
screening for coronavirus
1) Trump is a loudmouth and a braggart. If he knew ANYTHING about this, he probably would
have let it slip by now. Elements of the British government have had to restrict some
information they share with the Americans for fear that Trump would leak it to his friends
during his then regular discussions with people over unsecured lines. Would the CIA really do
something extraordinary like this without his knowledge?
Points in favor:
1) The UK, a country that often works with the Americans to do nefarious things, didn't
take this very seriously, either. They acted as if they didn't expect this to be a big deal.
Other countries that usually don't work that closely with US intelligence to the same degree,
have taken Covid-19 seriously even if they have failed to contain it. Although, this is
probably wrong. The nations that have dealt best with this are the ones that have had lots of
previous experience with similar viruses and whose populations are naturally more inclined to
work together.
2) The timing and location of the viral outbreak. Isn't Wuhan a major transportation
hub?
One thing I notice is how crisply written this is, compared to the very dense, plodding
style that characterizes much of his previous work
A very good overview of the situation and a thoughtful analysis of the finger pointing
that's going on
Regardless of whether the lock down measures have been an overreaction or not, most
reasonable people will realize that we may never know what might have been, had we not locked
down
Would the health system have been able to cope ?
What would happen when hospitals are overwhelmed by serious respiratory cases ?
China's very forceful reaction now looks absolutely brilliant
That extremely energetic reaction also hints that the Chinese leadership may have
suspected an attack
". ..the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality. "
This assertion is absolutely untrue, as most readers who have followed this story early on
will know. You conspicuously left out of your conspiratorial musings the news of the
"whistleblower" Wi Leniang, the 34-year old ophthalmologist who had worked at Wuhan Central
Hospital, and had already alerted his colleagues late last year about a suspicious viral
outbreak, for which he was subsequently arrested and punished by authorities. Millions of
people in China are familiar with his tragic story – he eventually died.
On January 9 the World Health Organization released the following press statement,
providing sufficient information that would have warranted or obliged the authorities to have
immediately closed the Wuhan airport and train station to prevent the contagious spread of
the virus to other regions of the world through unwittingly infected carriers.
Instead, authorities waited two entire weeks before closing the Wuhan airport, during
which time the virus spread inevitably to other countries through the many international
passenger flights. According to military game theory, such inaction would surely benefit
China, which could better deal with an outbreak, whereas most other countries would suffer
more severely in comparison. For this reason, regardless whether the release of the
presumably engineered virus was released intentionally or accidentally, the Chine government
is culpable for having allowed the pandemic to evolve. So at least in this particular case
the allegations of the Trump administration are correct.
Your narrative omitted these indisputable facts, which you then denigrated as " so
ludicrous as to defy rationality ", yet after a Communist Party meeting in mid-February,
some of those responsible for having minimized or concealed the serious nature of the
outbreak were officially "demoted" (received a slap on the wrist):
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent, in which case they effectively waged biological warfare
against the rest of the world (using incompetence as plausible deniability of intent) in
order for their economy to come out ahead, comparatively, in the long run, compared to a
situation where only their own economy would have suffered by effective early containment
measures; or else they were indeed incompetent, that an accidental release from one of their
labs in Wuhan becomes even more plausible than it already is. Either way, the focus of
inquiry must remain on China, rather than conducting an exercise in reflexive exoneration.
Fantastical insinuations pointing the finger elsewhere, for which no strong evidence has been
presented, are just a distraction.
Accidental releases have been known to occur, but apparently only the level-4 lab in Wuhan
was known to have been working on enhancing those bat-based viruses with gain of function
properties and chimeric qualities.
Your entire conjecture about the strong likelihood of US culpability essentially rests
almost entirely on the vague notion of " extreme recklessness ", which in such
dangerous matters, as the release of deadly viruses, appears to be significantly less likely,
from an analytical perspective, than an accidental release from a biological lab in
Wuhan.
While your lengthy article shows the possibility that the virus originated in the US and was
spread intentionally, with a lot of trust developed by our own Dr. Fauci of the NIAID and $37
million in grants (long before Trump) to study bat coronaviruses in collaboration with China,
I think you are missing one important feature.
Trump and his neocon clown car are loathed by the Intelligence Agencies. Unlike Obama, who
loved to have the CIA "playing" in his sanctioned, National Emergencies countries (Yemen,
Libya, Venezuela, Ukraine, Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Burundi), backing
coups in Egypt, Honduras and the big one, Ukraine, and delighting in droning and expanding
Bush's two wars into 7 or 11, depending on how you count, Trump for all his idiotic saber
rattling has started no wars; Bolivia is his only coup, Nicaragua his only war-like National
Emergency. You may have missed the events of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, built on incompetent
spycraft, and an impeachment started by a CIA "whistleblower", but to give Trump credit for
something as devious as an obvious CIA op (by your own speculations) seems disingenuous. Much
more likely the CIA (whose hubris and incompetence rivals Trump's) likely were running this
operation from at least when the first bat coronavirus grants were sent to Wuhan (2011? 2015?
I've read both). My guess is the CIA did not even share their brilliant idea with the
loathsome Trump, as he would have likely squashed it as he finally did with John Bolton's
out-of-control machinations. I think the CIA sees the spectacular failure of their operation
as a chance to embarrass and likely overthrow Trump. If they had destroyed the Chinese
economy, they would have taken full credit, as it is, they look masterful in re-establishing
the Establishment, and ridding themselves of a non-supportive Trump.
Coronavirus catastrophe? Even though the CDC has been accused of exaggerating the number of
deaths from the Coronavirus by allowing doctors to assume , without testing ,someone died
from it, the number of deaths are not alarming . According to the CDC's provisional
statistics posted on April 20,2020 , from February 1 to April 18 ,2020 there were only 15,252
deaths from the Coronavirus out of a total of 603,184 deaths from all causes ,in a US
population of 327,167,434 . For the one week ending April 11 there were 5483 COVID-19 deaths
and for the one week ending April 18th there were only 568 deaths . cdc.gov . Deaths from the
Coronavirus appear to be on the decline in mid-April ,just as they often do in a typical flu
season as Spring returns in the Northern hemisphere. As a number of doctors have observed the
lockdowns, social distancing and unemployment resulting from the draconian measures taken by
Governors across the US are leading to an unprecedented number of cases of depression and
suicides.
It is well established,that people who are depressed end up with many types of illnesses due
to their compromised immune systems .
The tragedy of the Coronavirus pandemic is ,that as more and more circumstantial evidence
comes to light ,it was an engineered crisis or ,as some investigators have termed it ,a
planned-demic see, for example, "How to create a fake pandemic"jamesfetzer.org.
Deep and enduring thanks to Ron Unz and his team for this site, an oasis of common sense in a
desert of nonsense.
Regarding:
"So if American bio warfare analysts were considering a corona virus attack against
China, isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
corona virus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have
seemed so implausible at the time?"
There might be another possibility. That being that the American plans you outline were
formulated and carried out by the deepest, eternally-entrenched portions of the American
security state and that "senior administration officials" were simply never consulted about
bio warfare efforts against China. Very possibly including those earlier events noted, aimed
at Chinese agricultural interests.
Two birds with one stone would be the result: 1) China is (theoretically) taken down by
orders of magnitude; 2) That usurping outsider, the ever-disruptive President Trump exits in
January, as no incumbent would be judged to have a 2% chance of withstanding the hurricane of
events tied to the pandemic's arrival in America.
All the better, then, to allow Trump and other leading American politicians to
convincingly lead the chorus against China, and all done with never any possibility of a leak
from any political "source" about anything pertaining to the background and planning of the
operation.
Implications of such a possibility are too monstrous to consider, so am certain this
assertion can't be true. Right?
@Hail" this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the sense that
while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was at least
1000x what was necessary to deal " – The reality parsing by the hoaxers always lead
to the discovery of more hoaxes. Check with your guru Kunt Wiitkowski if he was not the one
who advised Chines how to pull off the hoax. Didn't he tell them that only 10,000 would have
die?
@swamped I, too, doubt that Trump would have been aware of what was going on, this would
have been an operation that was kicked off now because if Trump gets re-elected, he'll
hopefully clean house, and all that preparation would have been for nothing.
That having been said what's your explanation why Trump did bring a lot of neocons on
board, who effectively blocked him. If he really wanted to placate the democrats, there would
have surely been hawks who weren't as dangerous as, e.g. Bolton.
@Jim Jatras He said back then he thought that. Hasn't expressed his current view. None of
us knew back then that the US was dumping pure U238 on Yugoslavia making large parts
uninhabitable for a thousand years.
"Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this: Hundreds of people, most of them workers and
passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different
circumstances."
There is much that Jay Matthews didn't say. Read this:
It is not. Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, now known as W-H Group, is a private
company based in Hong Kong that holds a majority of shares in China's largest meat processor,
Shuanghui Foods. The fact that it is based in Hong Kong does not make it "Chinese" in any
sense. It is a totally foreign-owned company. The ownership of W-H is mostly American, not
Chinese, and Smithfield was involved with the company. It was a complicated kind of reverse
takeover, but nothing much of substance changed.
It is the largest pork company in the world, number one in China, the U.S. and much of
Europe.
And the effect of the swine flu was to shift production and sales from Shuanghui China to
Smithfield in the US.
China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative has threatened to reorient global trade around
an interconnected Eurasian landmass
By the time of the Antonine Plague of 165 to 180 AD (which surely inspired Aurelius's
stoicism, and may have killed Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) direct trading
links between China and Rome had been established. On March 2019 Italy was the first G-7
country in Europe to become a member in the Chinese Belt and Road project . Did that
globalisation reproduced the same pandemic-friendly environment that had decimated Ancient
Rome, which rivaled China in population at the time of the Roman diplomatic mission from
Marcus Aurelius to the Han Court in 166 AD?
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they
generated, the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality.
Hardly, because intent is irrelevant. Not discharging their duty to inform the
international community in a timely manner of COVID-19 being extremely infectious and not
massively exaggerating the infection to death ratio and duping the WHO and modelers like
Imperial College into accepting terrifying but bogus infection to death ratios of 1 to 3 0r
4% as Dr. John Ioannidis says in an update ( HERE ) means quite simply that China must never ever
be relied on again. Next time, and there probably is going to be another such novel
coronavirus at some point in the future, China might overcompensate and downplay something
extremely dangerous.
Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint appointments and
receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of financial reporting
violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications -- the most
obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by the FBI
in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home and dragged off in shackles, potentially
facing decades of federal imprisonment.
AS I understand it the case against him was precipitated by indications that he was taking
money from the Chinese Government and lying to Federal investigators about it while getting
$18 million from the Defence Department. He was not a virologist, unlike professor Montagnier
who co-discovered HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and received a Nobel prize. He says the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is an artificial laboratory created pathogen, which has fragments
of–surprise, surprise–HIV in it. He wants his expertise to be relevant to what
everyone is currently obsessed with. But life in this crazy old world is not like that.
Unless you are Ioannidis.
In the early days of the CoV-19 discussion here, a solid body of commenters suggested the
strong likelihood of being a US biological attack on China on the basis of its propensity for
aggression towards its designated "enemies" by the only method of causing substantial damage
to a powerful rival's economy under the cover of plausible deniability. Considering the
inevitable demise of the US as the only superpower, it is not beyond the ruling cabal's remit
to conceive such schemes to thwart the Chinese economic ascendancy. Yes, the initial
suspicions of foul-play were reputational (the US habit of resorting to heinous crimes
against other nations) and strategically connected as well (the only way to damage a strong
opponent short of an all-out nuclear conflagration with uncertain outcome ).
On the other hand, there were a series of "coincidences" widely discussed here that
started giving credence to a full-blown plan of biological attack aimed at the Chinese
population by engineering a virus capable to discriminating the target victims. This has been
partialled discounted, but not completely until the full sequence of CoV-19 evolution is
mapped. Meanwhile, the official narrative has switched to the rejection of the theory of a
man-made virus to the "accidental" release by the Wuhan lab, in my view to deflect any effort
to research the source of the virus and reinforce the tale of Chinese negligence. But the
trouble is that there are many virologists now busy debunking that too and asserting that
CoV-19 is unnatural.
I have come across a report on Australian Media Centre where the evolutionary virologist
Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney reveals that "the level of genome sequence
divergence between CoV-19 and the closest known bat relative in nature is equivalent to 50
years of natural evolutionary change, which suggests that CoV-19 is a synthetic creation in a
lab either by insertion of suitable genetic material or, alternatively, growing different
cultures in a laboratory with cells with the human ACE2 receptor. This process involves the
gradual adaptations to bind the virus with the human receptor by "training" the virus to seek
an efficient method of binding by natural random mutations until one progeny hits the
jackpot. Although this process does not require insertions by extraneous genetic material
(not strict engineering) because the virus itself produces the required adaptations, it is
notheless a human interference with the natural world by breeding something for a, obviously,
nefarious purpose. The great advantage of this process is to disguise the fact that it is a
contrived lab creation.
There are many historically significant events the truth of which will remain hidden for a
time. But this case involves a strong player (China) and it will – as wel las many
outraged scientists worldwide – leave no stone unturned to reveal the unfathomable
depth of the US's den of iniquity.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year.
That's not correct -- at all. Our hospital system in major cities like New York are NEVER
brought to the brink with seasonal flu. The likely number of deaths from Covid-19 has already
exceeded the number of deaths estimated from seasonal flu over the past 6 of 10 years -- in
just over six weeks. And that's under unprecedented quarantine.
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Numbers do not need to be 100% "reliable" in this case. Many of those who have died have
done so in hospital where they have been tested. We can also measure the baseline death rate
in NYC. When we do, we find a tremendous daily increase far and above anything caused since
9/11. Clearly, there is something going around that city that is killing lots of people. No
flu in recent memory has done that.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
This kind of flawed logic could be used to dismiss virtually any epidemic. At some point
the number of deaths is so high that no counter argument could reasonably be believed. We've
already reached that point. There are only so many respiratory deaths that occur over any
time period. Even if we moved 100% from other categories over to Covid-19 we would still find
peculiarities in the data.
Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
That's certainly only going to be minor contributory factor. Huge numbers of people above
the average baseline don't just magically drop dead from other causes all at the same time.
If someone gets Covid-19 and dies, it is reasonable to assume it was the proximate cause in
the majority of cases. Only so many people die from X at any one time. If twice that number
start dying all at the same time, there is a problem.
"Herd immunity is likely now widespread, so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or
without continued population incarceration."
Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that no more
than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19). Herd
immunity requires some high multiple of that number. We are nowhere near herd immunity. You
don't even know what that means in all likelihood.
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, has said
COVID-19's HIV "strains" could be put there in the virus's RNA only by human expert
intervention in a laboratory.
The excerpt from the French TV program where he said it can be found on YouTube.
What's "funny" is the way most USA, or, how should we say?, USA-close, media reports the
fact, starting from misleading headers (headers which, as usual for the USA and, how should
we say?, USA-close media, are all clones, with tiny changes from one to the other).
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, Says
Coronavirus Was Man-Made In Wuhan Lab.
This, when the professor clearly stated he is only a scientist, and he only wanted to
relate facts that many other research groups have found but have been left unsaid due
to enormous pressure, and he stated equally clearly that it is not his knowledge, duty,
competence, will, to give opinions on who did it, where, why.
The average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140
Have not most of the all-time Evil Greats been brilliant? We have them, Russia has them.
How is China having them unique? If Ron's suspicions over this are close to true and even if
not, we already have volumes of evidence in so many other situations proving we have
brilliant evil-doers aplenty on the U.S. side in any case.
The rest of your points are agreeable to me. But every time I've hung my hat on the
'brilliant' high-I.Q.-types I'm always disappointed. They test well but in command of things
they bring us wars and now this. The medical people are high-I.Q. as hell, they've vacuumed
up half our GDP and research dollars for 100 years now and it's their job to have had this in
hand. Like our high-I.Q. generals and admirals the past 75 years, they're losing another war
for us. The high IQ sorts in finance are another group. We're a nation in serious decline and
from where I sit, the high-IQs are merely managing said decline.
High I.Q.s just don't cut it from where I sit. Could be jealousy. My IQ is some where
between a pineapple and radish, a yam maybe..
@no bat soup for you There is so much talk about Chinese will eat just about anything but
there is usually no focus on other people in the world for doing similar things.
The Chinese eat bamboo rats, the French and Belgiums eat rats too – besides snails.
Some people in Asian countries eat cats and dogs, the Swiss by the thousands, eat cats and
dogs. The members of Explorers' Club in New York eat just about anything as well. But to top
it all, there is even have a cannibal club in LA that specializes in eating human flesh.
Home page: Specializing in the preparation of human meat, Cannibal Club brings the cutting
edge of experimental cuisine to the refined palates of L.A.'s cultural elite. Our master
chefs hail from around the world for the opportunity to practice their craft free of
compromise and unbounded by convention.
Our exclusive clientele includes noted filmmakers, intellectuals, and celebrities who have
embraced the Enlightenment ideals of free expression and rationalism. On event nights,
avant-garde performance artists, celebrated literary figures, and ground-breaking musicians
entertain our guests.
At Cannibal Club, we celebrate artistic excellence as the natural and inevitable expression
of the unbridled human spirit.
Brilliant work I have been researching everything I can find, while placing the totality of
events in the context of US IC/DS ops The "botched biowarfare" attack fits the data the best
by far. Thanks for this report.
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent
There is no "dilemma." They detected an outbreak and dealt with it competently. Your
government run by a reality show host didn't. It's as simple as that. You can deflect all you
want, but it really boils down to that.
in which case they effectively waged biological warfare against the rest of the
world
Nothing the Chinese did forced other countries to keep their borders open. Several
countries like Israel closed them before Donald Trump did. Nothing China did forced Trump
into not taking this seriously until it was too late.
"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump told
attendees at an African American History Month reception in the White House Cabinet Room. The
World Health Organization says the virus has "pandemic potential" and medical experts have
warned it will spread in the US. The President added that "from our shores, you know, it
could get worse before it gets better. Could maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody
really knows."
US 'wasted' months before preparing for coronavirus pandemic
A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies
largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks,
mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers.
2 Phylogenetic studies have been done to suggest America was the source of the virus.
This study suggests that Type A strain the earliest type of the SARS-COV2, was mostly
found in the US. While in China it was mostly type B, another strain mutated from Type A. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2004999117
This study suggests there are 2 sources of spread, however in countries from Brazil,
Italy, Australia, Sweden and South Korea , some cases are tie to the US cluster but not to
China. So this suggest some cases were directly spread from the US. Japan commented it was
from the US because they had the virus from traveling to Hawaii and they never went to
China. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.034942v1
here in this video presentation some arguments that supports the US had this virus in
between August 2019 and Jan 2020.
A possible scenario is they developed a few Sars-Cov2 bio-weapon strains the B and C
strains from the A strain. They wanted to find a vaccine for it before they can be deployed,
but in developing the vaccine they leaked the A type out into the US. They had to make a
decision, let the public know about it or cover it up and release the B and C strain without
the vaccine. I think they did the latter.
But you be the judge, we need more transparency from the CDC and more research before any
conclusions can be made.
@dimples Of course I completely failed to mention in the above comment that it's the War
on Terror that's coming to a close. Russia Russia Russia! has been an attempt to fill the gap
but its not going anywhere due to opposition from the Euros.
The slow US reaction to the virus could therefore seen not as incompetence but a
deliberate process of sowing more destruction, thus more China-hate later, ie its part of the
plot. Also the virus is not too deadly, just enough to create a big scare and over-reaction
amongst the authorities and public.
@Mustapha Mond Yes IF there is a conspiracy that would be it. I have also come to this
conclusion in other comments but you have described it much better than myself.
@Christopher Marlowe The flying drones over pig farms is nonsense from Metallicman, who
is a controlled-opp deep asset that speaks 80-90% truth and 10-20% lies.
I tried looking into the flying drones a bit, but couldn't confirm any of it.
@Ayatollah Smith I want to add Trump's early response to the corona virus shows Trumps
and American duplicity. I used to watch a TV show 'Lie to me' with actor Tim Roth. Anyway
people give away all kind of knowledge when they communicate. So my take that Trump's call
that it's like a bad flu or it's nothing to worry about, reveals knowledge that it is
American attack and that he (Trump) worries if it gets 'out' that the trump administration is
culpable, so he tries to downplay corona virus and his own role in it!
"
Who's a seventy years old track record of extreme malfeasance against China ?
Who's a track record of using bioweapons on friends and foe, including its own citizens
?
Who's a track record of committing FF , including many cases against China ?
[TAM, Tibet, Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, INdon genocide 1965,
..]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Occams Razor .
There's a serial arsonist in town, he has been caught setting fire to John's house dozens
of times in the past few months.
JOhn's house caught fire last night
Who's the first suspect to haul in for interrogation ?
Elementary, Watson.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Last but not least.
Mathematics doesnt cheat
Ian Flaming's fundamental law of prob .
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice ..
How many 'coincidences' occur in the Wuhan caper. ?
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Conclusion.
Whichever way you look at it,
Logic, Circumstantial evidences and Mathematics all points to We know who.
@swamped The high casualties in the NATO countries are due to their own reluctance to do
anything for so long. Look at the total number that have been infected and the current new
infection rates in South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. South Korea prepared better than
anybody but was cursed with a Christian sect that also had churches in Wuhan. They stayed
close together for a long time in their churches to increase community feeling and, since God
was looking after their health, were reluctant to admit to being ill. Yet South Korea shits
on every NATO country in fighting COVID-19. So do Australia and New Zealand in spite of their
extremely poor use of the 2 months warning provided by China and the DNA sequence of the
virus provided by China on 12th of January, 2020. As soon as the Chinese methods were
applied, the same success with humans was achieved. Now the NATO countries are aping China
too, they are starting to have the same human success. They will continue with success as
long as they continue aping. The Yanks are losers like other NATO members because they didn't
bother to ape until they were heavily infected. I stress that Australia and New Zealand did
very badly (only about 10 times better than the USA but 4 times worse than China who we
should have beaten easily) because they were slow to ape. We only look wonderful when
compared with NATO. Actually, we also do about 5 times better than Iran too. Even with
sanctions crippling their response, Iran has done twice as well as the US losers. When it
becomes a matter of drug and vaccine development where the USA has real strengths, I expect
the USA to do as well as China but it's a low tech battle right now and the Yank boys haven't
done well against the Chinese or Iranian men in that competition. Who would expect them to?
[email protected]
@Godfree Roberts The reasons you enumerate apply to individual people, they don't apply
to governments. It is true that a rational individual should prefer truth because truth is
mostly self-sufficient while lies need to be reasserted permanently. The rationality of truth
vs lies is very much like the rationality of well-designed software vs badly designed
software. Good design as truth demands less maintenance. The problem is that it doesn't keep
programmers busy and it doesn't justify budgets. A government, the "deep state" moreover,
need to keep maintenance costs high to perpetrate themselves.
The crucial question very few seem to be asking is the question of motive. Many commenters
here project on the Chinese their own traits. The problem is that what can be said of Western
elites can't be said of Chinese elites because the Chinese have different motives altogether.
There's one motive they didn't have, to provoke a crisis. Viruses don't hop out of labs by
accident any more than gold hops out of Fort Knox. One has to bring them out and the Chinese
had no reason to do it.
Regarding the US on the other hand, though I disagree with Ron Unz's assertion that this
particular US administration is more reckless and less competent than those that preceded it,
seen from abroad it just appears as less hypocrite, to keep the story short I'll just say
that hubris tends to cloud judgment and that desperate times ask for desperate measures.
Sounds entirely plausible, and, to be parsimonious, even probable. The last element to make
it feasible was leaving Trump entirely out of the loop. He still won't have a clue if he's
standing in the dock at the Hague years from now. Everything he will ever know about this
fiasco will be from light reading material they allow him in his cell.
The Deep State made the right bet when they decided late in the race to hack the election
in favor of the Donald rather than the Queen of Warmongers. Nobody would ever expect the
self-described peace candidate to escalate the ongoing hybrid wars to germ warfare. (Though
maybe the use of chemical weapons by America's proxies in Syria should have been a hint.) Now
the world knows, the Satanists in charge of Washington will stop at nothing.
@Mustapha Mond I 100% agree with you, Mustapha Mond. Much as I admire Ron for in so many
ways for his other topnotch contributions and running this site, one of the very best news
sites IMO, the evidence at hand does not suggest incompetence on the part of the US
government and the deep state behind it: it's definitely an Atlanticist plandemic. Godfree
Roberts showed that many steps the Trump administration took the past two years were meant to
pave the way for enabling the government to play the "we didn't see this coming" card, just
as with 9/11:
At the same time, the US Health Dept was running Crimson Contagion in the first half of
2019, simulating a deadly flu pandemic starting in China (as I recall). Even the US Naval War
College ran a pandemic simulation causing respiratory failure:
Everyone knows about Event 201 at this point, in October 2019, sponsored by the Gates
Foundation, Bloomberg via Johns Hopkins, and the World Economic Forum, simulating
specifically a coronavirus pandemic. What are the odds that the organizers of Event 201 were
just lucky in picking a coronavirus, knowing there are 150 other virus families, besides
coronaviruses (e.g. rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, etc.):
That's a 1/151 chance! Lucky bastards! Present at Event 201 were recycled players involved
in the 9/11 anthrax attack simulation 'Dark Winter', such as Thomas Inglesby, as documented
by Whitney Webb. Not to mention the 2011 movie 'Contagion', involving a flu-like pandemic
originating in China (Hong Kong),transmitted from bats to humans in an unsanitary
environment!!! Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance.
So either the China's leadership had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new
virus as an absolutely deadly national threat, one that needed to be controlled at any
possible cost.
Those are not the only choices, Ron.
Here is another one for you:
– CCP knew this virus had a low fatality rate;
– CCP were aware of recent (DoD iirc) readiness assessments noting that US had
specific vulnerability to a pandemic;
– CCP was aware that the captive Chinese people were alrady subject to 'herd
control' infrastructure whereas the US population still enjoyed human rights;
– CCP decided to sow confusion about the infection. ("We can do this, but their
society will fall apart Comrades!")
– The West initially chose to ignore this. Then the Corporate Press "International"
decided to put psyops pressure to force US and UK to do a 180 u-turn. This due to a single
lousy non-peer-reviewed paper at the Imperial College.
Some other considerations that can inform the above are (a) the attitude of CCP towards
'world government' institutions, and (b) their relationship with WHO, in particular.
So option 3, Mr. Unz:
CCP used the (controlled?) exposure of a virus ("17") to put into motion a psychological
operation to sow confusion and panic in US (based on our own published findings on readiness)
that seems to have other participants in the Globalist crowd institutions. The primary target
was USA, but NATO as well.
Btw, Mr. Unz, that ex-CIA psyops writer you host on your site (Giraldi) keeps censoring my
comments on his propaganda pieces. Why do allow them a platform and also permit them to
censor rebuttals? Hopefully you will prevent UNZ Review from becoming UNZ Pravda.
Ron, you need to rewrite this essay. If minor websites carry articles blaming China the
presumption is these articles are falsifications seeded by Trump, but if wildly
sensationalist Chinese propaganda pieces come from unknown sources like OldMicrobiologist or
Metallicman then they're reliable? Wow is all I can say.
Suggesting Lieber's creds set him above espionage and bio sabotage against the United
States is the best you can do? Your overwrought defense of this man is telling, given his
"assistants" are provably Chinese bio espionage agents and he secretly agreed to take a post
as director of the Wuhan lab.
In the same vein, did you know that the Johns Hopkins' inflammatory "dashboard" world map
seen and used everywhere was developed by a 30-year-old Chinese "student," Ensheng Dong,
working for Johns Hopkins? Using Edward Tufte's "Lie Factor" for evaluating the exaggeration
of a graphical representation relative to the underlying data puts the Johns Hopkins map so
far in the lie category as to warrant an FBI investigation of Johns Hopkins and its employees
for causing irreparable economic and societal harm to the United States. In an NPR puff piece
gushing over the map's creators, "all sitting around a table sipping lattes," Dong is quoted
as saying it's like showing blood everywhere. That's quite accurate from the proud creator
considering the irreparable harm that map has been in large part responsible for
creating.
One correction for the beginning of the article. The 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia
wasn't directed against Bosnian Serbs. That was the 1995 campaign and had nothing to do with
the Chinese Embassy being hit. It seems that you simply got the 1995 NATO bombing of Bosnian
Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) and the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro –
when the Chinese (brand new) embassy was hit) mixed up.
Interesting thing – the Japanese current embassy is on the exact grounds where the
Chinese one used to be. I find some funny symbolism in that.
@Jim Jatras Yep. Unz lost me with that comment. And very sloppy by his high standards.
The NATO 1999 bombings were to support the Albanians in Kosovo – not the Bosnian
muslims. I suggest Ron does some homework on the whole Yugo Wars period. Maybe even back to
ottoman times.
@Anonymous I think that he obviously got the two NATO bombing campaigns mixed up.
NATO bombed Bosnian Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) in 1995 to protect its interests under the
guise of protecting Bosnian muslims. This is what Unz supports.
NATO bombed Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 when the Chinese embassy was hit.
Let's not make the comments spiral off into the Serbia/NATO conflict details. The point of
the entire mention of the bombing is that there is sincere indication that the US hit the
Chinese embassy on purpose. That much was clear since day 1 as the embassy was a brand new
building and you couldn't mistake it for a previous occupant or anything of the sort. It was
a message to China.
@swamped While I don't agree that China would have done this on purpose as I am generally
doubtful of all similar theories, it would nonetheless also explain why China banned all
movement to the rest of China from Wuhan while not only allowing the Wuhan infected to
infiltrate the West but actually vociferously and ubiquitously complaining about Western
racists for thinking about not allowing them in.
I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese funding, making
him in effect an agent of China.
You need to understand the system in place. The book Three Felonies a Day outlines
the how, but does't really cover the why, and there lies the devil in the details. When they
want you, all they have to do is pour over your life' details, and they will find
something nefarious as a tool to put you in stern and squeeze.
There is million different details and forms to fill out when securing foreign funds for a
university; most of the rules and the process is ad hoc, and more often a lot of it is
ignored, and of course – certain countries have certain rules. The good professor
didn't do anything that was completely out of the norm. It's nearly impossible in this
society to be crime free – by design.
Think of all the people near Trump during his Russian Collusion investigation that went to
jail or indicted – most if not all were dragged in on the many petty illegalities that
plague our legal system for a reason. Illegalities that on a normal day most people ignore
until it is politically expedient for the authorities to use them. This is how a Police State operates.
You don't have to believe me; just ask Tommy Chong, Martha Stewart, etc .
Et tu, Brute? You're worried more about the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and Bosnian Muslims
than the destruction of that great Christian Serbia by the Clintons & cabal shame!
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened
In the mid 1990s, I worked with a man of Chinese ancestry in New York named Henry Sun.
Henry had been in Beijing at Tiananmen Square. He had been shot. What happened afterward was
that he was treated by doctors for the bullet wound, and they had coded the illness as some
sort of cancer, so that it would not be obvious that he was a dissident and so be
arrested.
Now, I cannot say that someone was killed. I can say that personal testament to me from a
credible witness indicates bullets were flying, and one struck him. Maybe that's not a
massacre, by whatever means that word is defined. But it wasn't a Chinese tea ceremony.
I am a retired attorney and I am heartened to see that some attorneys, namely David Helm in
Michigan and Lindy Urso in Connecticut ,are beginning to file lawsuits to revoke unlawful and
unconstitutional Executive"Coronavirus" Orders issued by the Governors of the States of
Michigan and Connecticut. I have long maintained that almost every Executive Order issued by
State Governors are revocable as they are based on a lie, promoted by the WHO and the CDC
,that there is a Coronavirus pandemic and an international public health emergency .
everything China have and everything USA has been lost was done with the complicity and
personal gain of 99% of the usa elite,political class,including CIA,etc and even the likes of
Michael Jordan.
Whoever decides to believe this embarrassingly transparent anti-China propaganda is
stupidly siding with Soros and his Global Deep State golems. This will be the latest IQ test
for those who struggled with all the previous ones (incubator babies, Iraqi WMDs, Quaddafi's
Viagra, Hillary's electability, Russiagate etc.).
@Jim Christian High IQ is just an entry level requirement. They have 300,000 folks with
160 IQ, so 140 is not that exceptional.
New recruits' first posting is 5 years in the poorest village in the country. They
'graduate' after they've raised everyone's incomes by 50%. Then the career path gets really
steep.
The people who are visible to us have been so thoroughly scrutinized that it's almost
painful to contemplate. Here's Zhao Bing Bing[1], a mid-level Liaoning[2] Province official
talking about her mid-level, provincial promotion to Daniel Bell:
[MORE]
I was promoted in 2004 through my department's internal competition (30 percent on
written exam results, 30 percent on interviews and public speaking, 30 percent on public
opinion of my work and 10 percent on education, seniority and my current position) and
became the youngest deputy division chief. In 2009, Liaoning Province (pop. 44 million),
announced in the national media an open selection of officials. Sixty candidates met the
qualifications, the top five of whom were invited for further interviews. Based on their
test scores (40 percent) and interview results (60 percent), the top three were then
appraised. The Liaoning Province Organizational Department sent four appraisers who spent a
whole day checking my previous records. Eighty of my colleagues were asked to
vote–more than thirty of whom were asked to talk with the appraisers about my merits
and shortcomings–and they submitted the appraisal result to the provincial Standing
Committee of the CCP for review.
In principle, the person who scored the highest and whose appraisals were not
problematic would be promoted. However, because my university major, work experience and
previous performance were the best fit for the position, I was finally appointed department
chief of the Liaoning Provincial Foreign Affairs Office even though my overall score was
second best [the government discriminates positively in promoting women–ed]. Before
the official appointment there was a seven-day public notice period during which anybody
could report to the organization department concerns about my promotion. I didn't spend any
money during my three promotions; all I did was study and work hard and do my best to be a
good person.
In 2013, thanks to an exchange program, I worked temporarily in the CCP International
Department. The system of temporary exchanges offers opportunities to learn about different
issues in different regions and areas like government sectors and SOEs. In a famous quote
Chairman Mao said, "Once the political lines have been clearly defined the decisive factor
will be the cadres [trained specialists]." So the CCP highly values organizational
construction and the selection and appointment of specialists. There is a special
department managing this work, The Organization Department, established in 1924 and Mao was
its first leader..The department is mainly responsible for the macro management of the
leaders and the staff (team building), including the management system, regulations and
laws, human resource system reforms -- planning, research and direction, as well as
proposing suggestions on the leadership change and the (re)appointment of cadres. In
addition, it has the responsibilities of training and supervising cadres. The cadre
selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter
should be prioritized'. The evaluation of moral integrity focuses mostly on loyalty to the
Party, service to the people, self-discipline and integrity. Based on different levels and
positions, the emphases of evaluation are also different. For intermediate and senior
officials, emphasis is on their persistence in faith and ideals, political stance and
coordination with the central Party. High-level cadres are measured against great
politicians and, among them, experience in multiple positions is very important.
Fans follow the careers of one-thousand top politicians online[3] and they are impressive,
as President Donald Trump[4] observed, "Their leaders are much smarter than our leaders. It's
like taking the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school
football team. That's the difference between China's leaders and our leaders".
Today's leaders began their careers in the 1960s as manual laborers in dirt-poor villages
and won promotions by raising village incomes by fifty percent. As they rose, they spent
sabbaticals on the lake-studded campus of The Academy of Governance where they met the
world's leading thinkers, critiqued legislation and earned PhDs. They now run huge provinces,
Fortune 500 corporations, universities, space programs and, of course, government departments
and the Peoples Daily reords their progress under headlines like, "How Rural Poverty Criteria
Affects Mayoral Promotions."

[1] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China Model.
[2] Liaoning (pop. 45 million) is a northeastern Chinese province bordering North Korea and
the Yellow Sea.
[3] The Committee https://macropolo.org/the-committee/
[4] Donald Trump says Tom Brady and the Patriots are just like China. Boston.com . By Steve Silva July 6, 2015
@anon There is on little problem with your hasbara. Those great strategic planners in
China of yours forgot about one little thing that the West has 100% dominance over China in
the soft power of creating global narratives with which it will turn China into a pariah
nation in the eyes of everybody, a nation that everybody hates.
I personally think this was either the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China
– long known to be the primary source of the annual flu epidemics
I've been going to markets in Asia all my adult life and suddenly they are both the
source of flu epidemics and "wet".
Unless it is raining the second one makes everything seem so ridiculous.
(why the heck haven't they been shut down??)
Because people would starve?
Try throwing some blame(buying food makes you sick!) at your big box corporate food
monopolies and try to shut them down – take a guess at what might happen?
@Tor597 Except, it would be helpful if Ron placed somewhere prominantly on the home page
that he is a card-carrying member of the "Resistance" against Trump, which this article
finally reveals full blast.
Too much attention here on things which could have other explanations and too little
attention on the real puzzles and on those things which science can definitely settle.
(1) It is solvable, and it will be solved, where and when were the first cases of the
infection among the general public outside China. Almost everything else depends on that.
(2) It is almost inconceivable that American agencies who had been plotting this would run it
by Trump for approval first. It seems much more likely that the anonymously sourced report
that our agencies knew about this in November is some kind of ass-covering to shift blame to
Trump, whom these same agencies have been trying to take down for 4 years; which doesn't help
us discern whether they were also responsible for the pathogen in the first place, it's
consistent either way.
(3) The genome has been out there long enough, with no one pointing out inconsistencies that
have held up to scrutiny, that "wild", "escaped from a lab", and "was evolved in a lab" all
look much more likely than "was designed directly by RNA editing".
(4) China's behavior is much more consistent with accidental than with intentional release.
They've obviously lied about the death toll and didn't feel obliged to prevent their people
from traveling abroad, but ordinary Communist wickedness explains that.
(5) Travel between China and Iran and Italy explains the early prevalence there sufficiently,
presuming genomic data we don't yet have will confirm this.
Conclusion: Too early to get locked in to origin theories, the usual suspects are taking
advantage in the same way they would whether or not it was an intentional release. THIS WILL
ALL BE CLARIFIED BY TESTING OF OLD TISSUE SAMPLES so I'm going to wait and see what those
results say. The reports of early COVID outside China have not been confirmed, but come from
researchers WITH REAL NAMES, so it WILL get figured out one way or the other and I'm holding
my fire until then.
P.S. Lieber is clearly a weird loose end that needs to be tied up. Is anyone trying to
interview him?
Let's see. Here in the USA covid hit later, at a time when people have the lowest seasonal
vitamin D (a major immune system hormone, with the population being 90%+ deficient). A
fraction of the population being hit particularly hard has dark skin, further reducing the
vit. D levels. That same fraction is over-represented among those who have metabolic syndrome
(diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and the like), and that is related to all manners of immune
system degradation. Then we have a medical system which looks only for profitable magic
bullets, instead of trying a variety of cheap methods, each of which can increase the
recovery rate by tens of percent.
Finally we have lots and lots of nursing homes, unlike China. And a majority (more than
50%) of deaths comes from those places in Europe. Data from Italy suggests that privately run
nursing homes are correlated with increased mortality, although it could just be extreme air
pollution and/or other environmental factors. Data from Scandinavia suggest that nursing home
size matters too, the smaller the better.
Why should one be surprised that this thing is hitting harder in the West?
R.Unz:"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most
East Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary,"
Your transparent, never ending shilling for the murderous CCP is becoming more and more
obvious, at least to myself. I'm starting to believe that this site is nothing more than a
thinly disguised Chinese government propaganda outlet.
As in other recent threads, you fully endorse the CCP's criminal actions: lockdowns of
[reportedly] 700 million Chinese citizens; literal lockdowns with citizens locked, even
having their front doors welded shut by the "authorities",for weeks. The idiotic [unless
deliberate], Chinese "solution" has probably already killed 1000's, if not 10's or 100's of
thousands there via starvation alone, and the economic devastation caused in China will
likely kill millions more Chinese in the years to come.
But that is all "exemplary" in your opinion, right? "To make an omelette you have to break
a few eggs", right?
R.Unz:"Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent."
Of course! "Everyone knows" that! [I wish].
What you [and some of them] don't know [or won't admit to themselves] is that this is no
less true of the Chinese government, or of any other government, for that matter.
Reality fact: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft
[taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at
their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply
because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Which means that believing/trusting official stories and figures doled out by competing
criminal power structures, about _anything_, let alone actually supporting/promoting their
idiotic and criminal acts [eg the Chinese, US and elsewhere lockdowns"], is a mugs game for
useful idiots, nothing more. And yet, that is what you continue to consistently indulge
yourself in here.
Thanks for the excellent wrapup, Ron Unz. Your cui bono approach works like a
super-chloroquine dose to zap the anti-China virus now spreading from U.S. legacy media. What
passes for news media here in Europe is no better. But apparently there are islands of sanity
outside the Western imperial heartland. If you read French, you may find it encouraging to
read some real journalism on the source of the carona plandemic here from darkest Africa:
The same mendacious MSM that for three years howled at the moon that Putin had stolen the
2016 election for Trump is now barking like a mad dog about Covid being some kind of 21st
Century version of the Black Death.
Never mind that to get to the current figure of around 42,000 deaths, the CDC has been
juicing the total number of dead by adding in those who died from a heart attack or stroke or
some other medical complication, there was fear to be spread and by G-d, they were doing to
scare the hell out of Americans, just like they did in the years after the Israeli
masterminded 9/11 false flag.
Like Mr. Atzmon has pointed out, the 2017-18 flu season was much deadlier, yet there was
no lock-downs, quarantines and a complete gutting of the US–and the
worlds–economy.
The following may sound like a description of the current Novel Coronavirus pandemic:
"The season began with an increase of illness in November; high activity occurred during
January and February, and then illness continued through the end of March." You guessed
right, this is not the description of the current global Corona pandemic but actually how
CNN described the outbreak of influenza in America in September 2018.
Does it take a genius to figure out that the American 2017-18 influenza outbreak was pretty
'similar' to the current Novel Coronavirus epidemic?
The first question that comes to mind is why didn't America lock itself down amidst
its catastrophic 2017-18 influenza as it has now? One may wonder why the CDC didn't
react to the 'severity' of the outbreak that was at least three times as lethal as the
current Novel Coronavirus health crisis?
The Deep State thugs who are actually in charge of the US have some devious plan in mind
with this Covid hysteria.
Maybe they wanted to see how quickly Americans would give up their Bill of Rights. Or maybe
they wanted to cover up the multi-trillion dollar bailout of those TBTF banks that we bailed
out in 2009?
Or maybe this the test run for their next batch of weaponized flu, the one that will get
many killed and have people lining up for Mr. Know-it-all Bill Gates RFID chipped flu
vaccine.
The actual reason for the bombing was meant to cover-up NATO war crimes that were taking
place almost daily, and the Chinese listening post located in the corner of the embassy
that was bombed were intercepting orders issued by NATO which clearly revealed those
crimes. The Chinese needed to be silenced and their operations ended, no matter the
fallout.
My immediate gut reaction upon seeing the cartoon character version of a Muslim terrorist,
Osama Bin Laden, was this is a fake designed to play on US xenophobia. He was obviously made
for TV audiences.
I assumed after Skripal and the endless Assad gas arracks, that our ruling elite have just
become lazy and couldn't even be bothered to create a plausible story to cover up their
crimes, because the public is so stupid. How long did it take to determine it was a fraud, a
weekend of casual reading?
Putting a mob style hit on Venezuala's President confirmed that they could care less what
the Hoi Poloi think of them.
If this is a US caper, it is the either the most ridicoulosly stupid one imaginable, or
the most well thought out one in a very long time.
I had not connected the intelligence reports (recently spilled out of the Deep State) with
the obvious. Thanks, Ron, for pointing out that it's hard to imagine how the
NSA/CIA/whoever-collecting-part-of-the-85bln-we-spend-on-intelligence could report on this in
November when the sources from which they would have derived that information (the Chinese
government itself) didn't know until December 31st, or shortly before that date when they
reported to the WHO.
Someone, in covering up for blowing the response to the virus, really dropped the
ball.
Scientists from the UK have a recent paper on the mutations of Corona-19.
Here is part of the abstract:
In a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 complete human severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) genomes, we find three central variants distinguished
by amino acid changes, which we have named A, B, and C, with A being the ancestral type
according to the bat outgroup coronavirus. The A and C types are found in significant
proportions outside East Asia, that is, in Europeans and Americans. In contrast, the B type
is the most common type in East Asia, and its ancestral genome appears not to have spread
outside East Asia without first mutating into derived B types, pointing to founder effects
or immunological or environmental resistance against this type outside Asia.
I think these findings throw lots of water on any bioweapon claims. But others may differ
in their opinions.
It definitely does indicate that the virus did not come from a Wuhan lab or the Wuhan wet
market. It originated in Southern China where most people knowledgeable about bat viruses
expect bat viruses to originate.
you are mistakenly assuming and given for granted that this epidemic is much more lethat than
others,that the total closure is beneficial and not harmfull,that is the solution ,you are
deciding who to try to save regardless of the millions of victims of this economic
harakiri,and there are many epidemiologists who disagree with you.
One more thought: The US has over 25 bio-warfare labs that are located next door to Russia
and China that have been called out before for their sloppy or maybe deliberate release of
pathogens.
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
Would that be the same WHO that said chinese disease was not communicable between humans
and that we should keep letting infected people into the country? That's who we should trust?
Or should we trust the communist government that shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan,
because they were trying to protect the rest of THEIR country, while still allowing
international travel, because they wanted the rest of the planet infected?
This virus may or may not have been engineered, and may have come from the lab or the wet
market. These things are debatable. But what is absolutely not debatable is that once the
virus was loose, China choose to DELIBERATELY infect the rest of the world. These are people
whose numbers we should trust?
1918-1919 "Spanish" Flu Pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Hypotheses_about_the_source
Despite the name the most likely theory is that this pathogen, an H1N1 virus, originated in
China and mutated to become highly lethal in Europe or European-settled countries as a result
of WW I. S
Taking a scientific approach to American deep state biowarfare attack on China's Wuhan
district is telling in so far as Americans literally control tertiary education throughout
the entire world via funding in the trillions.
If the deep state wants to eliminate academics it can do so with merely a phone call to
Law Enforcement branches at a moments notice so that research & hard drives can be
confiscated and destroyed early on in investigations.
Once the media & journalistic propaganda arms of state get hold of the official
talking points to be disseminated the end game zero sum result is usually exactly what the
state arms of propaganda have wanted all along.
To be frank, I am an Intel thinker and am well aware of the details of the CIA led
biowarfare attack on China, but attaining the required data in empirical form via Requests
for Information from government is NOT going to ever yield synthesis required for scientific
peer-review research.
Bottom line is that the CIA had one CIA Agent/Operative deploy the nCov-19 in late October
as the USA Military contingent was departing Wuhan district. The operative deployed the
bioweapon via glass ampule smashed onto the ground to the entrance way for the Wuhan
restaurant district near to the Wuhan Wet Market. Moreover, his CIA handler gave him the
protocol & instruction on deployment of the bioweapon back in the United States of
America long before the actual deployment.
Lastly, Fort Detrick scientists developed the Chimera super-spreading viral pathogenicity
with a herd of pigs in the USA before hand in around 2012. Logistics of setting up the Wuhan
BSL-4 laboratory scientists for the false flag event of biowarfare were dependent upon
academic arrests before hand so that deflection & impression management for governance
would clearly be able to utilize plausible deniability where required.
In sum, as one acutely aware of the bioterrorism that the United States of America has
unleashed on the world covertly I, for one, can assure all that the US Deep State knowingly
unleashed nCov-19 to undermine China's meteoric rise in the financial world due to America's
incompetence writ large across the board since the Great Financial Crisis revealed that
America is swimming naked and their Emperor is wearing no clothes to reveal his
infinitesimally small Johnson in contradistinction to President Johnson's Johnson which was
historically infamous.
P.S. The USA Deep State can get in line to lick my balls in deference to my superior
intellect.
First, can researchers take a look at this virus and determine with certainty whether it was
artificially concocted in a lab or if it simply evolved out in the open? If so then that
would help focus the discussion. If not then things will remain opaque.
The Iranian government outbreak is strange but then people congregating with each other, like
at ski resorts, pass it to each other. If it was a US biowarfare attack then how did US
agents get access to them? They wouldn't have the cover of some delegation to an event such
as military games. But what was the effect on Iran? Zero. Some top leaders got sick and some
older members died. They have replacements and the government continues without missing a
beat. This idea that an ideal bioweapon would be highly contagious with a low lethal rate so
as to tie up resources and halt the economy sounds good but in practice it's hardly more than
harassment. It slowed up the Chinese economy but that's a temporary blip and they're back
now. The US and other countries are hardest hit economically. Many businesses will never
recover. This is self-inflicted. The lethality of this virus looks to be increasingly lower
and lower each time one looks despite all the Chicken Littles who were screaming that the sky
was about to fall. Was there a purpose for that?
The Wuhan outbreak coincided with the military games but things happen at random times as it
is. People were crowded in there. The various plagues and viruses have been going from East
to West for a very long time now. The problem is that currently there are many who have an
interest in lying and misdirecting things which further muddy the waters.
@Emslander What is crazy and funny is that supposed trump supporters thinks China would
shrink it's economy by 6.8% for the first quarter of 2020 to help Trump's opposition.
The same supposed supporters don't even realized that the best way for trump to win the
next election is to stamp out this damn virus asap. Denying is not going to work. Testing n
quarantine combo is what would work. It is why trump changed his tune.
Who's a track record of extreme malfeasance against China, since ww2 ?
1950 Korean war,
1959 Tibet,
1962 Indo./sino war,
1965 [[[CIA/MI5]]] INdon genocide on ethnic Chinese.
1989 TAM,
1998 Indon pogrom , mass rapes on ethnic Chinese
1999 BOmbing of Chinese embassy in ex Yugo,
2001 Hainan spy plane, Chinese pilot died.
2003 SARS1,
2008 Tibet riots,
2009 Xinjiang bloodbath,
2013 Bird flu H7N9 , Asia pivot
2014 Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, bubonic plague, Ebola, Dengue,
2018 bird flu, H7N9
2019 HK, Xinjiang, swine flu, army worms,
2020 SARS2, H5N1, locusts .
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at
minimum a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against
Libya; yet not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer,
closest adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back
in 2015.
Thanks for that context. It is exactly what I am trying to call attention to the whole
time. Regardless, how much reality there is to Corona, my issue is the overall timing in the
geopolitical context, with Europe being torn apart between the Angloamericans and China /
Russia on the other side. That was the agenda anyway, so how is it possible that this threat
appears at this very moment?
It can be said that had Corona not happened, the powers to be would have needed to invent
it.
Else, in skimming the comments, I find that until now (with some 140 comments) there are
hardly any discussions, but everyone pushing their own narratives.
Mabe, it is possible to get away from the question, how and if Corona is deadly to the
context that is developing. I have to admit that I did not take Corona serious enough from
the start, not as an illness, but as a fundamental threat to our societies. In that sense, it
is indeed a war.
@hs4691506 There was also some evidence that Chinese researchers under his supervision
had smuggled samples of his work out of their labs and back to China. Chinese researchers,
working in the USA and Canada, have a history of smuggling viral and other lab samples back
ti China. It's part of a much larger pattern of Chinese espionage and intellectual theft.
A search on DuckDuckGo.Com using the
following search string, "chinese scientists smuggling viral samples", turns up a lot of
useful information on smuggling of viral and other biological samples. (I no longer trust
Google. DuckDuckGo is less censored and does not track its users)
Similar searches using the strings "chinese intellectual theft" and "chinese scientific
espionage" will provide a broader picture.
BTW, I believe that Israel and the USA have both been conducting research into potential
bio-weapons. I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by
espionage targeting both countries. Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most
benign/least vicious. I suspect that the Israelis have been ruthlessly researching and
developing biological weapons, just as they did nuclear and chemical weapons. The Chinese
have probably been doing bio-weapons research just as ruthlessly. The biggest concern with
the Chinese is that, compared against Israel and the USA, their lab safety, security and
containment procedures are lax to an obscenely dangerous degree. One can only hope that after
the Wuhan outbreak, this attitude, if not the Chinese bio-weapons research, will change.
This is a model opening argument for an ICC bill of indictment against the CIA command
structure. The bird's-eye view is exactly right – all of CIA's gravest crimes have been
most evident not at the detailed technical level but at the organizational level. CIA can
shred all the MIPRs and RFPs and after-action reports they want, but the proof of all CIA
crime is public information about the actions of CIA focal points in government.
(Incidentally, one example you don't mention is official obstruction, including CDC, of Helen
Chu's coronavirus testing. That would have shown that COVID-19 was far too widespread for a
single introduction from Wuhan. Another example is the series of airport clusterfucks that
muddled US haplotypes when Chinese researchers noted that they point to US origins.)
The presumption of incompetence probably has its own CIA memo analogous to 1035-960. If
they can get you to tacitly assume that CIA works in the national interest, but ineptly, then
you misinterpret everything. CIA is a criminal enterprise with ongoing profit centers that
fund opportunistic crimes from asset-stripping to aggression.
When you're using a banned biological weapon, domestic casualties confer important
benefits:
First, damage to the US can help obfuscate attribution. Philip Giraldi articulates that
line in its clearest form, Why would the government shoot itself in the foot like that?
Second, US contagion offers a pretext for domestic repression: house arrest; overt contact
chaining illegally undertaken by NSA for decades; forcible derogation of your rights of
assembly and association.
Third, US economic devastation is used as a pretext for looting the fisc on an
unprecedented scale. Blackrock now performs central planning on behalf of the Fed, forcing
the state to guarantee a overwhelming volume of worthless and fraudulent securities.
Illegal warfare that is difficult to attribute has one intractable problem. It's a sneak
attack in breach of the Hague Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. That
convention was the legal justification for the first use of nuclear weapons. So if Russia and
China nuke the beltway into a sinkhole of molten basalt, that's only fair.
If it is established that COVID-19 is a banned biological weapon, this is self-evidently
the gravest crime in world history. The attack manifestly constituted aggression with an
absolutely indiscriminate weapon. It defies considerations of proportionality with unknown
global effects. The Nazi regime was extirpated for much less.
The evidence is very close to probative, and mounting.
There is the question of natural vs artificial origin of the novel corona virus, and from my
layman's research and considerations it seems increasingly that an artificial origin is
extremely likely. The pertinent technology is now widely available, there has been a massive
ongoing effort in the field since the 2nd WW, and many researchers and knowledgeable people
are drawing the conclusion of likely artificial origin: So, for example, George Webb's work,
or the Czech scientist Dr.Sona Pekova, PhD, who near the end of the video linked to describes
the virus in such a way as to indicate a great likelihood of artificial creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmL7okhbVzU&feature=youtu.be
There are many possible perpetrators. And a few likely suspects.
The ultimate health implications of the new virus are impossible to say with certainty at
this point: For example, Paul Craig Roberts' website's latest title is "Bad News From the
Virus if Correct", with the point being that there are now known to be a lot of different
strains with presumably different potential for harm, but there may be many more not
recognized.
There are additional contextual considerations that will have consequences which are
anyone's guess. So for example, last year saw many widespread agricultural catastrophes and
difficulties which were usually weather related. If the weather continues to be
uncooperative, in conjunction with food production and transportation problems related to the
virus, in conjunction with the African Swine Flu disaster, then human health and food
security, and thus health, on a large scale may be affected.
Another contextual consideration is the recent rapid and accelerating deployment of 5G
technology, which many are concerned can make life more vulnerable to health problems. It may
just be coincidental, but worth noting, that tiny San Marino, enclosed by Italy, boasted of
being the European leader in the rollout of 5G technology, and is now the world leader in
corona virus deaths per million, by a long shot (San Marino with 1179 deaths per million as
of today compared to second place Spain with 455 per million, and yes, Spain has been among
the most ambitious countries in rolling out 5G in many cities. And Wuhan was the very poster
'child' of 5G. Just saying.)
Shutting down the world economy seems rather dire. But it may just be the impetus for a
radical rethink of the basic structure and design of the global economic system.
The global paradigm which in economic terms might be described as globalism, or 'when
private corporations rule the world', or neo-liberalism, or plutocracy running amuck, or
grasping for 'global government', or the aftermath of the chimera of 'full spectrum
domination', or in the wreckage of Rockefeller's and Kissinger's et al wet dream, or
democracy spurned, is now inescapably obviously retarded, dysfunctional: a fundamental design
flaw if you want humanity and Earth to thrive. In short, the culture of deception.
Someone has suggested as symptomatic of our present predicament a cartoon featuring Fauci
with his bio-weapon declaring this as 'the age of the Ork', with crazed Bill Gates as Gollum
wielding a syringe and gleefully chortling 'my precious!'.
The local, one's back yard, the decentralized, the careful common sense community, the
regional, and the actually democratic national, with the public interest protected by the
public, and much honest discourse, as one basic design alternative.
Useful article by Unz which connects the dots well. One important dot which is missing,
though, in his analysis of the psywar promoting propaganda that the virus leaked out of a lab
in Wuhan, and is a Chinese biowarfare agent, is that this psywar originated with an israeli
military-intelligence operative. One dany shoham. This individual was also deeply involved in
the "iraq has wmds" psywar operation at the beginning of the century. More on that dot and
how it connects to the others, later.
A few days ago I wrote this about how the israeloamericans are framing their psywar
campaign against China:
The israeloamericans are working on a several level strategy which includes back-ups in my
opinion. The israeloamericans are trying to cover all the bases at once.
So they claim China created the virus in a lab, in case it gets out it was lab created,
meaning israel or the usa created it in a lab. The israeloamericans claim the virus leaked
out of the Wuhan lab in case evidence is found that israeloamerica deliberately planted the
virus in Wuhan or it spread from a source in the usa through some other vector. The
israeloamericans claim China mislead the world about the virus so people wont notice the
reality that China has successfully thwarted the virus, while trump & co. have continued
making it worse. The claptrap about China under reporting victims is a variation of the
latter tactic. And so on.
Is what is being reported in the following article "damage control"?
Neither 'lab' nor 'wet market'? Covid-19 outbreak started months EARLIER and NOT in Wuhan,
ongoing Cambridge study indicates
Another vector in the israeloamerican preemptive strategy? Now that research is showing
the virus may have been infecting people earlier and neither a market in Wuhan, or even Wuhan
itself, may be where it originated?
With regard to western response to the pandemic, especially american, the delay in
israel's trump colonial regime's containment response to the virus tells me they deliberately
wanted the virus to spread across the country and cause the ruckus it is now causing. The
question is why israel had them do this.*
* Compare the israeli response, IE: strong proactive containment strategy, to the weak
responses in most zionazi colonies. It is clear there is an actual strategy underlying this
difference. And it entails more than israel being sacrosanct.
Keep in mind that trump, and his corrupt regime, are israel's property. More specifically,
they tepresent the israeli likud freakshow (netanyahoo and related subhuman garbage). Most of
what trump says and the policies his regime follow, originate from tel aviv. Trump's cowardly
"blame China" campaign, duplicated by the zionazi western media (commonly misnamed the msm)
is israeli psywar.
@onebornfree See my post at 135 regarding three different variants: A, B and C. The most
prevalent in Asia is B and the most prevalent variants in Europe and the US are A and C. So
it could also be that A and C variants are more virulent than B.
"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total
incompetence of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the
Western media attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining
international credibility it still possesses."
So saying, Ron Unz forfeits whatever credibility he might have retained by now
acknowledging the data emerged from "the fog of war" he found himself pronouncing in a month
or more ago.
Like Unz, and after examining the relevant Chinese data, epidemiologists Knut Wittkowski(
almost a month ago) saluted the Asian approach to handling the novel virus threat.
Unlike Unz, Wittkowski revealed that what was salutary was the Chinese government's
allowing the populace to gain herd immunity before instituting any lockdown measures.
(rendering the lockdown measures a mystery from a scientific point of view).
So, and according to Wittkowski- a man with credentials relevant to this story, yet
completely ignored by Unz' investigative article- the incompetence of Western governments
cited by Unz is the clean reverse of what he claims: it is the incompetence of ignoring what
the competent Chinese did not ignore, namely, the sound scientific counsel to allow the virus
to spread, granting the herd immunity to the populace which protects the elderly and fragile
self-quarantining until that immunity is gained.
1) Virus is US bioweapon attack on China
2) Virus is China's own bioweapon accident
3) Virus happened in nature, and everybody is trying to profit off the crisis or
contain/direct the damage to their own interests.
That's 66% percent chance it's an accident.
Government in power were sane enough to avoid nuclear war as recently as 40 years ago. Why
would they be crazier today? Biowarfare is Mutually Assured Destruction, too. If people can
model this away, please provide a link.
@swamped You are cognitively blind to the obvious -- the ZUSA has become ZUSSR (minus
excellent Soviet educational system). Before lamenting "Chinese despots" and "their contempt
for civil liberties," think for a moment about the fate of Assange (why he is in a
high-security prison?) and about the Banksters on the march (the financialization of the US
economy).
What is the state of "liberties" in the US and the UK? -- Gay parades. Quantitative
Easings for eternity.
Why some 1000 American military bases encircle the globe? Why 25 American biofare
laboratories reside in Europe? You are cheerleading for Cheneys and Rubins (read General
Smedley Butler). https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm http://armswatch.com/the-pentagon-bio-weapons/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk_
Libya used to be a prosperous state with universal healthcare and excellent educational
opportunities. Enter the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" deciders to bring in
"liberties." First, the US/NATO expropriated Libyan gold, and then a regular business of
"liberation" took place: since the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" liberators entered
Libya, a civil war commenced, the healthcare and educational systems have collapsed and slave
markets sprang.
Or perhaps you are proud of freedom of information in the US?
This important story was immediately summarized in many of the world's other most
prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our own
country.
How much trillions have been disappeared by the Pentagon? -- 21 (twenty-one). A lot
of money that could be used for initiating great national projects of all kinds.
Why the US industries have been relocated to China? -- Because this is what US corporations
demanded and got. What deciders want, they get. Read General Smedley Butler, again.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or
minimized this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest
disaster, they have naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
I'm a little worried about The Unz Review. This pandemic is already being used to consolidate
the economy and The Powers That Be are likely to use it to settle scores and purge
dissident voices.
TruthDig is down and other media is likely to go down soon as ad revenue collapses. I
would have advised ad revenue from foreign sources like Aeroflot (and others outside the U.S.
Oligarchy), but airlines are collapsing and international travel is likely to be down for a
while.
Maybe just open a Patreon Account and put a link in the sidebar.
It may be a good time to be extra cautious and gird your loins as they say.
Whatever anyone may make of Unz's assessment, I think everyone not insane or evil or
mindlessly jingoistic should agree with this: "Everyone knows that America's ruling elites
are criminal, crazy, and also extremely incompetent."
By the way – I hope Unz has changed his mind about the bombing of Serbia. Anytime
Neocons assert the need to use violence to help Moslems, the reasonable man smells not a rat,
but a million putrid rats.
I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by espionage
targeting both countries. [SIC]
Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most benign/least vicious [
SIC ]
ROFLAMO
How fucking old are you kid ?
Back to your Harry Potter forchrissake
This is an adult site.
Do you want me to inform your mom ?
@Tor597 Correct. The Elites of the Anglo-Zionist Empire will get richer from all this,
while the white American middle and working classes will get poorer.
Much the same will happen in the UK and France and other European nations.
This and many other analyses focus primarily on governments, USA government, Chinese
communistic government etc. and their past misadventures as proofs for their involvement or
not involvement in the current disaster. I would like to see at least one extensive analyse
of possible involvement of the nongovernment governments. Their interests and gains from this
situation. Regards!
@denk Not the "war crimes" bit again. Look, the whole operation was one big war crime,
and that according to the US Secretary of State. Same with Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq --
overthrow of another state for no compelling reason. So what? War is war, and China can
either participate or not. If it participate, it can expect to become part of the general
destruction.
Analogy -- if somebody is in your house and gets violent, that's a crime. You are legally
able to protect yourself. If the person starts to run, you can't shoot she/he/it because
she/he/it is no longer a threat. Sure, the other she/he/it started the crime, but that
doesn't mean you can commit a crime of your own (shooting somebody when she/he/it isn't an
immediate threat). Should she/he/it turn around and start returning fire, well, it just might
be that she/he/it is legally doing so.
So enough of this "you stepped on a crack and so you've transgressed the law in one
particular, so you are absolutely condemned" stuff. You want to play that game, people get
tired of it, and it has a bad endgame. Try playing it on COVID-19. COVID-19 might listen to
you and depart. Go, use your moral authority and save us all.
Since the Israeli masterminded 9/11 false flag, the MSM has told us a gazillion lies about
what DID NOT happen that day.
When those lies started losing luster, we were told Bin Laden was killed, but they offered no
proof, other than "Trust Us.'
Then we started getting lies about ISIS, DAESH, al Nusra etc, that they were even worse
than al CIA Duh, when in fact, they were started, funded, paid, protected and give air cover
by the US/Israel and the Kingdom of Head Choppers.
Now the same MSM is braying that Covid will be the end of the world, unless we give up our
freedoms?
Bull. We're being lied to again and the sad part is, many are falling for this latest line
of horse apples.
In Coronavirus We Trust: Medical Surveillance State For A Gov That's Experimented On
You 239 Times
When are people going to realize that the mandatory vaccine is ready NOW – Gates,
Fauci, Davos, the oligarchs, and the usual suspects just needed to lay the groundwork. It's
ready to go now. Doesn't take much of a gedanken experiment to see the end-game here.
@utu "Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its society
and economy but to make the whole world angry with China."
If the planning was like 9/11, then both of these objectives would have been carefully
scrutinized and maximized.
Bear in mind something, please: who says these bastards are finished unleashing designer
bugs?
Would it not be wisest for these evil geniuses to keep the bugs coming, intensifying the
impact so that the continuously simmering anger of the increasingly desperate masses can be
directed to boil over at the Chinese menace when the 'elites' deem it necessary and proper.
And with exploding unemployment numbers, especially among the young, and no real short term
job or career prospects, these psychopathic 'elites' have a ready-made source for boots on
the ground, should that be mandated.
Of course, I hope all this turns out to not be the case. But if 9/11 was any indication,
these bastards will be brazen and shamelessly murderous.
@Max Powers When you said that Ron Unz lost you with his defense of NATO in the
unnecessary Serbian war, I hope that you read the rest of the article rather than stopping
there. I, too, smelled a Bill Clinton obfuscation at the time, as I always do when any US
president sends our troops to war. I'm a little surprised that Mr. Unz didn't.
However, I respect his honesty, and he more than redeemed himself in the rest of his
well-researched and well-written article. It did much to bolster my belief that the
CIA/Neocons are behind it. Although, discounting the unfairly derided Beltway outsider Mr.
Trump, I've never considered the likes of such people as West Point grad SOS Pompeo as being
incompetent. To paraphrase the former CIA head: "we lie, we cheat, we steal."
But America and several European countries avoiding adopting these same early measures
such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have paid a terrible price
for their insouciance.
For someone ordinarily quite careful in your use of terminology, you conflate the term
quarantine with lockdown. This is usually being done these days in the media to make a
lockdown seem less unreasonable to the insouciant public. Properly a quarantine is the
isolation of the sick to prevent the spread of contagion to the healthy public. What we have
are lockdowns, restricting the free movement of the healthy population. These have been
resorted to out of the desire "to do something," but unfortunately as you must know, there is
absolutely no empirical evidence that lockdowns do any good when all is said and done, and
they do considerable economic harm. Sweden used a relaxed social distancing approach without
a lockdown, and their mortality rate is currently less than that of most countries that
resorting to this authoritarian approach.
@Quintus "Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance."
Exactly!
This planned-demic is like a Timex watch for the PTB: the gift that keeps on giving.
You are spot-on when you say that digital currencies and top-down surveillance will be
enabled by this oh-so-convenient viral pandemic.
Like I said, it's a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist's wet dream come true, maybe even
more than 9/11 was.
I guess we all get to watch, wait and see what happens next .
One thing I have been waiting for is confirmation that HIV is somehow involved in the virus,
making it a chimera and tipping the scale towards bioweapon.
@anon If Trump was in on it, he didn't do much of a job making himself a hero, several
missteps are noticeable in the view of 20/20 hindsight, even if he intentionally wanted to
crash the economy he would have scripted it better.
@MLK Unz.com seems to be less a blog than an online asylum; Ron and most of the
KrazyKommentariat have really flipped their tinfoil Trilbys this time. This site is worse
than Infowars is reputed to be–yet utterly without the entertainment value. You wonder
why Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer and Bertie Woostershire continue to post on this site. And,
yes, why I bother to comment.
@Tor597 "Zerohedge used to be libertarian and antiestablishment but something changed and
they are now right wing neocons."
Their true colors are emerging for all to see.
I recognized early on what exactly Zerohedge was about: sayanim-directed, intelligently
controlled opposition. Very intelligently controlled, I should say.
Or as I call it, "Zio-hedge".
The trick is to give lots of good analysis and establish credibility, and then on the
absolutely critical issues, subtly reinforce the neocon narrative. Then, slowly over time,
not so subtly. Then, when the moment is ripe, openly and strongly support the neocon
narrative. Again, a very intelligent and effective technique.
Sadly, we are now at the point of "openly" reinforcing the neocon narrative ..
Ron,
Your article is very good! Thank you for shedding some light on this issue
I would like to summarize a rebuttal to some of the points expressed in this article
However, your chart depicting America and China economic trends is statistically
misleading
America started from a much higher bar than China, and it is harder for richer countries
to grow. Furthermore, an additional dollar in per capita GDP for America is a less % growth
than it would be for China.
Here is the GDP per capita growth from the World Bank for America vs China.
Hardly, what your graph shows at all. In fact, this shows America adding more in Per
capita GDP in real terms than China over the last thirty years.
It seems the issue is that you are thinking that China's exponential growth will continue
till the point where it strongly surpasses the USA, like the Coronavirus's growth, but
countries don't work like that. Unless you want to believe there was some policy reason for
why Japan went from 10% to 1% growth in ten years.
Second, with respect to the domestic impoverishment of America, I think you are mistaken
here. Most of those who are impoverished in America are immigrants and Black people, one
group because of their recent arrival and location in America's most expensive cities. The
other group because of their lack of time preference, so they don't save.
Additionally, How did China identify the virus so quickly? It is fairly hard to tell, even
from those who died. According your own article, China shut down when they had 11 deaths, and
sequenced the genome when they had even less. That has never happened before, and I feel that
is suspicious to me. The offical Chinese narrative is that the Wuhan Goverment dropped the
ball, so how did they catch the disease so early?
An article by Mr. Unz is always worth the wait and then the read, no matter if I agree a
100%, 60%, or even just 20% with what has been written.
A real delight, and a sort of Christmasy feeling. Which is a very important psychological
boost for the likes of me in such weird, weird times. Thanks!
The Winnipeg lab lead scientist, a Dr Plummer, dropped dead in Nigeria in early March.
He more than likely added the HIV 1 content to the Wu V to allow it to spread since he had
the MERS variant from 2014 on.
His lab then had Wuhan Scientists escorted out by RCMP last summer.
No info as to why was offered, and Plummer was buddies with the Harvard prof, and both were
recipients of Epstien the rapists financial support.
Ron always goes to the edge, but never ever steps off!!
Epstein should be brought up, he gave many millions to the Harvard and MIT people for virus
development!! Cui bono Ron, cui bono, by deception, make war!!!
Not sure what to make of Mr. Unz's piece here -- there's a lot of room for any number of
suspects to emerge as the guilty party here
One of the earliest questions I had was just how did this virus get into Iran -- which
naturally begs the question of who has the most visible and ongoing hatred of Iran -- other
than israel -- and their stooge, the United States.
The Newsweek article cited here about the class action lawsuits even mentions one of the
plaintiff attorneys: "But Klayman claimed he has "whistleblowers with firsthand knowledge" of
China's involvement in the viral outbreak who are currently residing in Israel and the United
States and who can help substantiate this charge." So just who is it among 'whistleblowers'
that reside in israel and in the United States (likely dual citizenship folks) -- other than
israeli nationals?
And, from this article: "But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the
global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit,
with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its
officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior.
" Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant
human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant
outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have
America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks
later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly
new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual
possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?"
Even allowing for Iran's involvement by the chinese in its BRI -- how can anyone explain
the virus so quickly targeting the elites in Iran's ruling class -- certainly they don't hang
around with the chinese in Iran or elsewhere, do they?
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist Your list is too small. I laugh at these comments
regarding China's lies and crimes. Americans are surely the most gullible people on the
planet. They know their corrupt government steals and lies to them daily yet they can still
be manipulated to jump on the bandwagon of blame and hate towards anyone at anytime with a
few inciteful articles from the media.
let me add to your list [MORE]
MLK
JFK
Ruby
USS Liberty
911
Venezuela
Honduras
Haiiti
Hiroshima
Vietnam
Syria
Palestine
Russia
Ukraine
Libya
Epstein
Afghanistan
32 Trillion dollars missing from the pentagone
All Presidential Elections
Hiding their own crimes against humanity, their government drug trade/sex trade/ chemical
and biowarfare against poor countries.
The US of Israel so exceptional.
@Mustapha Mond Agreed . Like 9/11 there is plenty of evidence in the predictive
programming/revelation of the method/social conditioning that the Coronavirus pandemic was
many years in the making see, for example : "WTF? Olympic Opening Ceremony 2012-NHS" YouTube
. Yes, the London 2012 Olympic Games opening ceremony revealed part of the plot of the
Coronavirus plandemic. I was expecting that something like this was going to happen ,but
figured the cabal/cult/globalists/freemasons wouldn't try to pull it off until Americans were
disarmed but , when you have total control of the media , it is easy to create hysteria and
brainwash the public into believing that the Coronavirus, which is probably no more than the
flu ,is the plague and will wipeout mankind unless everyone is locked-down . As another
commenter has noted ,they probably could not have pulled off the international Coronavirus
psyop 10 to 20 years ago because they did not have control and ownership of the worldwide
massmedia . septemberclues.info
has a good, short essay on "The central role of the news media on 9/11." Unless you stop
relying on news from NPR, MSNBC, New York Times , Washington Post, Fox News , CBS , NBC
,etc,etc you will remain brainwashed and unable to understand that we are living through a
planned-demic with a frightening agenda .
@anon "Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that
no more than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19)."
The key word is "estimated". No one knows (not even you) the actual number of exposed
Americans to the Wuhan virus. There have been some small random samples done by
Dr.Bhattacharya that indicate that there is actually a large number of Americans that have
been infected but are asymptomatic and that the final mortality rate will be closer to the
annual flu or 0.1% to 0.2% instead of the guesstimate of 3%. The early studies are too small
to think they are representative of the nation but the results indicate that larger studies
are necessary in order to support nationwide policies, which are currently being made on
hunches not science. About 60,000 to 80,000 died of the flu during the 2017 season when
vaccines were available, so a large number of deaths during the flu season are not unusual
and never required closing down the economy.
[MORE]
Gov. Cuomo was screaming at the top of his lungs that he needed tens of thousands of
ventilators, thousands are now sitting in his warehouses unused. So much for estimates. Most
of the early estimates were wrong by exaggerating the death rate, which turned out to be only
a guess rather than based upon science.
The CDC has been derelict in its duties over the years and has been giving poor advice.
There are other experts in the field that have alternative views that are being ignored or
dismissed and should at least be considered.
@Ayatollah Smith I have been reading much about Covid-19, but am waiting for anyone, in
or out of government, trying to blame China and/or exonerate Uncle Sam to deal with a
particular point that anyone can easily appreciate using only a timeline:
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world
would demand the answer to this.
So far, nothing. No refutation, no rationalization, just silence. Like WTC-7, is this
Achilles' heel from which the Establishment can only limp away?
I don't know who, what, when, where, or why this infection(s) began. But I'm certain that
anyone dodging that particular question wants me not to.
In 2016, when I finally cancelled by NYT subscription, I was asked why I was doing so. I
explained that I didn't like having my intelligence systematically insulted.
Like, I think, most UR readers, I'm game for pretty much anything as a general
proposition.
But poor Ron couldn't make it more than 100 words into a droning 7,400 words with
discrediting himself.
When CIA whacked JFK, the whole world outside the US iron curtain knew, but too bad. When CIA
blew up OKC, the whole world knew, but hey, it's their business. When CIA knocked down the
WTC, on the second try, and blew up the Pentagon a bit to start a war, the whole world knew,
but Russia was tits-up, unable to do anything about it.
This is different. CIA's illegal germ warfare is a maleficium, in legal doctrine going
back to Grotius. CIA wronged the whole world, and the whole world has a joint obligation to
hold CIA responsible. Russia and China made a missile gap for real, so now they can do
it.
This is war. This is the very beginning of the world war that will end the CIA regime:
@Anon One problem with the chart that can be fixed to make it more representative is that
the two countries should start from the same base of comparison. If you use two different
bases, then you get the wrong comparison.
For instance, if you measured the US from China's base in 1980, the US added 40k in per
capita gdp in the 40 years, reflecting a 4000% increase from China base in contrast to the
1400% increase that China had.
If you use the same base, then America is what looks like a superior country.
@antitermite Unbelievable. A truly gifted researcher destroyed on the totally idiotic
charges:
Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in nanoscience and
nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was named by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the
world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. He is
known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale
materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a
mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience.
Awards:
Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (2001)
MRS [Material Research Society] Medal (2002)
ACS Award in the Chemistry of Materials (2004)
NBIC Research Excellence Award in Nanotechnology, University of Pennsylvania (2007)
Inorganic Nanoscience Award, ACS Division of Inorganic Chemistry (2009)
Fred Kavli Distinguished Lectureship in Nanoscience, Materials Research Society (2010)
Wolf Prize in Chemistry (2012)
Nano Research Award, Tsinghua University Press/Springer (2013)
IEEE Nanotechnology Pioneer Award (2013)
Willard Gibbs Medal Award (2013)
MRS Von Hippel Award (2016)
Remsen Award (2016)
NIH Director's Pioneer Award (2017 and 2008)
John Gamble Kirkwood Award, Yale University (2018)
Welch Award in Chemistry (2019)
On January 28, 2020, Lieber was arrested on charges of making false statements to the
U.S. Department of Defense and to Harvard investigators regarding his participation in
China's Thousand Talents Program According to the Department of Justice's charging
document, there are two counts of alleged crime committed by Lieber. The DOJ
believes Lieber's statement was false
The only way "the US government did it" makes sense is if this was happening this coming
November after Trump has been reelected. If the Deep State did it without Trump's approval,
somebody will talk just like John Soloman claims FBI agents told him of the Russiagate
conspiracy at the FBI while it was getting underway. Somebody would have alerted somebody
loyal to Trump what was being planned. Remember Trump had to give the order to kill that
Iranian general. The Deep State (full of Israel's toadies) didn't even do that on their own.
Of course, there is an answer for everything. It even makes more sense for Trump to do it
now so he can fix it. The Deep State did it but Trump now has to cover for them or risk the
world finding out how incompetent he is.
Concerning "wet markets", I'd just like to add that 99% of those are normal "butcher's
markets" with lamb, beef, pork, chickens, and sea produce, and 1%, in specific parts of the
country, selling all the Cthulhu fhtagn stuff.
So China reopening some wet markets now is an argument neither for, nor against the
zootropic theory. Because I'm pretty sure they're reopening the "lamb and chicken" wet
markets, not the "H.R.Giger's nightmares" ones, such as the one in Wuhan that is one of the
three possible origins.
1) Wuhan wet market
2) Wuhan lab
3) Wuhan based foreign troops taking part in the military Olympics
Has to be one of those three. Maybe the third was even accidental, but
There's some interesting information in the article for sure, but it seems to me that if the
US were to perform clandestine bio weapons attacks on another country, the Middle East and
Russia would surely be the primary targets. We rely on China for a lot of things, such as
virtually all the goods sold at Walmart and China owns a great deal of our debt, so it would
seem to me a financially strong China is in our interest.
Moreover, plagues and epidemics, especially coronaviruses, have started in the far east as
long as can be remembered.
@Anonymous This is about the most common sense post I have read on this site. SPOT ON.
OUR current problems in regards to immigration, racial issues, Black criminality, and this
(((virus))) can all be traced to one group for the most part. Btw, I was in NYC about the
same time perion in '83-'87 and haven't been back since, but from what I understand, it is
far worse today. I actually didn't find it that bad back then even though crime and drugs
were out of control. Probably because I was a twenty-something and having fun.
Anyhow, as you said, WHY in the hell do ANY Americans, much less White Americans ALLOW
RACIST JEWISH SUPREMACIST organizations have so much power over them. It isn't as if the ADL
or $PLC try and hide their hatred for Whites. I would have no problem for any organization
whether it be Black, Jewish or Hispanic fighting against racism, but lets face it, these
organizations aren't fighting against racism, they main goal is to take away the rights of
Whites or demonize WHITES ONLY.
"Life isn't complicated." And this (((virus))) isn't either. This shit was MANUFACTURED
and we can only guess by whom and what their future intentions are down the road. As usual
the usual suspects have already pretty much revealed themselves to anyone out there really
watching. For the WILLFULLY ignorant ostriches and chinadidit people, well, they must like be
lorded over by a tiny group of people who don't give two shits about them or their
children.
the response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
What do you people wish happened -- Trump-issued national lockdown order back in January?
Why do the death counts need to be artificially inflated if this virus is as deadly as the
media says?
These injuries often seem like pneumonia, but they are not caused by an infectious
disease, and they do not improve with antibiotics. Respiratory symptoms reported include:
shortness of breath, chest pain, pain on breathing, and cough. Other symptoms reported by
many patients include: fever, chills, nausea, weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal
pain.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications,
and there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its
trillions of dollars in economic losses.
Aren't you comdedians Trillions deep in debt by the Chinese?
Since you'd never pay back anyway, they are in the face saving position to grant you very
generous debt forgiveness.
@Mustapha Mond Not to mention, Mr. Brave New World (how appropriate your name is), it
fits in nicely with Bill Gates' plan for a massive reduction in world population. What
freedom-loving young proles will want to form families and bring children into such a
dystopia? Already, US whites are well below replacement rate and dropping. As of 2018 it was
1.73 babies per woman, 16% below replacement rate, the lowest rate ever recorded. Asian
Americans are even lower at 1.525 (per the World Atlas).
@Chet Roman there things that are kmown:the almost universal economic damage that
stopping the economy,as if it were a ball game,would bring,guaranteed
We all have one hand tied behind our back. There is nobody that I know of presenting
information from inside the border of China to compare with Ronald Unz and his collaborators
at unz.com . I have seen exactly one
document in the last two years. It was a post on medium.com which purportedly was written by a Chinese ex-pat
graduate student in British Columbia with google earth images analyzed to show the
proliferation of concentration camps in Xinjiang for the retention of young male uyghurs.
Every single time I saw this document referenced on the internet it was followed up within
an hour by a shower of posts from all over the place that it was CIA fake news.
Basically at most we know about 1/2 and it is tough to know what to do with that.
@36 ulster Because articles with stated evidence linked to articles/research/legislation
where it is taken from (unlike the MSM, that links nothing other than its own circle-jerk),
and some implicit acceptance that the reader should have the freedom to decide for themselves
– rather than being spoonfed 'truths' agreed upon somewhere 'up high' – offers
people enough respect to allow them to accept that the webzine is not an ideological
printout, but a spectrum of ideas, to be evaluated by the reader. This is a contract with
consideration.
We have no truths from our elected leaders, or their stenographers in the MSM though.
When Trump says 'blame China', most of us see a bankruptcy merchant peddling a lie to
weasel out and default on 1 trn $$ (Martyanov said it first methinks!) – cause that's
what he does, and that's what he knows.
Unz offers a fairly balanced approach to conspiracy theory – not conspiracy
hypothesis. Ain't seen any article on some dude claiming he got anal probed by little green
men without any even anecdotal evidence.
This place debates the smoke, often without the fire. But it's a good start to some
explanation for some fire. Much of the rest of the net doesn't look at the smoke, but instead
distracts its audience with some other eye candy.
But hey, is it fair to complain – some people enjoy WWE!
@utu There's nothing like attacking the person (Wittkowski himself) in place of his point
( herd immunity already gained by Asians before lockdown) to demonstrate your bona fides.
Thanks for your back-handed admittal that you can't rebut his conclusion.
I have been trying to get this across for an age. It's very simple. Anybody who says China
did it is suspect. Not only does the import of their message suggest that the China-did-its
are ruling-class-hired trolls, the trolly smartass tone suggests it, not to mention the
illiteracy.
@Other Side "The drastic changes in the Balkans in the 1990s and the disintegration of
Yugoslavia in particular have resulted in a large number of publications attempting to
explain the break-up of this country and the political developments in the Balkans. Some of
these publications deal partly with the local Muslims who were engaged in the Balkan
conflicts but, with some exceptions, they are focused mainly on recent developments, with
less attention paid to the historical contexts in which the Muslim nationalist movements were
shaped. Although religion played a more important role in the nation-building process of the
Bosnian Muslims than in that of the Albanians, there are very few studies that examine the
reasons for this and the impact of Islam on the Muslim nationalist movements in historical
perspective. The following article examines from a comparative perspective the role of Islam
in the Bosnian Muslim and Albanian national movements from the Ottoman period up to the end
of the Cold War. The Sunni Muslims of Bosnia and the Albanians, who are divided into three
religions and a variety of sects, present contrasting societal structures for the analysis of
different aspects of Islam."
Would you like to read the rest of this article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233460310_The_Bosnian_Muslims_and_Albanians_Islam_and_nationalism
More reading
"Immediately after the fall of communism in Albania in 1991, Arab Islamic fundamentalists
infiltrated the mosques in the country, which is 70 percent Muslim. The interlopers
represented the Saudi Wahhabis and the Egyptian disciples of today's al Qaeda leader Ayman
Al-Zawahiri. In spring 1999, a dozen of Al-Zawahiri's acolytes, known as the "Albanian
Returnees," were deported from the eastern Adriatic republic to Egypt, tried, and sentenced
to death or extended prison terms for terrorism. The "Returnees" had been told by their
"sheikhs" to stay in Albania and avoid going to Kosovo, where NATO military forces were, by
that time, thick on the ground. But Albania booted them out with alacrity. Evidence in the
case of the "Albanian Returnees" proved extremely important in tracing the evolution of al
Qaeda's Egyptian predecessors."
"... The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative. ..."
"... The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Even though distracted by the havoc resulting from the coronavirus, the United States and
much of Europe is engaged in a frenzied search for anti-Semitism and anti-Semites so that what
the media and chattering class are regarding as the greatest of all crimes and criminals can
finally be extirpated completely. To be sure, there have recently been some horrific instances
of ethnically or religiously motivated attacks on synagogues and individual Jews, but, as is
often the case, however, quite a lot of the story is either pure spin or politically motivated.
A Jewish student walking on a college campus who walks by protesters objecting to Israel's
behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for
example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work
of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In
one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.
Weaponizing one point of view inevitably limits the ability of contrary views to be heard.
The downside is, of course, that the frenzy that has resulted in the criminalization of free
expression relating in any but a positive way to the activity of Jewish groups. It has also
included the acceptance of the dishonest definition that any criticism of Israel is ipso facto
anti-Semitism, giving that nation a carte blanche in terms of its brutal treatment of its
neighbors and even of its non-Jewish citizens.
Jewish dominated Hollywood and the entertainment media have helped to create the
anti-Semitism frenzy and continue to give the public regular doses of the holocaust story.
Currently there are a number of television shows that depict in one form or another the
persecution of Jews. Hunters on Amazon is about Jewish Americans tracking and killing
suspected former Nazis living in New York City in the 1970s. The Plot to Destroy
America on HBO is a retro history tale about how a Charles Lindbergh/Henry Ford regime
installs a fascist government in the 1930s. One critic describes
the televisual revenge feast "as one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as
the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism."
But, as always, nothing is quite so simple as such a black and white portrayal where there
are evil Nazis and Jewish victims who are always justified when they seek revenge. First of
all, as has been demonstrated ,
many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and
are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic
changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after
the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own
private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud
to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches
that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.
The recent concentration of coronavirus in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York as well as the
eruption of measles cases last year have been attributed to the unwillingness of some
conservative Jews to submit to vaccinations and normal hygienic practices. They also have
persisted in illegal large gatherings at weddings and religious ceremonies, spreading the
coronavirus within their own communities and also to outsiders with whom they have contact.
Regularly exposing anti-Semitism is regarded as a good thing by many Jewish groups because
the state of perpetual victimization that it supports enables them to obtain special benefits
that might otherwise be considered excessive in a pluralistic democracy. Holocaust education in
schools is now mandatory in many jurisdictions and more than 90% of discretionary Department of
Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are
now lining up to get what they choose to believe is their share of Coronavirus emergency
funding.
Claims of increasing anti-Semitism, and the citation of the so-called holocaust, are like
having a perpetual money machine that regularly disgorges reparations from the Europeans as
well as billions of dollars per year from the U.S. Treasury. Holocaust and anti-Semitism
manufactured guilt are undoubtedly contributing factors to the subservient relationship that
the United States enjoys with the state of Israel, most recently manifested in the U.S.
Department of Defense's gift of one million surgical masks
to the Israel Defense Force in spite of there being a shortage of the masks in the United
States (note how the story
was edited after it first appeared by the Jerusalem Post to conceal the U.S. role
but it still has the original email address and the photo cites the Department of Defense).
And then there is the issue of Jewish power, which is discussed regularly by Jews themselves
but is verboten to gentiles. Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in all the Anglophone
states as well as in France and parts of Eastern Europe and even in Latin America. If
anti-Semitism is as rampant as has often been claimed it is odd that there are so many Jews
prominent in politics and the professions, most especially financial services and the media.
Either anti-Semitism is not really "surging" or the actual anti-Semities have proven to be
particularly incompetent in making their case.
Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents. There has
also been credible speculation that some of the incidents have been false flags staged by the
Israeli government itself, presumably acting through its intelligence services. The objective
would be to create sympathy among the public in Europe and the U.S. for Israel and to
encourage
diaspora emigration to the Jewish state. The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael
Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares
targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative.
Kadar, who holds both Israeli and American nationality, was arrested in Ashkelon
Israel on March 2017 by Israeli police in response to the investigation carried out by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kadar's American address was in New Lenox Illinois but he
actually resided in Israel. Kadar's defense was that he had a brain tumor that caused autism
and was not responsible for his actions, but he was found to be fit for trial and was
sentenced
to 10 years in prison in June 2017. He was apparently subsequently quietly released from
prison and returned to Illinois in
mid-2018. In August 2019 he was
arrested for violation of parole on a firearms and drugs offense.
The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating
hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting
threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and
airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed
that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had
been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make
emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled."
It was also claimed
by the court that Kadar had gotten involved with the so-called restricted access "dark web"
to make threats for money. He reportedly earned $240,000 equivalent worth of the digital
currency Bitcoin. Kadar has reportedly refused to reveal the password to his Bitcoin wallet and
its value is believed to have increased to more than $1 million.
The tale borders on the bizarre and right from the beginning there were
many inconsistencies in both the Department of Justice case and in terms of Kadar's
biography and vital statistics. After his arrest and conviction, many of his public, private
and social networking records were either deleted or changed, suggesting that a high-level
cover-up was underway.
Most significant, the criminal
complaint against Kadar included details of the phone calls that were not at all consistent
with the case that he had acted alone. The threats were made using what is referred to as
spoofing telephone services, used by marketers to hide the caller's true number and identify,
but the three cell phone numbers identified by the Department of Justice to make the spoofed
calls were all U.S.-based and one of them was linked to a Jewish Chabad religious leader and
one to the Church of Scientology's counter-intelligence chief in California. In addition, some
of the calls were made when Kadar was in transit between Illinois and Israel, suggesting that
he had not initiated the calls.
DOJ's criminal complaint also included information that the threat caller was a woman who
had "a distinct speech impediment." Michael Kadar's mother has a distinct speech impediment.
Oddly enough she has not been identified in any public documents and the Israelis claimed that
Michael was disguising his voice, but she is believed to be Dr. Tamar Kadar, who resided in
Ashkelon at the same address as Michael. Dr. Kadar is a chemical weapons researcher at the
Mossad-linked Israel Institute for Biological Research ("IIBR").
Michael appears to have U.S. birthright citizenship because he was born in Bethesda in 1990
while his mother was a visiting researcher at the U.S. Army Military Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). While Dr. Kadar was at USAMRIID, anthrax went missing from the
Army's lab and may have been subsequently used in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks inside the
U.S., which resulted in the deaths of five people. The FBI subsequently accused two USAMRIID
researchers of the theft, but one was exonerated and the other committed suicide, closing the
investigation.
So, there are some interesting issues raised by the Michael Kadar case. First of all, he
appears to have been the fall guy for what may have been a Mossad directed false-flag operation
actually run by his mother, who is herself an expert on biological weapons and works at an
Israeli intelligence lab. Second, the objective of the operation may have been to create an
impression that anti-Semitism is dramatically increasing, which ipso facto generates a
positive perception of Israel and encourages foreign Jews to emigrate to the Jewish state. And
third, there appears to have been a cover-up orchestrated by the Israeli and U.S. governments,
evident in the disappearance of both official and non-official records, while Michael has been
quietly released from prison and is enjoying his payoff of one million dollars in bitcoins. As
always, whenever something involves promoting the interests of the state of Israel, the deeper
one digs the more sordid the tale becomes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Good piece of work Dr. Giraldi. A few things about this case of the Kadars. Basically Israel
refused to cooperate with the FBI at the beginning and resisted giving up the kid.
Furthermore, the FBI was told to "back off" by higher ups in the agency and let Israel handle
it. So the results are what you would expect with a false flag.
The anthrax case still has legs. Bruce Irvins was the microbiologist at Detrick you are
referring to. He was never charged and they never proved he was involved and the FBI could
not place him in any of the spots they wanted. He had some issues and the FBI gang banged him
looking for a patsy. Dr. Hatfill was the "original" Person of Interest whom the Jewish
controlled media followed around and they ruined his life. He sued the FBI and won a lot of
money.
The FBI appeared to intentionally mess up the anthrax samples. Reviews by the National
Academy of Science rocked the idiots at the FBI and they concluded Irvins was not involved.
The real kicker to all of this is that the FBI leader of the investigation was Robert
Mueller! The same Mueller who spent almost 3 years chasing Russian spies well knowing that it
was lie.
And finally who sealed the files so no one could ever come up with the real perpetrators
..Obama!
Antisemitism is pro-Israel, the Nazis included (shipping jews to Palestine).
For some reason I know exactly what a neonazi looks like, how he behaves, how he talks,
how he thinks and even how he feels. But I never met one. Where does this 'knowledge' come
from?
I happen to remember some television that I have seen as a child. Most people don't and
are living in a fantasy world with fantasy enemies and fantasy friends and take it for
reality.
"Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents."
There have been so many such incidents over the years that when a synagogue or cemetery
gets spray-painted with swastikas, the default presumption for any subsequent investigation
is automatically "inside-job".
The stereotypical perpetrator would tend to be a deranged student residing at the campus
Hillel House, majoring in film studies or some other flakey college program.
Years ago there was a case of a San Francisco synagogue on fire. After the arsonist, a
Jew, was caught and confessed, the tenor of the response was that one had to feel sorry for
him because he needed help.
In light of such incidents there has even been a visual meme out there: Hey Rabbi
Watcha Doin'?! (See Google Images)
Getting a patsy to do the dirty work is significantly more effective in provoking outrage
and sympathy. Though last year's attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, during Yom Kippur
services in early October was highly suspicious, media reports managed to suppress those
aspects and instead generated a victimhood-card bonanza that lasted for weeks.
The German population was easily bamboozled. Prominent Jewish representatives publicly
demanded more stringent laws against "anti-semitism", as recently re-defined, and
parliamentarians duly obliged.
News that had not been much reported about, but was circulating at the outset in
alternative media:
• Mentally deranged perpetrator, who had shared his views on an Internet chat group,
expressed his desire to attack Muslims and Antifa.
• Anonymous "handler / minder" in California offered to pay him half a bitcoin to
redirect his attack toward the synagogue instead.
• Synagogue had just recently been equipped with elaborate security system installed
by Israeli company to withstand shooting and bombing attacks.
• Local police, which normally would provide security outside, during holiday
services, were conspicuously absent during that time, and slow to respond (likely stand-down
orders from above).
• Perpetrator filmed his rampage, which he broadcast in real-time as a live stream
video online (wanting to emulate an earlier attack in New Zealand), enabling his handlers to
monitor the shooting spree while in progress.
• After his mission failed, frustrated perpetrator "spilled the beans" in real-time
and cussed out the Californian bitcoin payer, who had apparently set him up to be framed, as
probably being a Jew.
Of course, by design, the securely locked synagogue door easily withstood the shooting
attack with multiple exterior bullet holes into its wooden exterior. Everybody in the world
probably saw that part.
I was born in Argentina, 1950. There was a populist nationalist government then, strongly
disliked by the US. It included a whole spectrum, right to left. It assisted together with
the Vatican the rescuing of Nazi criminals that settled in the country. There was an
antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly for name. Jews emigrated
to Israel. In the 80s he made public he was a Mossad agent
@vot
tak How can Jews be a 'colonial occupation force' in any nation that is English-speaking
and has not totally rejected the political and cultural heritage of WASP Empire?
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. When the Anglo-Saxon Puritans won their
revolution, they cemented Modern English culture as one twined with Jewish ideas and ideals.
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell cemented that doubly by allying with Jewish bankers on the
Continent. From the mid-1600s, Jews have been the defining bankers of English Empire, of WASP
Empire. And bankers are always the opposite of outsiders. Bankers own and eventually come to
control fully.
Anglo-Zionist Empire has existed since at least Oliver Cromwell.
As in the case of the Mossad asset Jeff Epstein, who was running a child-rape assembly line
on his 'Orgy Island' and on his 'Lolita Express,' to ensnare weakling politicians,
video-taping them in the process of raping young girls–and boys–then use that to
blackmail them into becoming an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, the one lead that was never
pursued was, "How many other Epstein's are out there, doing their slimy business for Israel?"
The same could be asked of this 'Mikey' Kadar terrorist, who I'm sure has plenty of
accomplices world-wide, still phoning in threats or maybe spray-painting Jew cemeteries with
the dreaded Nazi Swastika.
This terrorist does about one year in prison, then is set free and off to the USA he runs?
If his name had been Mohammed or he was a skin-headed nationalist, he'd be in prison for the
rest of his life, but since he's from that class of those Chosen by G-d, he gets a
pass.
There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly
Very interesting information. I did a quick search and the only info I found was this wiki
entry in Spanish.
I used google translate to convert to English.
Do you have any sources that confirm his alleged affiliation with Mossad?
[Hide MORE]
From a young age he was a member of the Nationalist Liberation Alliance. Until then, it
was led by Juan Queraltó and had a clear anti-Semitic profile that Kelly fought
against. The group went on to become a shock force of Peronism.
During the bombing of Plaza de Mayo, when a group of military personnel opposed to the
government of Juan Domingo Perón attempted to assassinate him and carry out a coup
d'état, several squadrons of aircraft belonging to Naval Aviation, bombarded and
machine-gunned them with anti-aircraft ammunition, Plaza de Mayo and the Casa Rosada, as well
as the CGT building, Kelly, aided by the Nationalist Liberation Alliance, dueled with the
Marines responsible for the attack. [2]
After the self-proclaimed liberating revolution dictatorship was established, after a
bombardment of the headquarters of his organization, located in San Martín and
Corrientes Avenue in Buenos Aires. On September 21, the coup armed forces received from
Córdoba the order to eliminate that focus of resistance in the heart of the city of
Buenos Aires and advanced on it with cannons and two Sherman tanks, sending an emissary to
surrender. The cannons and tanks fired and some fifty men, led by Guillermo Patricio Kelly,
surrendered. Those who remained inside died under the rubble of the three-story building,
destroyed with gunshots. The number of deaths that some raise to more than 400 is unknown.
[3] After that, he was arrested by the dictatorship and transferred to the Río
Gallegos prison, where one night in 1957 he starred in a film escape along with John William
Cooke, Jorge Antonio and Héctor Cámpora and other political prisoners managed
to escape, after which he applied for political asylum in Chile, but this was denied. When he
was about to be sent to Argentina, he escaped again, this time dressed as a woman, [required
appointment] to Venezuela where Perón was. When he left Chile for Caracas, he used a
new identity: he was "Doctor Vargas, psychoanalyst".
When on January 26, 1958, the newspaper El Nacional titled "Perón led the
repression against the Venezuelan people," he identified him, along with Kelly, as "National
Security torture consultants" and published Perón's fraternal letters to the head of
that body.
When the revolution broke out in Venezuela, Perón was another of the insurgents'
objectives, along with his collaborators, among whom was Kelly, and they had to take refuge
in the Embassy of the Dominican Republic. Outside, more than a thousand people were shaking
the entrance gate. They had already been locked up for two days, and people were still
outside. All the Argentines looked askance at Kelly. "They are going to kill us all because
of this one," they growled. There were several who wanted to kick him out and someone raised
the motion: to vote if he should withdraw. It was not necessary: Kelly decided
to face up. He only asked for two conditions: that he be given a pair of dark glasses and a
hat. He also asked for silver. When he walked out of the embassy and mixed with the crowd, no
one could recognize him. In the midst of the seizure, Kelly made contact with two CIA agents:
-- The Communists are going to enter the embassy and they are going to kill Perón. And
if they kill him, the entire continent is communicated – he warned them. Finally, the
United States prepared to rescue him, interceding with the revolutionary government to clear
the area and facilitate his departure to the Dominican Republic. [4]
Kelly was stoned from the Caracas airport, obtained refuge in Haiti and, after a turbulent
stay in which he was imprisoned, [5] crossed the border to the Dominican Republic, where he
remained for a few days. He returned to Argentina in 1958 with the passport that he stole
from Roberto Galán and after six months he was arrested and transferred again to the
Ushuaia prison. [6]
Throughout his life he was imprisoned for almost eight years. In 1966 he occupied the
headquarters of the PJ National Coordinating Board for a few hours, from where he launched a
violent proclamation against union leader Augusto Vandor. [appointment required]
In 1981, in the midst of a military dictatorship, he denounced the theft of $ 60 million
from Argentina, 10% of that debt belonging to General Suárez Mason, considering him a
"murderer of the people." According to Kelly, Mason is involved in the YPF emptying in the
1980s. He also said that the military man worked as a mercenary training mercenary troops to
fight in the Caribbean, which received money from the Nord high command, who was accused of
murdering the brother and two nephews of former President Arturo Frondizi. Also involved in
this robbery was former judge Pedro Narvaez who fled to Rio de Janeiro and then to Spain. [7]
[8]
In 1983, he gained notoriety after formulating a series of complaints related to the P-2
Lodge, the YPF dismissal and the murder of Fernando Branca, in addition to filing a criminal
complaint against Emilio Massera. Shortly thereafter, in August of that year, Kelly was
kidnapped and severely beaten by a gang led by Aníbal Gordon, who claimed to have
acted on the orders of the last military dictator Reynaldo Bignone and the Army Corps I.
In 1991, during the presidency of Carlos Menem, he was the host of an ATC program called
Sin Concesiones, in which he maintained that it would reveal "where the children of the
´Noble Ladies´ come from", alluding to the children adopted by the director from
the Clarín newspaper, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. After a meeting between Herrera de
Noble, Héctor Magnetto and Carlos Menem held at the Quinta de Olivos on Thursday, May
2, 1991, Clarín and the government agreed on Kelly's air release at ATC in exchange
for the air output of the program of the journalist Liliana López Foresi, Magazine 13,
Journalism with an opinion, in which Menem was severely criticized. [9] [10] [11] [12]
On the subject of Herrera de Noble's children, Kelly wrote a book published by Arkel
Publishing in 1993 titled Noble: Imperio Corrupto. Only 200 copies were published, although
the author gave several of them to public libraries in the United States. [13]
He died on July 1, 2005 at 8:30 am, a victim of terminal cancer at the German Hospital in
the City of Buenos Aires. [14] [15]
Very much so. Because it helps direct our attention to something very important.
Though they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, destruction and death, they're
no good at social-managment.
Who's "they"?
I refer to them as Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI).
It's a distinction worth making because it separates them from Jews who don't hate Whites
and aren't obsessed with being Jewish.
They're out there, however small their numbers might be.
After all, Gilad Atzmon's not the only one.
It's also worth pointing out that JSI gets lots of help from three other groups who aren't
Jewish at all. In fact they're White.
1. the cynical, self-centered whores of opportunity who will do anything to protect their
own materialistic, narcissistic trough.
2. the incurably gullible, pathologically naive Whites from Left-wingy Multi-Culties to
Right-wing Christian Zionists.
3. the perfectly indifferent who walk around with that stroked out look on their face from
watching too much ESPN and Pornhub.
The rest of us are freedom-lovers, or TUR readers/commenters or potential TUR
readers/commenters.
Meaning they'd be open to what the actual readers/commenters have to say and won't fly off
the handle with a knee-jerk reaction before springing into fight or flight mode.
In short, this boils down to a battle of
Dogma versus Pragma
.
What's the difference?
Pragma is open to exposing its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction
for the purpose of improving the quality of its social-management
Excuse me, but this is comical. There is no other group in America and the entire West who
are more protected and more privileged than Jews. While White Gentiles are routinely
attacked, beaten to a pulp, raped, and brutally murdered by Blacks, Hispanics, Pakis, Arabs,
in Europe and America, just for having the temerity to walk outside in countries built by
their White ancestors. How does a painted swastika equate with rape-torture murders of the
Christian-Newsom Knoxville Horror? And if you think the Christian-Newsom murders are a rare
crime in America, you are living under a rock. And lest we forget the Christian-Newsom
Murders nor the Wichita Massacre murders were labeled "hate crimes." Despite thousands upon
thousands of Black on White and other nonwhite on White attacks, rapes, murders in this
country, you can bet the house that no one in Washington has voiced concerns over the
violence being perpetrated on White Gentiles daily in America. America is indeed a racist
country and Whites experience that racism every single day.
Remember a couple years ago when someone was calling bomb threats to Jewish Community
Centers? Remember that they found out it was some Jewish guy in a Tel Aviv basement calling
in the bomb threats. Of course at first the (((media))) went through their spiel about how
anti-Semitism was on the rise in America, and then once we all found out that the perpetrator
was a Jewish guy in Israel, ( I believe a dual citizen at that) the (((media))) dropped this
case quicker than you could claim some NY/NJ rabbis were selling body organs.
Most of these hate crime HOAXES are simply Jews and/or Blacks drawing swastikas, hanging a
nooses in a locker, or some other ridiculous and downright childish act that in no way even
if done by a White racist who hates Jews and Blacks, equates to a Mississippi girl named
Jessica Chambers being burned alive, a 12 year old white male being burned alive with a blow
torch by an adult black female in Texas, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that "hate
crimes" against nonwhites and Jews are downright rare in America, ( not talking about HOAXES
here) and there is no way that a crayon drawing of a swastika or hanging a noose in someone's
locker can be linked as the same as someone dying a horrific and brutal death like the White
victims I listed. IF we lived in a TRULY just and decent country, EVERYONE out there,
regardless of color, creed or religion would recognize that we need to stop all the hate and
violence directed at White Gentiles before moving on to worrying about crayon drawings.
Remember when Noel Ignatiev the Jewish professor stated we need to "abolish Whiteness?" Now
imagine a White professor stating that we need to "abolish Jewishness in America?" Can you
imagine what would have happened to that guy? Is it possible for a Jew in America/Canada or
Europe to be fired from his or here job for making racist or inflammatory remarks about
Whites?
The story of Michael Kadar is reminiscent of the tale of another criminal young male with
dual Israeli US citizenship, Samuel Sheinbein.
Sheinbein and a colleague murdered, dismembered and burnt a fellow high school classmate,
the hispanic Fredo Enrique Tello, Jr., in September, 1997. Sheinbein fled to Israel and in a
long drawn out court battle, Sheinbein's requested extradition to the State of Maryland to
stand trial was refused by Israel's supreme court.
You can read the whole sordid story in Wikipedia including how Sheinbaum was killed in a
shootout with the guards who were escorting him from one prison to another.
@Jake
Here we go with the WASP thing again. A minority of descendants of the Angles were Puritans,
and even fewer Saxons were Puritans. There were also Norse Puritans, Norman Puritans and
Briton Puritans. All Puritans were minorities. Many "Protestant" Churches, including the
Anglican Church, considered Puritans dissenters, verging on heretics, and not really
Protestants beyond protesting the Church of Rome. Knox's Presbyterians had a lot in common
with Puritans as did Dutch Protestants, and there were a lot of Dutch who moved to East
Anglia. Some became Puritans. It's silly to refer to it at it being "Anglo-Saxon Puritans" as
not all were Angles or Saxons. They were Puritans who happened to be Angles, Saxons and
others. WASP is even sillier. Are there Brown, Yellow, or Red Anglo-Saxons?
Cromwell seized power because the Stuarts were unpopular for many reasons, and as with
every revolution, a minority with zealotry seizes power from an apathetic majority. Sure he
turned to the Jewish Amsterdam bankers, who were already funding the Dutch Empire, including
New Amsterdam, but who else would have helped? The Puritans were vehemently anti Catholic and
would have never turned there. They were also vehemently anti-Muslim, so the Ottomans were
out. The Jews were it by elimination.
As for the culture. The culture of the elite is seldom the culture of the general
population.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were more than happy to restore the Stuarts after Cromwell, as long as
they were Protestants. The installation of King Billy, replacing James, was due to James
having converted to Catholicism and the fear of his imposing it on the country.
It was under William and Mary that the newly, created by Parliament, Bank of England was
taken over by Jewish bankers. The same minority Puritan Parliament that restored the Stuarts
and sponsored the overthrow of James.
Allen Welsh Dulles (1893 – 1969) was an American diplomat and lawyer who became
the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and its longest-serving
director to date. As head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the early Cold
War, he oversaw the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1954 Guatemalan coup
d'état, the Lockheed U-2 aircraft program, the Project MKUltra mind control
program and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He was dismissed by John F. Kennedy over the latter
fiasco.
Dulles was one of the members of the Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy. Between his stints of government service, Dulles was a corporate
lawyer and partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. His older brother, John Foster Dulles, was
the Secretary of State during the Eisenhower Administration and is the namesake of Dulles
Airport.
Rabid militarism is the result of "Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine". It can't be changed
without changing the doctrine. Which requires elimination of neocons from foreign policy
establishment. But the there is not countervailing force to MIC to push for this.
Oona Hathaway makes
the case for radically reorienting U.S. national security policy to address the real
significant threats to the country. Among other things, that means winding down the endless war
and our preoccupation with militarized counter-terrorism:
If one believes, as I do, that the fundamental goal of a national security program should
be to protect American lives, then we clearly have our priorities out of place. Just as the
9/11 attacks led to a reorientation of national security policy around a counterterrorism
mission, the COVID-19 crisis can and should lead to a reorientation of national security
policy. There should be a commission styled on the 9/11 Commission to assess the failures of
the U.S. government, both federal and local, to respond to the pandemic and to chart a better
course forward. Until then, a few key steps that we should take are already clear:
First, we should spend less time and resources on counterterrorism efforts abroad. The
"endless wars" that began after 9/11 should finally come to a close.
The U.S. should be ending the "war on terror" in any case because the threat does not merit
the enormous resources devoted to fighting it, and the militarized overkill over the last two
decades has helped to create far more terrorist groups than there were before it began. On top
of that, the U.S. has much bigger concerns that pose far greater and more immediate threats to
the lives of our people and to our way of life than terrorism ever could. A pandemic is a
threat that is now obvious to all of us, but for the last two decades it was not taken nearly
as seriously as imaginary Iraqi WMDs and potential Iranian nukes. We have been straining at
gnats for at least half of my lifetime, and when the real danger appeared many of us were
oblivious to it. Not only have other threats been blown out of proportion, but the more serious
threat that is now upon us received virtually no attention until it was already upon us. Like
Justinian wasting decades waging useless wars, we have been caught unawares by a plague, but in
our case we have far less excuse because there were many warnings that something like this was
coming and could be brought under control. Nonetheless, we allowed our defenses against it to
grow weaker, and the current administration did as much as possible to dismantle what was
left.
Once the immediate crisis is over, the U.S. needs to shift its focus away from fruitless
military campaigns in Asia. We need to reallocate resources away from the bloated military
budget, which has had so little to do with actually protecting us, and plow most of those
resources into pandemic preparedness, scientific research, and building up a much more
resilient health care system. Pandemics aren't wars, but guarding against pandemics is an
important part of national security and it is arguably much more important than having the
ability to project power to the far corners of the world. Because pandemics are global
phenomena, guarding the U.S. against them will entail more intensive international cooperation
than before. Hathaway continues:
One clear lesson of this crisis is that when it comes to a pandemic, no nation can protect
itself on its own. International cooperation is essential. The World Health Organization has
played an important role in battling the virus. But it has been hobbled by limited funding,
and it's busy fundraising to support its work even as it's trying to undertake ambitious
programs. The United Nations Security Council, meanwhile, has been mostly absent from the
conversation. The pandemic is global and it requires a global approach. But these
international institutions have not had the funding or the international support to play the
role they should have in coordinating a quick global response to the spread of the virus.
When this crisis is over, it will be essential to evaluate how to coordinate a faster, more
effective global response when the next pandemic arises.
All nations have a shared interest in pooling resources and sharing information to bring
outbreaks like the current one under control. As tempting as it may be for some hard-liners to
engage in great power rivalry in the midst of such a disaster, the responsible course of action
is to pause these contests for the sake of resolving the crisis sooner. The U.N. response has
been hobbled by mutual recriminations between some of the permanent members of the Security
Council, specifically the U.S. and China, and if there is to be an effective and coordinated
global response that sort of demagoguery and point-scoring will have to end.
Scaling back the size of the military budget will necessarily involve reducing the U.S.
military footprint around the world. It is not reasonable or safe to expect a smaller military
to support a strategy of primacy. Primacy was always unsustainable, and it was just a matter of
time before the time came when it would have to be abandoned. It turns out that the time for
abandoning the pursuit of primacy came earlier than expected. The U.S. should have started
making this transition many years ago, but recent events make it imperative that we begin
now.
There is not, and has not been since the Cold War, any daylight between the Republican and
Democratic parties on foreign policy. Both have been consistently in the thrall of the
neocons. While a few Democratic contenders took anti-war stances this year (Sanders,
Warren, Gabbard), the rest did not, and Biden, specifically has been on the wrong side of
all of these issues in the past. There is no reason to think he will not continue the
endless wars and, probably, start new ones if elected.
Since relatively few people vote for third parties, it is a sure thing that the vast
majority of Americans will vote for one of the two warmongers on offer from the major
parties. And so it was in 2016: whether you voted for Clinton or Trump, you were voting for
more endless war. Those who supported Clinton mostly knew that; many who voted for Trump
deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries, many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq). ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States
stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of
supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300
years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called
the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents
even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area
of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon
exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the
sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly
easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in
funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the
coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
"... " T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict), there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the Pacific's vast exterior lines. " ..."
'Number one priority' is a $1.5 billion, 360-degree persistent and integrated air defense
ring around Guam.
... ... ...
Arguing in favor of the PDI i n a recent
op-ed , former Pacific policy official for the DoD Randall Schriver
and Eric Sayers, former special assistant to the commander of INDOPACOM,
wrote:
" T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent
attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or
breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict),
there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile
defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the
Pacific's vast exterior lines. "
Well the Pentagon sees that the checkbooks are open, Look if those pencil necked doctors
can get 2trillion for a case of the sniffles, we ought to be able to get 2 billion to face
down the Chicoms!
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
Bookmark
◄
►
▲
▼
Toggle All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Remove from
Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
I've heard that, as part of
new amendments
to the Russian Constitution, President Putin proposes to include the Russian people's
"faith in God," and a definition of marriage as a "union of a man and a woman." I'm a bit skeptical about
the news, but if true, I think it's a great idea. If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate
the civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in
the West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted,
transgendered, upgraded man,
Homo Deus
. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our
spiritual and anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing:
Mars and Venus,
virile men and
feminine women grateful to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity.
Needless to say, the proposal has the
support of Moscow Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, but also of Muslim leader Talgat Tadzhuddin. The idea is to
transcend particular creeds and churches. More surprisingly, Communist Party boss Gennady Zyuganov raises no
objection.
As a country that was still officially
Marxist-Leninist thirty years ago, Russia has come a long way. America too, for that matter. Interestingly,
God is not mentioned in the American Constitution, although he is ubiquitous on dollar bills (think of Jesus
being handed a dollar bill instead of a Roman denarius in Matthew 22!).
Other proposed amendments, such as
banning foreign citizenships and bank accounts for state officials, have obvious practical advantages, and
are so sensible that they raise little discussion. By contrast, adding God into the constitution is highly
and purely symbolic. Some will argue that it will have no real consequence. It all depends on the power we
attribute to symbols. I would think that such a collective proclamation by the Russian people would have a
strong impact, both on Russian self-consciousness, and as a message to the West. It could also lead to real
changes, in academia, for example: I can't wait for the day when
Intelligent Design
research will be
funded in Russian universities, rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein's documentary
Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed
).
What are the arguments for enshrining
God in the Constitution? That is one of the most important questions in political science that you can think
of. This will come as a surprise to many, but the man who has thought the deepest on this question is
perhaps Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794). On May 7, 1794, he had the Convention decreed, with a view to
inscribing it in the French Constitution, that, "the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme
Being and the immortality of the soul." On June 8, he presided over a national holiday dedicated to the
Divine Creator. It was a great success, both in Paris and in the provinces. Robespierre was then immensely
popular, but his career would end fifty days later when he was arrested, silenced by a gunshot through his
jaw, and executed the next day without trial, together with his brother Augustin and twenty-one of his
friends, followed the next two days by eighty-three of his supporters, their bodies and heads thrown into a
mass grave, with lime spread on them so as to leave no trace. In the aftermath of their coup, Robespierre's
assassins crushed demonstrations of mourning for the Incorruptible, and launched a press campaign against
him that basically continues to this day.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding
about Robespierre and his "religious policy." For that reason, I thought that the Russian constitutional
debate would be a good opportunity -- or a pretext -- for some reappraisal of a great man unfairly vilified, and
thereby a case study in the transformation of a vanquished hero into a monster by state propaganda. But the
main purpose of this article is to present Robespierre's ideas on the relationship between religion and
politics, which I find stimulating and pertinent for our time -- and, I expect, unfamiliar to most.
Robespierre was the heir and probably
the most articulate advocate of a long tradition of thinkers who equally disliked religious dogmatism and
atheism, not only as too narrow for their own minds, but as harmful to society. In his view, both were
symmetrical forms of fanaticism. He would not be the last to think along this line. Thomas Jefferson once
wrote to John Adams
: "Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their
general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god." There
is much truth in this statement. But the
principle
of authoritative revelation is not the main factor
involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The
content
of the revelation is critical. I
believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as "God"
in the Old Testament. Yahweh's obscenity has ultimately ruined God's reputation. Voltaire, that old
anti-Semite
, ridiculed Christianity by quoting almost exclusively the Old Testament. Still today,
Darwinian high priest Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing,
correctly:
"The God of the Old Testament is
arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully."
[1]
Richard
Dawkins, in
The God Delusion,
Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.
In his speech on "the relations of
religious and moral ideas with republican principles," read at the Convention six weeks before his death,
Robespierre said:
"I know of nothing so close to
atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have
destroyed him as much as it was in them; [ ] the priests created a god in their image; they made him
jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless."
(That judgment is partially inexact: the
cruel God of the Old Testament may have been used by priests as a means of social control, but he had been
created by the Levites long before. Robespierre had no clue about the Jewish Question.)
ORDER IT NOW
Let's start with a clarification:
Today's French traditionalist Catholics insist that Robespierre's "Être Suprême" has nothing to do with
their God, and they pretend that it has Freemasonic overtones. They even confuse it with the
deification of Reason
, a cult that Robespierre execrated and combatted. So let's set the record
straight: There is no evidence that Robespierre was ever a Freemason. He borrowed the expression "Supreme
Being" from Rousseau, who never was a Freemason either. It had been used since the Renaissance and was of
common usage. Even the very royalist, Catholic and counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maître begins his
Considerations on France
(1797) with the sentence: "We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme
Being by a flexible chain, which retains us without enslaving us." François René de Chateaubriand, who also
hated Robespierre, used repeatedly the phrase "Supreme Being" in his apology of Catholicism,
Le Génie du
christianisme
(1799). Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre's speeches,
"Supreme Being" meant anything else than God. His suggestion to engrave in the Constitution that the French
people have "faith in the Supreme Being" is equivalent to Putin's proposal.
Putin has the support of the Patriarch
whereas Robespierre was anathemized by the Pope, you may object. But here is the heart of the matter:
Russian orthodoxy is, fundamentally, a national religion, and today more than ever, with the canonization of
the martyred Romanovs. The main reason why Roman Catholicism was unacceptable for Robespierre was that it
meant loyalty to a foreign power. Yet contrary to the common image, Robespierre did not seek to ban
Catholicism, he only required that French bishops and priests swear loyalty to the French State, rather than
to the Roman Pope. That was pretty much what every French monarch had tried and failed to do since Philipp
the Fair. As we shall see, Robespierre actually opposed the "dechristianization" campaign of the
Enragés
,
and denounced them as the useful idiots or willing accomplices of the counter-revolutionaries.
There are two other differences between
Robespierre's and Putin's proposals. Robespierre saw the traditional family as the basic cell of a healthy
society, but almost everyone did, then. Stipulating that marriage can only join a man and a woman would have
been as superfluous as affirming that 1 plus 1 make 2.
The second difference is that
Robespierre wanted to mention the immortality of the soul next to the existence of God. "Immortality of the
soul" may have sounded to most of Robespierre's contemporaries a straightforward concept. But today, the
formulation would beg too many metaphysical questions: What's a soul? Do animals have one? Is it individual
or collective, or both? Where does it go? Does immortal means eternal? etc. And that other question: if
every human being has an immortal soul, at what stage of its development does the fetus get one? I'm not
saying it would be a bad thing, but bringing up the issue in the constitutional referendum could be very
divisive.
In the standard textbook history of the
French Revolution, Robespierre is portrayed as a fanatic and megalomaniac dictator, and he is blamed for the
Great Terror that sent approximately 17,000 people to the guillotine in the six weeks preceding his demise.
Ever since Jules Michelet, who fashioned our
roman national
, the figure of Robespierre has served to
embody all the evils of the French Revolution, exactly like Philippe Pétain for World War II. While Danton
has boulevards in his name and is celebrated by Hollywood, Robespierre is the usual bad guy.
"As Robespierre lay on a table in
the antechamber of the Committee of Public Safety, drifting in and out of consciousness, his
ball-shattered jaw bound up with a bandage, his triumphant enemies, in another room of the Tuileries
palace, were creating the monster who would soon pass into historical legend. This Robespierre, created
by using materials scavenged from old calumny, damaging anecdote, and sometimes sheer malicious
invention, was one of the founding acts of a new revolutionary government. The Thermidorians -- thus have
Robespierre's conquerors and successors been dubbed -- sought not only to justify their
coup d'état
of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to evade the opprobrium they
shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing crisis the previous year,
during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly successful: their caricature of
Robespierre has proved durable."
Robespierre was primarily a man of
words, in a time when eloquence was a political act, when speeches could change the opinion of deputies, and
sometimes even win a whole assembly. He was a great writer and a great orator. Not even his ennemies doubted
the sincerity of his passionate defense of the poor and downtrodden: "That man will go far -- he believes
everything he says," Mirabeau once remarked. His speeches, delivered at the Jacobin Club or at the
Convention, were printed and widely distributed, and had a huge echo all over France.
In the spring of 1793, he reluctantly
joined the
Comité de salut public
(Committee of Public Safety), a revolutionary tribunal responsible
for sending conspirators against the new Republic to their death, at a time when the Republic was at war
against Austria, Prussia, Spain and England. Robespierre's responsibility in the Great Terror that marked
the last two months of the Committee is a debated subject, but it is admitted that he was absent from
Committee meetings, probably sick, during its last six weeks of work.
In his final speech to the Convention,
just before being arrested, Robespierre denounced a plot to lose him by spilling blood on his behalf. He
claimed that his enemies, in order to rally enough deputies against him, had circulated fake lists of
suspects allegedly written by himself, and spread the rumor that he was preparing a major purge, when in
fact he wanted to end the Terror. Napoleon Bonaparte later confirmed this accusation, and believed that
"Robespierre was the real scapegoat for the Revolution." Alphonse de Lamartine, who wrote a
Histoire des
Girondins
in eight volumes, also came to the realization that Robespierre's enemies "covered him, for
forty days, with the blood they shed to disgrace him."
[3]
Jean-Philippe
Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30
Simultaneously, they
created the golden legend of Danton, in reality a disgusting money-grubber.
Danton (1759-1794)
I will not delve deeper into
Robespierre's biography; I just wanted to point out that his standard portrayal is the product of an
elaborate and massive propaganda operation by those who overthrew him. I will now focus of his religious
views, which are generally underrated, although, from his own testimony, they determined his political
views.
[4]
My
presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987.
Robespierre did not view religion as a
purely private matter. He believed that the idea of God is an indispensable foundation for public morality,
and should be taught in schools and celebrated publicly. "The idea of the Supreme Being and of the
immortality of the soul is a constant reminder of justice; therefore, it is social and republican."
Robespierre's ideas were elaborated from
those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he held as the greatest "tutor of the human race." Rousseau's "natural
religion" was itself not a new idea. Let me sketch a brief history of that tradition, before coming back to
Robespierre.
If we define "natural religion" as the
claim that belief in God and in the afterlife is sufficiently founded on reason and experience, then it is
as old as Plato, and probably much older. If we define it additionally as a rebellion against the authority
of Christian scriptures and dogmas, then it seems to have been around as long as Christianity. Proofs are
hard to find for the Middle Ages, when monks had a quasi monopoly on writing. But from the end of the
twelfth century, there is enough evidence of forms of religious beliefs independent and sometimes
incompatible with Christian doctrine. I have analyzed some of this evidence in my book
La Mort féerique: Anthropologie du merveilleux (XIIe-XVe siècles)
, a rewriting of my doctoral
thesis. We know for example that the court of the famous Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1194-1250) was replete
with scholars and noblemen whose religious views were inspired by classical philosophy, and who resented
Catholic intolerance. Pope Gregory IX, founder of the Inquisition, made the following accusation against
Frederick: "Openly, this king of pestilence notably affirmed -- to use his own words -- that the whole world was
duped by three impostors: Jesus Christ, Moses and Muhammad."
[5]
Quoted
in Ernst Kantorowicz,
L'empereur Frédéric II
, Gallimard, 1987 (1
st
German ed. 1927), pp.
451-452.
The accusation is plausible. Having been raised in multicultural Sicily in the company
of Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars, he had reflected on the problems caused by the very notion of
revelation.
Frederick was a polymath scientist, a
polyglot, an outstanding diplomat (he conquered Jerusalem without shedding a drop of blood), and an
enlightened lawmaker. He was "the Wonder of the World" (
Stupor Mundi
), the most prestigious and
powerful prince of his age. Yet the pope prevailed over him, and pursued his descendants with insatiable
hatred, until his lineage was eradicated, and his name covered with calumny. Nevertheless, his memory would
be cherished by some of the best minds throughout the thirteenth centuries. Dante's treaty
De Monarchia
(1313) is believed to be a defense of Frederick's project (on Dante and the
Fedeli d'Amore,
you
may want to read the relevant section of my article
"The Crucifixion of the Goddess"
).
Frederick's amazing Castel del Monte, in Southern Italy
With the growing power of the
Inquisition, overt advocacy of natural religion became impossible. That is when we start hearing of secret
circles of intellectuals. The rediscovery of the ancient Greeks and Romans also provided a relatively safe
cover for expressing unchristian views on God and the afterlife, and I believe that apocryphal forgeries are
more numerous than generally acknowledged. The great Petrarch (1304-1374) may have forged rather than
discovered the letters of Cicero that became the blueprint for his own humanism.
[6]
Jerry
Brotton,
The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo,
Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 66-67.
In the next century, the printing press
and the Reformation provided an unprecedented window of tolerance, especially in the Netherlands. Erasmus of
Rotterdam (1469–1536) approached natural religion as the common denominator of all faiths, and the means of
overcoming religious wars. His friend Thomas More imagined in his
Utopia
,
or the best form of
government
(1516), an ideal world where people hold a variety of opinions on religious questions, but
"all agree in this: that they think there is one Supreme Being that made and governs the world." The public
cult is for this Supreme Being alone, while "every sect performs those rites that are peculiar to it in
their private houses."
Then came John Locke, with his
Letter
Concerning Toleration,
first published in Latin in 1689. Locke went further than Erasmus in declaring
immoral any doctrine professing that good people are damned if they do not believe in this or that dogma.
Churches who require loyalty to a foreign power should also be banished, for by tolerating them, the
magistrate "would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own
people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government." That concerns Roman Catholicism,
of course, but also Islam:
"It is ridiculous for any one to
profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a
Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to
the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the
feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure."
Locke deemed atheism as immoral and
socially corrosive as papism: "those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises,
covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist." For Anthony
Collins (1676-1729), a friend of Locke,
"Ignorance is the foundation of
Atheism
, and
Free-Thinking
the Cure of it. And thus tho it should be allow'd, that some Men
by
Free-Thinking
may become
Atheists
yet they will ever be fewer in number if
Free-Thinking
were permitted, than if it were restrain'd." (
A
Discourse of Freethinking
,
1713)
In the eighteenth century, it was still
risky to profess openly such ideas. Locke had to print his book anonymously in Amsterdam. David Hume
published his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
anonymously and posthumously in 1779. Secret
societies were still necessary for intellectuals to discuss safely on these matters. Irish philosopher John
Toland (1670-1722) wrote in his
Pantheisticon
:
"The Philosophers therefore, and
other well-wishers to mankind in most nations, were constrain'd by this holy tyranny to make use of a
twofold doctrine; the one
Popular,
accommodated to the Prejudices of the vulgar, and to the
receiv'd Customs or Religions: the other
Philosophical,
conformable to the nature of things, and
consequently to Truth; which, with doors fast shut and under all other precautions, they communicated
only to friends of known probity, prudence, and capacity. These they generally call'd the
Exoteric
and
Esoteric
, or the
External
and
Internal Doctrines.
"
[7]
Quoted
in Jan Assmann,
Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion,
Polity Press,
2014, p. 59.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) gave
the notion of "natural religion" a wide audience by his literary genius. His religious conception is exposed
in the "
Profession of Faith
of the Savoyard Vicar", a section of Book IV of the
Émile
,
which caused the book to be banned in Paris and Geneva, and publicly burned in 1762. Rousseau gives there an
exposé of "theism or natural religion, which Christians pretend to confound with atheism or irreligion, its
exact opposite." Rousseau declares having no need for religious books, since Nature is a more useful book
for discovering God;
"if I use my reason, if I cultivate
it, if I employ rightly the innate faculties which God bestows upon me, I shall learn by myself to know
and love him, to love his works, to will what he wills, and to fulfill all my duties upon earth, that I
may please him. What more can all human learning teach me?"
Catholic dogmas are a useless and even
poisonous jumble, Rousseau writes in his
Letters Written from the Mountain
(1764):
"For how can the mystery of the
Trinity, for example, contribute to the good constitution of the State? In what way will its members be
better Citizens when they have rejected the merit of good works? And what does the dogma of original sin
have to do with the good of civil society? Although true Christianity is an institution of peace, who
does not see that dogmatic or theological Christianity, by the multitude and obscurity of its dogmas and
above all by the obligation to accept them, is a permanent battlefield between men."
Rousseau devotes the last chapter of
The Social Contract
(1762) to "civil religion". Like Locke, he condemns as contrary to public peace
churches professing intolerance, because: "It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as
damned." Therefore, "whoever dares to say 'Outside the Church is no salvation', ought to be driven from the
State."
ORDER IT NOW
Rousseau first proceeded to show that
"the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm than good by weakening instead of strengthening the
constitution of the State." Christianity, even at its best, is too focused on individual salvation. Rousseau
sees God as more fully manifested in human societies than in holy hermits. Here is a sample of Rousseau's
proposal:
"it matters very much to the
community that each citizen should have a religion that will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of
that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the
duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others. Each man may have, over and above, what
opinions he pleases, without it being the Sovereign's business to take cognisance of them; for, as the
Sovereign has no authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its subjects may be in the life to
come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this life.
There is therefore a purely civil
profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but
as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. [ ]
The dogmas of civil religion ought to
be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty,
intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the
happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws:
these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the
cults we have rejected."
Rousseau uses here the word "dogmas",
but for him, neither the existence of God or the immortality of the soul are based on revelation; they are
proven by observation and introspection. His argument for God's existence in
Émile
sounds
surprisingly similar to the modern argument for
Intelligent Design
:
"Those who deny the unity of
intention which manifests itself in the reports of all the parts of this great whole, however much they
cover their gibberish with abstractions, coordinations, general principles, emblematic terms; whatever
they do, it is impossible for me to conceive of a system of beings so constantly ordered, that I do not
conceive of an intelligence which orders it. It does not depend on me to believe that passive and dead
matter could have produced living and feeling beings, [ ], that what does not think could have produced
thinking beings."
In a speech he had printed in April
1791, Robespierre thanked the "eternal Providence" who called on the French, "alone since the origin of the
world, to restore on earth the empire of Justice and Liberty." In March 1792, the president of the
Legislative Assembly Élie Guadet opposed the sending to the patriotic societies of an address of
Robespierre, on the pretext that he had used the word "Providence" too many times:
"I admit that, seeing no sense in
this idea, I would never have thought that a man who worked with so much courage, for three years, to
pull the people out of the slavery of despotism, could contribute to put them back under the slavery of
superstition."
Robespierre responded:
"Superstition, it is true, is one of
the supports of despotism, but it is not inducing citizens in superstition to pronounce the name of the
Divinity. [ ] I, myself, support these eternal principles on which human weakness leans to rise up toward
virtue. It is not a vain language in my mouth, any more than in that of all the illustrious men who had
no less moral, to believe in the existence of God. / Yes, invoking the Providence and expressing the idea
of the Eternal Being who influences essentially the destinies of nations, and who seems to me to watch
over the French revolution in a very special way, is not an idea too haphazard, but a feeling of my
heart, a feeling which [ ] has always sustained me. Alone with my soul, how could I have sufficed for
struggles which are beyond human strength, if I had not raised my soul to God?"
[9]
Auguste
Valmorel,
Œuvres de Robespierre,
1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.
Robespierre castigated the irreligion
that prevailed in the aristocracy and the high clergy, with bishops like Talleyrand openly boasting of lying
every Sunday. A gap had widened between the clerical hierarchy and the country priests. Among the latter,
many were responsible for drafting the peasants'
cahiers de doléances
. The counter-revolutionary
bishop Charles de Coucy, of La Rochelle, said in 1797 that the Revolution was "started by the bad priests."
[10]
Henri
Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987, p. 351.
For Robespierre, they
were the "good priests" whom the people of the countryside needed.
Robespierre was inflexible against the
priests who submitted to the pope by refusing to take an oath on the Civil Constitution (voted July 12,
1790). But he also opposed, until his last breath, any plan to abolish the funds allocated to Catholic
worship under the same Civil Constitution. He also opposed, but in vain, the new
Republican calendar
, with its ten-day week aimed at "suppressing Sunday," by the admission of its
inventor Charles-Gilbert Romme.
Robespierre's worst enemies were the
militant atheists, the
Enragés
like Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette or Jacques-René Hébert, who unleashed
the movement for dechristianization in November 1793, and started closing the churches in Paris or
transforming them into "Temples of Reason", with the slogan "death is an eternal sleep" posted on the gates
of cemeteries. Robespierre condemned "those men who have no other merit than that of adorning themselves
with an anti-religious zeal," and who "throw trouble and discord among us" (Club des Jacobins, November 21
1793). In his speech to the National Convention of December 5, 1793, he accused the dechristianizers of
acting secretly for the counter-revolution. Indeed, "hostile foreign powers support the dechristianization
of France as a policy pushing rural France into conflict with the Republic for religious reasons and thus
recruiting armies against the Republic in Vendée and in Belgium." By exploiting the violence of militant
atheist extremists, these foreign powers have two aims: "the first to recruit the Vendée, to alienate the
peoples of the French nation and to use philosophy for the destruction of freedom; the second, to disturb
public tranquility in the interior, and to distract all minds, when it is necessary to collect them to lay
the unshakable foundations of the Revolution."
Again in his "Report against
Philosophism and for the Freedom of Worship" (November 21, 1793), Robespierre again castigated the grotesque
cults of Reason instituted in churches by atheist fanatics:
"By what right do they come to
disturb the freedom of worship, in the name of freedom, and attack fanaticism with a new fanaticism? By
what right do they degenerate the solemn tributes paid to pure truth, in eternal and ridiculous pranks?
Why should they be allowed to play with the dignity of the people in this way, and to tie the bells of
madness to the very scepter of philosophy?"
The Convention, he says, intends "to
maintain freedom of cult, which it has proclaimed, while repressing all those who abuse it to disturb public
order." He declares that those who "persecute the peaceful ministers of cult" will be punished severely.
"There are men who, [ ] on the
pretext of destroying superstition, want to make a kind of religion of atheism itself. Any philosopher,
any individual can adopt whatever religious opinion he likes. Anyone who wants to make it a crime is a
fool; but the public figure, but the legislator would be a hundred times more foolish who would adopt
such a system. The National Convention abhors it. The Convention is not a book writer, an author of
metaphysical systems, it is a political and popular body, responsible for ensuring respect, not only for
the rights, but for the character of the French people. It was not in vain that it proclaimed the
Declaration of Human Rights [August 26, 1789] in the presence of the Supreme Being [mentioned in the
preamble]!
It may be said that I am a narrow
mind, a man of prejudice; what do I know, a fanatic. I have already said that I speak neither as an
individual nor as a systematic philosopher, but as a representative of the people. Atheism is
aristocratic; the idea of a Great Being who watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant
crime, is popular. [ ] This feeling is engraved in all sensitive and pure hearts; it always animates the
most magnanimous defenders of freedom. [ ] I repeat: we have no other fanaticism to fear than that of
immoral men, bribed by foreign courts to awaken fanaticism, and to give our revolution the veneer of
immorality, which is the character of our cowardly and fierce enemies."
The Robespierrists overcame the
Hebertists. After having failed in a project of insurrection against the Convention, Chaumette was arrested,
tried and executed for "conspiracy against the Republic" and for "having sought to annihilate any kind of
morality, erase any idea of divinity and found the French government on atheism." In May 1794, Robespierre
ordered to erase the mention "Temple of Reason" (or any similar denomination) from the portico of the
churches and to engrave instead: "the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Being and the
immortality of the soul."
"Any institution, any doctrine which
consoles and lifts souls must be welcomed; reject all that tend to degrade and corrupt them. Revive,
exalt all generous feelings and all the great moral ideas that others wanted to extinguish; bring
together by the charm of friendship and by the bond of virtue the men whom others wanted to divide. Who
then gave you the mission to announce to the people that the Divinity does not exist, O you who are
passionate about this arid doctrine, and who are never passionate about the homeland? What advantage do
you find in persuading man that a blind force presides over his destinies and strikes crime and virtue at
random; that his soul is only a light breath that dies out at the gates of the tomb?
Will the idea of his nothingness
inspire him with purer and higher feelings than that of his immortality? Will it inspire him more respect
for his fellow men and for himself, more devotion to the fatherland, more courage to brave tyranny, more
contempt for death or for voluptuousness? You who regret a virtuous friend, you like to think that the
most beautiful part of himself has escaped death! You who weep over the coffin of a son or a wife, are
you comforted by him who tells you that there is nothing left of them but a vile dust? [ ] Miserable
sophist! by what right do you come to snatch from innocence the scepter of reason to put it back in the
hands of crime, throw a funeral veil over nature, add despair to misfortune, make vice rejoice, and
virtue saddened, degrade humanity? [ ]
Let us attach morality to eternal and
sacred bases; let us inspire in man this religious respect for man, this deep feeling of his duties,
which is the only guarantee of social happiness; let us nourish it with all our institutions; let public
education be mainly directed towards this goal."
ORDER IT NOW
On June 8, the resounding success of
the
Fête de l'Être Suprême
consecrated Robespierre's victory. In a show staged by the painter David,
a gigantic statue representing Atheism was burnt, and the effigy of Wisdom revealed. Hymns to the deity were
sung. But priests and references to Catholicism were absent. On this day, Robespierre
declared
, the Supreme Being, "sees an entire nation that is combating all the oppressors of humankind,
suspend the course of its heroic labors in order to raise its thoughts and its vows towards the Great Being
who gave it the mission to undertake it and the strength to execute it."
"He created men to mutually assist
and love each other, and to arrive at happiness by the path of virtue. It is He who placed remorse and
fear in the breast of the triumphant oppressor, and calm and pride in the heart of the innocent
oppressed. It is He who forces the just man to hate the wicked, and the wicked to respect the just man.
It is He who adorned the face of beauty with modesty, so as to make it even more beautiful. It is He who
makes maternal entrails palpitate with tenderness and joy. It is He who bathes with delicious tears the
eyes of a son pressed against his mother's breast. It is He who silences the most imperious and tender
passions before the sublime love of the fatherland. It is He who covered nature with charms, riches and
majesty. All that is good is His work, or is Him. Evil belongs to the depraved man who oppresses or
allows his like to be oppressed. The author of nature ties together all mortals in an immense chain of
love and felicity."
Generally speaking, the cult of the
Supreme Being was enthusiastically received in most regions of France. The French people were tired of the
civil war and eager to be reconciled under the auspices of God. Unfortunately, two days later, the Law of
the "22 Prairial" (June 10, 1794) accelerated the trials of the suspects of conspiracy against the Republic,
and opened the brief period of what will be called the Great Terror.
Robespierre's religious policy weighed
heavily on the motivations of the Thermidorians' plot against him. They accused him of aspiring to the
office of Grand Pontiff.
On the day before his death (July 28,
1794), at age 36, Robespierre
declared
:
"O Frenchmen! O my countrymen! Let
not your enemies, with their desolating doctrines, degrade your souls, and enervate your virtues! No,
Chaumette, no! Death is
not
'an eternal sleep!' Citizens! Erase from the tomb that motto, engraved
by sacrilegious hands, which spreads over all nature a funereal crape, takes from oppressed innocence its
support, and affronts the beneficent dispensation of death! Inscribe rather thereon these words: 'Death
is the commencement of immortality!'"
[1]
Richard Dawkins, in
The God Delusion,
Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.
[2]
Jean-Clément Martin,
Robespierre, la fabrication d'un monstre,
Perrin, 2016. Other recent
French historians who have drawn a rather positive image of Robespierre include Jean-Philippe Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011 and Cécile Obligi,
Robespierre. La probité
révoltante,
Belin, 2012.
[3]
Jean-Philippe Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30
[4]
My presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil,
1987.
[5]
Quoted in Ernst Kantorowicz,
L'empereur Frédéric II
, Gallimard, 1987 (1
st
German
ed. 1927), pp. 451-452.
[6]
Jerry Brotton,
The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo,
Oxford UP, 2010,
pp. 66-67.
[7]
Quoted in Jan Assmann,
Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion,
Polity Press, 2014, p. 59.
[8]
Albert Lantoine,
Un précurseur de la franc-maçonnerie. John Toland (1670–1722)
,
suivi de
la traduction française du Pantheisticon de John Toland,
Éditions E. Nourry, 1927.
[9]
Auguste Valmorel,
Œuvres de Robespierre,
1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.
[10]
Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987, p. 351.
[11]
A translation of this speech can be found in P. H. Beik (eds),
The French Revolution: The
Documentary History of Western Civilization.
Palgrave Macmillan, 1970, but I have translated directly
from the French.
Rurik, call your office. The other day when you got schooled (along with me) by a Frenchman on the French
Revolution, you tried to grasp on to a last punitive straw -- well, maybe Robespierre at least deserved the
blade. As if on cue, LG here with more schooling.
Thank you for providing further insight into the religious sentiment of Robespierre.
While the American Constitution itself does not include explicit mention of God, every U.S. State
Constitution
certainly does
.
"It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned."
In any event, better not to pretend to know.
There is much to be said for religious tradition in which humility before God prevents one from assuming
his salvation is assured. Such a disposition facilitates dealing humanely and equitably with others, even
those outside his own faith community.
One of the (many) surprising revelations in Pamela Druckerman's
Bringing Up Bébé
is that of French
parents and educators drawing quite conservative views and practices from Rousseau. To us Anglo-Saxons, our
disagreements about the man are over whether his radicalism is good or bad, not whether it exists at all.
And what does the dogma of original sin have to do with the good of civil society?
Just about everything. It's probably the most useful of the Christian doctrines to outsiders.
I knew a Midwestern Lutheran woman who spent decades teaching in the scruffier public schools of Los
Angeles County, which suffered from high turnover in staff. Though of Scandinavian background and quite
progressive on most things, this lady insisted that the single most reliable indicator that a teacher would
survive in the blackboard jungle was a strong belief in original sin. One is prepared for the worst.
Another excellent essay by M. Guyenot. I recommend his From Yahweh to Zionism to all.
" I believe that
modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as "God" in the Old
Testament."
Indeed. George Bernard Shaw observed this in the Preface to his Back to Methuselah. Darwinism conquered
the popular mind, not just biologists, because the people sought relief from the constant surveillance of
the Calvinist God. It was only later -- too late -- when they discovered what else they had thrown away. Hence
Shaw and Bergson's "Vitalism" and later "Intelligent Design."
The attempt to navigate between Biblical religion and atheistic Science reminds me of the suggestion by
religious scholar Arthur Versluis and others that there is a third path -- Hermeticism -- that crops up
periodically in the Western tradition -- basing belief in God, immortality and higher dimensions not in
Hebrew fairy tales, nor limiting experience to the level of everyday materialism.
There is something unique about the French. They love to exaggerate (always in a positive way) their bloody
and criminal history. Robespierre was a terrorist.
Hello Laurent,
Very much appreciated your article and your other articles . And thank you for mentioning my movie:
Expelled. I was one of the Producers. We certainly appreciated Ben's contribution
Some nice historical work from Dr Laurent Guyénot above
Quite right too to denounce the Abrahamic 'God' as
un ugly, terrorising, in fact demonic figure 'eternal torture hell' is one of the most evil notions ever
invented
And tho we all need spirituality – having a 'god-shaped hole' otherwise in our lives
What needs to be understood is that Deism-type views are not sustainable, not genuinely transmissable to
succeeding generations
Note that all these deists, essentially exist in a one-generation-only space of rejecting their childhood
religion, intellectualising a less brutal form of it but then it fades away, there are few adherents which
continue only a stream of similar people, rejecting their childhood religion and staying in the deist or
unitarian half-way house for only their own lives
Faith cannot thrive without ritual, ceremony, practice in fact more important than ideas
E.g., Japan is full of shinto – buddhist rituals, lovingly maintained it is not an issue whether one
truly 'believes' in the goddesses and gods etc the practices yet sustain for thousands of years
Deism fades and becomes dusty books on the shelf
Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan
religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with
Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains
But paganism in the west is also a sorry-ass affair, as far as we know, with disgusting animal sacrifices
etc, and big deficiencies in thought and practice
The unique thing from ancient India, is the truly unique wonderful yoga meditation etc traditions
offering direct experience of the divine, spiritual ecstasies accessible at almost any time for those of us
who enter into these realms
In the West, the south and east asian traditions have slight echoes in stoicism, but in general we are
missing something precious, however deep we dig into what is left of paganism that was not burned by the
abrahamic fanatics
Ancient India's most beloved story, the Bhagavad-Gita, in 10 minutes – God stops time itself, to explain
to a troubled warrior what life is all about 'Whoever thinks he can truly kill, or be killed, is under an
illusion – no one truly dies the divine is already within you there are many paths to more fully re-join
with that divinity the question now is just what is the right course, what is your duty So be brave, and
Fight! Have no fear '
I found this article quite interesting. The book never seems to be closed on Robespierre and Rousseau, and
for good reason, as the clash of ideas presented here continues to this day.
Is that so .did he say that.you mean like human sacrifice to the corn god.atzec relegion was bad for the
heart.on the other hand a little african vodoo is a danger to the health of chickens in general.
More
squat than squawk
"Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan
religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with
Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains"
@gsjackson
LG is just another old Revolutionary whose ideas always lead to some form of The Terror. He is no better
than those Russians who felt that if only they removed the Tsar, and rejected a Constitutional monarch, that
fairness would reign.
Robespierre may not have been quite as monstrous as those who took him down, but he
was nonetheless a monster whose works served Satan.
It is either Christ and Christendom or some form of revolutionary chaos. If Russia is moving toward
reviving Christendom, then Russia will save the civilization. If Russia is moving to promote more
gnosticism, more hermeticism, more freemason tolerance of anything that claims some nebulous faith in some
type creator, then Russia promotes what is necessary for the Hell hole that devours us today.
@Ghali
French revolutionaries who wish to pretend that they their favorite revolutionary butchers were actually
good guys love to praise French revolution.
Either France begins to recreate Christendom and become once
again Eldest Daughter of the Church, or France will die a suicide.
The universalist unitarians that Guyenot lauds who then rule what once was France will be Mohammedan, and
their bankers will be Jewish.
Robespierre 'reluctantly' joining the 'Comité de salut public'? He was the first to propose the
establishment of a 'Revolutionary Tribunal that had to deal with the "traitors" and "enemies of the people"
in August 1792. The Tribunal was re-established by Danton and Robespierre in October 1793 and Robespierre
was its principal purveyor. He was the father of 'La Terreur'. The imposition of his ridiculous 'Cult of the
Supreme Being' coincides with the peak of Terror (when he was personally responsible for nearly 800
executions a month) and the reason of his demise. People did not appreciate it and Robespierre's answer was
to draft a new list of public enemies who would be sent before the tribunal and executed and passing the
infamous Law of 22 Prairial. That was too much even for the other revolutionary criminals.
In essence he was as anti-Christian as his mentors Rousseau, Voltaire, as all the sacred monsters of the
'Enlightnment' and his enemies the atheists. He was really the 'Executioner of the Vendee'. You won't expect
(I hope) anyone to take someone like Melenchon seriously.
Was he a mason? Maybe not, with a 'party card', so to speak, but he wallowed in the Masonic cesspool that
engulfed France in the 18th century. His grand father was a mason ("his father, who died in Germany, was of
English origin; this may explain the shade of Puritanism in his character", if you believe Lamartine). There
is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an 'Illuminatus' and a fanatical one at that.
Maybe he was a tragic figure, "overwhelmed by a political blindness that bordered on the pathetic or
madness, he refused to understand that he lived in a time other than that of the Roman Republic", but no
less sinister ('There was softness, but of a sinister character', again if you believe Lamartine). An
"autistic" that drifted slowly but surely towards the "crime against humanity" that he would have surely
committed if the technical resources of the 18th century had allowed mass exterminations"(Joël Schmidt,
Robespierre, 2011, p. 229-230).
Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre's speeches, "Supreme Being" meant
anything else than God.
The fact remains he did not simply use the word "God". The French language does have a word for 'it'.
From a theological point of view, he is also asserting a 'continum' of "being" with a "supreme" being on the
tippy top of the ("not masonic!!!!") pyramid.
That which is created by God and is the animating principle of
Men
Animals
Vegetables
No, Robespierre did not have the same idea of God as did the Faithful but this incessant attempt to
rewrite history is not surprising but it should be noted that what it really is is projection by an atheist
author who is always searching for "proof" that will justify his refusal to accept God as He revealed
Himself to us.
Said otherwise, he has an endless series of authorities which he has replaced God with
Now he certainly is not fooling those have the Faith once delivered and I doubt he has fooled himself,
which is why he is always rabbiting on about this bll shite
While the article's criticisms of dogmatic religion are valid, the notion of a non-dogmatic 'supreme being'
and the rest is pure malarkey, to wit .
The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or
commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and
providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of
the social contract and the laws:
Here is the reality, if there is a 'God' or 'supreme being' he is murderous and wicked beyond belief, as
he/she/it has created a world populated by creatures that survive by eating each other, literally. We live
in a sort of hell, and the fact that we have tried to create a world based on kindness and justice is a
tribute to the human race, and certainly not to any supreme being.
He shared the primary trait of atheism (as does the author of this piece seemingly), which is a revulsion
towards the concept of personal moral duties and judgment. They want an all-powerful being to relieve them
of their existential angst (for hardcore atheists, "reason" and "progress" fill this role), but one that
also doesn't particularly care for how his creation operates and isn't judgmental, therefore all things
which the atheist can rationalize as 'harmless' are permitted (sexual perversion, homosexuality, usury,
occassionally murdering political opponents, and of course perverting worship of the almighty toward the
whims of the state). It's not disgust with God in the old testament which leads to criticism, it's the
atheist's own bad character which leads them to soothe their conscience with a bad-faith criticism of
scripture (this libel is of course both faulty of content and circular, in that Christian morals are the
basis of the criticism which flow from the same God they supposedly criticize).
The eternally pathetic
Dawkins says that from his misreading of scripture he finds Yahweh a racist, misogynistic homophobe. What
else need be said in support of Yahweh's good character? In the western world, these are the words that
professional mediocrities like Dawkins use to describe anyone of any moral worth at all.
@Clyde Wilson
Dear Mr. Wilson. "Hilary is a museum quality Yankee?"
Are you the author of that great quote and numerous
books and articles?
If you are, God Bless you Sir. I have read your work for a LONG time at Chronicles, in books, at The
Abbeyville Institute etc.
You are national treasure and it is a crime against culture that you are not prompted as are the cultural
cranks and commie creeps most American get their ideas from.
We disagree on this. IMHO the author is '
writing
' history. Here is trying to whitewash the fact
that "Orthodox Christian" Putin is pushing the "Supreme Being" line (even though all major recognized
religions in Russia in fact call 'it' God), lest the captive humanity analysing the entrails of the ruling
classes' maneuvers catch a hint of
the unity of ideological purpose of the ruling classes worldwide
.
A fascinating take on Robespierre. I, too, was always taught that he was some
kind of Mason whose 'Supreme Being' was just some kind of personification of Cartesian reason. But if your
account of his beliefs here is accurate, then I would have to say he was a much more substantial figure than
I initially suspected.
One thing that really shines through in your essay is how very patriotic Robespierre was. I daresay, had
the Papacy been French, he might well have remained a traditional Catholic!
"The Thermidorians -- thus have Robespierre's conquerors and successors been dubbed -- sought not only to
justify their coup d'état of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to
evade the opprobrium they shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing
crisis the previous year, during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly
successful: their caricature of Robespierre has proved durable."
Very much like what Krushchev and, in their own way, the Trotskyites did to Stalin after his death as
well. And of course, virtually everyone's still doing it to Hitler.
'eternal torture hell' is one of the most evil notions ever invented
It was invented by the Catholic church. Fortunately, thanks to Reformation's products of literacy for us
rabble, bibles in the vernacular languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore
for ourselves.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Ezekiel
18:20
As for God in the constitution, it's the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the Vatican
has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and state.
@Jake
Having had easy access to 3 of the greatest university libraries in the USA and being able to read French
pretty well, I'm an amateur historian very familiar with the despicable land and property grab known as the
French Revolution.
I'm not going to bother to refute this author's outright lies. Too much trouble and can't be bothered to
cite the books, except for Abbe Burrel's , Simon Schema's somebody last name Batz, and Renee Boudereau's
memoirs.
If you live in Los Angeles and can read French, you can go to the rare book section of Loyola university
library in Westchester near the airport and read Renee Boudereau's memoirs. It's easy to read, short simple
factual sentences like Camus.
BTW, it was a death penalty offense just to be a catholic priest or nun in France during the worst of the
French Revolution. Not spying for England, not active in the counter revolution, not even saying mass,
marrying and baptizing, just being a catholic priest or nun.
Little known fact. The Devil's Island penal colony was created by the French revolutionaries for catholic
priests. The sight of gray haired parish priests and nuns who ran the local hospital before the
revolutionaries closed it lined up to be guillotined caused counter revolutionary sentiment.
So the less radical revolutionaries created the penal colonies of Devil's Island as a way to get rid of
the priests without the public spectacle of beheading the headmaster of the local high schools , and
hospital administrators.
Confiscation of church property meant closing every hospital, orphanage, mental health asylum and most of
the schools in France for years. Storming of the Bastille to " free" the prisoners. 7 prisoners , everyone a
severely sick dangerous mental patient sent there because all the insane asylums, all of which were run by
the church were closed.
Closing the high schools really pissed off the upper bourgeoisie because that's where their sons and
daughters learned the skills needed to remain in the upper bourgeoisie
What a crock of lies and propaganda.
Who gives a rat's ass about some homocidal maniac's constitution that was only in effect for a few months
anyway before his government was overthrown with another round of executions?
I once counted the number of governments France had between 1789 and 1816. I think maybe 8 different
forms of government.
If the rest of this writer's articles are as false wrong and just plain ignorant as this one, nothing he
writes is to be believed.
At least it's not some kind of quadruple exponent new math about the Chinese Plague killing off half the
population of the earth.
So Robespierre was fighting against the atheists. Good. And his "Etre Supreme" wasn't another Freemason
humanism. Fine.
But unlike Putin who only wants to enshrine the Russians "faith in god" in the constitution, Robespierre
wanted "the priests who submitted to the pope" to take an oath on the Civil Constitution. That was a very
bad idea, even if the pope was a foreigner. Putin doesn't try to officially mix in the church's business, he
just want to make sure the atheists/masonics zionists/communists from the West won't be allowed to take
power again in Russia. States shouldn't officially pretend to mix in church's organization.
And while Robespierre didn't try to repel the official masonic "Droits de l'homme" religion which teaches
that human beings are God, Putin is just doing it by officially putting God above men, and he is damn right.
The West and its metaphysically impoverished societies would do well to consider Zen (Chán) , an atheistic
philosophy that is transcendent and moral without concepts of eternal reward or punishment, without
scriptures, without a priestly caste, without "worship". It simply states that the simultaneity between mind
and Mind is all that
IS
. Once this is internalized, one continues daily life as before, but with a
deeper understanding of it without anxiety, without unbalanced desires but with with a sense of wonder at
all that unfolds in the course of time, including one's own death, the time of transition.
Living in the West, as I do, I see no need to criticize the dominant religious beliefs however
incomprehensible I might find them. I live in what once was Christendom, honoring and respecting the moral
and ethical beliefs and customs of these societies, now sickeningly secularized to the degree that natural
law is openly and approvingly flouted. The metaphysics of Zen is quite simple in theory, but requires
self-discipline to put into practice. Self-discipline seems to be something the consumerist societies of the
West have forgotten.
"There is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an 'Illuminatus' and a fanatical one at
that."
All this blather about "supreme being" does sound awfully Masonic, but I believe far more in judging
people by their actions than by their words, likely because of numerous painful experiences dealing with
lawyers and especially jewish lawyers who will say anything they think can get away with.
As for God in the constitution, it's the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the
Vatican has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and
state.
Imagine unironically believing "seperation of church and state" is a real thing. An official religion is
a prerequisite for the existence of governmnt.
Fortunately, thanks to Reformation's products of literacy for us rabble, bibles in the vernacular
languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore for ourselves.
Do you know literally anything about theology? Orthodox and Catholic christians believe in the concept
free will, it is Protestants (not all sects but some) that reject it. Get a clue.
There is no question that Putin has a very cozy relationship with Chabad,
For
a different perspective of Putin's changes to the Russian Constitution see
PUTIN TO ADD NOAHIDE LAW TO RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B8MQ4lHsxwg/
My terribly simplistic understanding of Laurent's rather long and certainly scholarly exposition, is that he
feels that for the sake of science and the adults we can declare Santa dead, but please not make any attempt
upon His life for the sake of the children and Christmas.
@Lockean Proviso
In ancient Egypt, people who did bad deeds were punished in the afterlife. A deceased person, goes before a
scale of justice. His/her heart is weighed against a feather. He/she is asked 42 divine principles. If the
deceased heart weights too much with too many bad deeds, it is devoured by Ammit.
The idea of punishment for bad deeds is a very old concept for humanity. It needs to come back for the
warmongering neocons and regime changers of our day.
Here is how the deceased goes to the scale of justice. The 42 divine principles, good deeds, decides the
deceased's fate.
In Spellbook/Chapter 30B of The Papyrus of Ani titled "Chapter for Not Letting Ani's Heart Create
Opposition Against Him, in the Gods' Domain," we find a petitioner of ma'at (justice/truth) before the
scales of justice (iconography ma'at/goddess maat). Anubis, the setter of the scales, has placed the
petitioner's heart-soul (Ka) on one side of the scale, its counter-weight is the feather of truth (Shu).
The Spellbook/Chapter for Not Letting Ani's Heart Create Opposition Against Him in the Gods' Domain is
where the petitioner must pronounce, and his/her weighted heart/soul (Ka) will reveal the truth or
non-truth of each affirmative of the 42 pronouncements.
(Am-mut) – "Dead-Swallower" Stationed just to the side of the scales in the Hall of Double Truth [see
Ma'at], Ammit's function is to await the postmortem judgment of a soul (envisioned as the deceased's
heart being weighed on a scale against the feather of Ma'at) and then, if the soul fails the test, Ammit
snatches up the heart and devours it, causing the soul to cease to exist. As the ultimate punishment of
the wicked, Ammit is depicted as a hideous composite of the animals Kemet's people feared most: crocodile
snout and head, feline claws and front, and a hippopotamus body and back legs. Ammit is also sometimes
referred to as "Great of Death," and papyri depict Her patiently watching Yinepu weighing a man's heart
against the feather of Ma'at.
This has been a very refreshing article for several reasons that should be obvious. I look forward to
reading more of this kind in the future.
"If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate the
civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in the
West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted,
transgendered, upgraded man, Homo Deus. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our spiritual and
anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing: Mars and Venus, virile men and feminine women grateful
to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity."
I'm not sure I've read a more succinct summary of what is happening to our civilization.
Hell is hardly an invention of the Catholic Church – it is found in King James, Douay and Orthodox
Bibles:
"And I saw a great white throne and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away:
and there was no place found for them And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the
throne. And the books were opened: and another book was opened, which was the book of life. And the dead
were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up
the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged,
every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second
death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire.
For the eighth time over the past decade, Russian authorities told a foreign Chabad rabbi living in
Russia to leave the country.
Josef Marozof, a New York native who began working 12 years ago for Chabad in the city of Ulyanovsk,
400 miles east of Moscow, was ordered earlier this week to leave because the FSB security service said he
had been involved in unspecified "extremist behavior."
First, there are 3 sides to every story, his, hers and the
truth.
Second, don't listen to what he says, watch what he does.
Castro, Lyndon Johnson, Hildabeast, the Civil Rights For all but Whites laws, , Mao, Lenin Stalin
Trotsky, Pelosi, every liberal do gooder idealist like Robespierre and the rest talk do gooderism while we
watch them looting, confiscating and slaughtering.
Author reminds me of all the dumb naive liberal American and European soi disant idiot intellectual
visionary do gooders who visited Russia during the 1939s and came back with glowing reports of the wonderful
society of the future.
" atheism , which is a revulsion towards the
concept of personal moral duties and judgment."
That is exactly the opposite of the truth. For openers, atheisim is merely the lack of a particular
superstition. Secondly, most atheists believe that morality and truth are so important that they deserve a
better foundation than a bunch of ancient Jewish superstitions taken on faith.
Those old superstitions were designed to promote faith (believe what you are told to believe) and
self-sacrifice (don't defend yourself) because they make people easier to rob and rule.
The only thing that enshrining a vague-God in the constitution would accomplish is the Tribe eventually
twisting the meaning to meet the definition and needs of whatever demon they worship.
Propose to enshrine the specific Indo-European God in Constitutions and then we have something to talk
about.
@Anon
The civil constitution Robespierre demanded priests take an oath to with the death penalty if they didn't
lasted less than a year. The author is writing about a constitution that lasted less than a year.
I think it was 6 governments between 1789 and 1800 and more after 1800 each with its own written or
implied constitution.
Why not just write an article that it's good the new Russian constitution will mention God?
Instead of bringing in this ridiculous conventional version of the French Revolution? I assume he's
trying to impress us with his scholarly knowledge, but he sure hasn't impressed me with his fantasies about
Robespierre.
That's like saying there is no such person as a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or a Maoist. A Mohammedan has
much in common with all three. If anything, his prophet was a blend of all three founders, with a fair bit
of Joseph Smith, Napoleon, and Hitler to boot.
If you mean Hillary, she has no more Yankee blood than does Donald Trump, and less than Obama's 1%. She
also supports income taxation and the New Deal. (As does much of the so-called "alt-right.") No Yankee, she.
I can't wait for the day when Intelligent Design research will be funded in Russian universities,
rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligent
Allowed).
I was enjoying the walk you were leading me on until I stepped in this dog shit. I'm sure the rest of the
journey was fascinating. But I avoid crazy as a rule.
@Alden
The one's who managed to make their way back were the lucky ones. Thousands didn't, either being executed,
or Gulaged, where they indeed 'found work', but, not of the type they were counting on.
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by
Penguin Books. It tells the story of thousands of Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the
1930s. The vast majority of these Americans were executed or sent to the Gulag by Joseph Stalin's
government.
In a related revisionist hangout,
Robert Sepehr
has long been exposing ancient masonic secrets, his
videos just keep getting better.
here
is his channel.
@John Howard
Those superstitions sustained many generations through many trials and tribulations. Science, industry, and
affluence tempt people to believe they don't need God, then in time of trouble they rediscover Him.
Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on
it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have
lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of
Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last
year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq &
Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how
exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be
struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very
effectively shoot back?
Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of
heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to
remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
"...the intelligence agencies were warning about information derived from medical sources
in China that suggested viruses were developing that might become a pandemic, but the
politicians, most particularly those in the White House, chose to take no action. He writes
that " the Trump administration has cumulatively failed, both in taking seriously the
specific, repeated intelligence community warnings about a coronavirus outbreak and in
vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted
threat. The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant
public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus.
Unfortunately, Trump officials made a series of judgments (minimizing the hazards of
COVID-19) and decisions (refusing to act with the urgency required) that have needlessly made
Americans far less safe."
"The article cites evidence that the intelligence community was collecting disturbing
information on possibly developing pathogens in China and was, as early as January, preparing
analytical reports that detailed just what was happening while also providing insights into
how devastating the global proliferation of a highly contagious and potential lethal virus
might be. One might say that the intel guys called it right, but were ignored by the White
House, which, per Zenko, acted with "unprecedented indifference, even willful
negligence...."
@bevin #8
In January? Really? Seems like the highly paid and budgeted intelligence agencies should be
able to do a better job of predicting the nCOV threat before China instituted a shutdown on
January 23 due to its view that nCOV was a problem.
Frankly, seems more like intel agency ass covering than anything else.
Can anyone think what our society might have spent
six and a half trillion dollars on instead of 20 years of war in the Middle East for
nothing? How about the
trillion dollars per year we keep spending on the military on top of that?
Invading, dominating and remaking the Arab world to serve the interests of the American empire and
the state of
Greater Israel sounds downright quaint at this point. Iraq War II, as Senator Bernie
Sanders said in the debate a few weeks ago, while letting Joe Biden, one of its primary
proponents , off the hook for it, was "a long time ago." Actually, Senator, we still have
troops there fighting
Iraq War III 1/2 against what's left of the ISIS insurgency, and our current government
continues to threaten the launch of Iraq War IV against the very
parties we fought the last two wars for
. This would
almost certainly then lead to war with Iran.
The U.S.A. still has soldiers, marines and CIA spies in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya,
Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Nigeria, Chad and only God and
Nick Turse know where else.
Worst of all , America under President Donald Trump is still "leading from behind" in the
war in
Yemen Barack Obama started in conspiracy with Saudi then-Deputy Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman back in 2015. This war is nothing less than a deliberate
genocide .
As Senator Rand Paul once explained to Neil Cavuto on Fox News back before he decided to
become virtually silent on the matter, if the U.S.-Saudi-UAE alliance were to succeed in
driving the Houthi regime from power in the capital city, they could end up being replaced by
AQAP or the local Muslim Brotherhood group, al-Islah. There is zero
chance that the stated goal of the war, the re-installation of former dictator Mansur
Hadi on the throne, could ever succeed. And yet the war rages on. President Trump says he's
doing it
for the money .
That's right . And he's just recently sent the
Marines to intervene in the war on behalf of our enemy-allies too.
We still have troops in Germany in the name of keeping Russia out 30 years after the end of
the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Empire, even though Germany is clearly not
afraid of Russia at all, and are instead
more worried that the U.S. and its newer allies are going to get them into a fight they do
not want. The Germans prefer to "get along with Russia," and buy natural gas from them, while
Trump's government does everything in its power to
prevent it .
America has
expanded our NATO military alliance right up to Russia's western border and continues to
threaten to include Ukraine and former-Soviet Georgia in the pact right up to the present day.
As the world's worst hawks and Russiagate Hoax
accusers have
admitted , Trump has been by far the
worst anti-Russia president since the end of the last Cold War.
Obama may have hired a bunch of
Hitler-loving Nazis to overthrow the government of Ukraine for him back in 2014, but at
least he was too afraid to send them weapons, something
Trump has done
enthusiastically , even though he was actually impeached by
the Democrats for moving a little too slowly on one of the shipments.
We still have troops in South Korea to protect against the North, even though in economic
and conventional terms the South overmatches the North by
orders of magnitude . Communism really
doesn't work . And the only reason the North even decided to make nukes is because George
W. Bush put a gun to their head and essentially made
them do it . But as Cato's
Doug Bandow says , we don't even need a new deal. The U.S. could just forget about North
Korea and it wouldn't make any difference to our security at all.
And now China. Does anyone outside of the
U.S. Navy and
Marine Corps really care whether the entire Pacific Ocean is an American lake or only
95% of it ? The "threat" of Chinese dominance in their own part of the world exists only in
the heads of hawkish American policy wonks and the Taiwanese, who should have been told a long
time ago that they are
on their own and that there's no way in the world the American people or government are
willing to trade Los Angeles and San Francisco for Taipei.
Perhaps without the U.S. superpower standing behind them, Taiwanese leaders would be more
inclined to seek a peaceful settlement with Beijing. If not, that's their problem. Not one
American in a million is willing to sacrifice their own home town in a nuclear war with China
over an island that means nothing to them. Nor should they. Nor should our government even
dream they have the authority to hand out such dangerous war guarantees to any other country in
such a reckless fashion.
And that's it. There are no other powers anywhere in the world. Certainly there are none who
threaten the American people. Our government claims they are keeping the peace, but there are
approximately two million Arabs and
Pashtuns who would disagree except that they've already been killed in our recent wars and so
are unavailable for comment.
The George W. Bush and Barack Obama eras are long over. We near the end, or half-way
point , of the Trump years, and yet our former leaders' wars rage on
.
Enough already. It is time to end the war on terrorism and end the rest of the American
empire as well . As our dear recently departed friend
Jon Basil Utley learned from his professor Carroll Quigley ,
World Empire is the last stage of a civilization before it dies . That is the tragedy. The hope
is that we can learn from history and preserve what's left of our republic and the freedom that
made it great in the first place, by abandoning our overseas "commitments" and husbanding our
resources so that we may pass down a legacy of liberty to our children.
The danger to humanity represented by the Coronavirus plague has, by stark relief, exposed
just how unnecessary and therefore criminal this entire imperial project has been . We could
have quit the empire 30 years
ago when the Cold War ended, if not long before.
We could have a perfectly normal and peaceful relationship with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Korea,
Russia, China, Yemen and any of the other nations our government likes to pretend threaten us.
And when it comes to our differences, we would then be in the position to kill
them with kindness and generosity, leading the world to liberty the only way we truly can,
voluntarily, on the global free market of ideas and results
.
That is what the world needs and the legacy the American people deserve.
Given some time and currency, I guess Morocco would offer more value for money if you want
some exotic customs and landscapes. If you have more money, you could spend them on a
carbon-free cruise with stunning vistas and off-the-beaten route: North Pole on board of
nuclear-powered ice breaker! It is wise to have swimming costume (a pool is on board, heated,
I presume) and sensible apparel -- enough for normal winter (in Moscow). The number of places
is below 150, with a little hospital on board too. In the latest ads I read about discounts,
but the deal was that you can pay in rubbles with prices below the rubble plunged by 25%,
still, for 27 k USD you can see John Bolton's relatives in natural environment (like mommy
walrus taking care of youngsters), polar bears, seals, and landscapes of Franz Josef Land.
Helicopter rides included. You can also take a plunge into the arctic water -- with safety
precautions .
I think you have the main danger (some nitwit using a "small nuke") to try to make a point
about right.
Other than that, the impression I get from Pompeo and his ilk is that the main thing is
having someone to threaten and abuse to show "leadership" and "manhood", at least one shitty
little country we can still throw up against the wall and slap around to show we mean
business. Dangerous times for Nicaragua.
Neither he nor his other West Point friends seems to have much clue about military affairs
either, which is strange. I mean we've always had our George Armstrong Custers, but they
didn't run things. Now they seem to have some sort of cult mentality. One is reminded of the
French before WWI: "De L'audace, Encore De L'audace, Et Toujours De L'audace ..." and we know
how that worked out.
With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: "You should have let us
know."
Military Exercise meaning (from Wikipedia): "A military exercise or war game
is the employment of military resources in training for military operations, either exploring
the effects of warfare or testing strategies without actual combat. This also serves the
purpose of ensuring the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment
from a home base."
What is actually going on here? Does the White House care to explain?
*Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this
by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is
why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent
underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally
going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally
follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.
@37
Yesterday I went to Home Depot to buy some water tubing for my ice-maker.
I noticed all doors were blocked with a tape, except one with at least 25 people waiting
to get in and a female employee holding a sign "the line starts here".
I ask the lady what was all about and she said because of the virus etc.
I said to her "You must be kidding" and I start going back to my car.
Some old lady from the line waiting to get in she scream to me something about "we protect
ourselves" and similar nonsense.
I turn around and I said to her: Quit watching TV you idiot. They rob your money on broad
daylight and send your kids to die fighting israels enemies.
The overreaction to the virus makes no sense. Is something being hidden from us? The freak
out over this virus – to the tune of $trillions – is all out of proportion.
2.8 million Americans die every year. Why the obsession with this one virus which may kill
in the thousands?
Something is off. But Trump should have known early if there was some other hidden danger.
If there is some hidden suspicion by the people obsessing over this, please share it!
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
Just heard the orange god deliver this line at the daily CODIV-19 task force briefing. For
this fool, the military is a pile of new "stuff," He bought it, he paid for the "stuff" so, he
has created a "brand new military." What about the people who served throughout the miserably
stupid war in Iraq and the equally stupid post 2009 attempt to pacify Afghanistan, a country
that never was and never will be. Think of the money and blood that we pissed away there. Even
the Pompous one sees the necessity to withdraw our support from the wretches who run the
government there or pretend to do that. Or perhaps Trump told him to stick it to them, at long
last. Trump's experience of "military service" was his corrective enrollment at a private
military high school, but he has stated that he knows "all about it.
Someone remarked to me once that it had been a miracle that the US could create an army for
WW2. I asked him in response what sort of occupation Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton
had been involved with before the war. Shoe sales? Gas station ownership" Insurance sales?
What?
It would be tempting to think that one might vote for the Democrat. Biden the demented?
Sanders the Marxist dreamer? Cuomo the massive NY City creep egotist?
If MSM were in the business of posting facts instead of partisan hyperbole, you would think
the Dems would have run something far better than a Sanders or a Biden at this particular
juncture of history.
So did we get are handed a choice among "deplorables"; or an echo of equal deplorables.
Right now, I will continue to dance with the gal who brung me. Trump is seasoning well and
growing into the job. I would like to see what his next four years will bring. He knows the
inside game now.
Who was it who said ask a government insider to do something and you get a string of
excuses why it can't be done. Demurr to a business person who asks to get something done, and
he/she will say fine, now go find me someone who can get it done. KAG 2020.
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American
Mainstream Media
User Settings:
Version?
Social Media?
Read Aloud w/
Show Word Counts
No Video Autoplay
No Infinite Scrolling
Save
Cancel
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Toggle All
Bookmark
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Imagine if the congress approved a measure to form a public-private
partnership between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine that?
Now imagine if a panicky and ill-informed
Congress gave the Fed a blank check to bail out all of its crooked crony corporate and Wall Street friends,
allowing the Fed to provide more than $4.5 trillion to underwater corporations that ripped off Mom and Pop
investors by selling them bonds that were used to goose their stock prices so fatcat CEOs could make off
like bandits. Imagine if all that red ink from private actors was piled onto the national debt pushing
long-term interest rates into the stratosphere while crushing small businesses, households and ordinary
working people.
Now try to imagine the impact this would
have on the nation's future. Imagine if the Central Bank was given the green-light to devour the Treasury,
control the country's "purse strings", and use nation's taxing authority to shore up its trillions in
ultra-risky leveraged bets, its opaque financially-engineered ponzi-instruments, and its massive speculative
debts that have gone pear-shaped leaving a gaping black hole on its balance sheet?
Well, you won't have to imagine this
scenario for much longer, because the reality is nearly at hand. You see, the traitorous, dumbshit
nincompoops in Congress are just a hairs-breadth away from abdicating congress's crucial power of the purse,
which is not only their greatest strength, but also allows the congress to reign in abuses of executive
power by controlling the flow of funding. The power of the purse is the supreme power of government which is
why the founders entrusted it to the people's elected representatives in congress. Now these imbeciles are
deciding whether to hand over that authority to a privately-owned banking cartel that has greatly expanded
the chasm between rich and poor, incentivized destructive speculation on an industrial scale, and repeatedly
inflated behemoth asset-price bubbles that have inevitably blown up sending stocks and the real economy into
freefall. The idea of merging the Fed and the Treasury first appeared in its raw form in an article by
former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in the Financial Times. Here's a short excerpt from the
piece:
"The Fed could ask Congress for the
authority to buy limited amounts of investment-grade corporate debt The Fed's intervention could help
restart that part of the corporate debt market, which is under significant stress.
Such a programme
would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed
while still
providing needed liquidity to an essential market." (
Financial
Times
)
The Fed is not allowed to buy corporate
debt, because it is not within its mandate of "price stability and full employment". It's also not allowed
to arbitrarily intervene in the markets to pick winners and losers, nor is it allowed to bailout
poorly-managed crybaby corporations who were gaming the system to their own advantage when the whole deal
blew up in their faces. That's their problem, not the Fed's and not the American taxpayer's.
But notice how Bernanke emphasizes how
"Such a programme would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed". Why
do you think he said that?
He said it because he anticipates an
arrangement where the new Treasury-Fed combo could buy up to "$4.5 trillion of corporate debt" (according to
Marketwatch and BofA). And the way this will work, is the Fed will select the bonds that will be purchased
and the credit risk will be heaped onto the US Treasury. Apparently Bernanke and Yellen think this is a
"fair" arrangement, but others might differ on that point.
Keep in mind, that in the last week
alone, investors pulled a record $107 billion out of corporate bonds which is a market which has been in a
deep-freeze for nearly a month. The only activity is the steady surge of redemptions by frantic investors
who want to get their money back before the listing ship heads for Davey Jones locker. This is the market
that Bernanke wants the American people to bail out mainly because he doesn't want to submerge the Fed's
balance sheet in red ink. He wants to find a sucker who will take the loss instead. That's where Uncle Sam
comes in, he's the target of this subterfuge. This same theme pops up in a piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Check it out:
"At least Treasury has come around
to realizing it needs a facility to provide liquidity for companies. But as we write this, Mr. Mnuchin
was still insisting that Treasury have control of most of the money to be able to ladle out directly to
companies it wants to help. This is a recipe for picking winners and losers, and thus for bitter
political fights and months of ugly headlines charging favoritism. The far better answer is for Treasury
to use money from Congress to replenish the Exchange Stabilization Fund to back the Fed in creating a
facility or special-purpose vehicles under Section 13(3) to lend the money to all comers. "(
"Leaderless
on the Econom"
, Wall Street Journal)
I can hardly believe the author is bold
enough to say this right to our faces. Read it carefully: They are saying "We want your money, but not your
advice. The Fed will choose who gets the cash and who doesn't. Just put your trillions on the counter and
get the hell out."
Isn't that what they're saying? Of
course it is. And the rest of the article is even more arrogant:
"The Fed can charge a
non-concessionary rate, but the vehicles should be open to those who think they need the money, not
merely to those Treasury decides are worthy." (Huh? So the Treasury should have no say so in who gets
taxpayer money??) The looming liquidity crisis is simply too great for that kind of bureaucratic,
politicized decision-making. (Wall Street Journal)
Get it? In other words, the folks at
Treasury are just too stupid or too prejudiced to understand the subtleties of a bigass bailout like this.
Is that arrogance or what?
This is the contempt these people have
for you and me and everyone else who isn't a part of their elitist gaggle of reprobates. Here's a clip from
another article at the WSJ that helps to show how the financial media is pushing this gigantic handout to
corporate America:.
"The Federal Reserve, Treasury
Department and banking regulators deserve congratulations for their bold, necessary actions to provide
liquidity to the U.S. financial system amid the coronavirus crisis. But more remains to be done. We thus
recommend: (1) immediate congressional action . to authorize the Treasury to use the Exchange
Stabilization Fund to guarantee prime money-market funds, (2) regulatory action to effect temporary
reductions in bank capital and liquidity requirements (NOTE–So now the banks don't need to hold capital
against their loans?) .. additional Fed lending to banks and nonbanks .(Note -by "nonbanks", does the
author mean underwater hedge funds?)
We recommend that the Fed take
further actions as lender of last resort. First, it should re-establish the Term Auction Facility, used
in the 2008 crisis, allowing depository institutions to borrow against a broad range of collateral at an
auction price (Note–They want to drop the requirement for good Triple A collateral.) Second, it should
consider further exercising its Section 13(3) authority to provide additional liquidity to nonbanks,
potentially including purchases of corporate debt through a special-purpose vehicle" (
"Do
More to Avert a Liquidity Crisis"
, Wall Street Journal
)
This isn't a bailout, it's a joke, and
there's no way Congress should approve these measures, particularly the merging of the US Treasury with the
cutthroat Fed. That's a prescription for disaster! The Fed needs to be abolished not embraced as a state
institution. It's madness!
And look how the author wants to set up
an special-purpose vehicle (SPV) so the accounting chicanery can be kept off the books which means the
public won't know how much money is being flushed down the toilet trying to resuscitate these insolvent
corporations whose executives are still living high on the hog on the money they stole from credulous
investors. This whole scam stinks to high heaven!
Meanwhile America's working people will
get a whopping $1,000 bucks to tide them over until the debts pile up to the rafters and they're forced to
rob the neighborhood 7-11 to feed the kids. How fair is that?
And don't kid yourself: This isn't a
bailout, it's the elitist's political agenda aimed at creating a permanent underclass who'll work for
peanuts just to eek out a living.
In 2008-2009, the Federal Reserve bailed out the global banking system to the tune of $16 Trillion. But
American citizens were left to pay usurious rates of interest on $1 Trillion of credit card debt. And
American students had lost years of economic opportunity but their $1 Trillion dollars of debt could not be
discharged through bankruptcy.
This time the banks should stand behind the debtors at the government
troth.
It's hard to understand how holiday cruise shipping can be regarded as an essential business.
It is almost as hard to understand why a "Globalist Enterprise" should be spared its fate through the
generosity of of one country. Even harder to understand, why would that one country should bail out a
business, which had employed both tax-avoidance schemes as well as strategy import substitution and foreign
investment to improve its profits at the expense of that country.
Nationalism is better that globalism. The current crisis was not caused by globalism; but globalism has
drained from our country the means to respond to the crisis with the medicines and equipment that would
reduce its severity.
Not a single cent of government aid should go toward a person or an entity outside the United States and
it territories. Conditions should be placed upon such aid, so that the companies receiving it, must
domesticate their supply chains, and must produce and develop their products within the United States.
@anachronism
Make the universities discharge the student debt. It was their scam all along. They can begin by retrenching
their schools of the humanities and at least halving their administrative staff. And end building and sports
programs. The fat hangs heavy on that particular pig.
The student and the university should share responsibility equally. In
the future, the institution should be made a co-signor on any student loan; and the obligation to repay
the loan should be joint and several for both the institution and the student.
Bankruptcy provides the ex-student with the chance to start over and to escape the burden; but not
without consequences. This will discourage the ex-student, who is doing well financially and has the
means to service the debt, from just walking away.
"... It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did ..."
"... Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East. Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States. ..."
"... Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy. ..."
"... Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president. ..."
Now that the
Democratic Party has apparently succeeded in getting rid of the only two voices among its
presidential candidates that actually deviated from the establishment consensus, it appears
that Joe Biden will be running against Donald Trump in November. To be sure, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard are still hanging on, but the fix was in and the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) made sure that Sanders would be given the death blow on Super Tuesday while Gabbard would
be blocked from participating in any of the late term debates.
It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete
Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an
intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering
the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and
throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did. Rumor has it that Klobuchar might well
wind up as Biden's vice president. An alternative tale is that it was a much more threatening
"offer that couldn't be refused" coming from the Clintons.
... ... ...
Both Trump and Biden might reasonably described as Zionists, Trump by virtue of the
made-in-Israel foreign policy positions he has delivered on since his election, and Biden by
word and deed during his entire time in politics. When Biden encountered Sarah Palin in 2008 in
the vice-presidential debate, he and Palin sought to outdo each other in enthusing over how
much they love the Jewish state. Biden has said that "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a
Jew to be a Zionist" and also, ridiculously, "Were there not an Israel, the U.S. would have to
invent one. We will never abandon Israel -- out of our own self-interest. [It] is the best $3
billion investment we make." Biden has been a regular feature speaker at the annual AIPAC
summit in Washington.
Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as
surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is
criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being
said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a
consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East.
Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States.
Trump similarly reversed himself on withdrawing from Syria when he ran into criticism of the
move and his plan to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, if it develops at all, could
easily be subjected to similar revision. Trump is not really the man who as a candidate
indicated that he was seriously looking for a way out of America's endless and pointless wars,
no matter what his supporters continue to assert.
Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate
Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack
Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to
create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that
had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was
suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until
after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy.
Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which
include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he
actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is
clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the
establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president.
And Biden's foreign policy reminiscences are is subject to what appear to be memory losses
or inability to articulate, illustrated by a whole series of faux pas during the campaign. He
has a number of times told a tale of his heroism in Afghanistan that is
complete fiction , similar to Hillary Clinton's lying claims of courage under fire in
Bosnia.
So, we have a president in place who takes foreign policy personally in that his first
thoughts are "how does it make me look?" and a prospective challenger who appears to be
suffering from initial stages of dementia and who has always been relied upon to support the
establishment line, whatever it might be. Though Trump is the more dangerous of the two as he
is both unpredictable and irrational, the likelihood is that Biden will be guided by the
Clintons and Obamas. To put it another way, no matter who is president the likelihood that the
United States will change direction to get away from its interventionism and bullying on a
global scale is virtually nonexistent. At least until the money runs out. Or to express it as a
friend of mine does, "No matter who is elected we Americans wind up getting John McCain."
Goodnight America!
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and
the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London. "
Source "
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
"... the Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments. ..."
"... The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [ 2 ]. This apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the Gospel. ..."
"... It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19, making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this fear. ..."
"... Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant consequences in terms of mortality. ..."
"... The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being. ..."
"... It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting Covid-19. ..."
Returning to the Covid-19 epidemic and the way governments are reacting to it, Thierry
Meyssan stresses that the authoritarian decisions of Italy and France have no medical
justification. They contradict the observations of the best infectiologists and the
instructions of the World Health Organization.
The Chinese Prime Minister, Li Keqiang, came to lead the operations in Wuhan and restore
the "celestial mandate" on January 27, 2020.
On November 17, 2019, the first case of a person infected with Covid-19 was diagnosed in
Hubei Province, China. Initially, doctors tried to communicate the seriousness of the disease,
but clashed with regional authorities. It was only when the number of cases increased and the
population saw the seriousness of the disease that the central government intervened.
This epidemic is not statistically significant. It kills very few people, although those it
does kill experience terrible respiratory distress.
Since ancient times, in Chinese culture, Heaven has given a mandate to the Emperor to govern
his subjects [ 1 ]. When he withdraws it, a disaster
strikes the country: epidemic, earthquake, etc. Although we are in modern times, President XI
felt threatened by the mismanagement of the Hubei regional government. The Council of State
therefore took matters into its own hands. It forced the population of Hubei's capital, Wuhan,
to remain confined to their homes. Within days, it built hospitals; sent teams to each house to
take the temperature of each inhabitant; took all potentially infected people to hospitals for
testing; treated those infected with chloroquine phosphate and sent others home; and treated
the critically ill with recombinant interferon Alfa 2B (IFNrec) for resuscitation. This vast
operation had no public health necessity, other than to prove that the Communist Party still
has the heavenly mandate.
During a press conference on Covid-19, the Iranian Deputy Minister of Health, Iraj
Harirchi, appeared contaminated.
Propagation in Iran
The epidemic spreads from China to Iran in mid-February 2020. These two countries have been
closely linked since ancient times. They share many common cultural elements. However, the
Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty
suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First
Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller
to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments.
When air pollution in Tehran increased beyond what they could bear, schools and government
offices were closed and half of the families moved to the countryside with their grandparents.
This has been happening several times a year for thirty-five years and seems normal.
The government and parliament are almost exclusively composed of veterans of the Iraq-Iran
war, that is, people who are extremely fragile in relation to Covid-19. So when these groups
were infected, many personalities developed the disease.
In view of the US sanctions, no Western bank covers the transport of medicines. Iran found
itself unable to treat the infected and care for the sick until the UAE broke the embargo and
sent two planes of medical equipment.
People who would not suffer in the other country died from the first coughs due to the
wounds in their lungs. As usual, the government closed schools. In addition, it deprogrammed
several cultural and sporting events, but did not ban pilgrimages. Some areas have closed
hotels to prevent the movement of sick people who can no longer find hospitals close to their
homes.
Quarantine in Japan
On February 4, 2020, a passenger on the US cruise ship Diamond Princess was diagnosed ill
from the Covid-19 and ten passengers were infected. The Japanese Minister of Health, Katsunobu
Kato, then imposed a two-week quarantine on the ship in Yokohama in order to prevent the
contagion from spreading to his country. In the end, out of the 3,711 people on board, the vast
majority of whom are over 70 years old, there would be 7 deaths.
The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari
Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public
relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their
nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this
story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could
spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [
2 ]. This
apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the
Gospel.
We remember that in 1898, William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, in order to increase the sales
of their daily newspapers, published false information in order to deliberately provoke a war
between the United States and the Spanish colony of Cuba. This was the beginning of "yellow
journalism" (publishing anything to make money). Today it is called "fake news".
It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19,
making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after
another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling
advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this
fear.
For the WHO Director, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, China and South Korea have set an
example by generalising screening tests; a way of saying that the Italian and French methods
are medical nonsense.
WHO intervention
The World Health Organization (WHO), which monitored the entire operation, noted the spread
of the disease outside China. On February 11th and 12th, it organized a global forum on
research and innovation on the epidemic in Geneva. At the forum, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus called in very measured terms for global collaboration [ 3 ].
In all of its messages, the WHO stressed : the low demographic impact of the epidemic; the
futility of border closures; the ineffectiveness of wearing gloves, masks (except for health
care workers) and certain "barrier measures" (for example, the distance of one metre only makes
sense with infected people, but not with healthy people); the need to raise the level of
hygiene, including hand washing, water disinfection and increased ventilation of confined
spaces. Finally, use disposable tissues or, failing that, sneeze into your elbow.
However, the WHO is not a medical organization, but a United Nations agency dealing with
health issues. Its officials, even if they are doctors, are also and above all politicians. It
cannot therefore denounce the abuses of certain states. Furthermore, since the controversy over
the H1N1 epidemic, the WHO must publicly justify all its recommendations. In 2009, it was
accused of having let itself be swayed by the interests of big pharmaceutical companies and of
having hastily sounded the alarm in a disproportionate manner [ 4 ]. This time it used the word
"pandemic" only as a last resort, on March 12th, four months later.
At the Franco-Italian summit in Naples on February 27, the French and Italian presidents,
Giuseppe Conte and Emmanuel Macron, announced that they would react together to the
pandemic.
Instrumentation in Italy and France
Modern propaganda should not be limited to the publication of false news as the United
Kingdom did to convince its people to enter the First World War, but should also be used in the
same way as Germany did to convince its people to fight in the Second World War. The recipe is
always the same: to exert psychological pressure to induce subjects to voluntarily practice
acts that they know are useless, but which will lead them to lie [ 5 ]. For example, in 2001, it was
common knowledge that those accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were not on the passenger
boarding lists. Yet, in shock, most accepted without question the inane accusations made by FBI
Director Robert Muller against "19 hijackers". Or, as is well known, President Hussein's Iraq
had only old Soviet Scud launchers with a range of up to 700 kilometers, but many Americans
caulked the windows and doors of their homes to protect themselves from the deadly gases with
which the evil dictator was going to attack America. This time, in the case of the Covid-19, it
is the voluntary confinement in the home that forces the person who accepts it to convince
himself of the veracity of the threat.
Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been
used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant
consequences in terms of mortality.
In Italy, the first step was to isolate the contaminated regions according to the principle
of quarantine, and then to isolate all citizens from each other, which follows a different
logic.
According to the President of the Italian Council, Giuseppe Conte, and the French President,
Emmanuel Macron, the aim of confining the entire population at home is not to overcome the
epidemic, but to spread it out over time so that the sick do not arrive at the same time in
hospitals and saturate them. In other words, it is not a medical measure, but an exclusively
administrative one. It will not reduce the number of infected people, but will postpone it in
time.
In order to convince the Italians and the French of the merits of their decision, Presidents
Conte and Macron first enlisted the support of committees of scientific experts. While these
committees had no objection to people staying at home, they had no objection to people going
about their business. Then Chairs Conte and Macron made it mandatory to have an official form
to go for a walk. This document on the letterheads of the respective ministries of the interior
is drawn up on honour and is not subject to any checks or sanctions.
The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions
disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all
circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being.
The French "reference daily" (sic) Le Monde, Facebook France and the French Ministry of
Health undertook to censor a video of Professor Didier Raoult, one of the world's most renowned
infectiologists, because by announcing the existence of a proven drug in China against
Covid-19, he highlighted the lack of a medical basis for the measures taken by President Macron
[ 6 ].
It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The
only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting
Covid-19.
@SBaker "It's beyond dispute that the novel coronavirus officially known as
COVID-19originated in Wuhan, China."
No, it's being disputed every day. That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike
Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.
... that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the
virus.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 19 2020 18:20 utc | 106
The "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19" states that China transparently
reported the identification of virus to the WHO and the international community on January
3rd, and a WHO investigative team was invited to Wuhan a week after that.
From January 3rd, 2020, information on COVID-19 cases has been reported to WHO daily.
On January 7th, full genome sequences of the new virus were shared with WHO and the
international community immediately after the pathogen was identified.
On January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical
experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan.
Miss Lacy and Arby both draw our attention to the obscenity of the US using this crisis in
order to put pressure on governments that it dislikes by cutting off medicine and other
resources.
Among the places where people are currently dying in large numbers because Washington
chooses that they should are Cuba-under an oil embargo-, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran.
Those who cannot bring themselves to believe that government could be so evil as to deploy
a virus as a weapon to weaken another state, only have to look at what is happening today:
Venezuela desperately needs funds, much of its foreign exchange having been seized illegally
by the US and its satellites, in order to weather the pandemic.
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass
another state, is an accessory to murder.
Posted by: arby | Mar 18 2020 14:32 utc | 11
Posted by: Miss Lacy | Mar 18 2020 18:15 utc | 50
Posted by: bevin | Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 55
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to
embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.
Although many argue that the foreign policies of the US government don't really reflect
the views and desires of ordinary citizens, the comments in the Fox News report on this story
suggest otherwise (caveat - be prepared to be appalled).
Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were
watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here https://vimeo.com/76668594
This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme
parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an
almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to
be had by all.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well ..."
"... "are out to get a military victory in all of Syria," ..."
"... Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other actions. ..."
"... "in a very savage military way" ..."
"... "a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances." ..."
"... "a complication" ..."
"... "three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are women and children," ..."
"... "Russian aggression" ..."
"... I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are more than capable of holding ground on their own. ..."
"... "Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways," ..."
"... "There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter." ..."
The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib
against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well
.
Russia and the Syrian government
"are out to get a military victory in all of Syria,"
Ambassador James Jeffrey told
reporters
on a conference call
out of Brussels on Tuesday.
Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other
actions.
To illustrate these methods, Jeffrey cited the US threat to respond
"in a very savage military way"
against any
chemical attacks, which he described as
"a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances."
This is
factually untrue, since the alleged attacks always happen
after
Syrian Army victories, as a pretext for US
intervention.
Jeffrey also noted that there are US and coalition troops in parts of Syria – officially there to fight Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS), but in actuality
"guarding"
the oil fields. He tellingly described their presence as
"a
complication"
for the Syrian government.
Jeffrey and US ambassador to Turkey David Satterfield were in Brussels after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
visit, to discuss ways the US and NATO can help Ankara protect its pet militants in their last remaining redoubt – Syria's
Idlib province.
But while Satterfield described Idlib as containing
"three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are
women and children,"
and accused
"Russian aggression"
of seeking to displace them, listen to how Jeffrey chose
to describe the situation, when asked by a CNN reporter if NATO was considering sending in ground troops:
I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are
more than capable of holding ground on their own.
This is either appallingly ignorant or downright delusional, as the Syrian army had successfully rolled up the
Turkish-backed militants and the ceasefire Ankara agreed to in Moscow last week confirmed that.
Résumé par dates clés de l'opération de l'armée syrienne dans la région d'
#Idlib
jusqu'à l'accord de cessez-le-feu négocié par la
#Russie
et la
#Turquie
(phase 1 : 6 mai - 31 août 2019
; phase 2 : 19 déc 2019 - 6 mars 2020)
pic.twitter.com/FcNWUThWBa
The real revelation here is that the militants are described as Turkey's
"opposition."
Contrast this with the
words of Colonel Myles Caggins, spokesman for the anti-ISIS coalition's military arm, just three weeks ago:
"Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways,"
Caggins told Sky News.
"There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter."
Bear in mind that Jeffrey doubles as Washington's special envoy to the coalition against IS, that infamous Schroedinger
entity that either doesn't exist any more – when US President Donald Trump seeks to claim victory against the self-proclaimed
caliphate – or is about to make a resurgence big time and requires US military presence in perpetuity to prevent that, as the
State Department and the Pentagon prefer to see it.
Needless to say, this entrenched insistence on legacy policies doesn't do much for Trump's promise to pull out US troops
from
"endless wars"
in the Middle East.
Neither Jeffrey nor Satterfield, nor any of the reporters asking them questions, mentioned even once the existence of Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham – the latest incarnation of the notorious Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate whose fighters dominate the ranks of
the militants in Idlib. Listening to them, one might think it doesn't exist!
Jeffrey and Satterfield openly admit that an outright Syrian victory over these terrorists would deny the "international
community" – as they style the US and its allies – the leverage to insist on regime change in Damascus. Which is incredibly
rich in irony given that the sole legal pretext on which the US has any troops in Syria, in open violation of international
law, is a congressional authorization to use force against... Al-Qaeda.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a
regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
"... The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well ..."
"... "are out to get a military victory in all of Syria," ..."
"... Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other actions. ..."
"... "in a very savage military way" ..."
"... "a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances." ..."
"... "a complication" ..."
"... "three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are women and children," ..."
"... "Russian aggression" ..."
"... I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are more than capable of holding ground on their own. ..."
"... "Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways," ..."
"... "There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter." ..."
The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib
against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well
.
Russia and the Syrian government
"are out to get a military victory in all of Syria,"
Ambassador James Jeffrey told
reporters
on a conference call
out of Brussels on Tuesday.
Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other
actions.
To illustrate these methods, Jeffrey cited the US threat to respond
"in a very savage military way"
against any
chemical attacks, which he described as
"a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances."
This is
factually untrue, since the alleged attacks always happen
after
Syrian Army victories, as a pretext for US
intervention.
Jeffrey also noted that there are US and coalition troops in parts of Syria – officially there to fight Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS), but in actuality
"guarding"
the oil fields. He tellingly described their presence as
"a
complication"
for the Syrian government.
Jeffrey and US ambassador to Turkey David Satterfield were in Brussels after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
visit, to discuss ways the US and NATO can help Ankara protect its pet militants in their last remaining redoubt – Syria's
Idlib province.
But while Satterfield described Idlib as containing
"three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are
women and children,"
and accused
"Russian aggression"
of seeking to displace them, listen to how Jeffrey chose
to describe the situation, when asked by a CNN reporter if NATO was considering sending in ground troops:
I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are
more than capable of holding ground on their own.
This is either appallingly ignorant or downright delusional, as the Syrian army had successfully rolled up the
Turkish-backed militants and the ceasefire Ankara agreed to in Moscow last week confirmed that.
Résumé par dates clés de l'opération de l'armée syrienne dans la région d'
#Idlib
jusqu'à l'accord de cessez-le-feu négocié par la
#Russie
et la
#Turquie
(phase 1 : 6 mai - 31 août 2019
; phase 2 : 19 déc 2019 - 6 mars 2020)
pic.twitter.com/FcNWUThWBa
The real revelation here is that the militants are described as Turkey's
"opposition."
Contrast this with the
words of Colonel Myles Caggins, spokesman for the anti-ISIS coalition's military arm, just three weeks ago:
"Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways,"
Caggins told Sky News.
"There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter."
Bear in mind that Jeffrey doubles as Washington's special envoy to the coalition against IS, that infamous Schroedinger
entity that either doesn't exist any more – when US President Donald Trump seeks to claim victory against the self-proclaimed
caliphate – or is about to make a resurgence big time and requires US military presence in perpetuity to prevent that, as the
State Department and the Pentagon prefer to see it.
Needless to say, this entrenched insistence on legacy policies doesn't do much for Trump's promise to pull out US troops
from
"endless wars"
in the Middle East.
Neither Jeffrey nor Satterfield, nor any of the reporters asking them questions, mentioned even once the existence of Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham – the latest incarnation of the notorious Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate whose fighters dominate the ranks of
the militants in Idlib. Listening to them, one might think it doesn't exist!
Jeffrey and Satterfield openly admit that an outright Syrian victory over these terrorists would deny the "international
community" – as they style the US and its allies – the leverage to insist on regime change in Damascus. Which is incredibly
rich in irony given that the sole legal pretext on which the US has any troops in Syria, in open violation of international
law, is a congressional authorization to use force against... Al-Qaeda.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a
regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
There
was this moment during the State of the Union Address that I can't stop thinking about.
When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he'd
arranged her husband's return home from Afghanistan as a "special surprise," it was difficult
to watch.
Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven
months of deployment. Congress cheered. A military family's reunion -- with its complicated
feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base -- was used for an applause
line.
That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars
overseas. There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan, or beyond.
That's unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.
The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops
currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.
That's a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a
disaster and are negotiating an exit.
But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia,
Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror -- and making it deadlier.
Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump,
leading to more
civilian casualties in both countries. In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are
supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war. It received little coverage
in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more
than 80 people.
Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other
countries, pay the price of these wars. Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties --
the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.
And don't forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially
catastrophic war with Iran. And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country,
devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.
Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed
14,000 more
troops in the Middle East -- beyond the tens of thousands already there.
If this seems surprising, it's in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many
congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.
In December, 188 House Democrats
joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the
wars. They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California
Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.
It's worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and
joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family. Because there has
been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.
Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests -- from weapons manufacturers to
politicians -- are too invested. But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real
opposition will come from inside the White House.
As with so many other issues -- like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people
flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the
border -- those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders
follow. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Khury Petersen-Smith
"Perhaps this will finally burst the out-of-control asset price bubble and drop-kick the
Outlaw US Empire's economy into the sewer as the much lower price will rapidly slow the
recycling of what remains of the petrodollar. Looks like Trump's reelection push just fell
into a massive sinkhole as the economy will tank."
Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 9 2020 1:29 utc | 49
....
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't worry...just continue to go shopping and take those selfies.
It will be hard for the American people to swallow that one. From day 1 I've read a lot of
"articles" and "papers" from know-it-all Western doctors and researchers from commenters here
in this blog, all of them claiming to have very precise and definitive data on what was
happening. A lot of bombastic conclusions I've read here (including one that claimed R0 was
through the roof - it's funny how the R0 is being played down after it begun to infect the
West; suddenly, it's all just a stronger cold...).
And that's just here, in MoA's comment section. Imagine what was being published in the
Western MSM. I wouldn't be surprised there was a lot of rednecks popping their beers
celebrating the fall of China already.
Since China allegedly had a lot of idle industrial capacity - that is, if we take the
Western MSM theories seriously (including the fabled "ghost towns" stories) - then boosting
production wouldn't be a problem to China.
Disclaimer: it's normal for any kind of economy - socialist or capitalist - to have a
certain percentage of idle capacity. That's necessary in order to insure the economy against
unexpected oscillations in demand and to give space of maneuvre for future technological
progress. Indeed, that was one of the USSR's mistakes with its economy: they instinctly
thought unemployment should be zero, and waste should also be zero, so they planned in a way
all the factories always sought to operate at 100% capacity. That became a problem when
better machines and better methods were invented, since the factory manager wouldn't want to
stop production so that his factory would fall behind the other factories in the five-year
plan's goals. So, yes, China indeed has idle capacity - but it is mainly proposital, not a
failure of its socialist planning.
By the latest count, in addition to yuan loans worth 113 billion U.S. dollars granted by
financial institutions and more than 70 billion U.S. dollars paid out by insurance companies,
the Chinese government has allocated about 13 billion U.S. dollars to counter fallout from
the outbreak.
The numbers could look abstract. However, breaking the data down reveals how the money is
being carefully targeted. The government is allocating the money based on a thorough
evaluation of the system's strengths.
...
Local governments are equipped with more local knowledge that allows them to surgically
support key manufacturers or producers that are struggling.
Together, they have borne the bulk of the financial responsibility with an allocation of
equivalently more than nine billion U.S. dollars. It is carefully targeted, divided into
hundreds of thousands of individual grants that are tailor-made by and for each county, town,
city and business.
This is the mark of a socialist system.
The affected capitalist countries will simply use monetary devices (so the private sector
can offset the losses) and burn their own reserves with non-profitable palliatives such as
masks, tests, other quarantine infrastructure etc.
Sounds like US socialism. Basically corporate socialism. Loans are just dollars created out
of thin air, same as in US. Insurance payouts come from premiums, nothing socialist about
that, pure capitalism. Government hand outs to provinces, cities, state owned
corporations,well all of these are run by the party elite, its called pork. US handed out a
lot of pork during the last financial crisis. None of it trickled down to the little people.
I doubt it does in China either.
All crisis are opportunities for the elite to get richer. Those Biolake firms in Wuhan
will make out like bandits. Chinese firms will double the price of API's sold to India and
US. China will knock out the small farmer in the wake of concurrent chicken and swine flu so
the big enterprises take over, a mimicry of the US practice over the last century. China tech
firms will double up on surveillance apps, censoring tools, surveillance and toughen up
social credit restrictions. 5G will allow China to experiment with nanobots to monitor
citizens health from afar (thanks to Harvards Dr Leiber).
Oh yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a technocratic capitalists dream. Thats
why the West has never imposed sanctions on China since welcoming them to the global elites
club. Sanctions are reserved for those with true socialism, especially those who preach
equality and god forbid, democracy.
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't forget the Russians.. They have to be to blame. See they just kept the price of oil low
so now the rest of the world gets gas cheaper than the USA. The USA motorist now has to bail
out the dopey frackers and shale oil ponzis.
Global envy will eat murica. Maybe they will just pull out all their troops and go home.
;)
"... The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again." ..."
"... Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new article for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this: ..."
"... As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future, and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain. ..."
"... basically, a Biden foreign policy would be "Obama but worse" https://t.co/wIZwch5Bmk ..."
"... Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S. engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization. ..."
"... Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse. ..."
"... Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the world we live in. ..."
"... Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. ..."
"... Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start and legitimize the Iraq war? ..."
"... Bottom line is Biden is fraud and everything he and his handlers say or write must be viewed as such. ..."
oe Biden's candidacy is defined by the idea that he will "restore" things to the way they were four years ago and that he will
preside over a "return to normalcy" after the Trump years. The
phrase "return
to normalcy" has been
linked to the
Biden campaign
for the better part of the last year. TAC 's Curt Mills
commented on this
after Biden's recent primary wins:
Biden then, not Trump, would be the candidate of the centennial. Like Warren Harding, he promises a return to normalcy.
The Harding comparison is quite useful because it shows how Biden's "return to normalcy" will be quite different from the one
Harding proposed a century ago. Harding contrasted
normalcy with "nostrums." This was a shot at the ideological fantasies of the Wilson era and the upheaval that had come with U.S.
entry into WWI. This is the
full quote :
America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation,
but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence
in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.
The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration
would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent
discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again."
Where Harding's "normalcy" represented the repudiation of Wilsonian fantasies, Biden's would be an attempt to revive them at least
in part. Harding contrasted "normalcy" with Wilson's "nostrums," but Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric
about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new
article
for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this:
As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future,
and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that
took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain.
The Cold War ended thirty years ago, and it is telling that Biden does not point to any victories for the U.S. in the decades
that have followed. Proponents of U.S. global "leadership" have to keep reaching farther and farther back in time to recall a time
when U.S. "leadership" was successful, and they have remarkably little to say about the thirty years when they have been running
things. That is what they want to "restore," but it's not clear why Americans should want to go back to a status quo ante that produced
such staggering and costly failures as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Like the early 19th century Bourbon restoration, it would be
a return to power for those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
John Carl Baker comments on an op-ed co-authored last year by Robert Kagan and Anthony Blinken. Blinken is now Biden's main foreign
policy adviser, and that leads Baker to draw this conclusion:
Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but
more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S.
engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization.
Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare
is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails
U.S. foreign policy.
I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the
wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including
unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold
War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse.
I'm one of those poor saps who was taken in by Trump in 2016, and I want a Democrat I can vote for. I can't see voting for
someone with Biden's appalling foreign policy record. If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose
to Trump.
"If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose to Trump."
I don't know about that. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really
outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the
world we live in.
Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to
hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. The only recantation I would find somewhat persuasive (I don't think anything would "convince"
me) is if he were to state that he will appoint somebody like Sanders or Rand Paul as secretary of State and someone like Tulsi
Gabbard as secretary of Defense, and staff his national security council by recruiting from the Quincy Institute. (To actually
capture my vote would require additional personnel commitments, such as Elizabeth Warren for secretary of the Treasury--but that's
off topic for this thread.)
Right now, I would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination and doesn't do something between now and November to alienate
me. If Biden is the nominee, barring something really drastic, I'll do my usual and find a third party candidate to vote for.
Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start
and legitimize the Iraq war? Just accusing Biden of voting for the Iraq war is nothing. About 70 other senators have voted for
it. Biden was the legislative Architect that paved the way for the Iraq War, and in my books (keeping the UN Charter as the legal
standard), he is a War Criminal.
I realize that almost everything Biden has to say about foreign policy is abysmal, and both Sanders and Warren were much better,
but neither were electable (and both were abysmal on domestic policy and trade policy). Biden may be banal, but he is not vicious,
as Trump so clearly is.
Furthermore, I think the otherwise estimable Mr. Larison fails to realize that the general public does
set some vague parameters for what is and what is not acceptable foreign policy, though often without knowing it. I think it quite
likely that Donald Trump will "abandon" Afghanistan, just as Max Boot et al. fear, and no one who can't name the Acela stops between
New York and DC will care. Trump, when he isn't assassinating people, is much less aggressive than the Obama/Clinton administration.
Although he talks about regime change, he doesn't follow through. He can be talked out of withdrawing troops, but so far hasn't
tried sending them in. Early in his administration he was widely praised for firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Why hasn't he
done it again? There is nothing Trump likes so much as praise. Why abandon what seemed like a sure-fire applause line?
The "electability" concept is something mostly constructed by the media. Only a very small percentage of voters come in direct
contact and hear and observe the candidates. The very brief TV debates, much choreographed and controlled are no good. As such,
media starts and keeps repeating this notion of electability.
As a person, presence, message, I think the most charismatic individual to show up for this presidential cycle is Tulsi Gabbard.
Her showing is off the charts compared with everyone else. Beside her anti regime change message (she is not necessarily anti-war),
her charisma is such a threat that she had to be excluded from the consciousness and awareness of people. And what was implanted
in people's mind is that she is an Assad apologist and that she met with the blood thirsty Assad.
How about restoration of the "normalcy" of bipartisan consensus on "comprehensive immigration reform" AKA a general amnesty which
will likely benefit some 25 to 35 million illegal aliens plus their descendants, in practice?
It doesn't seem to make much sense harping about restoring sanity to American foreign policy when America might not even exist
in 20 years.
Well they signed the agreement with the Taliban and two days later the DOD was bombing
them again so who knows what happens there.
Trump has declared all sorts of deals that ultimately turned into puffs of smoke -- the
non-deal with North Korea comes to mind. I consider pulling out of the TPP and tariffs
against China more indicative of bucking the consensus, but those can be reversed by Trump or
any other president whenever they feel like it.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because
the initiators, financiers and a large part of the anti-government fighters come from
abroad.
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army, like its direct opponents,
is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected, because
the allegedly competing gas pipeline projects never existed to begin with, as even the
Syrian president confirmed.
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change, which developed
into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the
US, Great Britain and France – and Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because the initiators, financiers and
a large part of the anti-government fighters
come from abroad .
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army – like its direct opponents – is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected,
because the allegedly
competing gas pipeline projects
never
existed to begin with, as even the Syrian president
confirmed .
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change
, which developed into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the US, Great Britain and France – and
Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
In fact, already since the 1940s the US has repeatedly
attempted to install a pro-Western government
in Syria, such as in 1949, 1956, 1957, after 1980 and after 2003, but without success so far. This makes Syria – since the fall of
Libya – the last Mediterranean country independent
of NATO.
Thus, in the course of the „Arab Spring" of 2011, NATO and its allies, especially Israel and the Gulf States,
decided to try again. To this end, politically and economically motivated protests in Syria were used and were quickly
escalated into an armed conflict.
NATO's original strategy of 2011 was based on the Afghanistan
war of the 1980s and aimed at conquering Syria mainly through positively portrayed Islamist militias (so-called „rebels").
This did not succeed, however, because the militias lacked an air force and anti-aircraft missiles.
Hence from 2013 onwards,
various poison gas
attacks were
staged in order to be able to deploy the NATO air force as part of a „humanitarian intervention" similar to the earlier wars
against Libya and Yugoslavia. But this did not succeed either, mainly because Russia and China blocked a UN mandate.
As of 2014, therefore, additional but negatively portrayed Islamist militias („terrorists") were covertly
established in Syria
and Iraq via NATO partners Turkey and Jordan, secretly
supplied
with weapons and vehicles
and indirectly
financed
by oil exports via the Turkish Ceyhan terminal.
ISIS: Supply and export routes through NATO partners Turkey and Jordan (ISW / Atlantic, 2015)
Media-effective
atrocity propaganda and mysterious „terrorist attacks" in Europe and the US then offered the opportunity to intervene in Syria
using the NATO air force even without a UN mandate – ostensibly to fight the „terrorists", but
in reality still to conquer Syria and topple
its government.
This plan failed again, however, as Russia also used the presence of the „terrorists" in autumn 2015 as a justification
for direct military
intervention and was now able to attack both the „terrorists" and parts of NATO's „rebels" while simultaneously securing
the Syrian airspace to a large extent.
By the end of 2016, the Syrian army thus succeeded in
recapturing the city of Aleppo.
From 2016 onwards, NATO therefore switched back to positively portrayed but now Kurdish-ledmilitias (the SDF) in order to still have unassailable
ground forces available and to conquer the Syrian territory held by the previously established „terrorists" before Syria and Russia
could do so themselves.
This led to a kind of
„race"
to conquer cities such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in 2017 and to a temporary division of Syria along the Euphrates river into a (largely)
Syrian-controlled West and a Kurdish (or rather American) controlled East (see map below).
This move, however, brought NATO into
conflict
with its key member Turkey, because Turkey did not accept a Kurdish-controlled territory on its southern border. As a result, the
NATO alliance became increasingly divided from 2018 onwards.
Turkey now fought the Kurds in
northern Syria and at the same time supported the remaining Islamists in the north-western province of Idlib against the Syrian army,
while the Americans eventually
withdrew
to the eastern Syrian oil fields in order to retain a political bargaining chip.
While Turkey supported Islamists in northern Syria, Israel more or less covertly
supplied Islamists in southern Syria and at the same time fought Iranian and Lebanese (Hezbollah) units with air strikes, though
without lasting success: the militias in southern Syria had to surrender in 2018.
Ultimately, some NATO members
tried to use a confrontation between the Turkish and Syrian armies in the province of Idlib as a last option to escalate the
war. In addition to the situation in Idlib, the issues of the occupied territories in the north and east of Syria remain to be resolved,
too.
Russia, for its part, has tried to draw Turkey out of the NATO alliance and onto its own side as far as possible. Modern Turkey,
however, is pursuing a rather far-reaching geopolitical
strategy of its own, which is also increasingly clashing with Russian interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.
As part of this geopolitical strategy, Turkey in 2015 and 2020 even used the so-called
"weapon of mass migration" , which may serve to destabilize
both Syria (so-called strategic depopulation
) and Europe, as well as to extort financial, political or military support from the European Union.
Syria: The situation in February 2020
What role did the Western media play in this war?
The task of NATO-compliant media was to portray
the war against Syria as a „civil war", the Islamist „rebels" positively, the Islamist „terrorists" and the Syrian government negatively,
the alleged „poison gas attacks" credibly and the NATO intervention consequently as legitimate.
Since 2019, NATO-compliant media moreover had to conceal or discredit various leaks and whistleblowers that began to prove the
covert Western arms deliveries
to the Islamist „rebels" and „terrorists" as well as the staged
„poison gas attacks"
.
But if even the „terrorists" in Syria were demonstrably established and equipped by NATO states, what role then did the mysterious
„caliph of terror" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi play? He possibly played a similar role as his direct
predecessor , Omar al-Baghdadi – who was a
phantom .
Thanks to new communication technologies and on-site sources, the Syria war was also the first war about which
independent media could report almost in real-time and thus for
the first time significantly influenced the public perception of events – a potentially historic change.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from SPR
Order Mark Taliano's Book "Voices from Syria"
directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis
that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
"... Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind? She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a intelligence agency boss? ..."
"... The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one another. ..."
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind? She is obviously a
torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
"... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
"... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an
op-ed for Rare
that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.
"Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually
every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"
Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.
Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.
The Washington Post's David Weigel
reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that
he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated
for secretary of state."
"It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq
War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump
said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war].
I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."
The USA is an imperial country. And wars is how empire is sustained and expanded. Bacevich does not even mention this
fact.
Notable quotes:
"... While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis. ..."
"... This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive and deeply rooted American militarism has become. ..."
"... we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. ..."
"... The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all, the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade now. ..."
"... Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans. Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly, how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah. He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered Afghans. ..."
"... By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money ..."
"... Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort. ..."
The Afghanistan Papers could have been the start of redemption, but it's all been subsumed
by impeachment and an uninterested public.
....
While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one
that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution
to the impeachment crisis.
This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war
should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive
and deeply rooted American militarism has become.
Take seriously the speechifying heard on the floor of the House of Representatives in recent
days and you'll be reassured that the United States remains a nation of laws, with Democrats
and Republicans alike affirming their determination to defend our democracy and preserve the
Constitution, even while disagreeing on what that might require at present.
Take seriously the contents of the Afghanistan Papers and you'll reach a different
conclusion: we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American
soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. U.S. military expenditures and the Pentagon's
array of foreign bases far exceed those of any other nation on the planet. In our willingness
to use force, we (along with Israel) lead the pack. Putative adversaries such as China and
Russia are models of self-restraint by comparison. And when it comes to cumulative body count,
the United States is in a league of its own.
Yet since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, U.S. forces have rarely
accomplished the purposes for which they are committed, the Pentagon concealing failure by
downsizing its purposes. Afghanistan offers a good example. What began as Operation Enduring
Freedom has become in all but name Operation Decent Interval, the aim being to disengage in a
manner that will appear responsible, if only for a few years until the bottom falls out.
So the real significance of the Post 's Afghanistan Papers is this: t hey invite
Americans to contemplate a particularly vivid example what our misplaced infatuation with
military power produces. Sadly, it appears evident that we will refuse the invitation. Don't
blame Trump for this particular example of Washington's egregious irresponsibility.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,will
be published next month.
The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all,
the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade
now.
Anyway, nobody likes a bipartisan fiasco that cannot be neatly blamed on Team R (or Team
D).
Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans.
Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly,
how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah.
He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered
Afghans.
By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for
outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in
numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money. What a joke
this nations foreign policy is and the ignorant, don't care American people have become. Like
never before. There were years when people actually talked about subjects. Not now, if you
mention the weather they cower and look pained. The old days really were better.
One example aside from the above: compare President Kennedy to Trump. What a riot...
Well, these documents are highly unsurprising. Everybody has known the facts for a long time.
Everybody also knows that the US "government" will not change its ways. Its sole purpose and
mission is to obliterate everything except Israel, and these documents are evidence of
massive SUCCESS in its mission, not evidence of failure.
Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front
line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with
obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort.
This is also to say that misleading documents and briefings from the military about
progress in Afghanistan, while contemptible, did not cause the strategic failure.
Contemporary reports from the press and other agencies indicated the effort was not working
out plainly to anyone who wanted to pay attention. Our political leaders chose to ignore the
truth for political gain.
A more realistic temperament chastened by experience would have been more inclined to
criticize and make corrections, and summon the courage to cut our losses rather than crow
ignominiously about "cutting and running." Few such temperaments, it seems at least, make it
to the top thee days.
Pompeo has just four terms in the House of Representives befor getting postions of Director of CIA (whichsuggests previous involvement
with CIA) and then paradoxically the head of the State Department, He retired from the alry in the rank of comptain and never participated
in any battles. He serves only in Germany, and this can be classified as a chickenhawk. He never performed any dyplomatic duries in
hs life and a large part of his adult life (1998-2006) was a greddy military contractor.
1. It mentions
that it aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans". This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is
the time based test required under international law. (1)
2. Overall, the statement places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such
the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense.
3. The notion that Suleimani was "actively developing plans" is curious both from a semantic and military standpoint. Is it sufficient
to meet the test of mecessity and proportionality?
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
Bolton is a typical "Full Spectrum Dominance" hawk, a breed of chickenhawks that recently
proliferated in Washinton corridors of power and which are fed by MIC.
Notable quotes:
"... the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie. ..."
"... The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists. ..."
"... The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed. ..."
"... This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. ..."
President Trump's decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani back in January took the United
States to the brink of war with Iran.
Trump and his advisors contend that Soleimani's death was necessary to protect American
lives, pointing to a continuum of events that began on December 27, when a rocket attack on an
American base in Iraq killed a civilian translator. That in turn prompted U.S. airstrikes
against a pro-Iranian militia, Khati'ab Hezbollah, which America blamed for the attack.
Khati'ab Hezbollah then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in protest. This reportedly
triggered the assassination of Soleimani and a subsequent Iranian retaliatory missile strike on
an American base in Iraq. The logic of this continuum appears consistent except for one
important fact -- it is all predicated on a lie.
On the night of December 27, a pickup truck modified
to carry a launchpad capable of firing 36 107mm Russian-made rockets was used in an attack
on a U.S. military compound located at the K-1 Airbase in Iraq's Kirkuk Province. A total of 20
rockets were loaded onto the vehicle, but only 14 were fired. Some of the rockets struck an
ammunition dump on the base, setting off a series of secondary explosions. When the smoke and
dust cleared, a civilian interpreter was dead and
several other personnel , including four American servicemen and two Iraqi military, were
wounded. The attack appeared timed to
disrupt a major Iraqi military operation targeting insurgents affiliated with ISIS.
The area around K-1 is populated by Sunni Arabs, and has long been considered a bastion of
ISIS ideology, even if the organization itself
was declared defeated inside Iraq back in 2017 by then-prime minister Haider al Abadi. The
Iraqi counterterrorism forces based at K-1 consider the area around the base an ISIS sanctuary
so dangerous that they only enter in large numbers.
For their part, the Iraqis had been warning their U.S. counterparts for more than a month
that ISIS was planning attacks on K-1. One such report, delivered on November 6, using
intelligence dating back to October, was quite specific: "ISIS terrorists have endeavored to
target K-1 base in Kirkuk district by indirect fire (Katyusha rockets)."
Another report, dated December 25, warned that ISIS was attempting to seize territory to the
northeast of K-1. The Iraqis were so concerned that on December 27, the day of the attack, they
requested that the U.S. keep functional its
tethered aerostat-based Persistent Threat Detection System (PTSD) -- a high-tech
reconnaissance balloon equipped with multi-mission sensors to provide long endurance
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and communications in support of U.S. and
Iraqi forces.
Instead, the U.S. took the PTSD down for maintenance, allowing the attackers to approach
unobserved.
The Iraqi military officials at K-1 immediately suspected ISIS as the culprit behind the
attack. Their logic was twofold. First, ISIS had been engaged in nearly daily attacks in the
area for over a year, launching rockets, firing small arms, and planting roadside bombs.
Second, according
to the Iraqis , "The villages near here are Turkmen and Arab. There is sympathy with Daesh
[i.e., ISIS] there."
As transparent as the Iraqis had been with the U.S. about their belief that ISIS was behind
the attack, the U.S. was equally opaque with the Iraqis regarding whom it believed was the
culprit. The U.S. took custody of the rocket launcher, all surviving ordnance, and all warhead
fragments from the scene.
U.S. intelligence analysts viewed the attack on K-1 as part of a continuum of attacks
against U.S. bases in Iraq since early November 2019. The first attack took place on November
9,
against the joint U.S.-Iraqi base at Qayarrah , and was very similar to the one that
occurred against K-1 -- some 31 107mm rockets were fired from a pickup truck modified to carry
a rocket launchpad. As with K-1, the forces located in Qayarrah were engaged in ongoing
operations targeting ISIS, and the territory around the base was considered sympathetic to
ISIS. The Iraqi government attributed the attack to unspecified "terrorist" groups.
The U.S., however, attributed the attacks to Khati'ab Hezbollah, a Shia militia incorporated
with the Popular Mobilization Organization (PMO), a pro-Iranian umbrella organization that had
been incorporated into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. The PMO
blamed the U.S. for a series of drone strikes against its facilities throughout the summer
of 2019.
The feeling among the American analysts was that the PMO attacked the bases as a form of
retaliation.
The U.S.
launched a series of airstrikes against Khati'ab Hezbollah bases and command posts in Iraq
and Syria on December 29, near the Iraqi city of al-Qaim. These attacks were carried out
unilaterally, without any effort to coordinate with America's Iraqi counterparts or seek
approval from the Iraqi government.
Khati'ab Hezbollah units had seized al-Qaim from ISIS in November 2017, and then crossed
into Syria, where they defeated ISIS fighters dug in around the Syrian town of al-Bukamal. They
were continuing to secure this strategic border crossing when they were bombed on December
29.
Left unsaid by the U.S. was the fact that the al-Bukamal-al Qaim border crossing was seen as
a crucial "land bridge," connecting Iran with Syria via Iraq. Throughout the summer of
2019, the U.S. had been watching as Iranian engineers, working with Khati'ab Hezbollah,
constructed a sprawling base that straddled both Iraq and Syria. It was this base, and not
Khati'ab Hezbollah per se, that was the reason for the American airstrike. The objective in
this attack was to degrade Iranian capability in the region; the K-1 attack was just an excuse,
one based on the lie that Khati'ab Hezbollah, and not ISIS, had carried it out.
The U.S. had long condemned what it called Iran's "malign intentions" when it came to its
activities in Iraq and Syria. But there is a world of difference between employing tools of
diplomacy to counter Iranian regional actions and going kinetic. One of the reasons the U.S.
has been able to justify attacking Iranian-affiliated targets, such as the al-Bukamal-al-Qaim
complex and Qassem Soleimani, is that the Iranian entity associated with both -- the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC -- has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO), and as such military attacks against it are seen as an extension of the
ongoing war on terror. Yet the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself
predicated on a lie.
The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security
adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC)
interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a
unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were
pushing for a strong stance. But
representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings,
the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that
if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from
responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists.
The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put
forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed
policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these
meetings were "largely
incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official
claimed.
After the Pentagon "informally" requested that the NSC change the memoranda to accurately
reflect its position, and were denied, the issue was bumped up to Undersecretary of Defense
John Rood. He then formally requested that the memoranda be corrected. Such a request was
unprecedented in recent memory, a former official noted. Regardless, the NSC did not budge, and
the original memoranda remained as the official records of the meetings in question.
This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty
led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC
targets throughout the Middle East. The rocket attack against K-1 was attributed to an
Iranian proxy -- Khati'ab Hezbollah -- even though there was reason to believe the attack was
carried out by ISIS. This was a cover so IRGC-affiliated facilities in al-Bakumal and al-Qaim,
which had nothing to do with the attack, could be bombed. Everything to do with Iran's alleged
"malign intent." The U.S. embassy was then attacked. Soleimani killed. The American base at
al-Assad was bombarded by Iranian missiles. America and Iran were on the brink of war.
All because of a lie.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most
recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran
Blocked the West's Road to War (2018).
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Daniel
Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are
proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:
Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both
Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure
that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes,
guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf
states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.
Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic
enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on
"zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better
part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised
to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward.
Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to
a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal
for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks
never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in
the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more
aggressive measures.
The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious
diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez
is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez
has been a
booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles
that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has
never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about
making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.
Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this
imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:
That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran
confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President
Barack Obama's nuclear deal).
This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new
deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it
doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from
ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent
them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified
88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been
ratified with a
93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual,
made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it
had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump.
Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have
no interest in a diplomatic solution.
Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations
between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken
seriously.
And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied
scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that
"new deal" and demanding more?
"... Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. ..."
"... Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews history
Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our "Greater United States."
This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is fine to just listen to as
you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom. ..."
"... The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood. ..."
"... Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the
earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court,
U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts,
and to sue and be sued just like individuals. ..."
"... But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment ..."
"... The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all over
the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys
and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and the Environmental
Protection Agency, combined. ..."
"... http://news.nidokidos.org/military-spending-20-companies-profiting-the-m... For a list of the 20 companies profiting most off
war... https://themindunleashed.com/2019/03/20-companies-profiting-war.html ..."
"... Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined ..."
"... Corporations are Religions Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The
Invisible Hand". They believe themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's
corporate dress codes, right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and
read. If you say something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas.
OF course they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god. ..."
Chris Hedges often says "The corporate coup is complete". Sadly I think he is correct. So this week I thought it might be interesting
to explore the techniques which are used here at home and abroad. The oligarchs' corporate control is global, but different strategies
are employed in various scenarios. Just thinking about the recent regime changes promoted by the US in this hemisphere...
The current attempts at the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Iranian coups are primarily conducted
using economic sanctions
.
The US doesn't even lie about past coups. They recently
released a report about the 1953
CIA led coup against Iran detailing the strategies. Here at home it is a compliant media and a new array of corporate laws designed
to protect and further enrich that spell the corporate capture of our culture and society. So let's begin by looking at the nature
of corporations...
The following 2.5 hour documentary from 2004 features commentary from Chris, Noam, Naomi, and many others you know. It has some
great old footage. It is best watched on a television so you have a bigger screen. (This clip is on the encore+ youtube channel and
does have commercials which you can skip after 5 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg
Based on Joel Bakan's bestseller The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power , this 26-award-winning
documentary explores a corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.
One hundred
and fifty years ago, a corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic, and pervasive presence
in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, a corporation is today's dominant
institution.
Charting the rise of such an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals, the documentary also recounts
victories against this apparently invincible force.
Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. Some of the CEO's in the film discuss how all the people in the corporations are against
pollution and so on, but by law stockholder profit must be the objective. Now these entities are global operations with no loyalty
to their country of origin.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews
history Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our
"Greater United States." This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is
fine to just listen to as you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom.
So much of this conversation touches on today's topic of our corporate capture. Amy interviewed Ed Snowden this week... (video or text)
This is a system, the first system in history, that bore witness to everything. Every border you crossed, every purchase you
make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friends you keep, article you write, site you visit and subject line
you type was now in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards were not. And I felt, despite what the
law said, that this was something that the public ought to know.
The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood.
Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back
to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme
Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property,
enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.
But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment
More recently in 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the
conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their
funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing
that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy
the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The
Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-co...
Do they really believe this is how we think?
More than just using the courts, corporations are knee deep in creating favorable laws, not just by lobbying, but by actually
writing legislation to feed the politicians that they own and control, especially at the state level.
Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue. Through the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state
laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit
huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.
DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key
issues...
There is very little effort to hide the blatant corruption. People seem to accept this behavior as business as usual, after all
it is.
Part of the current ALEC legislative agenda involves stifling protests.
I think it started in Texas...
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted
murder.
H.B. 3557, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for
interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill on September 5 designed to chill protests around oil and gas pipelines and other energy
infrastructure in the state by imposing harsh criminal penalties for trespassing on or damaging the property of a broad range
of "energy providers."
Senate Bill 386 echoes similar "critical infrastructure protection" model bills pushed out by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments over the last two years to prevent future protests like the one against the
Dakota Access Pipeline.
And Chris was on the evening RT news this week discussing how the US empire is striking back against leaders who help their own
people rather than our global corporations.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense: more than $6 trillion dollars. The cost of these wars is just one element of
the $1.2 trillion the US government spends annually on wars and war making. Half of each dollar paid in federal income tax
goes towards some form or consequence of war . While the results of such spending are not hard to foresee or understand:
a cyclical and dependent relationship between the Pentagon, weapons industry and Congress, the creation of a whole new class of
worker and wealth distribution is not so understood or noticed, but exists and is especially malignant.
This is a ghastly redistribution of wealth, perhaps unlike any known in modern human history, certainly not in American history.
As taxpayers send trillions to Washington. DC, that money flows to the men and women that remotely oversee, manage and staff the
wars that kill and destroy millions of lives overseas and at home. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees and civilian contractors
servicing the wars take home six figure annual salaries allowing them second homes, luxury cars and plastic surgery, while veterans
put guns in their mouths, refugees die in capsized boats and as many as four million nameless souls scream silently in death.
These AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the wars have provided tens of thousands of recruits to international
terror groups; mass profits to the weapons industry and those that service it; promotions to generals and admirals, with
corporate board seats upon retirement ; and a perpetual and endless supply of bloody shirts for politicians to wave via
an unquestioning and obsequious corporate media to stoke compliant anger and malleable fear. What is hard to imagine, impossible
even, is anyone else who has benefited from these wars.
The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all
over the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing
40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and
the Environmental Protection Agency, combined.
The obvious industry which was not included nor considered is the fossil fuel industry. Here's another example of mutual corporate
interests.
"Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy .A globalized economy
predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural
resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis for tackling climate change .Little wonder
then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes."
The US military is one of the largest consumers and emitters of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in history, according to an
independent analysis of global fuel-buying practices of a "virtually unresearched" government agency.
If the US military were its own country, it would rank 47th between Peru and Portugal in terms of annual fuel purchases, totaling
almost 270,000 barrels of oil bought every day in 2017. In particular, the Air Force is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions and bought $4.9 billion of fuel in 2017 – nearly double that of the Navy ($2.8 billion).
The fossil fuel giants even try to control the climate talks...
Oil and gas groups were accused Saturday of seeking to influence climate talks in Madrid by paying millions in sponsorship
and sending dozens of lobbyists to delay what scientists say is a necessary and rapid cut in fossil fuel use.
The corporations are so entwined that it is difficult to tell where they begin and end. There's the unity of private prisons and
the war machine. And it's a global scheme...this example from the UK.
One thing is clear: the prison industrial complex and the global war machine are intimately connected. This summer's prison
strike that began in the United States and spread to other countries was the largest in history. It shows more than ever that
prisoners are resisting this penal regime, often at great risk to themselves. The battle to end prison slavery continues.
The 2017 tax bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations
. It slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and its treatment of "pass-through" entities -- companies organized
as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations -- will translate to an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for
millionaires this year. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks, thanks in part to their tax
savings.
Even Robert Jackson Jr., commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appointed to the SEC in 2017 by President Donald
Trump. Confirmed in January 2018 sees the corporate cuts as absurd.
"We have been to the movie of tax cuts and buybacks before, in the Republican administration during the George W. Bush era.
We enacted a quite substantial tax cut during that period. And studies after that showed very clearly that most corporations use
the funds from that tax cut for buybacks. And here's the kicker. That particular tax cut actually required that companies deploy
the capital for capital expenditures, wage increases and investments in their people. Yet studies showed that, in fact, the companies
use them for buybacks. So we've been to this movie before. And what you're describing to me, that corporations turned around and
took the Trump tax cut and didn't use it in investing in their people or in infrastructure, but instead for other purposes, shouldn't
surprise anybody at all."
So the corporations grow larger, wealthier, more powerful, buying evermore legislative influence along the way. They have crept
into almost every aspect of our lives. Some doctors are beginning to see the influence of big pharma and other corporate interests
are effecting the current practice of medicine.
Gary Fettke is a doctor from Tasmania who has been targeted for promoting a high fat low carb diet...threatened with losing
his medical qualifications. He doesn't pull punches in this presentation discussing the corporate control of big ag/food and big
pharma on medical practice and education. (27 min)
Corporations are Religions
Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The Invisible Hand". They believe
themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's corporate dress codes,
right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and read. If you say
something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas. OF course
they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god.
At least the crazy made up gods that I listen to don't usually
fuck over other human beings for a goddamn percentage. ON the other hand, if a corporation can make a profit, it's REQUIRED to
fuck you over. To do otherwise would be against it's morals. Which it does have, trust us... OH, and corporations get to make
fun of your beliefs, but you CANNOT make fun of theirs. Because that would be heresy against logic and reason.
In a local newspaper showed a couple coming out of a Wal-Mart with their carts piled high with big boxed foreign junk, then
shown cramming their SUV full of said junk. The headline read "Crazy Busy". It pretty much summed up what is wrong with the American
consumer culture. The next day's big headline spotlighted our senator's picture affixed to a LARGE headline boasting "$22 Billion
Submarine Contract Awarded". A good example of of what is wrong with the american war economy.
Thank you for your compilation Lookout! If we can get beyond the headlines, working at grass root and local solutions, maybe
even underground revolution, there may be hope for us. Barter for a better future.
My buddies always say about their mayor..."There's no way we will trade down after this election...but then we do." Perhaps
it is true for more than just their town.
The line running in my head is..."What if they gave a war and nobody came". I want to expand it to..."What if they made cheap
junk no one really wanted and nobody bought it". Or substitute junk food for cheap junk, or...
My point in today's conclusion is much as I try to walk away from corporate culture/control, I really can't totally escape...but
at least I spend most of my time in the open, breathing clean air, surrounded by forest. We do what we can.
Consumerism in our society is a plague, a disease perpetrated upon us by our corporate lords. It has taken over everything
about being an American.
I think the youth are catching on, as they are thrifting more, but they don't understand about food, and that's the rub. Our
youth will be more unhealthy until they understand what corporations are doing to us through food addictions.
We're expecting rain today for most of the day and actually it's just started. The person who will drill our well came by yesterday
and figured out some details. We are behind two other wells, so it will probably be the holiday week when it happens - we'll see.
I can wait til January and hope we do.
Ideas is that new deal of FDR's day had corporate opponents far different than those of today. Sanders does not seem to understand
that the corporations of yesterday, and what worked against them, will not work against the corporations of today. In the early part of the 20th century, corporations were still primarily domestic and local often with charters from the state
where they conducted their primary business, many times all of their business.
Regulation and unions were reasonable anti-dotes to the abuses of these local and domestic corporations. The state still had
some semblance of control over them.
But today corporations are global. They have no allegiance to, or concern for the domestic economy or local people. They do not fear of any anti-dotes that worked for years against domestic or local corporations. Global corporations just leave
and go elsewhere if they don't like the domestic or local situation if they have not managed to completely take over the government.
There is only one reason to incorporate in the first place. That is for the owner(s) of the business to avoid personal liability
or responsibility. The majority of people never understand this idea. Corporate owners are the people who are the genuine personal
responsibility avoiders. Not the poor. The only antidote to corporations these days is the total demise of the corporation and
its similar business entities that dodge personal responsibility. And the state must refuse to allow any such entities to do business.
It is the only way forward. Otherwise nation states will give way to corporate states. Corporate governance is the new feudalism
from which the old feudalism morphed.
Sanders isn't going to advocate doing away with corporate entities or other similar business entities. Nor will any of the
Democratic contenders. They all require corporations to rail against as the basis for their political policy.
...and I've always wondered just how Bernie would dismantle them. However like the impotence of the impeachment, is the impotence
of the primary process.
When the DNC was sued after 2016, they were
exonerated based on the ruling they were a private entity entitled to make rules as the wanted. The primary is so obviously
rigged I can almost guarantee Bernie will not be allowed the nomination, so the question to how he would change corporate control
is really moot.
@Lookout I probably
could get on board with a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as
a Democrat. If he loses the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent
run last time, I and many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College.
I thought last time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that would
be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a big enough
margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President and VP from different
parties.
if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then there
the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes, IMO.
#4.1 I probably could get on board with
a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as a Democrat. If he loses
the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent run last time, I and
many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College. I thought last
time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that
would be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a
big enough margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President
and VP from different parties.
@Lookout The only
way the Democrats might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far
better way to beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on
how Sanders did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
#4.1.1 if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then
there the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes,
IMO.
If it was Hillary "Dewey Cheatem & Howe" Clinton, all bets are off.
#4.1.1.1 The only way the Democrats
might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far better way to
beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on how Sanders
did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
Good lord.that she did that is unbelievable. Great point. Boycott Fox News, but go on Stern's show. It's going to be fun to
watch how much lower she falls.
MSNBC invited on two former Hillary Clinton aides to criticize Bernie Sanders for taking a "long time to get out of the
race" and that he didn't do "enough" campaigning for her in 2016. pic.twitter.com/6Vsqo0DKZI
@TheOtherMaven They
have to choose from actual EC vote getters. So if she is not the candidate she could not win.
Having Sanders run as an Independent and Warren or Biden run as a Democrat would be a much better strategy to ensure a Trump
loss in the House. Of course it might take some coordination as in asking the voters to vote for the candidate who has the best
chance of beating Trump in certain states. But voters could probably figure that out.
Or a candidate could just withdraw from a state in which the other candidate had a better chance of beating Trump.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an article
about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
I like to travel on the old roads
I like the way it makes me feel
No destination just the old roads
Somehow it helps the heart to heal.
I hope your road trip is a good one. The less busy tracks are almost meditative....soaking in scenery as the world passes by.
Have fun and be careful.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an
article about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little
hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
Here are a couple of links to how free markets
help in the corporate takeover. Amazon a corp that has only made a profit by
never paying taxes and accounting fraud. It
became a trillion dollar corp through the use
of monopoly money(stock) it's nothing but the
perfect example of todays "unicorn" corp, i.e.
worth what it is w/out ever making a penny
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice. Unfortunately,
unions are just as likely to be on the corporations side to get jobs and wages, and bust heads if anything interferes with that.
If we protest we've seen the police ready to use deadly force at the drop of a hat, and get away with it. We get to vote on
candidates that some political club chose for us, and have little incentive to work for the 99%. The gov. has amassed so much
information on us we can't even fathom its depth. We have nowhere left, no unexplored lands out of reach of the government. We
think we own things, but if you think you own a home, see how long it is before the gov. confiscates it if you don't pay your
property taxes.
If I were younger, or a young person asked what to do, I would say.... learn some skill that would make you attractive for
emigrating to another country, because the US looks like it's over. It's people are only here to be exploited. And if Bernie were
to become president I hope he gets a food taster.
run to. No where to hide. As in the U.K., corporations are seeking to to dismantle the NHS and turn it into a for-profit system
like ours. Even as the gilllet-jaune protesters risk life and limb, Macron seeks to install true neoliberalism in France. And
the beat goes on.
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice.
Look at what chevron did to people in Borapol. I'm sure I spelled this wrong but hopefully people will know what I'm talking
about. They killed lots of people and poisoned their land for decades and the fight over it is still going on. How many decades
more will chevron get to skirt justice? Banks continue to commit fraud and they only get little fines that don't do jack to keep
them from doing it again. Even cities are screwing people. Owe a few dollars on your property taxes and they will take your home
and sell it for pennies on the dollar. How in hell can it be legal to charge people over 600% interest? What happened to usury
rules if that's the correct term.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled last week that a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined Chevron
$9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld, according to teleSUR, a Latin American news agency. Texaco, which is currently a part of
Chevron, is responsible for what is considered one of the world's largest environmental disasters while it drilled for oil in
the Ecuadorian rainforest from 1964 to 1990.
https://www.ecowatch.com/will-chevron-and-exxon-ever-be-held-responsible...
The legal battle has been tied up in the courts for years. Ecuador's highest court finally upheld the ruling in January
2014, but Chevron refused to pay.
This is another thing that corporations get away with. Contaminating land and then just walking away from it. How many superfund
sites have we had to pay for instead of the ones who created the mess. Just declared bankruptcy and walked away. Corporations
are people? Fine then they should be held as accountable as the people in the lower classes. Fat chance though right?
Weren't people killed by a gas cloud released from the plant? I read something recently that said the case is still going
through the courts. How much money have they spent trying not to spend more?
Byedone just needs to pack it in and drop out already. Today he was defending the republican party after someone said something
about them needing to go away. Joe said that we need another party so one does not get more power than the other. Yeah right,
Joe. It's not like the Pubs are already weilding power they don't have and them dems cowering and supporting them.
Newsweek reporter quit after being censored on the OPCW story.
I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient
to US govt was removed, though it was factually correct.
First frustrate us with gridlock. Then pass bills benefiting the corporate overlords. Then leading up
to elections pass bills like the one against animal cruelty (who doesn't love kitties and puppies?), or propose a bill to consider
regulating cosmetics. This second bipartisan effort is glaringly cynical since no one apparently knows what is in beauty products.
Sanders must have politicians worried for them to attempt something which has managed to go unregulated for so long.
All this bipartisanship is not even up to the level of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like wiping at
them with a dirty rag while the ship of state continues to sink. While animal cruelty and cosmetic safety are important issues,
they pale in comparison to the systemic ills America suffers. Our fearless leaders will continue to scratch the surface while
corruption and business as usual continue to fester. These bipartisan laws may look good on a politician's resume, but they won't
really help the 99%.
@snoopydawg
the propaganda to give NATO a raison d'être for a pivot to China. This will be doomed to complete failure just as the Russian
pivot has.
But Putin and Xi Jinping are both much too skilled and intelligent to defeat. American WWE trash talkers are completely outclassed
by an 8th dan in judo paired with a Sun Tzu scholar.
Tomoe nage - use your opponent's weight and aggression against him.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent
is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he
is unprepared, appear where you are not expected ."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
@Lookout
What they want is
a controlled collapse. If they can get the US to continue to overspend on war mongering rather than programs of social uplift
the country will rot from the inside.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So much more to say really. Had to stop somewhere but as you know the corruption runs deep and is intermixed with the CIA/FBI/MIC
corporate government under which we live.
On we go as best we can!
There is great dignity in the objective truth. Perhaps because it never flows through the contaminated minds of the unworthy.
Corporate charters were initially meant to be for the public good if i'm not mistaken in recall, it was a trade-off for their
privilege to exist. Maybe a movement political leader could highlight this and move the pendulum back to accountability.
Had a conversation with good friend today, a 3M rep, and he was griping about his competitor's shady marketing product practices
apparently lying to manufacturers about the grades and contents of their competing products.
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
If you fire 70% of the admirals and generals
you will increase the military capabilities of the US military by 40%.
They are incompetent hacks who are better on their knees in front of the MIC and Congress
then they are on any battlefield.
At least during WWII we had less of them and no one was hesitant to fire at least some of
them for incompetence. I say sum of them because many of the war hero generals needed to be
removed including Bradly, Eisenhower, Halsey, Nimitz, and even MacArthur.
But today, no one gets fired for anything.
Literally they have a special class of MBA's being generals and and strategic thinkers and
it has turned out to be a disaster for the military and the US.
An example by way of analogy is look at Boeing. How much better would Boeing be if they
fired all the MBA's and replaced them with engineers who loved air planes. Boeing would make a
lot less profit but its planes would be the best in the world.
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe
tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure,
but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel
stupid president.
uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30
Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.
The White House has denied rumors that Deputy National Security Adviser Victoria Coates is the author of an anonymous New York
Times op-ed and subsequent book criticizing the Trump administration, after Coates was abruptly moved to the Energy Department.
... ... ...
On Monday, Axios reported that Coates role at the NSC was on the chopping block amid rumors she was the author.
A statement from the NSC also said that Coates' move will help "ensure the continued close alignment of energy policy with
national security objectives," and that her new position in the Energy Department will be as a senior adviser to the secretary.
Her new assignment is effective Monday, they said.
"We are enthusiastic about adding Dr. Coates to DOE, where her expertise on the Middle East and national security policy will
be helpful," said Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette. "She will play an important role on our team."
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien said that he is "sad to lose an important member of our team," but said Coates "will
be a big asset to Secretary Brouillette as he executes the president's energy security policy priorities." -
Fox News
On Tuesday, President Trump said "I know who it is," after a reporter questioned him on anonymous, adding that he won't reveal
the name publicly. 38 minutes ago What was your haftarah, ****?
1 hour ago
By their very natures, homosexuals, and heterosexual females are security risks.
I would sleep better at night knowing they weren't in positions related to the defense of my country.
By all means, y'all keep on spreading that social engineering ********. Eventually, it will kill a whole bunch of people.
1 hour ago
So she keeps her pay grade and pension? **** That.
1 hour ago
So who's spreading the rumor that Coates is Anonymous and why?
1 hour ago
In corporate America they just let you go. It is time that all bureaucrats get the same treatment that the taxpayers
get. Pensions? What at those?
1 hour ago
and "let you go" is defined as a large Security guard walking you back to your office to get your coat and keys and
then watches you drive off the property. not offers you a no show job in the backoffice with full pension and benefits.
2 hours ago
Not sure that having a queer in charge of intelligence is the right way to go. Plenty of fodder for blackmail. History
shows that homos (or fags if that's the preferred name) have more skeletons in their collective closets than 99.9% of normal people.
Most of them are perverts with dark and sordid pasts.
The Trump administration's
legal justification for the Soleimani assassination is as preposterous as you would expect it to be:
The White House delivered its legal justification for the January airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, arguing
that President Donald Trump was authorized to take the action under the Constitution and 2002 legislation authorizing the Iraq
war.
The administration is no longer pretending that the assassination had anything to do with stopping an "imminent" attack. They
no longer claim that this is why the assassination was ordered. That by itself is a remarkable admission of the illegality of the
strike. If there was no "imminent" attack, the U.S. was taking aggressive action against a high-ranking official from another country.
There is no plausible case to be made that this was an act of self-defense. Not only did the president lack the authority to do this
on his own, but it would have been illegal under international law even if he had received approval from Congress before doing it.
The administration spent weeks hiding behind the "imminent" attack lie because without it there was no justification for what they
did.
Abandoning the "imminent" attack claim also means that the administration is trying to lower the bar for carrying out future strikes
against Iran and its proxies. Ryan Goodman points this out in his
analysis of the administration's statements:
The absence of an imminent threat is relevant not only to the legal and policy basis for the strike on Jan. 2. It is also relevant
for potential future military action. The administration's position appears to boil down to an assertion that it can use military
force against Iran without going to Congress even if responding to a threat from Iran that is not urgent or otherwise imminent.
In short, Trump and his officials want to make it easier for them to commit acts of war against both Iran and Iraqi militias.
Trying to distort the 2002 Iraq war AUMF to cover the assassination of an Iranian official just because he happened to be in Iraq
at the time is ridiculous. Congress passed the disgraceful 2002 AUMF to give George W. Bush approval to attack and overthrow the
Iraqi government. That did not and does not give later presidents carte blanche to use force in Iraq in perpetuity whenever they
feel like it. The fact that they are resorting to such an obviously absurd argument shows that they know they don't have a leg to
stand on. The Soleimani strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and there is not really any question about it. The administration's
own justification condemns them.
The president's lawlessness in matters of war underscores why it is necessary for Congress to reassert its proper constitutional
role. The Senate
passed S.J.Res. 68, the Tim Kaine-sponsored war powers resolution, by a vote of 55-45 to make clear that the president does not
have authorization for any further military action against Iran:
In a bipartisan rebuke of President Trump on Thursday, a Senate majority voted 55 to 45 to block the president from taking
further military action against Iran -- unless first authorized by Congress. Eight GOP senators joined every Democrat to protest
the president's decision to kill a top Iranian commander without complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The president has already said that he will veto the resolution, just as he vetoed the antiwar Yemen resolution last year. He
is proving once again beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no respect for the Constitution or Congress' role in matters of war.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in this and why nobody is taking that route, given that the US has signed the UN Charter,
to get a judicial review and sanction of president's actions?
These demented human beings are miserable, self seeking failures by any measurement of
dignity. In a way they are possessed with "Full Spectrum Dominance" delution.
tone-deaf, arrogant speech in Munich this
weekend in which he proclaimed that "the West is winning." In the most hypocritical and absurd
section of the speech, Pompeo railed against other states' violations of sovereignty:
Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on
sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed,
assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.
Trump administration officials like talking about the importance of sovereignty almost as
much as they enjoy trampling on the sovereignty of other states. The problem with Pompeo's
sovereignty talk is that the U.S. obviously doesn't respect the sovereignty of many countries,
and almost every criticism that he levels against someone else can be turned around against the
U.S. The U.S. daily violates Syrian sovereignty with an illegal military presence. U.S. forces
remain in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government, and our military has repeatedly
carried out attacks inside Iraq over their government's objections in just the last two months.
The Trump administration respects sovereignty and territorial integrity so much that it has
endorsed illegal Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and it has given a green light to more
annexations in the future. It is now supporting an illegal Turkish incursion into Syria.
Pompeo said at one point:
Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is
winning.
As we look back on the record of how the U.S. and our allies have behaved over the last 30
years, respect for other nations' sovereignty is not what we see. On the contrary, there has
been a series of unnecessary and sometimes illegal wars that the U.S. and its allies have waged
either to overthrow a foreign government, or to take sides in an internal conflict, or both.
The U.S. and our allies and the other countries certainly would have been better off if that
hadn't happened. Our recent record is nothing to boast about. It is typical of Pompeo that he
celebrates successes where there aren't any. He says that "the West is winning," but what
exactly have we won? The U.S. is still involved in multiple desultory conflicts, and relations
with many of our most important allies are more strained than at any time since the start of
the Iraq war. If "the West is winning," what would repeated failures look like?
Pompeo calls out economic coercion as one of the harmful things that other states do, but he
is part of an administration that has used economic warfare more than anyone else against more
targets than ever before. If the U.S. refrained from using economic coercion as one of its main
tools in trying to compel other states to do what Washington wants, the attacks on other
states' use of economic coercion might carry some weight. As things stand, Pompeo's words are
just so much wind.
The theme of Pompeo's speech is refuting criticism from allies about how the U.S. is
conducting its foreign policy, but I doubt that many Europeans in the audience were reassured
by his hectoring, triumphalist tone. It doesn't help when he is accusing many of our allies of
being fools and dupes:
When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror
campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.
When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don't be fooled.
Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.
When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you'll lose out if you don't buy in.
Don't believe the hype.
Needless to say, many of our European allies have very different views on all of these
issues, and berating their position isn't going to make them agree with the Trump
administration's unreasonable demands. Pompeo wants to tout the virtues of sovereignty, but as
soon as our allies take decisions that displease him and Trump he castigates them for it.
Respecting the sovereignty and independence of other states includes respecting their right to
make decisions on policy that our government doesn't like. Of course, Pompeo would rather have
our allies behave like vassals and expects other partners to obey as if they are colonies.
Behind all the sovereignty rhetoric is an unmistakable desire to dictate terms and force others
to do the administration's bidding. The countries that are on the receiving end of this
insufferable arrogance can see through Pompeo's words. All three of those issues touch on areas
where the U.S. insists that our allies abandon their own interests because Washington tells
them to. That is exactly the sort of heavy-handed "leadership" that our allies resent, and
Pompeo's speech will just remind them why they hate it.
It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters
evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar
scenes in Iraq.
A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis
assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a
not so immovable object.
Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the
Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their
foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to
this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against
Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and
Iran.
When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based,
ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not
only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.
There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world.
But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the
specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the
product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of
what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create
a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that
had strong popular support at the time.
King Abdallah I
of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and
Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted
to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics
.
In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called
the Arab Federation
. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a
state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish
state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.
Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state
of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur
Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration
, which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people."
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites
for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power
relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism
– the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of
the era of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The
merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
"finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the
export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international
monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial
division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least
because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.
After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative
strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a
redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as
Lenin states :
The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships
between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism
lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had
the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not
once, but twice.
Versailles and Yalta
The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of
the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the
Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor
treaties.
Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)
This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:
At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the
Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how
Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was
envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.
Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as
"a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both
the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.
The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union
fell
In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers.
The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport
routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves
according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.
If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void.
Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the
fear of empty space.
And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was
broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for
re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all
the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.
Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål
Steigan, 1999
"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either
part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality
collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty
space.
This laid the foundation for the American
Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian
continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been
the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine,
and Syria.
The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO
eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part
of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with
Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop
until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.
So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and
there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What
creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism.
The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger
markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.
The results of two terrible wars are
again up for grabs
World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many
wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are
approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are
talking about this order of magnitude.
The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below
100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.
Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer
"the void". Donald Trump
recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8
trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new
distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.
"The Rebellion against
Sykes-Picot"
In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to
appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the
artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these
borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for
these boundaries to be revised now?
In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the
Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to
bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning
Iraq.
Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the
entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to
dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.
It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders
from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are
initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater
game.
This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.
Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the
Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of
Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an
extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in
their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.
Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after
Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.
The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003,
helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich
north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that
was their tool in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also
undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States.
And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali
admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .
And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide
Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil.
What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".
As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27
percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD
invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States
to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.
Preparations for a New World War
Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as
much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area,
which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social
movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive
training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.
There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move
will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and
maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.
The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will
require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen
without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.
And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about
100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it.
The Kurdish question is not worth that much.
This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social
and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle
East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company.
The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the
United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.
It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of
national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was
France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to
Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and
internal self rule.
All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the
battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid
the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a
hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more
details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had
created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)
Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to
support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March
in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind
it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to
arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be
developed.
And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and
Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this
project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely
multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police
under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.
The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to
be seen.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
George Mc ,
Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:
The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage
No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What
more could they do?
Dungroanin ,
Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae-
phobe.
The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in
the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.
Ready?
'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of
Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann
and his colleagues:
"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as
the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which
the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."
Got that – AUGUST?
Dungroanin ,
The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim
Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained
an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the
Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including
David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Dungroanin ,
Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner
Signatories
Arthur James Balfour
Recipient
Walter Rothschild
Dungroanin ,
'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of
the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in
Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of
a Jewish state. '
Dungroanin ,
'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third
practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would
become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was
an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not
ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:
Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that
Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious
community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '
Dungroanin ,
'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed
that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly
by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'
Dungroanin ,
The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who
therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage
back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was
not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.
According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical
grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most
part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be
imagined."
And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman
[Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"
Dungroanin ,
Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:
'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord
Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed
draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the
rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the
government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of
what they, too, regarded as their homeland.
After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and
accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President
Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31
October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who
could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had
been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he
stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the
world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to
such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and
America."
This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM,
daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another
telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian
and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did
not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'
Dungroanin ,
Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:
'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and
Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'
Dungroanin ,
The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter,
even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in
potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their
"best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people".
Dungroanin ,
There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to
invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the
ages – Money and Power.
George Mc ,
the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.
If this is true then we are all doomed.
Dungroanin ,
Not if we are aware of it George.
Dungroanin ,
Ok a summary fom Brittanica:
'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts
The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had
asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration
specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however,
said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to
them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and
seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).
The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially
in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during
World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a
pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in
neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial
possessions in India.
The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in
the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations
on July 24, 1922.
In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a
limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident
Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.
Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was
made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of
Israel in 1948.'
Dungroanin ,
But what about the timing?
Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.
'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful
because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914.
For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against
a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains
in the Levant and the Middle East.
The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal,
Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French
forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British
assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in
the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.
In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western
Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare
Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly
entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and
illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day
Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much
of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '
Dungroanin ,
The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a
miasma of blatant lies.
IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :
Can we follow the money?
When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?
When was the first world war started?
When did US declare war?
When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?
What happened in Russia at the same time?
And in Mesopotamia?
How did it end?
How did it fail to end?
What happened to the contract?
Etc.
I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.
Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient
tracks.
Dungroanin ,
'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.
7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist
archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had
made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza
9 November Letter published in Times.
Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing
footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with
Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near
East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts
of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got
wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if
successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to
contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"
End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price,
was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at
the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had
an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to
carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this,
Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British
protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.
11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '
So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?
The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not
the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade
financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United
States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports
were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers'
acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type
of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of
goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a
bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open
foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions
Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to
ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.
The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which
cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.
On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be
formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have
Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards
of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..
The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national
currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to
hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.
World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened
for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as
on the Federal Reserve.
War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by
European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves,
and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing
share of world trade.
Dungroanin ,
So the denouement :
It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost
the US banks.
However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story
is widely publicised.
Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered
by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson
(another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great
gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --
When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes,
because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they
have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism).
Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most
powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of
that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards
who are responsible for all our current malaises.
Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!
😉
George Mc ,
Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has
nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called
it). The question is: What do we do about it?
Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on
about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in
a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No
irony intended.)
Dungroanin ,
George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.
I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has
actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of
the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human
pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to
remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on
Earth.
I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever
soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it.
That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.
I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers
seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis
of morality.
I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various
peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived
without the literal grassroots!
..
As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of
him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at
similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a
enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i
just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references
– please give a link.
-- -
As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the
verity of the facts which I have presented above?
Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.
George Mc ,
The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:
Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP
thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark
initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible
extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted
in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming
oratory.
This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the
Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that
seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this
earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews,
Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very
seriously, I think.
Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical
flavour there.
I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have
bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.
milosevic ,
images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused
by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":
.content-wrap-spp img {
filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);
}
Open ,
This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in
today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them
clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)
Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry
no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for
public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.
Open ,
Look at the language used by the americans:
On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria ,
encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .
So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian
land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land.
Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not
occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.
This language needs to be known more widely.
Open ,
The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal
presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I
recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being
pushed under wrap.
What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Joe ,
Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably
in the wider world, too.
Open ,
Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global
stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the
British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates)
the planet.
In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those
of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.
* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.
Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to
spread Chaos and Disorder.
Antonym ,
Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot
ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior
(arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .
Open ,
"srael's 1947 creation"
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians
and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.
How ligitimate is that?
Antonym ,
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans,
Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.
How ligitimate is that?
Open ,
"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."
Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove
that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.
Maggie ,
Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not
been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes
by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate. https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .
To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to
understand how this corrupt system is conducted.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of
things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.
paul ,
Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."
Antonym ,
Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the
inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like
before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.
Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations
and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by
Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the
withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect
control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's
seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls
the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water,
electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have
babies!
Richard Le Sarc ,
You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!
paul ,
Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside
world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers
shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum
dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher
explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and
picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who
are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot
ideology', Antsie.
Dungroanin ,
Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her
their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's
culture.'
From the Groaniad
How many members? How many by denomination?
As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against
its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking
powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.
History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.
Capricornia Man ,
The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is
so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it
has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish
manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.
You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear
that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.
If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without
sensibility.
Maggie ,
A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.
paul ,
Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from
the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.
Dungroanin ,
BoD's??? Another random organisation!
Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get
elected? How can they be fired?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.
lundiel ,
Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class
uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.
Maggie ,
I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so
there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last
time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the
never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't
anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?
tonyopmoc ,
Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love
with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who
has banned me again.
It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.
"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."
Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if
either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a
blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.
She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.
We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It
is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.
We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.
Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.
Far better than Canestan.
Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.
Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.
Tony
Loverat ,
Hey Tony
Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere
have entertained me for many years.
Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.
paul ,
Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.
Dungroanin ,
Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists
invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately
after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving
8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.
Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to
dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be
killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such
private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy
of possession and control.
One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY
– and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that
cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to
mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you
torment beyond the grave.
Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted
currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted
meanings.
The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to
GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole
– is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem
to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying
– we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives
us.
The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives
to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of
our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control
or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little
that we have.
Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a
hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to
conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing
and being.
This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of
trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability –
but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.
If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus
corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.
Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing.
Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils
work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic
debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer
believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing
hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.
I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any
moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result
of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.
The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and
experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall
triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus
make it real – and remain truth.
Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and
the other as the will of true desire revealed.
The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in
the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to
do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and
transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully
defended narrative identity.
In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or
space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or
choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of
fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom
and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in
defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth,
and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.
paul ,
If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The
Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region
into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each
others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or
Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these
satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.
paul ,
George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.
At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the
people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.
They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America,
Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united,
Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed
and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at
peace.
When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral
hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated
to serve outside interests.
So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and
offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed
with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt,
which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space
to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria
sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the
Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How
contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing
that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should
anybody else?
paul ,
And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the
foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang
separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of
hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's,
to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and
drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone
Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?
Maggie ,
"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and
forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief
that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons
to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or
form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of
millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The
country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next
couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a
persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy
are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of
freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically
opposed to the idea of democracy .
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a
smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy,
acts alone.
I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring
the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump
giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to
commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single
living thing breathing.
No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!
paul ,
Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.
Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood
lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.
Loverat ,
My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't
identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a
few others.
Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses
evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is
changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they
really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.
The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds
should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see
why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These
idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their
irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in
their back garden.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie
crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is
homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.
milosevic ,
I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and
puppet regimes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious
leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the
drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the
Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the
alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the
hands of the Evil Brain Dead.
BigB ,
I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement
is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do
we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or
waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?
No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance.
Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI
is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and
commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that
elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend
or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting
evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said:
following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.
The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called
'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By
which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating.
Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform:
the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary
autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries
on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the
'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in
our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist
endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there
is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic
gestures in transference of our own responsibility.
'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular
complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically
exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential
expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to
have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible
right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer
bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to
nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old,
same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing
resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's
capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is
driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.
#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our
every enaction including speech-enactivism.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save
the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but
subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an
operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were
intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not
marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this
is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from
marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
BigB ,
Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no
exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert
the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If
nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.
I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of
only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all
agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for
other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the
entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is
it? 😉
The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily
manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.
That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to
pollute unhampered.
George Mc ,
I despair.
Well that's what you do.
Dungroanin ,
The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US
backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti
Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??
Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing
from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them,
nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still
nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?
Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be
bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!
Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing
Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!
Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck
poison spreading flies.
normal wisdom ,
so much disrespect here hare here.
these takfiri these giants these beards are hero
of the oded yinon plan
they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real
the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow
the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already
the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio
steppe
tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk
shirley you can sea more that
my life already
Francis Lee ,
Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time
have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist,
Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.
1. Control of technology.
2. Access to natural resources.
3. Finance.
4. Global media.
5. The means of mass destruction.
Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life
and death struggle for humanity.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe
to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US
powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of
sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is
now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the
Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly
Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside
our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot
be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).
A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps
the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one
European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western
European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by
immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been
possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest
workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious
social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The
fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr
Soros.
British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were
English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very
different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled
East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English
speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.
However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic
disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10
million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the
country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern
Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates,
and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we
have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.
BigB ,
Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil
fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming
from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?
When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this.
China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a
complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no
naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot
right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.
When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the
wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.
Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying
attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism
you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and
get back to a multipolar world.
Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.
BigB ,
Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and
rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally
'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The
imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the
non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is
not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.
I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational
predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only
paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all
opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded
imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.
There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is
why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and
absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept
the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.
#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit
growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a
collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite
growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance,
human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth
stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the
capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and
Chinese etc.
They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom
line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales
pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually
believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip
mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.
The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all
their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense
which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did
Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't
stop.
Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever
developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a
turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag
chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S
missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious
and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and
then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except
maybe for a pretty blue bow.
Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and
can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.
Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the
footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan.
Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it
does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented
Soviet Union.
The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.
Frank ,
The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.
Lots and lots of dead Americans.
Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.
Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal
state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.
Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service"
squirm in literal pain at the words.
Dungroanin ,
They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of
Kinetic energy missiles.
Their low yield nuke is their response.
The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in
Syria!
I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's
with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these
imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their
heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.
And they can pay their taxes in full.
The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some
Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the
Empire is dead.
Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.
wardropper ,
Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of
bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look
into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our
invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.
All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the
Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a
commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or
barter and the bankers will eventually starve.
Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the
depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.
Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.
After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange
became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out
paper again.
wardropper ,
My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step
in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing.
How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.
This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound
interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on
the production of others through what is called "unearned income".
Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those
flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet
SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a
word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah
in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.
Antonym ,
Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing
to the Jewish superiority myth.
Ken ,
They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That
9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if
you're not sure of this.
Antonym ,
Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.
The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New
York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .
5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.
Ken ,
"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"
Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which
spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.
The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.
Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention
the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?
Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving
Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.
Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van
that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say
something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are
your problem!"?
A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat
Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating
which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was
your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but
their arrogant stupidity,
Richard Le Sarc ,
The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of
Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth
Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most
certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your
power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.
They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with
Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as
well.
Ken ,
@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept
in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in
9/11.
Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their
colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who
seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/
Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some
excellent research based on facts not fantasy.
As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some
alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.
It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually
mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise
considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate
development across of broad spectrum of leverages?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display
the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and
awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.
normal wisdom ,
what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init
Those hoping the non-interventionist cause would be given some real muscle if a couple of
oligarchs who've
made fortunes from global interventionism team up and pump millions into Washington think
tanks will be sorely disappointed by the train wreck that is the Koch/Soros alliance.
The result thus far has not been a tectonic shift in favor of a new direction, with new
faces and new ideas, but rather an opportunity for these same old Washington think tanks, now
flush with even more money, to re-brand their pet interventionisms as "restraint."
The flagship of this new alliance, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, was sold
as an earth-shattering breakthrough - an "odd couple" of "left-wing" Soros and "right-wing"
Koch boldly tossing differences aside to join together and "end the endless wars."
That organization is now up and running and it isn't pretty.
To begin with, the whole premise is deeply flawed. George Soros is no "left-winger" and Koch
is no "right-winger." It's false marketing, like the claim that drinking Diet Coke will make
you skinny. Both are globalist oligarchs who continue to
invest hundreds of millions of dollars to create the kind of world where the elites govern
with no accountability except to themselves, and " the interagency ," rather
than an elected President of the US, makes US foreign policy.
As libertarian intellectual Tom Woods once famously quipped , "No matter whom you
vote for, you always wind up getting John McCain." That is exactly the world Koch and Soros
want. It's a world of Davos with fangs, not Mainstreet, USA.
A 'New Vision'?
Anyone doubting that Quincy is just a mass re-branding effort for the same failed foreign
policies of the past two decades need look no further than that organization's first big public
event , a February 26th conference with Foreign Policy Magazine, to explore "A New Vision
for America in the World."
Like pouring old wine into new bottles, this "new vision" is being presented by the very
same people and institutions who gave us the "old vision" - you know, the one they pretend to
oppose.
How should anyone interested in restraining foreign policy - let alone actual
non-interventionism - react to the kick-off presentation of the Quincy Institute's conference,
"Perspective on U.S. Global Leadership in the 21st Century," going to disgraced US General
David Petraeus?
Petraeus is, among many other things, an architect of the disastrous and failed "surge"
policy in Iraq. He is still convinced (at least as of a few years ago) that " we won " in
Iraq...but that we dare not end the occupation lest we lose what we "won." How's that for
"restraint"?
While head of the CIA, he
teamed up with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to develop and push the brilliant
idea of directly and overtly training and equipping al-Qaeda and other jihadists to overthrow
the secular government of Bashar Assad. How's that for "restraint"?
When a
tape leaked of Fox News contributor Kathleen T. McFarland meeting with Petraeus at the
behest of then-Fox Chairman Roger Ailes to convince him to run for US president, Petraeus told
her that the CIA in his view is "a national asset...a treasure." He then went on to speak
favorably of the CIA's role in Libya.
But the absurdity of leading the conference with such an unreconstructed warmongering
interventionist is only the beginning of the trip down the Quincy conference rabbit
hole.
Rogues' Gallery of Washington's Worst
Shortly following the disgraced general is a senior official from the German Marshal Fund , Julianne Smith, to give us
"A New Vision for America's Role in the World." Her organization, readers will recall, is
responsible for some of the most egregious warmongering propaganda.
The German Marshal Fund launched and funds the Alliance for Securing Democracy , an organization
led by such notable proponents of "restraint" as neoconservative icon William Kristol, John
McCain Institute head David Kramer, Michael " Trump is an agent of
Putin " Morell, and, among others, the guy who made millions out of scaring the hell out of
Americans, former Homeland-Security-chief-turned-airport-scanner-salesman Michael Chertoff.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy was responsible for the discredited "Hamilton 68
Dashboard," a magic tool they claimed would seek and destroy "Russian bots" in the social
media. After the propaganda value of such a farce had been reaped, Alliance fellow Clint Watts
admitted the whole thing was bogus .
Moving along, so as not to cherry pick the atrocities in this conference, moderating the
section on the Middle East is one "scholar," Mehdi Hasan, who actually
sent a letter to Facebook demanding that the social media company censor more political
speech! He has attacked what he calls "free speech fundamentalists."
Joining the "Regional Spotlight: Asia-Pacific" is Patrick Cronin of the thoroughly - and
proudly - neoconservative Hudson Institute. Cronin's entire professional career consists
of position after position at the center of Washington's various "regime change" factories.
From a directorial position at the mis-named
US Institute for Peace to "third-ranking position" at the US Agency for International
Development to "senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the [ neoconservative ] Center
for a New American Security." This is a voice of "restraint"?
Later, the segment on "Ending Endless War" features at least two speakers who absolutely
oppose the idea. Rosa Brooks, Senior Fellow at the "liberal interventionist" New America
Foundation, wrote not long ago that, "There's No Such Thing as Peacetime." In the
article she argued the benefits of "abandon[ing] the effort to draw increasingly arbitrary
lines between peacetime and wartime and instead focus[ing] on developing institutions and norms
capable of protecting rights and rule-of-law values at all times." In other words, war is
endless so man up and get used to it.
This may be the key for how you end endless war. Just stop calling it "war."
Brooks' fellow panelist, Tom Wright, hails from the epicenter of liberal interventionism,
the Brookings Institution, where he is director of the "Center on the United States and
Europe." Brookings loves "humanitarian interventions" and has published pieces attempting to
convince us that the attack on
Libya was not a mistake .
Wright himself is featured in the current edition of the Council on Foreign Relations'
publication Foreign Affairs arguing that old
interventionist shibboleth that the disaster in Iraq was not caused by the US invasion, but
rather by Obama's withdrawal.
This Quincy Institute champion of "restraint" concludes his latest piece arguing that:
Now is not the time for a revolution in U.S. strategy. The United States should continue
to play a leading role as a security provider in global affairs.
How revolutionary!
The moderator of that final panel in the upcoming Quincy Institute first conference is Loren
DeJonge Schulman, a deputy director at the above-named Center for a New American Security.
Before joining that neoconservative think tank, Schulman served as Senior Advisor to National
Security Advisor Susan Rice! Among her other international crimes, readers will recall that
Rice was a chief
architect of the US attack on Libya.
Schulman's entire career is, again, in the
service of, alternatively, the war machine and the regime change machine.
The Quincy Institute's first big event, which it bills as a showcase for a new foreign
policy of "restraint," is in fact just another gathering of Washington's usual warmongers,
neocons, and "
humanitarian " interventionists.
Quincy has been received with gushing praise from people who should know better . Any of
those gushers who look at this first Quincy conference and continue to maintain that a
revolution in foreign policy is afoot are either lying to us or lying to themselves.
But
Wait...There's More!
Sadly, the fallout extends beyond just this particular new institute and this particular
event.
Those who continue to push the claim that Koch and Soros are changing their spots and now
supporting restraint and non-interventionism should be made to explain why the most egregiously
warmongering and interventionist organizations are finding themselves on the receiving end of
oligarch largese.
Just days ago a
glowing article in Politico detailed the recipients of millions of Koch dollars to promote
"restraint." Who is leading the Koch brigades in the battle for a non-interventionist,
"restrained" foreign policy?
Politico reveals:
Libertarian business tycoon Charles Koch is handing out $10 million in new grants to
promote voices of military restraint at American think tanks, part of a growing effort by
Koch to change the U.S. foreign policy conversation.
The grants, details of which were shared exclusively with POLITICO, are being split among
four institutions: the Atlantic Council ; the Center for the National Interest; the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs; and the RAND Corporation.
The Atlantic Council has been pushing US foreign policy toward war with
Russia for years, pumping endless
false propaganda and neocon lies
to fuel the idea that Russia is engaged in an "asymmetric battle" against the US, that the mess
in Ukraine was the result of a Russian out-of-the-blue invasion rather than an Obama
Administration coup d'etat , that Russia threw the elections to Putin's agent Trump, and that
Moscow is seeking to to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
The Atlantic Council's " Disinfo
Portal ," a self-described "one-stop interactive online portal and guide to the Kremlin's
information war," is raw, overt war propaganda. It is precisely the kind of war propaganda that
has fueled three years of mass hysteria called "Russiagate," which though proven definitively
to be an utter fraud, continues to animate most of Washington's thinking on the Left and Right
to this day.
The Atlantic Council, through something it calls a " Digital Forensic Research Lab ,"
works with giant social media outlets to identify and ban any independent or alternative
news outlets who deviate from the view that the US is besieged by enemies, from Syria to Iran
to Russia to China and beyond, and that therefore it must continue spending a trillion dollars
per year to maintain its role as the unipolar hyperpower. Thus, the Atlantic Council - a
US government
funded entity - colludes with social media to silence any deviation from US government
approved foreign policy positions.
And these are the kinds of organizations that Koch and Soros claim are going to save us from
Washington's interventionist foreign policy?
Equally upsetting is the "collateral damage" that the Koch/Soros alliance and its love child
Quincy hath wrought. To see once-vibrant and reliably non-interventionist upstarts like The
American Conservative Magazine (TAC) lured away from the vision of its founders, Pat Buchanan
and Taki Theodoracopulos, to
slip into the warm Hegelian embrace of well-funded compromise is truly heartbreaking. It is
to witness the soiling of that once-brave publication's vindication for being right about Iraq
War 2.0 while virtually all of Washington was wrong.
Incidentally, and to add insult to injury, it is precisely these kinds of Washington
institutions who most viciously attacked TAC in those days who now find themselves trusted
partners and even "expert" sources !
TAC! Beware! It's not too late to wake up and smell the deception!
How to End Endless
Wars (The Easy Way)
If a Soros-Koch alliance was actually interested in ending endless US wars and re-orienting
our currently hyper-interventionist foreign policy toward "restraint," it would simply announce
that not another penny in campaign contributions would go to any candidate for House, Senate,
or President who did not vow publicly in writing to vote against or veto any legislation that
did not reduce military spending, that imposed sanctions overseas, that threatened governments
overseas, that appropriated funds in secret or overtly to destabilize or overthrow governments
overseas, or that sent foreign "aid" to any government overseas.
It would cost pennies to make such an announcement and stick to it, and the result would be
a massive shift in the American body politic toward what the current alliance advertises itself
as promoting.
But Koch/Soros don't really want to end endless US interventions overseas. They want to fund
the same old think tanks who are responsible for the disaster that is US foreign policy,
re-brand interventionism as non-interventionism, and hope none of us rubes in flyover country
notices.
To paraphrase what Pat Buchanan said about Democrats in his historic 1992 convention speech,
the whitewashing of Washington's most egregiously interventionist institutions and experts as
"restrained" non-interventionists is "the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in
American political history."
"... Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it. ..."
"... The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy. ..."
"... Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple." ..."
The White House
released a memo on Friday to Congress justifying the assassination of top Iranian general
Qassem Soleimani. Despite earlier claims from the administration of Soleimani and his Quds
Force planning imminent attacks on US personnel in the region, the memo uses past actions as
the justification for the killing.
The memo says President Trump ordered the assassination on January 2nd "in response to an
escalating series of attacks in preceding months by Iran and Iran-backed militias on United
States forces and interests in the Middle East region."
Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or
supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific
threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to
prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it.
The New York Times recently
reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27
th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the
Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of
provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof
that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing
Soleimani even more flimsy.
Lawmakers from both parties criticized Trump for killing Iran's top general without
congressional approval. The memo argues that Trump had authority to order the attack under
Article II of the US Constitution, and under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq (2002 AUMF).
Congress is taking measures to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran. The Senate
passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday, and the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF
in January.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The
administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows
that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and
simple."
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
Militarism is destroying the USA economy and well-being of the population.
Notable quotes:
"... Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008 style collapse hits again. ..."
"... Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn fortune. ..."
2. The young people who favor policies like "Medicare for all" are ignorant of economics and do not grasp the fact that they would
end by paying a great deal of taxes for that policy.
... ... ...
3. Democratic Party policy toward Trump is designed to prevent him governing.
4. The Democrats are seeking a new issue (anything will do) over which to impeach Trump again.
... ... ...
6. Trump's foreign policy in the ME is ignorant of anything but Zionist desires and ambitions.
7. In any deal with the Taliban the present Afghan government will inevitably be defeated and destroyed in the aftermath.
8. US ground forces are too large. We should adopt a foreign policy that will permit the maintenance of smaller ground forces.
9. Hillary has been behind much of the political devilment in the last three years and is scheming and hoping for a deadlocked
convention in which she will be nominated by acclamation.
10. Trump will wisely offer Tulsi Gabbard a job in his next administration. pl div
All good except #6 precludes #10, unless it was a bad faith offer.
I don't think the ZioCons will tolerate Trump offering Gabbard anything, even if he could ever get over her accurately describing
him as the Saudis' bitch.
Trump is very astute. He gets it. Bloomberg is going to buy the nomination with the full backing of the Deep State/Wall St
wing.
Mini Mike is a 5'4" mass of dead energy who does not want to be on the debate stage with these professional politicians. No
boxes please. He hates Crazy Bernie and will, with enough money, possibly stop him. Bernie's people will go nuts!
6-8 You are so correct. The question is: how will this affect our national interest over the next 5-10 years? Will it matter to
us?
I don't know and can't visualize the consequences very well. I assume the Muslim world will be arrayed against us for the foreseeable
future. How dangerous is that to our own safety?
With the fed now pumping upwards to 120 billion a day in the repo overnight loans market to keep the biggest banks solvent, I
wouldn't be so confident about the health of the economy.
Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008
style collapse hits again.
Trumps emphasis on a blue collar boom and an NASA moon landing will be how the US economy remains strong not bailing out too
big to fail Wall Street bank.
Re point 2. We are already paying for health insurance. At least I am. It costs me $26k per year to health insure my family.
All other countries with socialize healthcare systems spend a lower proportion of their GDP on healthcare and almost all have
better health outcomes for their populations. The proportion less can be as much as half the percentage of GDP the US spends on
healthcare.
Taxes may well go up. Healthcare costs will go down for most people. And for those whose healthcare is paid by their employers,
the costs to the employers would go down too, meaning that wages could go up to offset (or more than offset) the additional taxes.
Sir;
I have been advocating point #9 for a year now. Few understand the monstrous ambition contained by HRH HRC. (Her Royal Highness
Hillary Rodham Clinton.)
The Clinton foundation basically took over the Democrat National Committee, (an avowedly private organization,) in 2016.
One does not generally purchase a new toy without wanting to play with it. Clinton's 'toy' is the DNC. What is the primary
purpose of the DNC? To run a political party. The primary functions of a political party, at least today's versions of political
parties, are to secure power for the leadership of the party and 'compensation' for the efforts of the nomenklaturas.
The economy is bad for most of the young and some of the old. This can be inferred by the rise in 2nd and 3rd jobs among the workforce.
2 I have already addressed.
I think points 3 and 4 are obviously true. Im not sure if it is the Dems leading the charge or the neocons. But a group is
attempting to block Trumps efforts to govern.
I am a Sanders supporter. I believe that 5 is partially correct. Sanders wishes to remove the free market operating in certain
key areas - most obviously Healthcare. I do not think you are right about Warren. I think she is seeking progressive votes, but
has no intention of delivering.
I think 6 is obviously true, although I also think Trumps instinct lead him to wish to withdraw troops. He is no match for
the "Borg".
7 is also clearly true.
8 is also clearly true.
9. I would modify this. Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an
excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political
clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn
fortune.
While I once read Michael Scheuer's blog for his wisdom on his areas of specialty (some examples of that wisdom concerning Afghanistan,
excerpted from his books, are collected at:
"Afghanistan: Michael
Scheuer's View" )
I was turned off by what seemed to be his appeals in his blog for violence against those whom he sees as America's internal
enemies. However, reading Col. Lang's point 7 above, which echoes what Scheuer said in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris (e.g.,
this ), prompted me to check out what he is currently saying. One quote
from his current blog I think will interest both Col. Lang and the CIA veteran Larry Johnson. Scheuer wrote:
The current CIA Director [ Gina Haspel ] is one of the officers I worked with, and she, almost single-handedly, helped
CIA's bin Laden unit destroy an al-Qaeda organization in Eurasia . I have always admired her greatly for her brains, personal
courage, and for never, in my experience, flinching from truth and duty.
I have no idea of the veracity of that, but I certainly do respect MS for his knowledge of the CIA, the Muslims, and Afghanistan.
Surely MS knows of what he speaks in this instance. I think his recommendation is worth noting.
You seem to be saying that "Medicare for all" is pie in the sky and can't work economically. But how do you explain the fact that
all the EU democracies, the UK, Canada etc can provide full health care, but the richest country in the world can't?
Government-funded health care would put more cash in the average guy's pocket which he would spend on consumption which would
strengthen the economy. It's a "win win" solution. When I was in business, I never minded paying for health care, but monthly
payments have ballooned to the point that it's out of reach for many people. I hope you agree with me that health care has gone
from being a vital service to an extortion racket.
Sometimes government can do some good. They could start by creating a system that's either affordable or puts the screws to
the health care Mafia.
All good, except pp.1 since the actual industrial output contracts (4 consecutive annual contractions) and manufacturing is even
worse--6 consecutive annual contractions.
Most "jobs" created are mostly part-time retail jobs due to season. Boeing situation devastated a contractor and supply chain
with massive layoffs (e.g. Spirit Wichita laid-off the third of its labor force)--and those are REAL jobs. The rest--subscribe
completely. Albeit, something has to be done with healthcare. What? I don't know.
2. My wife and I, in the US private sector now, pay $12,000 a year out of pocket before we get any "coverage" at all from the
Denial of Care industry. I'm 57, young people get even less for their money and will continue to vote for change until something
gets better for them. Medicare and the VA already provide over one third of US actual medical care and do it for a fraction of
what the Denial of Care industry does it for. It would be hilarious if Trump took up M4A and ran on it: he could probably implement
it, which he was in favor of back when he was a private business man because the rent extractions of the Denial of Care industry
make US labor uncompetitive against the rest of the world. The MED IC is in the tank for the Dem party and doing all it can to
stop M4A.
4. Which would make sense if the Dems were interested in governing, but if Obama proved anything it is that all the Dems want
to do is say, "those mean, evil Republicans won't let us do anything." Which is to say the current configuration of politics and
economy are working just fine for the Dem apparatchiks who's main function is to fleece guys like Bloomberg.
5. There are a world of economic models between our NeoLiberal (see Slobodian's "The Globalists") hyper extractive capitalism
and a Leninist command economy, it's straw-manning to call AOC, Sanders and even Warren Leninists when they are all somewhere
to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
6. Yes!
7. Seems likely.
8. Yes and they shouldn't be deployed to create chaotic ground conditions to facilitate looting by Globalist Multinationals.
jsn "when they are all somewhere to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon." Hey! I remember Eisenhower and Nixon and you are completely
full of it about them. Both of them were centrists.
"... Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to journalist and side-piece Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes. ..."
"... What's next on the real-life House of Cards? ..."
A
week of two-tiered
legal shenanigans was capped off on Friday with a
New York
Times report that Attorney General William Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to
scrutinize the government's case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn,
which the Times suggested was " highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political
interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors."
Notably, the FBI excluded
crucial information from a '302' form documenting an interview with Flynn in January, 2017.
While Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to misleading agents over his contacts with the former
Russian ambassador regarding the Trump administration's efforts to oppose a UN resolution
related to Israel, the original draft of Flynn's 302 reveals that agents thought
he was being honest with them - evidence which Flynn's prior attorneys never pursued.
His new attorney, Sidney Powell, took over Flynn's defense in June 2019 - while Flynn
withdrew his guilty plea in January , accusing the government of "bad faith,
vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement."
In addition to a review of the Flynn case, Barr has hired a handful of outside prosecutors
to broadly review several other politically sensitive national-security cases in the US
attorney's office in Washington , according to the Times sources.
Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC,
Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and
others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to
journalist and side-piece
Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at
former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes.
Earlier this week, Barr overruled the DC prosecutors recommendation for Stone, resulting in
their resignations. The result was the predictable triggering of Democrats across the spectrum
.
According to the Times , "Over the past two weeks, the outside prosecutors have begun
grilling line prosecutors in the Washington office about various cases -- some public, some not
-- including investigative steps, prosecutorial actions and why they took them, according to
the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal
deliberations."
The moves amounted to imposing a secondary layer of monitoring and control over what
career prosecutors have been doing in the Washington office. They are part of a broader
turmoil in that office coinciding with Mr. Barr's recent
installation of a close aide, Timothy Shea , as interim United States attorney in the
District of Columbia, after Mr. Barr maneuvered out the Senate-confirmed former top
prosecutor in the office, Jessie K. Liu.
Mr.
Flynn's case was first brought by the special counsel's office, who agreed to a plea deal
on a charge of lying to investigators in exchange for his cooperation, before the Washington
office took over the case when the special counsel shut down after concluding its
investigation into Russia's election interference.
-New
York Times
Are we? NSC hijecked functions of the Department of State and is a clear parallel structure,
that functions in a way completely different from its initial role. They no longer serve they
serve as the president's personal staff. NSC clearly strives to control foreign policy and thus
control the President in this area.
And with people like Pompeo at the helm what are the benefits of expelling Vindmans
National Security Adviser told a room full of Atlantic Council
attendees on Tuesday that significant cuts were under way at the leak-prone White House
National Security Council, confirming a Monday report in the Washington Examiner that up to 70
positions would be cut.
Robert O'Brien says the NSC will be down between 115 to 120 staffers by the end of this
week. pic.twitter.com/FpleaBFh85
While O'Brien pitched it as a return to "a manageable size," he didn't mention what the
Examiner reported - namely, that most of the cuts would be Obama-era holdovers such as
anti-Trump impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, 44, and his twin brother Yevgeny,
who were
fired from the NSC last week and escorted out of the White House by security.
O'Brian noted that the Vindmans "weren't fired," according to the
Epoch Times , rather "Their services were no longer needed."
"It's really a privilege to work in the White House. It's not a right," he continued. "At
the end of the day, the president is entitled to staffers that want to execute his policy, that
he has confidence in, and I think every president's entitled to that."
" We're not a banana republic where a group of Lt. Colonels get together and decide what the
policy is or should be ," he added.
The reorganization was consistent with the "Scowcroft model" used by Brent Scowcroft, who
served as national security adviser for Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush,
according to O'Brien. The model emphasizes that the national security adviser shouldn't "be
an advocate for one policy or another." Instead, the adviser should "ensure that the
president is well served by the cabinet, departments, and agencies in obtaining counsel and
formulating his policies."
The policies are then decided on by the president and the adviser makes sure they're
carried out.
Most of the staff on the council actually work for other departments and agencies and are
part of the council for a certain length of time. O'Brien suggested that some might not be
serving in the way that top officials think they should. -
Epoch Times
" When they come to the White House, they serve as the president's personal staff and it is
our view that while they are at the National Security Council, they should not represent the
views of their parent agencies or departments," said O'Brien. " They're not there as liaison
officers, and they certainly shouldn't represent their own personal views. "
"The president has to have confidence in the folks on his National Security Council staff to
ensure that they are committed to executing the agenda that he was elected by the American
people to deliver," not a "mini State Department, a mini Pentagon, a mini Department of
Homeland Security."
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting
, the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US
account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27.
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of
responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence
for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was
Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that
though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they
have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and
has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump
administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the
west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in
Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties.
On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen.
Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had
previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and
were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to
launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they
have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense
Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon
in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious
(but not fatal) wounding
of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately
blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the
assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In
London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an
anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the
time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside
Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the
authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a
bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against
them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in
triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were
both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was
Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in
the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS
in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed
to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and
installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion
looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982
served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong
political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled
Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the
country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against
Israel today
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move.
How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation
against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against
Tehran?
This article has been republished with permission from
Just World News .
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
The essential facts are these. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. The war's nominal purpose was to liberate
Cuba from oppressive colonial rule. The war's subsequent conduct found the United States not only invading and occupying Cuba, but
also seizing Puerto Rico, completing a deferred annexation of Hawaii, scarfing up various other small properties in the Pacific,
and, not least of all, replacing Spain as colonial masters of the Philippine Archipelago, located across the Pacific.
That the true theme of the war with Spain turned out to be not liberation but expansion should not come as a terrible surprise.
From the very founding of the first British colonies in North America, expansion has constituted an enduring theme of the American
project. Separation from the British Empire after 1776 only reinforced the urge to grow. Yet prior to 1898, that project had been
a continental one. The events of that year signaled the transition from continental to extra-continental expansion. American leaders
were no longer content to preside over a republic stretching from sea to shining sea.
In that regard, the decision to annex the Philippines stands out as especially instructive. If you try hard enough -- and some
politicians at the time did -- you can talk yourself into believing that U.S. actions in the Caribbean in 1898 represented something
other than naked European-style imperialism with all its brute force to keep the natives in line. After all, the United States did
refrain from converting Cuba into a formal colony and by 1902 had even granted Cubans a sort of ersatz independence. Moreover, both
Cuba and Puerto Rico fell within "our backyard," as did various other Caribbean republics soon to undergo U.S. military occupation.
Geographically, all were located within the American orbit.
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
So the Philippine Archipelago had become ours. In short order, however, authorities in Washington changed their mind about the
wisdom of accepting responsibility for several thousand islands located nearly 7,000 miles from San Francisco.
The sprawling American colony turned out to be the ultimate impulse purchase. And as with most impulse purchases, enthusiasm soon
enough gave way to second thoughts and even regret. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt was privately referring to the Philippines
as America's "Achilles heel." The United States had paid Spain $20 million for an acquisition that didn't turn a profit and couldn't
be defended given the limited capabilities of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. To complicate matters further, from Tokyo's perspective,
the Philippines fell within its backyard. So far as Imperial Japan was concerned, imperial America was intruding on its turf.
Thus was the sequence of events leading to the Pacific War of 1941-1945 set in motion. I am not suggesting that Pearl Harbor was
an inevitable consequence of the United States annexing the Philippines. I am suggesting that it put two rival imperial powers on
a collision course.
One can, of course, find in the ensuing sequence of events matters worth celebrating -- great military victories at places like
Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, culminating after 1945 in a period of American dominion. But the legacy of our flirtation with empire
in the Western Pacific also includes much that is lamentable -- the wars in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and now an intensifying
rivalry with China destined to lead we know not where.
If history could be reduced to a balance sheet, the U.S. purchase of the Philippines would rate as a pretty bad bargain. That
first $20 million turned out to be only a down payment.
No. Absolutely not. We would have been much better off had the US not violently dismantled the first Republic of the Philippines.
The canard that our greatest generation of Filipinos (Generation of 1898) was not fit to govern us was a product of US Assimilation
Schools designed to rid the Philippines of Filipinos- by wiring them to automatically think anything non-Filipino will always
be better (intenalized racism) and to train the primarily to leave and work abroad and blend -in as Americans (objectification)
and never stand out as self-respecting Filipinos who aspire to be the best they can be propelled by the Filipino story.
Our multiple Golden Ages only occurred prior to US invasion and colonization.
YES, the USA owes us. We are every American's 2nd original sin.
We do not owe US anything. The USA owes us a great big deal, More than any other country on earth.
THEY (USA) owes us:
1) For violently dismantling the first Republic of the Philippines at the cost of over a million martyrs from the greatest generation
of Filipinos.
2) For US Assimilation Schools denying us the intensity of our golden ages prior to their invasion as our drivers for PH civilization,
turning us into a country that trains its people to leave and assimilate in US culture and become workers for Americans and foreigners
abroad. This results in a Philippines WITHOUT Filipinos.
3) For US bombs turning Intramuros into dust- the centerpiece of the Paris of the East, with treasures, publications and art
much older that the US- without consent from any Filipino leader. And for dismantling our train system from La Union to Bicol.
4) For the US Rescission Act which denied Filipino veterans due recognition, dignity and honor- vets who fought THEIR war against
Japan on our soil.
5) For the canard that Aguinaldo, our 29-year old father and liberator of the Republic of the Philippines, is a villain and
a traitor, even inventing the heroism of Andres Bonifacio which ultimately resulted in "Toxic Nationalism" which Rizal warned
us about in the persona of Simoun in El Filibusterismo who will drive our nation to self-destruction and turn a paradise into
a desert by being automatically wired to think anything non-Filipino will and always be better.
The core of colonial mentality is the misguided belief that we cannot have been a greater country had the US not destroyed
the first Republic of the Philippines- a lie that was embedded in our minds by the US discrediting Aguinaldo and the Generation
of 1896/1898- the greatest generation of Filipinos.
It does seem to me that every country which was able and could afford to expand its territory did so. In Europe, exceptions to
that a wish were Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine, ?Romania and Chechia.
So, US had company!
President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that
country:
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. . . And
one night late it came to me this way. . .1) That we could not give them back to Spain- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;
3) that we not leave them to themselves-they are unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there
worse than Spain's wars; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and
uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ
also died."
Making Christians of a country that had its first Catholic diocese 9 years before the Spanish Armada sailed for England, with
4 dioceses in place years before the English sailed for Jamestown.
Dan Carlin did an outstanding podcast on the choices America faced after acquiring the Philippines. McKinley was anti-empire,
but the industrialists in his administration hungered to thwart the British, French and Dutch empires in the Pacific by establishing
a colony all of our own.
As someone born in Latin America, we never saw the US as anything but a brutal predator, whose honeyed words were belied by their
deeds. I wonder if it began with the Philippines. There was the Mexican war first, which wrested a lot of territory from Mexico.
And then there was the invasion of Canada to bring the blessings of democracy to Canadians (it ended with the White House in flames).
I suspect that the beliefe that you are exceptional and blessed by God can lead to want to straighten up other people "for their
own good", and make a profit besides - a LOT of profit.
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for
bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.
Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on
CBS's Face the Nation
, "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In
appearances on
five
news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note
tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This
Week.
In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's
foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.
We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become
significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration,
Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's
nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .
This is a very consequential line to cross.
Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that
recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to
charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.
Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions
recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted
ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal
Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.
Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.
'Keeping the Oil'
Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course --
probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want
to keep the oil," Trump declared in
the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus
from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.
The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is
illegal,"
Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing
for Consortium News, pointed out
that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)
Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international
law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone
attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.
In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil,
Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss
the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops,
Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost
of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are
Iraqi government-owned.
At Baghdad's Throat
Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three
years ago, he has
tried
to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot
over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.
Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister.
Last year the U.S. administration
asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various
promised reconstruction projects.
Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi
signed an "oil
for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in
Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)
Blueprints for Reprisal
If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless
pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.
No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance
of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals.
The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that
Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals
against the U.S.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech
at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise
other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.
Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:
"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.
It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose
costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."
Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously
incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given
response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.
Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif
sent out a message
whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These
few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a
critical blow.
24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.
Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.
Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions
such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world.
In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This
was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist,
essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him
on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago.
What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.
Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46
Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets"
See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.
rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28
To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of
Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience
to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others
and has not for centuries.
Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty
to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing
economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we
have already seen.
"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will
not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran
for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.
Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15
The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far
Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.
dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43
SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat.
Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about.
Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.
Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49
The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance
around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.
Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he
must not have been listening.
Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies,
without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will
on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed
off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg
him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it
looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.
The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the
problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen
and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.
Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30
It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position?
On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In
the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime,
simply furthering a policy objective.
Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19
What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still
does.
Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01
The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies
and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade
reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before;
but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.
paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55
The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO
countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they
are likely to turn to other protectors.
One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that
this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had
anything to do with any of this?
ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31
Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful.
"We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips
for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to
Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.
Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40
Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance
has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance
could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The
Empires days are numbered.
Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28
Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone
who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html
This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might
pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the
future are punished in the present.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
NSC Russia expert freshly appointed Andrew Peek, who was walked out like Vindman,
with him only freshly appointed after Fiona Hill and the Tim Morrioson resigned.
There is a big problems with "experts" in NSC -- often they represent interests of the
particular agency, or a think tank, not that of the country.
Look at former NSC staffer Fiona Hill. She can be called "threat inflation"
specialist.
NSC tries to usurp the role of the State Department and overly militarize the USA
foreign policy, while having much lower class specialists. It is a kind of CIA backdoor
into defining the USA foreign policy.
I would advocate creating "shadow NSC" by the party who is in opposition, so that it
can somehow provide countervailing opinions. But with both parties being now war parties,
this is no that effective.
Cutting NSC staff to the bones, so that such second rate personalities like Fiona Hill
and Vindman are automatically excluded might also help a little bit.
One common explanation is that the NSC mission creep results from the NSC staff
growing too large and the easy solution is to limit the size of the staff. I am
sympathetic to that feeling because we don't want it to
be too large and we don't want it to be usurping things that the State Department or
the Agency should do.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
I do not know where you are going with this: "Are you honestly expecting the little people in the US to believe the DC chickenhawks
or the MSM again?"
Trump received massive support for firing missiles into Syria after the purported gas attacks including from ~ 50% in public
opinion polls, so IMO there is no doubt that the "little people" will buy into the next war hook, line and sinker with 65% approval
if there is a long lead-up. The Iran / 9-11 trial balloon is being floated in some rightwing media outlets.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
"It does not take a poli sci major to figure out that Flynn's immediate removal from the
Administration was essential to undermining Trump's entire foreign policy initiatives
including no new interventionist wars, peace with Russia and US withdrawal from Syria and
Afghanistan."
I always get a chuckle out of the notion that Trump and the neocons are mortal enemies. Do
you know who co-wrote Michael Flynn's "The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War
Against Radical Islam and Its Allies"? Does the name Michael Ledeen ring a bell? A profile on
Flynn in the New Yorker Magazine revealed that much of the book is practically plagiarized
from Ledeen's sorry body of books and articles. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is about as neocon as you can get with founder
Clifford D. May now serving as President, who is also a member of the Henry Jackson Society,
an outfit that is infamous for supporting the war in Iraq. Here is Ledeen on the countries
posing the greatest threat to the USA:
It's no coincidence. Russia, Iran and North Korea are in active cahoots. They are
pooling resources, including banking systems (the better to bust sanctions), intelligence
and military technology, as part of an ongoing war against the West, of which the most
melodramatic battlefields are in Syria/Iraq and Ukraine.
To judge by their language, the leaders of the three countries think the tide of world
events is flowing in their favor. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered an
ultimatum to the West, saying that Iran's war against "evil" would only end with the
removal of America. Russian President Vladimir Putin marches on in Ukraine, blaming the
West for all the trouble, and the North Koreans are similarly bellicose.
They are singing from the same hymnal. And they aim to do us in.
Right, they aim to do us in. So it turns out that the guy that Flynn is most closely
allied to ideologically is ten times scarier than Hillary Clinton. If you still have doubts
about Flynn's close ties to Ledeen, I recommend The New Yorker profile linked to above. It
states:
Flynn and Ledeen became close friends; in their shared view of the world, Ledeen
supplied an intellectual and historical perspective, Flynn a tactical one. "I've spent my
professional life studying evil," Ledeen told me. Flynn said, in a recent speech, "I've sat
down with really, really evil people" -- he cited Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Russians, Chinese
generals -- "and all I want to do is punch the guy in the nose."
Get that, people? Flynn said he'd like to punch a Russian in the nose. People get confused
over Flynn's ideological core beliefs by missing that his interest in Russia is solely based
on its usefulness against ISIS. Just because he favored a united military front against ISIS,
it does not mean that he has the same affinity for the Kremlin that someone like Stephen F.
Cohen has. Just remember that the USA and Stalin were allied against Hitler. You know how far
that went.
lundiel ,
Funny you should bring up Ledeen, just after I posted a comment about him, eh Louis?
For whatever reason, Flynn decided to work with Trump and his removal, by his compatriots, is
testament to his problematic policy shift. Who knows if he had a paradigm shift or thought he
knew which side his bread was buttered. The thing is, as Renee says, the FBI are very much
involved in internal politics.
Thank you for another good article. What strikes me is that so many automatically go to, or
refer to, Mr Putin as the voice of reason these days and not Washington DC or any NATO
country. I never thought that I will live to see the US become less trusted than our old
enemy, the commies. BUT, as I say in my books, the Russia of today is not the USSR at all.
Anyway, for those interested in interesting military history, I recently discovered this
myself, see https://www.georgemjames.com/blog/the-fuhrers-commando-order-origins.
I wanted to post on the open thread but got busy and forgot. GMJ.
Edward Wong considers the
growing backlash in the U.S. against the forever war, and he reviews Trump's record to show how
he has continued and expanded U.S. military engagement overseas:
Despite his denunciations of endless wars, Mr. Trump's policies and actions have gone in
the opposite direction. In December, he ordered 4,500 troops to the Middle East, adding to
the 50,000 already there. In the last two years, the American military dropped bombs and
missiles on Afghanistan at a record pace. In April, Mr. Trump vetoed a bipartisan
congressional resolution to end American military involvement in Yemen's devastating civil
war.
Perhaps most significant, Mr. Trump withdrew in 2018 from a landmark nuclear containment
deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions, setting off the chain of events that led to the
killing of General Suleimani and a retaliatory missile strike by Iran that caused traumatic
brain injuries to at least 64 American service members.
This is a pretty good summary of the damage Trump has done, but it understates how bad it
has been. In addition to the buildup of troops and the continuation of illegal, unauthorized
military involvement in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, Trump has also presided over a sharp
increase in drone strikes , and he has
loosened the rules of engagement in all U.S. bombing campaigns. In the past week, we
learned that the U.S.
dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than in any previous year of the war:
American aircraft released 7,423 munitions in the country in 2019, according to figures
published Monday by U.S. Air Forces Central Command. Coalition aircraft flew nearly 8,800
sorties during the period, over a quarter of which carried out strikes.
The tally surpasses the previous record set last year when 7,362 munitions were released
and comes amid ongoing discussion between American and Taliban officials aimed at ending
America's longest war.
Trump is sometimes described as "reluctant" to use force, but as these numbers show the
U.S. military has been dropping bombs and launching missiles in even greater numbers under
Trump. If anything, the president is only too eager to order attacks on other states when there
is no justification for them, as the illegal attacks on Syria and the illegal assassination of
Soleimani should make clear. Trump uses force when he doesn't have to, he uses more of it than
is required, and he rewards the men who use it to commit war crimes. His foreign policy is one
of rejecting
restraint . He doesn't end the endless wars because doing so would require the kind of
diplomatic engagement that he abhors, and he doesn't end them because he is a militarist. The
president is continuing and adding to the long, ugly record of our excessive use of force
overseas.
To change that, the U.S. won't just need different leadership, but we will also need an
entirely different way of thinking about the U.S. role in the world. We need to stop viewing
and treating other countries as if they are our bombing ranges. We need to recognize that our
hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to foment more conflict that kills and
displaces innocent people in huge numbers. We need to insist that our government resorts to
force only as a last resort, and then we need to make our leaders pay a political price if they
start or join unnecessary wars. If we are satisfied with empty slogans instead of genuine
peace, empty slogans and ceaseless war will be what we get.
"We need to recognize that our hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to
foment more conflict that kills and displaces innocent people in huge numbers."
That's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". The more you spend on something to fix
something else, it only causes an increase in the something else, which causes you to have
to spend more. It is the entire basis of the US defense, healthcare and legal markets.
But how else will the US force the other countries to renounce their sovereign status and
relinquish their economies to the extractive, parasitic greed of Wall Street? Andrew
Mellon's brother, Richard, used to say that being in the business of steel making, one
needs a machine gun... When one seeks to be the Hegemon (ultimate monopolist), one needs
"full spectrum dominance"!
It seems fair to assert that the vast majority of Americans have no idea how many bombs we
are dropping around the world. I suspect most assume things are mostly wound-down in
Afghanistan with troops there for no other purpose than to have troops spread throughout
the region. And we've seen with little pressure on our senators to override Trump's veto,
that Yemen doesn't rise even close to the outrage that any daily dose of tweets can muster
when it feeds Trump derangement syndrome.
Yet I do hope and pray we end the wars, the sanctions and the global military
presence.
Anyone who believes that Donald Trump was serious about reducing our military adventurism
is deluding themselves.
The theme of forcing other countries to support our aims is central to his foreign
policy, and he escalates all conflicts in hopes of forcing others to concede. None of that
was hidden during 2016. It's also consistent with how his businesses have treated small
vendors. The Trump you see is not some creation of the deep state, or a product of
aggressive investigations. It's the Trump that has always been there. He's a bully. He's
always been a bully, and he always will be a bully.
You might have missed the evidence in 2016, but you can't pretend in 2020 that Trump is
the guy who will minimize the use of force to accomplish his goals.
I was obvious that Flynn was targeted for elimination by what ludicrously calls itself the
"resistance" right from the beginning using Hoover's G-boys and girls who have by the way
been heavily infiltrated by CIA to get him.
Many of the players involved in this act worked in CI which is closely connected to the
CIA's own counter intelligence. In fact the connections are so incestuous that many of the
FBI's "agents" are sheep dipped Agency officers.
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
Why? Probably because they are working on the same team as CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS and the
other alphabet soup agencies who gain their power from what could be correctly called the War
of Terror. Flynn being a threat because he was in agreement with Trump's proposed
noninterventionist foreign policy.
The same one he promised his voters but has currently reneged on. Remember the
"resistance" as they call themselves but are really the same ol' shit faction want America
constantly embroiled in Foreign conflicts and the operation known as the "Purple
Revolution"by the same group who likes to color code their regime changes was not only to
take down Flynn but Trump as well. A soft coup in other words.
Now that Trump's playing ball they can go after his base and those on the left who oppose
the usual that the so called "resistance' offers.
Seamus Padraig ,
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
The FBI does have a counter-intelligence function, so that would give them some legitimate
interest in the activities of foreign intelligence services, at least; but I suspect their
obsession with Trump and Flynn goes far, far beyond any legitimate legal mandate.
True they've always had a CI function but it was more like a total Keystone Kops' operation.
Still is probably when you consider that Hannssen worked in their CI for over two decades
without being detected.
Of there's CIA with James Jesus Angleton who was a good friend of Kim Philby who wrecked
any CI capability both FBI and CIA had by being suspicious of any Russiaphile.
In fact this whole Russiaphobia and hoax is probably the resurrection of the ghost of
Angleton.
True Hoover spent more time chasing Commie and creating the Red Scare than he did cross
dressing and hanging out a Mob hangouts which he assured us didn't exist.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
When it comes to US foreign policy, the names in the news usually include our President,
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and a couple big name
generals depending on the war. Of course, there are many more people involved, and the entire
process is supposed to run through the National Security Council. Hence I bought this book
with the intention of learning more about the decision making process from someone who has
served in government and dealt with the NSC. The book is a chronological history of the NSC
from its inception to the administration of George W. Bush post 9/11. It focuses on the major
personalities that have served on the NSC, and how its functioning have changed with each
administration under the guidance or negligence of the President. Some Presidents, like
Eisenhower, made sure the NSC ran like a well-oiled machine that harnessed the wisdom, skills
and opinions of all its members and their agencies. Other Presidents, like Nixon and W. Bush
used it essentially as a committee to bottleneck ideas while they worked with their favorites
on major decisions. The book does a great job showing how individuals as disparate as Henry
Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice have utilized the NSC.
However, what I found lacking in this book is its complete minimization of the role of big
corporations in affecting US foreign policy. A quick google search will show that every
member of the NSC has sat on the boards of multiple corporations prior to joining the NSC. It
is safe to assume that these corporations chose these board members due in large part to
their ability to influence US foreign policy. And so the book covers very little in terms of
tariffs and economic treaties. The biggest economic item covered by the book are trade
sanctions, and even then focuses mainly on the sanctions applied to Iraq after the first Gulf
War.
Also lacking in the book was any significant discussion on US efforts in combating the
international trade in narcotics, weapons and slaves. Wars are a big issue, but I doubt they
take up all the time of the NSC. Looking up the NSC in Wikipedia, one sees that it includes
members tasked with fighting America's drug wars; and our drug wars are probably the big
ticket item in dealing with Latin America. Yet narcotics, heroine, and cocaine do not even
show up in the book's index. Overall, I consider this book an interesting read for those new
to foreign policy, but it misses out on a lot.
Why the rush? There are a surprising number of little mistakes that should have been
picked up in the editing process. Granted, the topic is timely and important, but would the
world have collapsed if the publishers held on to the book for an extra month for another
round of read-throughs? Also, there is just too much writing. Editors should have crossed out
a lot of unnecessary stuff.
There are two reasons I point out one factual error I came across. First, it makes me feel
smarter. That is less important to everyone else, but it makes me feel good. Second, if I
found one error, people who specialize in other areas may have noticed other errors, and
those should be pointed out. Anyway, on pages 218-219, Rothkopf describes Reagan's National
Security Planning Group (NSPG) as having been "chaired by Bush and [it] ended up dealing with
issues like the spate of terrorist attacks and other crises that confronted the
administration." The NSPG did indeed deal with important issues, and in some sense it
probably dealt with the issues he pointed out, but Rothkopf is confusing the NSPG with the
Crisis Management Team, which later became the Special Situations Group, both of which were
chaired by VP Bush. The NSPG, however, was more accurately described by Bush's VP chief of
staff, Craig Fuller: "The [NSPG] is the most restricted national security council meeting
that is called. It is usually confined to the principals, meaning the Secretaries of State,
Defense, Vice President, ... the Director of Central Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, the President's Chief of Staff, [the National Security Adviser and deputy NSA] and
... usually the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury, but it can be expanded
depending on the topic." No more than a dozen people usually attended, and only the President
and Vice President brought their chiefs of staff (p. 923). There were usually two NSPG
meetings per month. The Tower Commission report noted that the NSC meetings were becoming a
bit too big for productive discussions among the principals, so the President turned to the
NSPG. And from everything I have read, Reagan was at most of the meetings. This is not a
major error, but at the same time, the NSPG was an incredibly important component of Reagan
Administration foreign/national security policy. Perhaps there are other errors.
One of the funnier errors: the Washington Post Book World review pointed out that the
picture on the cover is more likely from a Cabinet meeting. Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor,
who is not on the NSC, is clearly visible in the picture. Was it really that difficult to
come up with a better, more accurate picture? If people do judge books by the cover, this one
has not put its best foot forward.
The good stuff: Rothkopf's description of policy viewpoints is interesting. Rather than
the constant chatter about the personal spats between major members of foreign policy
(although those are included in the book too), we should hear more about what these people
think. This important stuff is shaping the world. Another great aspect of the book is that
Rothkopf got an amazing amount of access to the key players through interviews. These are the
people who have shaped the world over the past four or so decades. The quotations, although a
bit long, are practically a primary source of data for other researchers. Hopefully someday
Rothkopf will make his interview transcripts available to other researchers. Great stuff
there.
David J. Rothkopf was a junior member of the Clinton administration. In this fascinating
book, he studies the post-1947 record of the American foreign policy élite, the
National Security Council and its staff, about 200 people. This exclusive establishment,
which he actually calls an `aristocracy', is the part of the US ruling class that runs
national policy across Republican and Democrat administrations.
He contrasts 1947 with post-2001, finding `a stunningly different set of conclusions about
what to do with American power and prestige'. He supports the multilateralism of NATO, the
Marshall Plan, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN, under the slogan of globalisation, and
argues against Bush's unilateralism, which puts the USA `above and beyond the influence of
global institutions or the rule of law'. He agrees with Carter's national security advisor,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, that terrorism is a tactic not an enemy.
He notes `the debacle in Iraq', yet misunderstands the region completely when he writes,
"it is the decay of Middle Eastern civilisation that is the threat to us." Not the US state's
unpopular alliances with the Saudi and Israeli states then!
He describes the USA's whole political system as suffering "an irresponsible separation
between the will of the majority of America and the will of the representatives of the
American people." But if the people's supposed representatives do not represent them, how can
this be a democracy?
Finally, Rothkopf warns, "The real strategic threats come from those who would offer an
alternative to our leadership." These "will argue that our system has exacerbated rather than
resolved basic problems of inequity in the world." With some justice, since, as he admits,
"the majority of the world's population are today effectively disenfranchised from reaping
the benefit of the world we have been leading." If this US leadership, exercised through the
institutions which he so admires, has not benefited the majority of the world's people, what
good is it?
David J Rothkopf has written a valuable book about a government agency that one hears very
little about in the daily news. "Running the World" is an insider's account of the inner
workings of the National Security Council (created by the National Security Act of 1947). The
National Security Council is an executive body within the White House that includes cabinet
level officials involved in diplomacy and defense. Rothkopf's account is about the key
players that were responsible for the successes and failures of the National Security
Council's management of America's foreign policy since the end of World War II.
Rothkopf's insider credentials are impressive: he is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations, he was under-secretary of commerce during the Clinton Administration, he served as
managing director of Kissinger and Associates, he also served as Chairman and CEO of
Intellibridge, and he is currently visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
There is an interesting section in this book called "Two Degrees of Henry Kissinger,"
which shows that the 13 national security advisors (NSAs) that followed Kissinger have either
worked with him, for him, or worked with or for one of the members of his staff.
After Nixon was elected President, Kissinger was appointed NSA. Kissinger not only
assembled one of the most talented teams in the history of the NSC (Lawrence Eagleberger,
Anthony Lake, Alexander Haig, Brent Scowcroft, and Robert MacFarlane), he also took control,
either directly or indirectly, of all the interagency policy groups. Kissinger was Nixon's
entire inner circle in matters of foreign policy.
When the Watergate scandel broke, Nixon became distracted and virtually left Kissinger to
his own devices. As a result, Kissinger may have been the most powerful non-elected official
in American history and certainly every NSA since has operated in his shadow.
The title of this book "Running the World" is more than a little pretentious. As has been
noted by other reviewers, it is an account of the old boys network written by an old boy and
tends toward self-importance. A more accurate and humble title would have been the one I
chose for this review: "Global Crisis Management." The NSC does not run the world. The NSC,
which consists of the senior cabinet members and White House staff members, is more than
likely trying to control crises as they occur than trying to direct the course of events. And
as Rothkopf makes clear, the response to a given crisis depends very much on the
personalities of the members who are in the president's favor at the given moment.
Rothkopf is very critical of the current Bush Administration's track record. He argues
that they have lost sight of the liberal internationalist values set forth by Truman at the
end of World War II when the council was founded. At the time, the US enjoyed a position of
power that was not unlike its position after 9/11. The Truman Adminsistration established
international institutions that deferred America's power to the good of international system.
The Bush Administration, under the sway of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other neoconservatives,
decided to reassert American national interest through the use of military force, the
consequences of which we are still suffering today.
Critics of this book have called Rothkopf an apologist for the Clinton administration. Far
from it, Rothkopf has enumerated the foreign policy disasters that occured during Clinton's
watch: namely, the failures in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Rwanda. The picture that Rothkopf
paints of the NSC is not one that runs the world but rather one that tries to maintain the
status quo in the face of an ever-changing world.
I read the reviews of this book and made the mistake of buying it based upon them, but
this is really a very superficial book. From a historical point of view, it shows us how the
NSC was created by Truman, primarily because he was so out of the loop while Vice President
that he didn't even know about the Manhattan project to build the atom bomb, but as the book
moves into more current events, political slants take over the turn the book into a very
one-sided view of the US options available in today's world. Rothkopf is a "pragmatist" in
the Kissinger mold, which I guess he would have to be since he ran Kissinger's shop, but his
opinions really show very little depth, and really no historical perspective of options
available in dealing with bin Laden and terrorism back when it could have been much more
easily dealt with. There are some insights about how Clinton seldom attended NSC meetings
when tectonic changes were taking place as he dallied with Monica, but this book isn't really
a very sophisticated examination of the world today and how we got here, other than to
criticize W Bush for the state of the world today without looking at the limited hand he was
dealt by his predecessors when it came to Islamic terrorism. I would have given the book one
star but the book's history of the NSC gives it some redeeming social value, but the last
half of the book is really pretty worthless because it is so unbalanced and political.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering
conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with
Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his
praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's
intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It
was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with
Iran for decades," Carlson
said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
"... One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. ..."
"... In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies. ..."
"... What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies. ..."
"... Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office. ..."
"... Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... As Prouty states, "When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin." ..."
"... Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir. ..."
"... This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin. ..."
"... Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK") ..."
"... Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. ..."
"... Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979. ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' . ..."
"... I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing. ..."
"... Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently , but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating: ..."
"... "Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979." Ahem. Somehow I doubt the CIA had to do with THAT regime change 🙂 Try 1953? ..."
"... Reminiscent of Karl Rove's :"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort out." ..."
"... It should be noted, that in 1963 shortly following JFK's assassination Truman stated in the Washington Post regret about establishing the CIA: "I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency . For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas." ..."
"... The entire bureaucratic leadership of the Nazis. And it proved to be a smashing success – transforming the U.S. into the fourth Reich. ..."
"... You see the same price gouging in the drug and insurance monopolies. A gigantic slush fund to buy foreign and domestic politicians and journalists like so many street corner whores. ..."
"... There is also a $100 billion "Intelligence" empire. ..."
"... That is why Oceania will always be at war with Eastasia, and why that war will never be won. Wars are not intended to be won, just to carry on for ever, making more and more money and providing more and more opportunities for graft for the people who matter. Weapons are not intended to work, just to make money. ..."
"... That's why flying turkeys like the F22 and F35 are produced. Like the cargo planes full of pallets of shrink wrapped $100 bills that were flown into Iraq that promptly disappeared. ..."
"... But JFK was not shot down like a dog in broad daylight with millions of people watching because he challenged these interests. It was because he was trying to stop the nuclear weapons programme of the Zionist Regime. That was what cost him his life. ..."
"... JFK also wanted to end the control of the US economy of the Federal Reserve, a coalition of private banks, nearly all controlled by Jewish interests. He really wanted to be hit, that fella. ..."
There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully
unfold."
William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its
breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst
us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by.
The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters
back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of
crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this
one person.
The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and
undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible
crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it
was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is
exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous
indignation, unfortunately, causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and
narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in
front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the
doublespeak of 'official government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must
first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless
campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal
Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh
would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most
destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its
doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there
was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be
embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet
Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled "On
Churchill's Sinews of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American
government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman's de facto
presidency.
Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was exposed by
General Butler in a
public address in 1933 , against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year.
One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt
would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously
existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services
(OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be
replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence
purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows.
In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security
Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended
function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security,
foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations
in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC
Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and
assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions, provided they
had been directed to do so by the NSC , and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel
to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to "provide the
military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function .
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence
bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the
relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we
will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's
policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States.
Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was
to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew
where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had
been working towards for nearly 15 years.
Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his
book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval
of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach
operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who
warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor
President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to
election or judgement by the people.
It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and
the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence
and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was
scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the
exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for
Castro's Cuba.
It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility
for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as
a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would
have had to explain the real reason why it failed.
That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them.
If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in
his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in
immediate danger amidst a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike,
by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets.
This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself.
Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by
the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without the U.S. directly
supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for
Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant
for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were
to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision.
In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay
of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this
situation:
Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy
dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel
in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the official
invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect."
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group
the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure
of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm.
Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded
that the failure was due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy
Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay
of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This
allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961,
which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
As Prouty states, "When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection
in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be
one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin."
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of
CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy
Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from
American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up
turning around last minute.
Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev,
which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles.
Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a
policy decision "to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963" and
further stated that "It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including
the CIA and military] by 1965." The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the
headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American
people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not
just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful
military coup d'état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go
to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District
Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking
Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson
signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964,
Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved
2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed
Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years
after Kennedy's death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would
involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on
Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war
that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees
the toppling of Russia and China.
Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam
Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already
suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of
sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be
taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the
CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina.
This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an
endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton
during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he
claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that
Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S.
President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the
case, or the full story.
Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for
the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence,
but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked,
draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of
American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised
situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a
simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after
reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC
as "terrorist" occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly
supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time.
This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001
AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both
Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's assassination and
Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton
has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible
impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently ,
but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he
admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate
those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating:
I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training
courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment."
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA
holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is
actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA
accountable for its past and future crimes.
Originally published at Strategic Culture
Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation
(Montreal, Canada).
Gerda Halvorsen ,
"Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979." Ahem. Somehow I doubt the CIA had
to do with THAT regime change 🙂 Try 1953?
Doctortrinate ,
Is just another work of Theatre ..for all the world, a Staged play – along with legion
of dramatic action to arouse spectator participation – its a merge inducing show
– and each time the curtain falls, the crowd screams "more" so, extending its run.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Reminiscent of Karl Rove's :"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort
out."
George Cornell ,
Ah yes, the Roveing Lunatic.
Doctortrinate ,
" We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do "
Suskind/Rove.
and so it continues .. 🙂
Vierotchka ,
The actual quote:
The aide said that guys like me [Suskind] were "in what we call the reality-based
community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your
judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about
enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world
really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do."
Charlotte Russe ,
It should be noted, that in 1963 shortly following JFK's assassination Truman stated in the
Washington Post regret about establishing the CIA: "I think it has become necessary to take
another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency .
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas."
Well, NO president after Kennedy tried to put that Genie back in the bottle. In fact, the
Genie has taken total control and has mushroomed into thousands of bottles planted throughout
the planet hatching multiple schemes designed to undermine and overthrow numerous
nation-states.
What many don't know is that "decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United
States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants (this was
known as Operation Paperclip) ..At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, law enforcement
and intelligence leaders like J. Edgar Hoover at the F.B.I. and Allen Dulles at the C.I.A.
aggressively recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet "assets,"
declassified records show. They believed the ex-Nazis' intelligence value against the
Russians outweighed what one official called "moral lapses" in their service to the Third
Reich. The CIA hired one former SS officer as a spy in the 1950s, for instance, even after
concluding he was probably guilty of minor war crimes.
And in 1994, a lawyer with the C.I.A. pressured prosecutors to drop an investigation into an
ex-spy outside Boston implicated in the Nazis' massacre of tens of thousands of Jews in
Lithuania, according to a government official."
Is there no wonder, the CIA is so proficient at torture techniques, they learned from the
very best–the Nazis.
They 'hired' Klaus Barbie, a in no ways 'minor' war criminal. The US took over the surviving
Nazi terror apparatus, lock, stock and barrel.
nottheonly1 ,
The entire bureaucratic leadership of the Nazis. And it proved to be a smashing success
– transforming the U.S. into the fourth Reich.
paul ,
You just have to look at existing realities. There is a military budget of $1,134 billion, greater than the rest of the world combined.
This is the true figure, not the bogus official one.
There is a secret black budget of over $50 billion, with zero accountability to anyone.
$21 trillion, $21,000,000,000,000, has officially "gone missing" from the military budget.
This sum is nearly as large as the official National Debt.
This represents a cornucopia of waste, graft, theft, corruption, and wholesale looting on an
unimaginable scale.
A single screw can cost $500.
You see the same price gouging in the drug and insurance monopolies.
A gigantic slush fund to buy foreign and domestic politicians and journalists like so many
street corner whores.
There is also a $100 billion "Intelligence" empire.
That is why Oceania will always be at war with Eastasia, and why that war will never be
won.
Wars are not intended to be won, just to carry on for ever, making more and more money and
providing more and more opportunities for graft for the people who matter.
Weapons are not intended to work, just to make money.
That's why flying turkeys like the F22 and F35 are produced.
Like the cargo planes full of pallets of shrink wrapped $100 bills that were flown into Iraq
that promptly disappeared.
Even with the best will in the world, even if all the people involved were persons of
outstanding integrity, it would probably simply be impossible to control this vast sprawling
octopus of mega arms corporations and competing military and spook and administrative
fiefdoms. So you get different players and actors who are a law unto themselves, beyond any
real control, pursuing their own agendas with little regard for their own government and its
policies, and often blatantly opposing it.
Obama and Trump tried to make limited agreements with Russia over what was happening on
the ground in Syria. These agreements were deliberately sabotaged by people like Ashton
Carter in less than 24 hours. With complete impunity. Sensitive negotiations with North Korea
were deliberately sabotaged by Bolton.
A great deal of the economic and military power of America is dissipated in this way. The
same destructive turf wars between competing agencies were a characteristic feature of the
Third Reich. A model of waste, corruption, muddle and inefficiency.
But JFK was not shot down like a dog in broad daylight with millions of people watching
because he challenged these interests. It was because he was trying to stop the nuclear
weapons programme of the Zionist Regime. That was what cost him his life.
Richard Le Sarc ,
JFK also wanted to end the control of the US economy of the Federal Reserve, a coalition of
private banks, nearly all controlled by Jewish interests. He really wanted to be hit, that
fella.
paul ,
Yes, any goys who threaten Chosen interests would do well to steer clear of grassy
knolls.
JFK, Bernadotte, Arafat, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Chavez, Soleimani, it's all the same
story.
Corbyn could well have gone the same way if rigging the election against him had failed.
Antonym ,
Nice example of Richard Le Sarc's non-sensical anti Israelism: Here he writes that Lower
Manhattan is run by Jews, while scrolling one page up he is telling that the US (=Fairfax
county) took over the Nazi terror apparatus. Some combination!
Both places are run mainly by ex-Christian/ secular Americans, with only money/power as
their God.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Leading Zionassties like Jabotinsky ('We'll kill anyone who gets in our way')were outright
fascists, an, in his case, admirers of Mussolini. Yitzhak Shamir (I have an image of Shamir
in my mind when I read your contributions)offered Jewish 'fighters' to work with the Nazis.
German Zionists actively worked with the Nazis to transfer Jews and German investment to
Palestine. And the similarities hardly end there. The Zionassties and the German Nazis both
see themselves as Herrenvolk. They both desire lebensraum for their people, at the expense of
Slavic or Palestinian and other Arab untermenschen. Both hold International Law in open
contempt. However, the Zionassties have far more political power than the German Nazis ever
dreamed of. And the German Nazis never had nukes, or only very primitive ones.
Harry Stotle ,
"The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that THERE IS NO SECRET. Principally, one
must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world, for which
end it is prepared to use any means necessary. Once one understands that, much of the
apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades
away. To express this striving for dominance numerically, one can consider that since the end
of World War II the United States has:
1) Endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected;
2) Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries;
3) Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders;
4) Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries;
5) Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries."
― William Blum, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth About US
Foreign Policy and Everything Else
Brian Harry ,
The older I get, the more I believe that it was the USA/CIA?MIC who made Australia's Prime
Minister, Harold Holt, "disappear" in heavy surf off a Victorian beach on 17th, December
1967. His body was never found. I think he was getting "cold feet" about the "American War"
in Vietnam as it was getting going, and possibly wanted 'out'.
It was said that a Chinese submarine took him, but, I don't think submarines are designed to
operate in relatively shallow water and heavy surf.
Another Australian PM(Gough Whitlam) was "removed" in a Coup in 1975 which was heavily
influenced by the British and American secret services
Richard Le Sarc ,
And Kevin Rudd was offed by a gang of hard Right Labor rats, led by US 'protected source' (as
outlined in the Wikileaks from Manning)Bill Shorten. Principal among Rudd's crimes was a lack
of enthusiasm for the anti-China campaign (his successor, the Clinton-loving Julia Gillard,
was very happy to join the Crusade)and changes to Australia's votes re. Occupied Palestine in
the UN. And he expelled a MOSSAD agent from the Israeli 'Embassy', after the MOSSAD stole
Australian passport identities for operations like the ritual killing of a Hamas operative in
Dubai. They had done it before, and 'promised' not to do it again. Rudd was advised by our
'intelligence', stooges of the USA one and all, to do this, which I suspect was a set-up to
mobilise the local Sabbat Goyim.
Who is in control is the idea of Notional Security within a world of 'Threat' that is
pre-emptively struck before it can speak – and analysed and engineered in all it is,
does or says, for assets, allies, ammunition and narrative reinforcement. (Possession and
control as marketising and weaponising – as the drive rising from fear of pain of
loss).
Insanity is given 'control' by the fear-threat of an unowned projected mind of intention.
The devil is cast out in illusion that is then underpinned by shadow forces that operate
'negatively' as the illusion of victory in subjugation or eradication of evils – that
simply change form within a limiting and limited narrative account. This short term override
has become set as our long term default consciousness and given allegiance and identity as
our source of self-protection.
Imagination is Creative – and fear-framed imagination is the attempt to control an
'evil' imagination CAST OUTSIDE a notional self exceptionalism.
There is a pattern here that CAN be recognised but that the invested identity under fear
of pain of loss does NOT WANT to allow and so refuses and includes the revealing of
heart-felt truth as THREAT to established or surviving order – hence its association
and demonisation with fear, treachery, heresy and evil power that must be denied Voice at ANY
cost – because 'survival' depends on NOT hearing the Voice for truth – when
survival is equated with separated or split minds – set apart from the living and over
them – while struggling within a hateful world that fails the judging imagination of a
private self-gratification.
Fascination with evil and the 'dynamic' of conflict is the willing investment of identity
in its frame – as if THIS TIME – a meaningful result will follow from insane
premises. And THIS TIME is repeated over and over – through millennia.
The 'dynamic' of conflict is the device by which Peace or Wholeness of being is denied
awareness. A polarised play of shifting mutually exclusive and contradictory 'meanings' as a
'doublethink' by which to COVER over lack of substance and SEEM to be in control. Reactive
resistance and opposition provides 'proof' or reinforcement to the narrative frame of the
control. Such is the manipulative power struggle for dominance over the other' subjection or
loss.
A world of sock puppets enacts the script given them.
The living dead willingly give themselves to the specialness that excepts them from feared
lack and loss of validity as the claim to moral outrage or alignment in compliance with its
dictate.
The realm of a phishing ruse is that of a mis-taken identity. At this level a simple error
can set in motion the most complex deceit. Its signature is in the pride or self-inflation
that sets up the 'fall' – and the fool.
Problems are set in forms that persist through apparent resolving. To truly resolve, heal
or undo a problem, we have to go upstream to the level in which it was set up as a
conflict-block – perhaps as an unseen consequence of a false sense of possession or
attempt to control. At some point there will be no other option BUT to yield to truth –
because there is a limit to our tolerance for pain of conflict, protected and worshipped as
power over Life, and sustained as a bubble reality of exclusive and inverted 'meanings' while
Infinity is all about you.
If a mistaken identity is the 'stealing of the mind of the king, and the realm and all it
oversees, then the 'Naked Emperor' story is speaking to your ongoing and persistent loss of
Sovereign will to a fear of being exposed invalid, revealed as without substance, and utterly
undone of not only your self-presentations – but your right to be. IN the story it was
visiting courtiers who insinuated a sense of lack in the Emperor's thought to then offer the
means to cover over it with special and impressive presentation – as a masking that
demanded sacrifice of truth in order to seem to be real.
This inversion operates from lack-based thinking that splits or disconnects from currently
felt and shared presence to seek OUTSIDE itself for what it's thought frames it in being
denied or deprived of.
How does one deal with a dissociated madman massively armed and beset with fears,
grievance, betrayal, and a deep sense of being cornered with no where else to go?
This is our human predicament at this time.
For every instance of its manifestation will be a fear-framed narrative of struggle in
ancient hate.
Willingness to open to that we may be wrong, is the release of the assertion of belief as
'knowing' and the opportunity to re-evaluate the belief in the light of a current relational
honesty. 'Acceptance of 'not knowing' is the condition in which an innocence of being
spontaneously moves us to recognise and release error from its presenting as true.
A false idea of power is being played out as a world of the corruption of the true.
I met this on a random find for a search yesterday:
FIRST RAY:
Pure qualities:
Traditionally as the ray of power and will, yet from a deeper understanding the first ray
represents the creative drive. This is the desire for self-expression, a willingness to
experiment, even when the outcome of the experiment cannot be known ahead of time. Also a
willingness to flow with life and learn from every experience. The first ray gives rise to
the sense that everything matters, that life is exciting and that the individual truly can
make a positive difference. The first ray is also the key to your willingness to work for
raising the whole, instead of raising only yourself.
Perversions:
The perversion of the creative will is a fear of the unknown, which is expressed as an
ability to abuse power in order to control one's circumstances, including other people.
There is a fear of engaging in activities where the outcome cannot be predicted or
guaranteed, which obviously stifles creativity. People with perverted first ray qualities
are often engaged in a variety of power games with other people, all based on the desire to
control the outcome. This is an attempt to quell the very life force itself, which always
points towards self-transcendence, and instead protect the separate self and what it thinks
it can own in this world. This can lead to a sense of ownership over other people, which is
one of the major sources of conflict on this planet. In milder cases, people have a fear of
being creative and a sense of powerlessness, feeling that nothing really matters and that
an individual cannot make a difference -- thus, why even bother trying.
Everything you do is done with the energy of one or several of the spiritual rays. The
entire material world is made from the seven rays.
• Every limitation you face is created out of a perversion of one or more of the seven
spiritual rays.
• The ONLY way to transcend a given limitation is to free yourself from a): the belief
that created the limitation and b): the low-frequency energy that has been generated.
• The ONLY way to transform the low-frequency energy that is created by perverting a
given ray is to invoke the pure energy of that ray. Any ray is the anti-dote to the
perverted energy from that ray.
George Cornell ,
Pompeo's epic statement "we lied we cheated we stole" will be be an American catchphrase or
hashtag for the ages.
In most of the world it would be a confession. In the US it is a boast.
wardropper ,
And after a short while it will no longer be considered to be worth a second thought.
Came, saw, conquered . . . might as well add lied, cheated, stole
Morality is stone dead in Washington. Might as well face it, then perhaps a serious search
for ways of bringing it back to life can begin.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Lying is now the lingua franca of all Western kakistocracies. Here in Australia, not long
ago, to be caught lying ended a political career. Now it is ubiquitous, inescapable and
attended by a smug arrogance that says, 'You can do NOTHING about my personal and group moral
insanity. WE have the power, and we will use it ANY way we, and our Masters in Washington and
Tel Aviv wish to!' It is best and most suicidally seen in this denialist regime's utter
contempt for science and facts, as the country alternatively burns down, or is pummeled by
giant hail-stones and violent tempests, or inundated by record, unprecedented, deluges.
George Cornell ,
Sad but true
Antonym ,
Hear, hear!
An expert on lying opens his mouth again, and again, and again, and again, ..
lundiel ,
Very interesting article.
Hugh O'Neill ,
"Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging
from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits
that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those
who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating: I was the CIA Director.
We lied, we cheated, we stole".
Cynthia. The "unknown conference" you refer to was an address to Texas A&M University,
which had former CIA director Robert Gates as President. Another former CIA spook teaches
espionage for wannabe spooks. These are scoundrel patriots, devoid of any moral compass, self
awareness or intelligence. Academics need not apply but liars, thieves, cheats, torturers and
assassins are welcome.
The CIA has a stranglehold upon the American psyche. The oft quoted Bill Casey "Our work
will be complete when everything Americans believe is false" cannot bode well for the glory
of the American Experiment. If fat mafiosi thugs like Pompeo and ghouls devoid of any
humanity like Bolton, Clinton, Allbright run the show, then the question must be asked: how
can such amoral stupidity hold the world to ransom? That the CIA were able to assassinate
JFK, MLK, RFK in broad daylight, aided and abetted by the MSM, means their masks have long
fallen and demons boldly walk among us.
"Who is in charge of the US Military?" Well it certainly isn't the president. There is no
doubt that both the military and the CIA are controlled by unelected faceless money men,
which presumably is the MIC that Eisenhower warned about (as did Teddy Roosevelt). Perhaps
"skull and bones" is indeed a satanic cult?
Yes the National Security Act sent the nation to hell from purgatory. The most insidious and
Orwellian bill ever passed until the oxymoronic "Patriot Act" that is.
George Cornell ,
The West Point oath should be modified to " we will not lie, cheat or steal . as long as we
have the CIA, the FBI, the Secretary of State, Congress, the MSM, and the DNC to do it for
us. We're not stoopid."
George Mc ,
The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters
back and forth at the whim of one man.
Yes this magical thinking is still pretty widespread – although it's difficult to
figure out how many think this way. The MSM project this magical view themselves and thereby
project the notion that everyone believes it. Nevertheless, going by the talk I have with
others, a lot do swallow this. It's a bit like the world fundamentalist Bible believers live
in.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The really salient feature of the murder of Soliemani was the sheer treachery of inviting him
to Iraq on a peace mission, only to set him up for butchery. It has the Zionasties
blood-soaked paw-prints all over it.
Mike Ellwood ,
Ironically, it's the sort of stunt the Nazi's might have pulled, back in their day.
Brian Harry ,
I have asked the same question on other platforms and no one seems to know the Answer. "Who
are the CIA, and the Pentagon answerable to?" They seem to operate outside of the control of
the American Government. The CIA seemingly involved in "False Flags" at any point around the
globe, like the attack on the American Warship, in the gulf of Tonkin which was the excuse
for "The American War, in Vietnam(as it is known to the Vietnamese).
And, of course, the attack on Iraq, because Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction,
which, to this day have never been found(whilst Hussein was hung) after being found guilty of
'something' by an American "military Court'.
The Pentagon has "lost TRILLIONS of dollars which it cannot account for, and nobody is even
investigating the matter, seemingly the American President cannot demand it.
And, of course, the Israeli Airforce attack on the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea in
1967, killing and wounding over 200 sailors, brought NO response whatsoever from the American
Military.
President Eisenhower warned the USA(and the World) about the Military Industrial Complex when
he left office, and it has been completely ignored.
It seems that Mossad("By deception, we will make War") are heavily involved in the CIA(and
the MIC of course), so, WHO is in control of the USA?
Antonym ,
Follow the money. The CIA – military have unlimited funds -> the FED can print
unlimited paper dollars -> oil and gas are traded in US dollars only via the New York FED
-> Sunni Arab royals own a lot of oil and gas reserves but need body guards ->
Anglo- Arab oil dollar protection pact made long ago.
A similar deal was not possible with the USSR before or with Iran now. Canada is the US back
garden as is Venezuela.
The Israelis hitched on after 1974 and their job is to be punch ball to distract from the
above in exchange for US & hidden Arab royals support.
So who are in charge of the US? A few dozen characters in Fairfax county, lower Manhattan
and Riyadh with inputs from Caribbean tax heavens.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Silly stuff. The Zionasties and Judeofascists have taken charge in the USA since they
bank-rolled Truman, got away with the USS Liberty atrocity and took over US politics through
straight bribery. US Congress critters don't throw themselves to the floor in ecstasies of
subservience, as they do for Bibi, when any Saudi potentate addresses the Congress. Come to
think of it-has any Saudi ever had that 'honour'? Come to think of it, we'd better go back to
1913 when a coalition of private banks, nearly all Jewish-controlled took over the US economy
as the so-called Federal Reserve.
Antonym ,
Israeli sand vs Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ UAE oil & gas: easy choice for American predators.
Richard Le Sarc ,
You keep forgetting the 'Binyamins', Antsie. What would you rather control-an inevitably
diminishing pool of hydrocarbons, or the Federal Reserve that creates US dollars, ex nihilo,
by the trillions?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The CIA is the US ruling class, armed and in love with murder and destruction. The nature and
extent of US global power is the pre-eminent cause of the global Holocaust that is about to
consume humanity.
What Fletcher Prouty mentioned in the above article called "Capitalism's Invisible Army".
Norn ,
Here is a list of what the CIA include: The FIVE-EYES branches operate as CIA branches (I
think this is undisputable). The FIVE-EYES is a White Christian Fundementalist organisation,
and they share their intelligence (surveillance data) with the Israelis. Their Israelis set
many actions on the FIVE-EYES agenda.
Murdoch's press operate as a CIA shopfront, and so many of (maybe all of them?) the NGOs
scattered around third world countries. Evangelists fully support the CIA agenda. What is the
hell South Korean Evangelists doing in Syria as the war rages on?
Many Jihadist groups as well as unhinged Muslim preachers/Imams serve the CIA agenda very
very well and receive considerable support from both Saudi Arabia and the US. Remember, the
first Jihadist posters were printed by the CIA?. Of course, now the posters would have their
brainwashing digital equivalent. And of course, there are full-timers and part-timers.
That's what we know from just reading the news. There are definitely large amounts of unkowns
to humble folks. Who else would you think, make part of the list? 50% of politicians in
Western so-called Democracies?
Outside the government? Are you that naive? This is a fantasy that was promoted as long ago
as the time of Iran-Contra; the idea that the CIA is composed of a bunch of 'loose cannons',
operating beyond the control of the capitalist state. Whilst it is true that the US security
state has different tactics from different elements within it, the objectives are unvarying,
achieving hegemony. What differs is the route chosen to achieve that end. Of course,
competence (or otherwise) is involved, they're not omnipotent and quite obviously have no
long term vision. I think the correct word is HUBRIS that leads them astray. We saw this in
Vietnam; we see it Afghanistan; we see it in Syria.
The US empire is no British Empire of yore. When the leaders of the two dominant
Imperialist powers of the 19th century, the UK and the US met in the 1890s, they drew up a
plan for the next 100 years, that between them they could conquer the world for capitalism
using the UK's control of the oceans and the industrial might of the US economy.
Surely the fact that the US is now 'led' by an ignoramus reveals the bankrupt nature of
late capitalism?
milosevic ,
WHO is in control of the USA?
here's an informative article about that question:
The 'Deep State' IS the State. The surface pantomime is a puppet play, perhaps a shadow play,
where the real rulers manipulate the political marionettes to do their bidding, NOT that of
the 'useless eaters'. Under capitalism politics is the shadow cast on society by Big
Business, as John Dewey observed.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Every single solitary individual Central Intelligence Agency Civil Servant of the United
States of America does indeed hold allegiance to the flag & country I assure you. Not
only do they hold allegiance for their country but they most assuredly hold allegiance to
their government paycheques too. Without their paycheques they would likely constitute
further troubles systemically.
Governments hire skilled personnel in Intel. They are by & large likely normal people
that work for bad governance. The CIA is headed by Bloody Gina Haspel. Read Jane Mayer's _The
Dark Side_ to get Haspel's role.
Haspel epitomizes allegiance to CIA secrecy.
She is a bot.
MOU
Brian Harry ,
"Every single solitary individual Central Intelligence Agency Civil Servant of the United
States of America does indeed hold allegiance to the flag & country I assure you".
You sound very naïve. How can you be so sure. There's no real evidence to back up
your assurance. How can the Pentagon be allowed to get away with "losing" TRILLIONS of
dollars, and no one's head has rolled? It is a ludicrous situation, and there's no
investigation .WTF!
milosevic ,
How can you be so sure.
personal experience?
Authoritative pronouncements of this sort are typical of the disinfo troll personae.
Apparently, they're supposed to impress the audience, as evidence of direct knowledge and
expertise, to preclude any further doubts or questions about the Official Story.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I'm an unemployed Social Assistance recipient and have not had a full time job since 1985. If
I had two nickels to scrape together I would not even be on Internet, frankly.
If I worked Intel I would not be on Off-G at all.
I guess life is more interesting for you when you fantasize about losers like moi being
Intel operatives but I can assure you that I have never worked government Intel for even one
hour in my lifetime.
When I applied to work Intel upon graduation I was flatly denied & turned down back in
the late 90s. Today, I would have to get false teeth to be presentable for employment and as
a welfare recipient I cannot afford dental work at all.
Stop being an accusatory jerk off, Milosevic.
MOU
George Cornell ,
Well I for one am saddened to hear of your circumstances. Your mind certainly seems sharp.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I am a Marxist by circumstance. In CANADA Marxist proponents are marginalized by the state
& corporatocracy to the extent of abject poverty.
My professors at university made sure I was blacklisted so that I would never get any money
or employment because of my political ethos & cosmology. Instead of promoting my career
advancement they chose to excommunicate my membership in the cartel.
Being excluded from the work world & employment by the establishment is the reason why
the establishment was taken down in 08. Excluding myself from employment & career
opportunity only sufficed to annihilate the USA, EU, & Neoliberalism.
The end game is Zero Sum.
MOU
John Thatcher ,
Or in MoUs case ,a common or garden nutter.
George Cornell ,
He sounds like he is down on his luck and you find it in your heart to call him crazy? Is
this what they call subhuman empathy?
milosevic ,
yes, down on his luck, and controlling the world:
Being excluded from the work world & employment by the establishment is the reason
why the establishment was taken down in 08. Excluding myself from employment & career
opportunity only sufficed to annihilate the USA, EU, & Neoliberalism. -- MASTER OF
UNIVE
common nutter, or disinfo persona?
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I was raised by a Chartered Accountant Civil Servant. The Pentagon accountants were
assassinated by their bosses in the Pentagon as a warning to any & all that want to
forensically investigate their double sets of books. The GAO-General Accountability Office
gets to do the forensic accounting from a distance now.
No investigation is forthcoming because Congress has not initiated discovery yet.
MOU
Fair dinkum ,
'Who's in charge of the US military?'
C'mon Cynthia, you know the answer to that.
It's the owners, shareholders, directors and CEOs of the MIC.
Nothing or no one, will stand in their way.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The 08 Great Financial Crisis not only stood in the way of the USA MIC & NATO but it
forced BREXIT, TARP, & end to the Fractional Reserve Banking empire of the Western world.
Empiricism destroyed the USA & Capitalism hands down to leave it insolvent, destitute,
& poised for global bankruptcy as the third world banana republic it really is helmed by
a tin pot dictator like Trump stumping for Deutsche Bank so that his loans don't get
called.
It should be noted, that in 1963 shortly following JFK's assassination Truman stated in the
Washington Post regret about establishing the CIA: "I think it has become necessary to take
another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency .
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas."
Well, NO president after Kennedy tried to put that Genie back in the bottle. In fact, the
Genie has taken total control and has mushroomed into thousands of bottles planted throughout
the planet hatching multiple schemes designed to undermine and overthrow numerous
nation-states.
What many don't know is that "decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United
States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants (this was
known as Operation Paperclip) ..At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, law enforcement
and intelligence leaders like J. Edgar Hoover at the F.B.I. and Allen Dulles at the C.I.A.
aggressively recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet "assets,"
declassified records show. They believed the ex-Nazis' intelligence value against the
Russians outweighed what one official called "moral lapses" in their service to the Third
Reich. The CIA hired one former SS officer as a spy in the 1950s, for instance, even after
concluding he was probably guilty of minor war crimes.
And in 1994, a lawyer with the C.I.A. pressured prosecutors to drop an investigation into an
ex-spy outside Boston implicated in the Nazis' massacre of tens of thousands of Jews in
Lithuania, according to a government official."
Is there no wonder, the CIA is so proficient at torture techniques, they learned from the
very best–the Nazis.
US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a
war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event,
despite Pence's efforts to appear solemn. But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the
United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world
and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.
Maybe that's why Britain's Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his
hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation
of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir
Putin and France's Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.
But there again, maybe not that curious.
Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war
that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.
Washington's wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of
Iran's top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN
Charter. It's the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a
supposedly democratic state.
The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to
prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including
the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged
to the Soviet Union.
The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council.
Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN
Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington's threats against
Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.
Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the
need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a
commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second
World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to
be repeated.
Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels
hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations
and foreign leaders?
In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity
was contradicted by a
blood-curdling call to arms against Iran , which he accused of being the "leading state
purveyor of anti-semitism". Pence urged the whole world "to stand strong against the Islamic
Republic of Iran", spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.
There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with
Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three
years.
It was no surprise that Pence's speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from
Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync
Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.
That's what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history
(Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death
camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without
an ounce of humanity.
Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and
adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and
partnership among nations.
Russia's Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently
get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also
repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control
treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.
Mike Pence's menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and
pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful
dishonouring of victims.
Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.
"... Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in 2001. ..."
It isn't enough for the corporate media to praise John Bolton for his timely manuscript that
confirms Donald Trump's explicit linkage between military aid to Ukraine and investigations
into his political foe Joe Biden. As a result, the media have made John Bolton a "man of
principle," according to the Washington Post, and a fearless infighter for the
"sovereignty of the United States." Writing in the Post , Kathleen Parker notes that
Bolton isn't motivated by the money he will earn from his book (in the neighborhood of $2
million), but that he is far more interested in "saving his legacy." Perhaps this is a good
time to examine that legacy.
Bolton, who used student deferments and service in the Maryland National Guard to avoid
serving in Vietnam, is a classic Chicken Hawk. He supported the Vietnam War and continues to
support the war in Iraq. Bolton endorsed preemptive military strikes in North Korea and Iran in
recent years, and lobbied for regime change in Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria,
Venezuela, and Yemen. When George W. Bush declared an "axis of evil" in 2002 consisting of
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, Bolton added an equally bizarre axis of Cuba, Libya, and
Syria.
When Bolton occupied official positions at the Department of State and the United Nations,
he regularly ignored assessments of the intelligence community in order to make false arguments
regarding weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Cuba and Syria in order to promote the
use of force. When serving as President Bush's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and
Disarmament, Bolton ran his own intelligence program, issuing white papers on WMD that lacked
support within the intelligence community. He used his own reports to testify to congressional
committees in 2002 in effort to justify the use of military force against Iraq.
Bolton presented misinformation to the Congress on a Cuban biological weapons program. When
the Central Intelligence Agency challenged the accuracy of Bolton's information in 2003, he was
forced to cancel a similar briefing on Syria. In a briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in 2005, the former chief of intelligence at the Department of State, Carl Ford,
referred to Bolton as a "serial abuser" in his efforts to pressure intelligence analysts. Ford
testified that he had "never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton in terms of the way he
abuses his power and authority with little people."
The hearings in 2005 included a statement from a whistleblower, a former contractor at the
Agency for International Development, who accused Bolton of using inflammatory language and
even throwing objects at her. The whistleblower told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
staff that Bolton made derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation and weight among other
improprieties. The critical testimony against Bolton meant that the Republican-led Foreign
Relations Committee couldn't confirm his appointment as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
President Bush made Bolton a recess appointment, which he later regretted.
The United Nations, after all, was an ironic assignment for Bolton, who has been a strong
critic of the UN and most international organizations throughout his career because they
infringed on the "sovereignty of the United States." In 1994, he stated there was no such thing
as the United Nations, but there is an international community that "can be led by the only
real power left in the world," the United States. Bolton stated that the "Secretariat Building
in New York has 38 stories," and that if it "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make any
difference."
Bolton said the "happiest moment" in his political career was when the United States pulled
out of the International Criminal Court. Years later, he told the Federalist Society that
Bush's withdrawal from the UN's Rome Statute, which created the ICC, was "one of my proudest
achievements."
Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several
decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms
control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went
after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the
Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former
Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well
as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in
2001.
U.S. efforts at diplomatic reconciliation have drawn Bolton's ire. The two-state solution
for the Israeli-Palestinian situation as well as Richard Nixon's one-China policy have been
particular targets. He is also a frequent critic of the European Union, and a passionate
supporter of Brexit. From 2013 to 2018, he was the chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a
well-known anti-Muslim organization. He was the director of the Project for the New American
Century, which led the campaign for the use of force against Iraq. The fact that he was a
protege of former senator Jesse Helms should come as no surprise.
It is useful to have Bolton's testimony at the climactic moment in the current impeachment
trial, but it should't blind us to his deceit and disinformation over his thirty years of
opposition to U.S. international diplomacy. As an assistant attorney general in the Reagan
administration, he fought against reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been held in
internment camps during World War II. Two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condi Rice,
have accused Bolton with holding back important information on important international issues,
and Bolton did his best to sabotage Powell's efforts to pursue negotiations with North Korea.
Bolton had a hand in the disinformation campaign against Iraq in the run-up to the U.S.
invasion of 2003. The legacy of John Bolton is well established; his manuscript will not alter
this legacy. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Melvin GoodmanMelvin A. Goodman is a
senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns
Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence:
The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The
Cost of American Militarism . and A Whistleblower at the
CIA . His most recent book is "American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump" (Opus
Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming "The Dangerous National Security State"
(2020)." Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org .
"We can't beat him so we have to impeach him" no truer words were ever spoken. Too bad
they couldn't come up with a reason. I think November will be a Democrat Slaughter.
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get
approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him
despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V.,
and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to
him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty &
untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"
IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he
brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump
thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy
as well as vindictive.
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Harry Stotle George Galloway accused Chritopher Hitchens of 'proselytising for the devil'
after Hitchens gave neocons the intellectual thumbs up for unleashing hell after 9/11, while it
is common knowledge the pro-war, liberal media had to acquire a paint factory because so many
coatings were required to white-wash the lies and fabrications employed to rationalise Bush's
'war on terror' and many events leading up to it (not least the fact the US buddied up with
Saddam a decade earlier in order to foment war with Iran).
By contrast counterveiling forces (such as Galloway) have almost no voice within political
spheres, the academic world and certainly the MSM, and when necessary certain propaganda
operations unfold to subvert meaningful investigations, such as the alleged chemical attack in
Douma (where, ironically, Peter Hitchens amongst others has called bullshit)
Of course its important to deconstruct flagrent untruths (as Kevin Ryan does in this fine
article) not least because they have been used as a platform for the current reign of terror in
the Middle East – but the question is, in totalitarian states like America (where
authorities effectively act as judge, jury and executioner) how can this knowledge be used to
shake up a system that has closed its eyes and ears to truth or reality?
Put another way who expects the likes of Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher to ever hold authority to
account?
Now depending on your ideologial outlook the actions of the US are either a facet of the
'international rules based order' (which IMO is no more than a self-aggrandising term neocons,
like Tony Blair, love to apply to themselves), or abject betrayal of the holocaust: a critical
moment in history when the world vowed to learn from the terrible conseqeunces that arise when
powerful, lawless states are unconstrained by public opinion or cultural watchdogs.
One clue to answering this rhetorical question is the way whistleblowers or publishers are
treated by those they accuse of wrong doing – the evidence tells us that just like
Guantanamo they are likely to be tortured and subject to sham legal proceedings.
As an aside it begs questions about the kind or people, such as prosecutors who are willing
participate in this cruel process – they are the same sort of people that would have
cropped up in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany I imagine?
Maggie ,
your link buffers and I can't access.
Harry Stotle ,
Search: 'Christopher Hitchens prosthelytized for the Devil – George Galloway' –
in YouTube. that should find it.
Patrick C ,
Harry, I was reading along nodding in agreement and then, as the song says, you spoil it all
by saying, I hate you. The Soviet Union, by equating it with Nazi Germany. As you say it's
important to, "deconstruct flagrant untruths." And this is possibly the granddaddy of all
untruths. But as this isn't even a comment, rather it's an answer to a comment, there simply
isn't the space to fully contest that characterization. I would hope given your obvious
intelligence you might make it a priority to research and understand the Cold War
demonization of the USSR and before that the attempts to crush them. I am not excusing their
crimes I'm saying there weren't any. Certainly not in the sense that we've been brainwashed
to believe. You can dismiss me as an idealogue if you wish or you can start the hard slog
towards understanding. Otherwise loved what you wrote.
Harry Stotle ,
Thanks, Patrick – I am not suggesting equivalence except to the extent the legal
systems in Russia and Germany were co-opted to fulfil certain ideological goals (as they are
in the west today given high ranking political figures are more or less exempt from any sort
of meaningful judicial scrutiny).
Talking about Russia in particular it is claimed, "According to the International
Memorial, the law on rehabilitation covers 11-11.5 million people in the territory of the
former USSR. The latest (2016) statistical calculations are given in the article by A.
Roginsky and E. Zhemkova "Between sympathy and indifference – rehabilitation of victims
of Soviet repressions".
About 5.8 million people became victims of "administrative repressions" directed against
certain groups of the population (kulaks, representatives of repressed peoples and religious
denominations). From 4.7 to 5 million people were arrested on individual political charges,
of which about a million were shot. These are preliminary estimates obtained as a result of
many years of work by researchers with internal statistics of punitive bodies at the central
and regional levels, investigative cases.
As the "Memorial" movement, it is fundamentally important to establish the names of all
the repressed. At the moment, in the consolidated database "Victims of Political Terror in
the USSR", there are more than 3 million people. This base was compiled mainly on the basis
of regional Books of Remembrance, in the preparation of which members of local Memorial
organizations often took part. The database is currently being updated." (site contents can
be translated into English) https://www.memo.ru/ru-ru/history-of-repressions-and-protest/chronology-stat/
Just to add I know a reasonable amount about 9/11, know a little about the US empire (and
Britain's role in it) and have also looked at historians who have questioned specifics about
the holocaust (and here I mean David Irving, a brilliant but deeply flawed, and unempathic
man).
Russia however I am less sure about.
I would just add that revolutions are always violent because no one ever relinquishes
power without a fight, while reverberations from such convulsions can carry consequences long
after they first occured.
For example, Trotsky was tried and found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in
absentia – as you must know he was murdered in Mexico following severe head wounds
inflicted by an icepick.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I hope that Hitchens' water-boarding didn't cause his oesophageal cancer. That would be
ironic.
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq War–era figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
The misconduct for which Donald Trump has been impeached centers on an attempt to drag a
foreign government into a U.S. election campaign. That caper has increased public attention
to the problem of foreign interference in U.S. politics, but the problem is more extensive
than discourse about the impeachment process would suggest.
The first alteration in the global balance of power enabled by Russia-China cooperation
took place during the 1950s, of course. In that period, the PRC went from being a military
"basket case," with no defense industry to speak of, to possessing a reasonably modern force
within a span of just a decade. That super-energized process was inspired by the hard school
of war against a vastly better-armed opponent in the bloody Korean conflict, as is well
known. But the massive progress in Chinese military capabilities also could not have taken
place without enormous Soviet assistance. With respect to naval-related arms transfers,
Moscow had already given ten torpedo boats and eighty-three aircraft by the beginning of
1953, according to the scholarly journal. The process accelerated during 1953–55 with a
total of eight-one additional vessels transferred (amounting to 27,234 tons) and 148
aircraft. Among these ships were four destroyers, four frigates, and thirteen submarines.
Additionally, the Russians provided the Chinese with more than five hundred torpedoes and
over fifteen hundred sea mines, as well as coastal artillery pieces, radar and communications
equipment. A third batch of naval transfers was comprised of sixty-three vessels and
seventy-eight aircraft. Added to these very substantial allocations, five Chinese shipyards
apparently produced another 116 naval vessels, relying heavily on advisors, designs and
technology purchased from the USSR, during the period up until 1957. Finally, several
transfers agreed to in early 1959 "caused China's Navy to enter into the missile age."
Notably, these transfers included the R-11 , a primitive submarine-launched
ballistic missile (SLBM), and also the P-15 , one of the
earliest anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). Yes, these are the earliest progenitors of today's
JL-3 and YJ-12 missiles that now present quite credible threats.
In keeping with the presently jovial mood surrounding current Russia-China relations, very
little is said in this Chinese article regarding the Sino-Soviet conflict that brought the
two Eurasian giants to the brink of war in the late 1960s. The authors imply that the break
was really between the two respective Communist parties, rather than between the two navies,
but it is noted that the Kremlin's stated objective to form a "joint fleet" was viewed in
China as an encroachment on Chinese sovereignty. Nevertheless, this substantial military
cooperation between Moscow and Beijing during the 1950s is evaluated in this Chinese
appraisal to have had "major historical impact
[重要历史作用]." These authors contend that it
"effectively decreased the threat of American imperialism
[有效抵制美帝国主义的军事威胁].
They additionally conclude regarding this period: "The achievements of building up the
Chinese Navy cannot be separated from the assistance of Soviet experts
[中国海军建设的成绩是与苏联专家的帮助分不开的]."
For a long time, "Soviet revisionists" were not given such favorable treatment by Chinese
scholars, but now evidently the "east wind" is blowing once more. If the USSR very
substantially helped boost PRC military prospects during the 1950s, this paper by two Chinese
naval analysts argues cogently that a similarly ambitious and fateful program of Russia-China
military cooperation has had an analogous effect, starting in 1991. When seen in aggregate,
the numbers are indeed quite impressive. Russia has sold China, according to this Chinese
accounting, more than five hundred military aircraft, including Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, and
Il-76 variants. Almost as significant, Russia provided China with more than two hundred
Mi-171 helicopters. Just as these pivotal purchases launched China's air and land forces into
a new era, so the Chinese acquisition of four Sovremeny destroyers, along with twelve
Kilo -class submarines helped to provide the PLA Navy with the technological
wherewithal to enter the twenty-first century on a robust footing. That shortlist here,
moreover, does not even catalog other vital systems transferred, such as advanced air defense
systems, which have formed a bedrock of Chinese purchases from Russia.
Citing a Russian source, these Chinese authors claim that China spent $13 billion on
Russian weapons between 2000–05. That amounts to a decently hefty sum of cash,
especially by rather penurious post-Soviet standards. In fact, this raft of deals was not
only intended to rescue the PLA from obsolescence but simultaneously aimed to "resolve . . .
the survival and development problems [解决 . . .
生存和发展问题]"of the post-Soviet Russian
military-industrial complex too. Just as important as these technical transfers, however,
have been the human capital investments in cooperation. Here, this study points out that two
thousand intermediate and high-level Chinese officers have already graduated from Russian
military academies. The upper ranks of the PLA Navy, in particular, are said to be full of
these graduates, as reported in this study. Perhaps most critically for the future of the
Chinese armed forces, cooperation with Russia has entailed "in particular, promoting the
development of domestic weapons development levels and concepts.
[尤其带动了国内武器研制水平和理念的提升]."
Take, for example, the YJ-18 ASCM, which seems to be superior to any U.S. variants, is a
derivative of the Russian SSN-27 missile and is now becoming pervasive throughout the Chinese
fleet, with both surface and sub-launched variants.
For all the major results on the regional balance of power wrought by these two major
periods of Russian-Chinese security collaboration, however, there are very real reasons to
doubt that such a partnership will truly alter global politics. After all, the Chinese
analysis points out that arms sales from Russia to China have declined substantially from the
peak in 2005. Joint military exercises, moreover, are now quite regular, but they actually do
not seem to exhibit a bellicose trend toward larger and larger demonstrations of military
might. These tendencies may reflect new confidence in Beijing regarding its own abilities to
produce advanced weapons, of course, but also might reflect a certain degree of restraint --
a realization that too close a Russia-China military alignment could provide ample fuel for a
new Cold War that might be in the offing.
Still, American defense analysts must evaluate the possible results of a significantly
closer Russia-China security relationship, whether it is formalized into an actual "alliance"
or not. China and Russia currently have numerous joint development projects underway,
including both a large commercial airliner, as well as a heavy-lift helicopter. In the
future, will cooperative endeavors encompass frigates and VSTOL fighters, or nuclear
submarines and stealth bombers, or even aircraft carriers? Will Moscow and Beijing begin to
launch joint exercises of a large scale that have major strategic implications in highly
sensitive areas? Are third countries, such as Iran, set for "junior associate" status in the
so-called "quasi-alliance? And will China and Russia strive to coordinate strategic
initiatives to bring about common favorable strategic circumstances in the coming
decades?
Such a future is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. The combination of Russian
weapons design genius with Chinese organizational and production prowess could be formidable,
indeed. That will be another reason for states comprising the West to now exercise restraint,
embrace multi-polarity, and seek to avoid a return to the 1950s "with Chinese
characteristics."
Lyle
J. Goldsteinis Associate Professor at theChina
Maritime Studies Institute(CMSI) at theU.S. Naval War Collegein Newport, RI. The opinions expressed
in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy
or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn filed a supplemental motion to withdraw his
guilty plea Wednesday citing failure by his previous counsel to advise him of the firm's
'conflict of interest in his case' regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act form it filed
on his behalf, and by doing so "betrayed Mr. Flynn," stated Sidney Powell, in a defense motion
to the court.
Flynn's case is now in its final phase and his sentencing date, which was scheduled for Jan.
28, in a D.C. federal court before Judge Emmet Sullivan was changed to Feb. 27. The change came
after Powell filed the motion to withdraw his plea just days after the prosecutors made a major
reversal asking for up to six months jail time. The best case scenario for Flynn, is that Judge
Sullivan allows him to withdraw his guilty plea, the sentencing date is thrown-out and then his
case would more than likely would head to trial.
Powell alleged in a motion in December, 2019 that Flynn was strong-armed by the prosecution
into pleading guilty to one count of lying to FBI investigators regarding his conversation with
former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Others, close to Flynn, have corroborated the
accounts suggesting prosecutors threatened to drag Flynn's son into the investigation, who also
worked with his father at Flynn Intel Group, a security company established by Flynn.
In the recent motion Flynn denounced his admission of guilt in a declaration,
"I am innocent of this crime, and I request to withdraw my guilty plea. After I signed the
plea, the attorneys returned to the room and confirmed that the [special counsel's office]
would no longer be pursuing my son."
He denied that he lied to the FBI during the White House meeting with then FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka. The meeting was set up by now fired FBI
Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was also fired for lying to
Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigators. Strzok was fired by the FBI for his actions
during the Russia investigation.
Flynn stated:
"When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24, 2017, I did not lie to them. I
believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time. I still don't
remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak nor do I remember
if we discussed the details of a UN vote on Israel."
Powell Targets Flynn's Former Legal Team
Powell noted in Wednesday's motion that Flynn's former defense team at Covington &
Burling, a well known Washington D.C. law firm, failed to inform Flynn that their lawyers had
made "some initial errors or statements that were misunderstood in the FARA registration
process and filings." She also reaffirmed her position in the motion that government
prosecutors are continuing to withhold exculpatory information that would benefit Flynn.
A spokesperson with Flynn's former law firm Covington & Burling, stated in an email to
SaraACarter.com that "Under the bar rules, we are limited in our ability to respond publicly
even to allegations of this nature, absent the client's consent or a court order."
In Powell's motion, she stated that Covington and Burling was well aware that it had a
'conflict of interest' in representing Flynn after November 1, 2017. She stated in the motion
it was on that day, when Special Counsel prosecutors had notified Covington that "it recognized
Covington's conflict of interest from the FARA registration." Moreover, the government had
asked Covington lawyers to discuss the discrepancy and conflict with Flynn, Powell stated in
the motion.
"Mr. Flynn's former counsel at Covington made some initial errors or statements that were
misunderstood in the FARA registration process and filings, which the SCO amplified, thereby
creating an 'underlying work' conflict of interest between the firm and its client," stated
Powell in the motion.
"Government counsel specified Mr. Flynn's liability for 'false statements' in the FARA
registration, and he told Covington to discuss it with Mr. Flynn," states the motion.
"This etched the conflict in stone. Covington betrayed Mr. Flynn."
Powell included in her motion an email from Flynn's former law firm Covington & Burling
between his former attorney's Steven Anthony and Robert Kelner. The email was regarding the
Special Counsel's then-charges against Paul Manafort, who had been a short term campaign
manager for Trump. Manafort and his partner Rick Gates, were then faced with 'multiple criminal
violations, including FARA violations."
Internal Email From the motion:
In the internal email sent to Kelner, Anthony addresses his concerns after the Manafort
order was unsealed.
I just had a flash of a thought that we should consider, among many many factors with
regard to Bob Kelley, the possibility that the SCO has decided it does not have, [with regard
to] Flynn, the same level of showing of crime fraud exception as it had [with regard to]
Manafort. And that the SCO currently feels stymied in pursuing a Flynn-lied-to-his-lawyers
theory of a FARA violation. So, we should consider the conceivable risk that a disclosure of
the Kelley declaration might break through a wall that the SCO currently considers
impenetrable.
In February, 2017, then Department of Justice official David Laufman had called Flynn's
lawyers to push them to file a FARA, the motion states. In fact, it was a day after Flynn was
fired as the National Security Advisor for Trump. Laufman made the call to the Covington and
Burling office "to pressure them to file the FARA forms immediately," according to the
motion.
Laufman's push for Flynn's FARA seemed peculiar considering, Flynn's company 'Flynn Intel
Group' had filed a Lobbying Registration Act in September, 2016. Former partner to Flynn Bijan
Rafiekian, had been advised at the time by then lawyer Robert Kelly that there was no need for
the firm to file a FARA because it was not dealing directly with a foreign country or foreign
government official, as stated during his trial. In Rafiekian's trial Kelly testified that he
advised the Flynn Intel Group that by law they only needed to file a Lobbying Disclosure Act
and suggested they didn't need to file a FARA when dealing with a foreign company. In this
instance it was Innova BV, a firm based in Holland and owned by the Turkish businessman, Ekim
Alptekin.
Flynn's former Partner's Case Overturned, Powell Cites Case In Motion
In September, 2019, however, in a stunning move Judge Anthony Trenga with the Eastern
District of Virginia Rafiekian's conviction was overturned. Trenga stated in his lengthy
acquittal decision that government prosecutors did not make their case and the "jury was not
adequately instructed as to the role of Michael Flynn in light of the government's in-court
judicial admission that Flynn was not a member of the alleged conspiracy and the lack of
evidence sufficient to establish his participation in any conspiracy "
An important side note, Laufman continually posts anti-Trump tweets and is frequently on CNN
and MSNBC targeting the administration and its policies.
These despicable remarks reflect contempt for democracy and government accountability, and
constitute further evidence of the President's unfitness to lead our great nation. Republican
Members of Congress, stand up and fulfill your oaths. https://t.co/a8BwWkLTkv
Powell said prosecutors reversed course on their decision to not push for jail time for
Flynn in early January because she said, her client "refused to lie for the prosecution" in the
Rafiekian case.
do yourselves a favor and read her brief...Covington and the FBI are EVIL
BASTARDS......god help any of us who find ourselves in the govt crosshairs..I don't give a
rat's *** how much you despise Trump...these bastards in DC would cut your heads off if they
could profit from it.
Worse than that in this case. He had a deal that if he plead guilty they wouldn't go after
his son and they wouldn't recommend prison time for him. He did what they asked. Then they
recommended prison time in the end anyway.
How that isn't legal malpractice, I'm sure I don't know.
He may as well try suing the Queen of England. Federal prosecutors and federal law
enforcement agents have almost complete immunity from civil causes of action arising from the
performance of their duties, even if they acted maliciously, lied, etc. It's good to be the
King (or Queen, or a federal prosecutor). People generally have no idea how badly the deck is
stacked against them if they end up in the cross hairs of these people.
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the
comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump
to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what
his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more
years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery,
he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons
and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
Daniel
Larison
We saw how Mike Pompeo
made a
fool of himself
on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came
after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response
to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever
sent out by an American Secretary of State:
Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before
with a State Department seal on it:
pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A
Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him
when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence
supports
Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:
On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked
for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.
Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms.
Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New
York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the
interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table,"
she wrote.
It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has
been daily
shredding his
credibility
by
making things up
about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling
easily refuted
lies
about
North
Korea
,
Iran
,
Yemen
, and
Saudi Arabia
. We have
good reason to believe
that the
recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was
another one of those lies
.
For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he
accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he
had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his
version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been
waging a war on the truth
for
the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been
useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.
Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for
Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always.
https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw
All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this
conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly
attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he
is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for
freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and
disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly
attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a
serial liar, and right now we don't have one.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
.
He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and
there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will
add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These
factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.
Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of
dreams:
1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more
intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia
fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he
will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality
and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi
government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.
2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding"
Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at
their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially
Russians to their front and on their flanks.
3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is
known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and
will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of
helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in
economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are
untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has
already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be
another intifada.
Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn
Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl
Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani
happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up
the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria
or Iraq.
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie
is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves
Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this.
And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please
point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he
has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and
ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on
trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only
money mattered.
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if
things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a
monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as,
also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on
European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not
paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on
finance that has served him well in business.
The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money
can't buy, to the detriment of America.
Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy
both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are
sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be
contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way
out.
Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with
Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality
clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I
can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.
My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle
Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China
has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of
Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.
If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and
an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a
higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both
futile and dangerous.
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the
MENA. That's all anyone remembers.
Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell
the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the
Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 -
15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to
Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the
President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.
Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to
fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his
economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and
successful.
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with
a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.
This blabbing about authoritarian Russia and China greatly diminishes the value of this
article. The author is Warren foreign policy advisor. Probably she should find a better
advisor.
Compare this blabbing with Putin stance about strengthening of the role of the UN.
Notable quotes:
"... Fourth, the new progressive foreign policy is highly skeptical of military interventions, and opposed to democracy promotion by force. This does not mean that progressives are unwilling or would be unable to use force when it is necessary. But after 17 years of war in the Middle East, they do not share the aggressive posture that has characterized the post-Cold War era. Some are skeptical because they think interventions cannot succeed. Others emphasize the potential for backlash and making the situation worse. Still others hold that stable, sustainable democracy cannot be imposed from abroad but must emerge organically. ..."
"... Fifth, the new progressive foreign policy seeks to reshape the military budget by both cutting the budget overall and reallocating military spending. This should not be surprising. The skepticism of intervention suggests military budgets do not need to be as big as they have been in an era when the goal was to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously. The centrality of economics to a progressive foreign policy further explains this position; military spending should partly be reallocated to cyber and other technologies that are deeply integrated with the economy and likely to be crucial in future conflicts. ..."
end of history " and
America's " unipolar moment ." And
both camps have undergone a serious reckoning after the Afghanistan, Iraq, and forever wars, as
well as the global financial crisis calling into question neoliberal
economic policies -- namely, deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and austerity.
Prominent foreign policy advocates have quite publicly engaged in
soul-searching as they confronted these changes, and debates about the future of foreign
policy abound.
The emergence of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy is perhaps the most
interesting -- and most misunderstood -- development in these debates. In speeches and
articles, politicians like Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and Sen.
Bernie Sanders have outlined an approach to foreign policy that does not fall along the
traditional fault-lines of realist versus idealist or neoconservative versus liberal
internationalist (disclosure: I have been a longtime advisor to Sen. Warren). Their speeches
come alongside an
increasing number of
articles exploring the
contours of a
progressive foreign policy. Even those who might not consider themselves
progressive are
sounding similar themes .
From this body of work, it is now possible to sketch out the framework of a distinctively
progressive approach to foreign policy. While its advocates, like those in other foreign policy
camps, discuss a wide range of issues -- from climate change to reforming international
institutions -- at the moment, five themes mark this emerging approach as a specific framework
for foreign policy.
First, progressive foreign policy breaks the
silos between domestic and foreign policy and between international economic policy and
foreign policy. It places far greater emphasis on how foreign policy impacts the United States
at home -- and particularly on how foreign policy (including international economic policy) has
impacted the domestic economy. To be sure, there have always been analysts and commentators who
recognized these interrelationships. But progressive foreign policy places this at the center
of its analysis rather than seeing it as peripheral. The new progressive foreign policy takes
the substance of both domestic and international economic policies seriously, and its adherents
will not support economic policies on foreign policy grounds if they exacerbate economic
inequality at home. For example, the argument that trade deals must be ratified on national
security grounds even though they have problematic distributional consequences does not carry
much weight for progressives who believe that an equitable domestic economy is the foundation
of national power.
Second, progressive foreign policy holds that one of the important threats to American
democracy at home is nationalist
oligarchy (or, alternatively, authoritarian
capitalism ) abroad. Countries like Russia and China are not simply authoritarian
governments, and neither can their resurgence and assertion of power be interpreted as merely
great power competition. The reason is that their economic systems integrate economic and
political power. Crony/state capitalism is not a bug, it is the central feature. In a global
society, economic interrelationships
weaponize economic power into political power .
China, for example, already uses its economic power as leverage in political disputes with
other Asian countries. Its growing share of global GDP is one of the most consequential facts
of the 21st century. As a result of these dynamics, progressives are also highly skeptical of a
foreign policy based on the premise that the countries of the world will all become neoliberal
democracies. Instead, they take seriously the risks that come from economic integration with
nationalist oligarchies.
Third, the new progressive foreign policy values America's alliances and international
agreements, but not because it thinks that such alliances and rules can convert nationalist
oligarchies into liberal democracies. Rather, alliances should be based on
common values or common goals, and, going forward, they will be critical to balancing and
countering the challenges from nationalist oligarchies. Progressives are thus far more
skeptical of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and far more interested in reinforcing
and deepening ties with allies like Japan -- and are concerned about the erosion of alliances
like NATO from within.
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the
NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)
January 24, 2020
|
9:21 pm
Daniel Larison
Mike Pompeo has proven to be a
blowhard and a bully
in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions
from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary
Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the
interview
when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the
reporter who asked him the questions:
Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at
Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.
A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department
without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.
Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives,
according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."
People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an
obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not
used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other
journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are
women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this
episode will make it worse.
When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended
the conversation. The
entire
interview
is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing
administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all
that he could do was repeat himself robotically:
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: How?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: Sanctions?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to
back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the
Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to
answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview
as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest
answers would get in the way of both.
The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie
Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was
nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was
persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he
fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:
QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on
this team.
QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I
appreciate that.
Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk
Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his
rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is
perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who
exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.
about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at
TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox
Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
. He
holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to
find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and
commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."
I don't suppose we are ever likely to
see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.
It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and
stealing, and making a guess based on that.
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom.
Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their
despicable behavior.
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can
always
get worse. There is no bottom, for to
have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the
Capo di Tutti Capi
for
blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like
liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.
Oh, and you forgot about the part where
Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to
a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting
journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to
share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all
rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe
the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he
wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he
won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air
anyway.
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are
confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer
transitioned to a new topic."
Oh, the humanity!
Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we
agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?
Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Italicized/bold
text was excerpted from the website
www.dni.gov
within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
ANSWER:
Key Judgements
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we
also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to
suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website
fas.org
a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:
Page 53, 2nd paragraph -
Iran's Nuclear Program: Status
Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He
testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not
currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear
device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons
program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that
Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce
a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper
stated in April 2013.
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to
considerable skepticism.
In June, in an essay entitled "
Eve of
Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of
Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the
downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation
dominance."
In an October
essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in
June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the
Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an
important article, " The Secret History
of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and
underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican
Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported
statement
of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an
eventual military strike on Iran."
And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in
an essay suggesting
a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed
out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where
Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before
the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to
have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran
might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why
Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that."
So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.
But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem
Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in
the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization
Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness.
Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people
bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.
Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly
quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the
region, for the moment.
That was the week that was.
But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the
radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be
determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I
need to say about the war we are now in.
The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic
of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions,
Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani
was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what
his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course,
is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani "
a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant
ignorance of U.S. political culture.
It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable
stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi
said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider
to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man
and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump?
Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of
them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American
leaders."
To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was
around
80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know
how he led and organized the forces that helped save
Christians ,
Kurds , Yazidis and others from being
slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still "
watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool
to "manage" their war against Assad.
In an informative
interview
with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,
explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from
being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:
He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's
operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most
humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he
wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.
When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had
literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and
Baghdad
[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as
a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat
in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that
allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for
Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS
flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the
scourge of ISIS.
So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II
Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm
exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah
:
Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's
strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like
Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with
growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region
stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them
More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin
meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed
this man.
Dressed to Kill
But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus
on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when
the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and
instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and
third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.
The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance,
or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale,
regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.
From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has
rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and
has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will
fight back however it deems necessary.
The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani
assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American
pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an
Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the
Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In
anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the
equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.
Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known
assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful
strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been
active in Yemen. According to the
Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen,
which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on
Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."
Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants
to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential
administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and
presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with
drone strikes ,
special
forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty
business that even the U.S. Congress
passed a bipartisan
resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.
According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping
the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the
crap out of them.
So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior
Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump
administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody
takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even
Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any
military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was "
talking about bad stuff ."
The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international
relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their
elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to
well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make
the rules and you follow our orders.
The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the
explicit, unequivocal
demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the
country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that
the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's
ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the
Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.
We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that
Wesley Clark described in
2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened,
divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could
pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has
fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that
resistance to persist.
And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like
Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist
the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a
war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their
"interests."
What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of
material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the
Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil
facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces
of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the
U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing
and dividing that country at will.
It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which
American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to
figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's
the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it
and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a
success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's
"senseless," and remain enmired in the
cock-up theory
of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very
big slaughter.
The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly
internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by
a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to
other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint
from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."
The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist
imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious
retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize
any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of
colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings
(Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass
expulsions, if deems necessary.
That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic
sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided
political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance
to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence,
and is therefore the next mandatory target.
For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its
internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.
It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is
absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests.
But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on
KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly
committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they
are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would
declare "I am a
Wahhabi," or a U.S. President
say
"I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with
nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the
reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to
defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and
diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war
on Iran represent the U.S. "
doubling
down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman
and Robin.
Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the
finale that is coming its way.
The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the
Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the
intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani
and the Quds Force.
Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force
commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks
have been " agitating for
." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of
assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and
trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike
from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.
Per Patrick
Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected
the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to
take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war
is on and it will get worse fast.
It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying.
It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump,
Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will "
obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said
before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can
take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger
war, but it will strike back.
Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning
through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker
down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where
U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.
Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale
attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did
launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew,
including Republican Senators, were "
stunned " that he
called it off in literally the last
ten minutes . It's
to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have
Tucker
Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.
There Will Be Blood
But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now
threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that
harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response."
Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what
"proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or
other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to
retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran.
Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.
The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under
then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone
Iran
Mission Center . That Center
replaced
a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's
people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any --
Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the
agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned
with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that
could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia
militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as
having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and "
Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a
convert to Islam, and
notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."
This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a
pact with Israel "to
take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the
White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its
proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build
accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for
Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far
greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as
Israeli's capital.
The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.
The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated
everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence --
specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its
allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is
labelled "Iranian aggression."
These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to
inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot
attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to
take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis
couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more
battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn
precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S.
and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander
says :
"Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands,
Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."
This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of "
praying
for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together "
urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to
make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and
his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom
even John
McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo,
characterized
as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save
Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence
argues
the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and
stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not
going to stop.
And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game.
Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and
Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional"
negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of
economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct
condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all
sanctions.
Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically
and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of
Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already
cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will
almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN
sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too,
know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put
more
restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the
nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot
overstate their importance.
Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its
ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may
drive
Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the
EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet
the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did
to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out
of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely.
Which is its purpose.
This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama
administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of
fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer.
But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures
that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.
With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can
easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire
imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media
have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.
With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in
Israel and the
U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears
about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the
Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his
action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict
with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but "
statement.
Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound
all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran
as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it.
The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in
the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent
way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after
it's done.
Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought
us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But
not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable
-- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own
petard. As are we all.
To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war
that, as the NYTreports ,
"Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon
some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks
on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on
Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming
almost impossible to avoid.
The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense
treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for
Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United
States.
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
"... Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers. ..."
Martin Indyk: An Important Neoliberal Defects From the Blob
Let's hope the former ambassador's heresy about withdrawing from the Middle East catches
fire and spreads. Then-VP of Brookings Martin Indyk in 2017. (Sharon Farmer/sfphotoworks)
January 22, 2020
|
12:01 am
Andrew
J. Bacevich Within the inner precincts of the American foreign policy establishment, last
names are redundant. At a Washington cocktail party, when some half-sloshed AEI fellow
whispers, "Apparently, Henry is back in Beijing to see Xi," there's no need to ask, "Which
Henry?" In that world, there is only one Henry, at least only one who counts.
Similarly, there is only one Martin. While Martin Indyk may not equal Henry Kissinger in
star power, he has for several decades been a major player in U.S. policy regarding Israel and
the Middle East more broadly. Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, senior
director on the National Security Council, twice U.S. ambassador to Israel, assistant secretary
of state for Near East affairs, presidential envoy -- not a bad resume for someone who was born
in London, raised in Australia, and became a U.S. citizen only in his 40s.
Throughout his career, Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace
process" and in the proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that
process to a successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United
States has vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability
and the well-being of the people living there dependent on the United States exercising what
people in Washington call "leadership." In this context, of course, leadership tends to be a
euphemism for the use or threatened use of military power.
These are, of course, establishment notions, to which all members of the "Blob" necessarily
declare their fealty. Indeed, at least until Trump came along, to dissent from such views was
to become ineligible for appointment to even a mid-level post in the State Department, the
Pentagon, or the White House.
Yet Martin has now publicly recanted.
In an extraordinary op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), he
asserts that "few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake in the Middle East."
Policies centered on ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf oil and the survival of Israel have
become superfluous. "The US economy no longer relies on imported petroleum," he correctly
notes. "Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter." As a consequence,
Persian Gulf oil "is no longer a vital interest -- that is, one worth fighting for. Difficult
as it might be to get our heads around the idea, China and India need to be protecting the sea
lanes between the Gulf and their ports, not the US Navy."
As for the Jewish State, Martin notes, again correctly, that today Israel has the capacity
"to defend itself by itself." Notwithstanding the blustering threats regularly issued by
Tehran, "it is today's nuclear-armed Israel that has the means to crush Iran, not the other way
around."
Furthermore, Martin has had his fill of the peace process. "A two-state solution to the
Palestinian problem is a vital Israeli interest, not a vital American one," he writes,
insisting that "it's time to end the farce of putting forward American peace plans only to have
one or both sides reject them."
Martin does identify one vital U.S. interest in the Middle East: averting a nuclear arms
race. Yet "we should be wary of those who would rush to battle stations," he cautions. "Curbing
Iran's nuclear aspirations and ambitions for regional dominance will require assiduous American
diplomacy, not war."
That last sentence captures the essence of Martin's overall conclusion: he proposes not
disengaging from the Middle East but demilitarizing U.S. policy. "After the sacrifice of so
many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up
doing more harm than good," he writes, "it is time for the US to find a way to escape the
costly, demoralising cycle of crusades and retreats."
Now such sentiments appear regularly in the pages of The American Conservative and on
the website of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . Yet in establishment
circles, a willingness to describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as quixotic is rare indeed.
As for acknowledging that we have done more harm than good, such commonsense views are usually
regarded as beyond the pale.
Martin deserves our congratulations. We must hope that his heresy catches fire and spreads
throughout the Blob. In the meantime, if he's in need of office space, the Quincy Institute
stands ready to help.
Welcome to the ranks of the truth tellers, comrade.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large and president of the Quincy Institute. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,has
just been published.
"Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" and in the
proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that process to a
successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United States has
vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability and the
well-being of the people living there"
No. The only use he ever had for the peace process was as cover for what Israel was really
doing.
The only interest he ever cared about was Israel, not the stability or well-being of any
other people but the hawks among Israelis.
He perverted US policy from the inside, in pursuit of those ends of those Lobby partisans.
He has never been anything else.
And is about to pervert it AGAIN. One must be a total ignoramus not to notice American
public's changing attitude towards Israel, as well as Israel's high powered lobbyists.
Before the change turns into an outright hostility, the apologists of the Empire are defusing
the nascent rage. So, HE is the one to be PRAISED for being so wise, and deserving our
support?
This leopard will keep on changing spots, but never his nature.
He is and will remain ardent apologist of American Empire -- for as long as this Empire
serves his primary interest. And that interest is clear -- interest of Israel AND all of its
citizens around the globe.
It is disheartening to read Bacevich praise Indyk-who was, after all, one of the architects
of our disastrous Middle East "policy". I guess the Quincy Institute wants to hew a path
closer to the mainstream narrative. What will be next? An apologia for Doug Feith and Richard
Perle?
Indyk's comments read like a neo-con who's lost favor and power. This is not a good sign.
This points to the internecine warfare within the halls of conceptual power being closer to
decided. With the diplomats out, it leaves the apocalypse cult as the de-facto winner.
Expect more ludicrous demands of US vassals and more effort to attack Iran. They're not
going to stop. Where the oil comes from doesn't matter, what currency is used to conduct
trade does.
It is exactly so -- internecine warfare. But I do not see them loosing power. They are losing
NARRATIVE both internationally and domestically. This is a beginning of crafting a new
narrative to stem the rising hostility against Israel centric militaristic foreign policy
orientation.
Thus switching to "diplomacy", as military posturing just brings about dead ends to
defend.
He wants results, So, change the narrative, diffuse anti-Israeli tide, and become a beacon of
reason and wholesomeness. Who can resist these new spots?
There was never anything Quixotic about US foreign policy in the ME. As for Israel/Palestine,
the policy, and "Martin" was central to it, was to pretend to negotiate in good faith while
Israel occupied "the land from the river to the sea." In Iraq, except for Cheney's oil lust,
it was to carry out the neo-con chant of "the road to Iran is through Iraq." As for Iran, it
has been to barely resist Israel's, and US Israel-firster's, pressure for war, though it may
still happen.
You mean to say that some establishment guy finally got fed up with all the bullshit?
In any event, Indyk is wrong to believe that Israel can defeat Iran in a conflict. Israeli
nuclear weapons are really of little consequence in such a situation as the majority of them
must be delivered by aircraft which Iran will simply shoot down. Those that are siloed will
most likely meet the same fate. But in either case Russia will not allow any such conflict to
go nuclear.
In terms of conventional capabailities, the IDF has never been a very good military unit
since it basically has only entered engagements with less than equally capable opponents.
However, that has all been changing since Hezbollah's defeat of the IDF in 2006.
Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular
military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with
Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers.
The Israeli navy is meaningless in this situation so it is only in the air that Israel now
has any claim to fame. However, instead of increasing its Air Force with modernized F15x
models, Israel has opted to acquire the F35, which no amount of avionics can make the
air-frame fly better. Iran still uses the F14 as a heavy fighter, which Israel also requires
for her situation making the acquisition of the F35 rather odd.
In the end, it will be Iranian missile development that places that nation in a position
to deal a death blow to the Israeli state.
"... Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment -- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States. ..."
"... State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations. ..."
"... Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security. ..."
"... After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors. ..."
"... That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate. ..."
Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment
-- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading
a communist takeover of the United States.
This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy
to take over the United States and the rest of the world. The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia. Yes, that Russia!
That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure
after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the
national's founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the
communists in what was being called a â€cold War, a€ it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security
state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded
and exercised.
The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination,
especially in the national's public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans
became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including
their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal
bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent
of the Soviet government.
In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent.
When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all,
they maintained, wouldn't any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only
a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.
Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as
the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife
in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America . How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights
for blacks in nation that purported to be free?
The website kingcenter.org points out:
After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous
verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, there is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in
the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented
during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply
involved in the assassination of my husband.â€
And why not? Isn't it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat
to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international
communist conspiracy to take over the United States?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after
the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal
assassination manual that trained its agents
in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out
to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba,
the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership
with the Mafia, the worldâ's premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country
that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its
counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the
country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials werenâ't
the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound
bookÂ
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters , the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John
F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded
that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national
security.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one
great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors.
That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace,
friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's
Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations
with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate.
But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a
major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that â€" reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and
then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist
takeover of the United States?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a
limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security
state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism
with freedom and limited government.
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental
structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression,
coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction,
not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order
the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press
and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved
and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.
On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in
the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S.
personnel in Iraq days later.
A Thursday article by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone discusses Dennis Kucinich's work in
politics, from Kucinich's eight terms in the United Sates House of Representatives to his two
presidential campaigns to his activities since leaving political office. Taibbi, in the article
focused much on Kucinich's long-term devotion to advancing the case for peace, describes
Kucinich as "antiwar to his core."
Vanessa Beeley provides a short, incomplete, list.
I look at the pictures of today's refugees and see the faces of yesterday's. I see the
conditions they inhabit, the squalor and filth, and I see the same in pictures from the past.
I read the words of hatred directed at those innocents and recall the same words being said
of their predecessors.
And the source of the words and plight of the innocents both present
and past come from the same portals or power--The Imperialist West and its Zionist progeny.
How many millions have died to enrich their purse, to increase the size of the estates, to
serve as their slaves? How many more in the future will share their fate?
Will humans ever
evolve to become peaceful animals and save themselves?
"... The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S.. ..."
"... The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. ..."
"... As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania and Poland. ..."
"... There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington's vaunted ABM systems. ..."
"... In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation. ..."
"... Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors. ..."
Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Trump, the U.S. has made some
missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its
ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately
.
Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors
have only accelerated the U.S.'s hegemonic decline.
ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy
The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while
declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and
budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant
strategic problems besetting the U.S..
The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on
supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both
sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the
purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. This
argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such
missiles.
As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such
offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the
Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in
the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania
and Poland.
Following from Trump's momentous decision to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely
that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more
global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the
strategic balance, Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of
hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse
Washington of its first-strike fantasies.
Even as Washington's propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global
chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober
military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.
There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide
vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD),
which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this
"balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing
that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for
Washington's vaunted ABM systems.
In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to
develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington's aggression. This ABM
system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and
shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to
intercept ICBMs as well as any future U.S. hypersonic weapons
The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only ended up
leaving the U.S. in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China. Moscow has
obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing
Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.
No
JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran
In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the
most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all
options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do
not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is
prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to
follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S.
aggression.
While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from U.S. aggression as a result of
its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and
cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or
nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied. While
a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as
North Korea's experience attests.
While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration
in the Middle East. But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear
weapons have been acquired)
does not exist , with them having a
stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.
Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently
encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended.
Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA,
has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.
Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W.
Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and
Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain
critical areas relative to its competitors.
The death of Soleimani punctures the myth
of the U.S. invincibility
I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimani's death that
examined the incident and then
considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.
What seems evident is that Washington appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of
its reckless actions. Killing Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we
assume that Trump was not looking for war (I
explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a
response from Iran to the U.S.'s terrorist actions.
The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a
U.S. military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload).
Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic
means to obliterate thousands of U.S. and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if
it so wished, with the U.S. would be powerless to stop it.
U.S. Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure
to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few
months ago.
We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the U.S. to
protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. Trump and his
generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any
Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate
U.S. bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of U.S. allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and
Dubai.
After demonstrating to the world that U.S. allies in the region are defenseless against
missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting
surgical strikes on two U.S. bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception
of U.S. military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered
missile conflict.
Conclusion
Washington's diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a
world world that is more hostile to Washington and less inclined to accept its diktats, often
being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington's bullying. Even as
the U.S. remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China
surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the U.S. has no chance of defending itself
against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate
against the U.S. in the region.
As I continue to say, Washington's power largely rests on perception management helped by
the make-believe world of Hollywood. The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia's
oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on U.S. military bases in Iraq
(none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington's
military vulnerability. No amount of entreaties by Washington to pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain will help.
The more aggressive the U.S. becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and
strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.
If the U.S. could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory
second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could
possibly be realistic. But Washington's peer competitors have shown that they have the means to
defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second
strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here
to stay. With that, Washington's efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon
are futile.
In a region
vital to U.S. interests , Washington does not have the operational capacity to stand in the
way of Syria's liberation. When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has
seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles
knocked down or deflected , once again highlighting the divergence between Washington's
Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.
The actions of George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate
the world's transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. As Trump follows in the
steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the U.S.
global position and strengthen that of his opponents.
Up to the election of our current President, I agree that we were bullying for the
personal gain of a few and our military was being used as a mercenary force. The current
administration is working on getting us out of long term conflicts. What do you think "drain
the swamp" means? It is a huge undertaking and need to understand what the "deep state" is
all about and their goals.
The death of Soleimani was needed and made the world a safer place. Dr. Janda / Freedom
Operation has had several very intriguing presentations on this issue. It is my firm belief
that there is a worldwide coalition to make the world a better and safer place. If you want
to know about the "deep state" try watching: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU
All mostly true, but the constant drone of this type of article gets old, as the comments
below attest. We really don't need more forensic analysis by the SCF, what we need is an
answer to America's dollar Imperialism problem. But we'll never get it, just as England never
got an answer to it's pound Imperialism problem.
I like Tulsi Gabbard, but she can never truly reveal the magnitude of the dollar
Imperialism behind her "stop these endless wars" sloganism. Besides, she doesn't have the
billions required to mount any real successful campaign. Only billionaires like Bloomberg
need apply these days.
The Truth is that NO ONE will stand up to Wall Street and it's system of global dollar
corporatism (from which Bloomberg acquired his billions, and to which the USG is bound). It's
suicide to speak the truth to the masses. The dollar must die of its own disease.
Trump is America's Chemo. The cure nearly as bad as the cancer, but the makers of it have
a vested interest in its acceptance.
General Bonespur murders a genuine military man from the comfort of his golf course.
America is still dangerous, Pinky might be tired but the (((Brain))) is working feverishly on
solutions for the jaded .
There has been a perception in the last 25 years that the US could win a nuclear war. This
perception is extremely dangerous as it invites the US armed forces to commit atrocities and
think they can get away with it (they are for now). The world opinion has turned, but the
citizens of the United States of America are not listening.
If the US keeps going down the path they are currently on, they are ensuring that war will
eventually reach its coast.
To challenge the US Empire the new Multipolar World is focused on a two-pronged
strategy:
1. Nullifying the US nuclear first strike (at will) as part of the current US military
doctrine - accomplished (for a decade maybe).
2. Outmaneuvering the US petrodollar in trade, the tool to control the global fossil fuel
resources on the planet - in progress.
What makes 2.) decisive is that the petrodollar as reserve currency is the key to recycle
the US federal budget deficit via foreign investment in U.S. Treasury Bonds (IOUs) by the
central banks, thus enabling the global military presence and power projection of the US
military empire.
All their little plots and schemes failed, as corrupt arsehole after corrupt arsehole
stole the funding from those plots and schemes to fill their own pockets. They also put the
most corrupt individuals they could find into power, so as much as possible could be stolen
and voila, everywhere they went, everything collapsed, every single time.
Totally and utterly ludicrous decades, of not punishing failure after failure has resulted
in nothing but more failure, like, surprise, surprise, surprise.
Routine failures have forced other nation to go multipolar or just rush straight to global
economic collapse as a result of out of control US corruption. Russia and China did not
outsmart the USA, the USA did it entirely to itself by not prosecuting corruption at high
levels, even when it failed time and time again, focusing more on how much they could steal,
then on bringing what ever plot or scheme to a successful conclusion.
The use of the terms "Unintended Consequences", shortsightedness, mistakes, stupidity, or
ignorance provides the avenue to transfer or divert the blame. It excuses it away as bad
decisions so that the truth and those responsible are never really exposed and held
accountable. The fact is, these actions were not mistakes or acts of shortsightedness...they
were deliberate and planned and the so-called "unintended consequences" were actually
intended and part of their plan. Looking back and linking the elites favorite process to
drive change (problem, reaction, solution)...one can quickly make the connection to many of
the so-called "unintended consequences" as they are very predictable results their actions.
It becomes very clear that much of what has occurred over the last few decades has been
deliberate with planned/intended outcomes.
I think the biggest advantage USA used to have was that they claimed to stand for Freedom
and Democracy. And for a time, many people believed them. That's partly why the USSR fell
apart, and for a time USA had a lot of goodwill among ordinary Russians.
But US political leaders squandered this goodwill when they used NATO to attack Yugoslavia
against Russia's objections and expanded NATO towards Russia's borders. This has been long
forgotten in USA. But many ordinary Russians still seethe about these events. This was the
turning point for them that motivated them to support Putin and his rebuilding of Russia's
military.
When you have goodwill among your potential competitors, then they don't have much
motivation to increase their capabilities against you. This was the situation USA was in
after the USSR fell apart. But USA squandered all of this goodwill and motivated the Russians
to do what they did.
And now, USA under Trump has done something like this with China. USA used to have a lot
of goodwill among the ordinary Chinese. But now this is gone as a result of US tariffs,
sanctions, and its support for separatism in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Now, the Chinese will be
as motivated as the Russians to do their best at promoting their interests at the expense of
USA. And together with Russia, they have enough people and enough natural resources to do
more than well against USA and its allies.
I think USA could've maintained a lot more influence around the world through goodwill
with ordinary people, than through sanctions, threats, and military attacks. If USA had left
Iraq under Saddam Hussein alone, then Iran wouldn't have had much influence in there. And if
USA had left Iran alone, then the young people there might've already rebelled against their
strict Islamic rule and made their government more friendly with USA.
Doing nothing, except business and trade, would've left USA in a much better position,
than the one USA is in now.
Now USA is bankrupting itself with unsustainable military spending and still falling
behind its competitors. USA might still have the biggest economy in the world in US Dollar
terms. But this doesn't take into account the cost of living and purchasing parity. With
purchasing parity taken into account, China now has a bigger economy than that of USA.
Because internally, they can manufacture and buy a lot more for the same amount of money than
USA can. A lot of US military spending is on salaries, pensions, and healthcare of its
personnel. While such costs in Russia and China are comparatively small. They are spending
most of their money on improving and building their military technology. That's why in the
long run, USA will probably fall behind even more.
The Anglos in the U.S. are not from there and are imposters who are claiming
characteristics and a culture that doesn't belong to them. They're using it as a way
to hide from scrutiny, so you blame "Americans", when its really them. That's why
there's such a huge disconnect between stated values and actions. The values belong to
another group of people, TRUE Americans, while the actions belong to Anglos, who have a
history of aggressive and forced, irrational violence upon innocents.
It's true that ordinary people are often different from their government, including in
Russia, in China, in Iran, in USA, and even in Nazi Germany in the past.
But the people in such a situation are usually powerless and unable to influence their
government. So, their difference is irrelevant in the way their government behaves and
alienates people around the world.
USA is nominally a democracy, where the government is controlled by the people. But in
reality, the people are only a ceremonial figurehead, and the real power is a small minority
of rich companies and individuals, who fund election campaigns of politicians.
That's why for example most Americans want to have universal healthcare, just like all
other developed countries have. But most elected politicians from both major parties won't
even consider this idea, because their financial donors are against it. And if the people are
powerless even within their own country, then outside with foreigners, they have even less
influence.
1. Nation Building? It worked with Germany and Japan, rinse and repeat. So what if it's
comparing apples to antimatter?
2. US won the Cold War? So make the same types of moves made during Reagan adm? The real
reason the Soviet Empire collapsed was because it was a money losing empire while the US was
a money making empire. Just review the money pits they invested in.
3. Corruption? That was your grandfather's time. The US has been restructured. Crime
Syndicate and Feudal templates are the closest. Stagnation and decline economically and
technologically are inevitable.
4. Evaluating the competition is problematic. However perhaps the most backward and
regressive elements in this society are branding themselves as progressive and getting away
with it. That can't work.
Unprecedented hubris is drawing a global blowback that will leave America in a very
dangerous place.
Sorin Alb/Shutterstock
January 2, 2020
|
12:01 am
Doug
Bandow Economic sanctions are an important foreign policy tool going back to America's founding.
President Thomas Jefferson banned trade with Great Britain and France, which left U.S. seamen
unemployed while failing to prevent military conflict with both.
Economic warfare tends to be equally ineffective today. The Trump administration made Cuba,
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and North Korea special sanctions targets. So this strategy has failed
in every case. In fact, "maximum pressure" on both Iran, which has become more threatening, and
North Korea, which appears to be preparing a tougher military response, has dramatically
backfired.
The big difference between then and now is Washington's shift from primary to secondary
sanctions. Trade embargoes, such as first applied to Cuba in 1960, once only prevented
Americans from dealing with the target state. Today Washington attempts to conscript the entire
world to fight its economic wars.
This shift was heralded by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which extended Cuban penalties to
foreign companies, a highly controversial move at the time. Sudan was another early target of
secondary sanctions, which barred anyone who used the U.S. financial system from dealing with
Khartoum. Europeans and others grumbled about Washington's arrogance, but were not willing to
confront the globe's unipower over such minor markets.
However, sanctions have become much bigger business in Washington. One form is a mix of
legislative and executive initiatives applied against governments in disfavor. There were five
countries under sanction when George W. Bush took office in 2001. The Office of Foreign Assets
Control currently lists penalties against the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, Central African
Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua,
North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine-Russia, Venezuela, Yemen, and
Zimbabwe. In addition are special programs: countering America's adversaries,
counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, cyber warfare, foreign election interference, Global
Magnitsky, Magnitsky, proliferation, diamond trade, and transnational crime.
Among today's more notable targets are Cuba for being communist, Venezuela for being crazy
communist, Iran for having once sought nuclear weapons and currently challenging Saudi and U.S.
regional hegemony, Russia for beating up on Ukraine and meddling in America's 2016 election,
Syria for opposing Israel and brutally suppressing U.S.-supported insurgents, and North Korea
for developing nuclear weapons. Once on Washington's naughty list, countries rarely get
off.
The second penalty tier affects agencies, companies, and people who have offended someone in
Washington for doing something considered evil, inappropriate, or simply inconvenient.
Individual miscreants often are easy to dislike. Penalizing a few dubious characters or
enterprises creates less opposition than sanctioning a country.
However, some targets merely offended congressional priorities. For instance, as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act Congress authorized sanctions against Western companies,
most notably the Swiss-Dutch pipe-laying venture Allseas Group, involved in the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline project. GOP Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson threatened Allseas:
"continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after the president signs the sanctions
legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and potentially fatal legal and economic
sanctions."
Penalizing what OFAC calls "Specially Designated Nationals" and "blocked persons" has become
Washington sport. Their number hit 8000 last year. The Economist noted that the Trump
administration alone added 3100 names during its first three years, almost as many as George W.
Bush included in eight years. Today's target list runs an incredible 1358 pages.
The process has run wildly out of control. Policymakers' first response to a person,
organization, or government doing something of which they disapprove now seems to be to impose
sanctions -- on anyone or anything on earth dealing with the target. Unfortunately, reliance on
economic warfare, and sanctions traditionally are treated as an act of war, has greatly
inflated U.S. officials' geopolitical ambitions. Once they accepted that the world was a messy,
imperfect place. Today they intervene in the slightest foreign controversy. Even allies and
friends, most notably Europe, Japan, South Korea, and India, are threatened with economic
warfare unless they accept Washington's self-serving priorities and mind-numbing fantasies.
At the same time the utility of sanctions is falling. Unilateral penalties usually fail,
which enrages advocates, who respond by escalating sanctions, again without success. Of course,
embargoes and bans often inflict substantial economic pain, which sometimes lead proponents to
claim victory. However, the cost is supposed to be the means to another end. Yet the
Trump administration has failed everywhere: Cuba maintains communist party rule, Iran has grown
more truculent, North Korea has refused to disarm, Russia has not given back Crimea, and
Venezuela has not defenestrated Nicolas Maduro.
Much the same goes for penalties applied to individuals, firms, and other entities. Those
targeted often are hurt, and most of them deserve to be hurt. But they usually persist in their
behavior or others replace them. What dictator has been deposed, policy has been changed,
threat has been countered, or wrong has been righted as a result of economic warfare? There is
little evidence that U.S. sanctions achieve much of anything, other than encourage
sanctimonious moral preening.
Noted the Economist , "If they do not change behavior, sanctions risk becoming less a
tool of coercion than an expensive and rather arbitrary extraterritorial form of punishment."
One that some day might be turned against Americans.
Contra apparent assumptions in Washington, it is not easy to turn countries into America's
image. Raw nationalism usually triumphs. Americans should reflect on how they would react if
the situation was reversed. No one wants to comply with unpopular foreign dictates.
In fact, economic warfare often exacerbates underlying conflicts. Rather than negotiate with
Washington from a position of weakness, Iran has threatened maritime traffic in the Persian
Gulf, shut down Saudi oil exports, and loosed affiliates and irregulars on American and allied
forces. Russia has challenged against multiple Washington policy priorities. Cuba has shifted
power to the post-revolutionary generation and extended its authority private businesses as the
Trump administration's policies have stymied growth and undermined entrepreneurs.
The almost endless expansion of sanctions also punishes American firms and foreign companies
active in America. Compliance is costly. Violating one rule, even inadvertently, is even more
so. Chary companies preemptively forego legal business in a process called "de-risking."
Even humanitarian traffic suffers: Who wants to risk an expensive mistake in handling
relatively low value transactions? Such effects might not bother smug U.S. policymakers, but
should weigh heavily on the rest of us.
Perhaps most important, Washington's overreliance on secondary sanctions is building
resistance to American financial dominance. Warned Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in 2016: "The
more we condition use of the dollar and our financial system on adherence to U.S. foreign
policy, the more the risk of migration to other currencies and other financial systems in the
medium-term grows."
Overthrowing the almighty dollar will be no mean feat. Nevertheless, arrogant U.S. attempts
to regulate the globe have united much of the world, including Europe, Russia, and China,
against American extraterritoriality. Noted attorney Bruce Zagaris, Washington is
"inadvertently mobilizing a club of countries and international organizations, including U.S.
allies, to develop ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions."
Merchant ships and oil tankers turn off transponders. Vessels transfer cargoes at sea. Firms
arrange cash and barter deals. Major powers such as China aid and abet violations and dare
Washington to wreck much larger bilateral economic relationships. The European Union passed
"Blocking Legislation" to allow recovery of damages from U.S. sanctions and limit Europeans'
compliance with such rules. The EU also developed a barter facility, known as Instex, to allow
trade with Iran without reliance on U.S. financial institution.
Russia has pushed to de-dollarize international payments and worked with China to settle
bilateral trade in rubles and renminbi. Foreign central banks have increased their purchases of
gold. At the recent Islamic summit Malaysia proposed using gold and barter for trade to thwart
future sanctions. Venezuela has been selling gold for euros. These measures do not as yet
threaten America's predominant financial role but foreshadow likely future changes.
Indeed, Washington's attack on plans by Germany to import natural gas from Russia might
ignite something much greater. Berlin is not just an incidental victim of U.S. policy. Rather,
Germany is the target. Complained Foreign Minister Heiko Maas "European energy policy is
decided in Europe, not in the U.S." Alas, Congress thinks differently.
However, Europeans are ever less willing to accept this kind of indignity. Washington is
penalizing even close allies for no obvious purpose other than demonstrating its power. In Nord
Stream 2's case, Gazprom likely will complete the project if necessary. Germany's Deputy
Foreign Minister Niels Annen argued that "Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend
itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions."
Commercial penalties have a role to play in foreign policy, but economic warfare is warfare.
It can trigger real conflicts -- consider Imperial Japan's response to the Roosevelt
administration's cut-off of oil exports. And economic warfare can kill innocents. When UN
Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked about the deaths of a half million Iraqi babies from
U.S. sanctions, her response was chilling: "We think the price is worth it." Yet most of the
time economic war fails, especially if a unilateral effort by one power applied against the
rest of the world.
Washington policymakers need to relearn the meaning of humility. Incompetent and arrogant
sanctions policies hurt Americans as well as others. Unfortunately, the resulting blowback will
only increase.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
Under the official Full Spectrum Dominance policy of national security, the goal is that
all other nations will be satrapies under U.S. jurisdiction. There are both punishments for
using the U.S. dollar, and punishments for not using it.
I'm afraid it will be the U.S. that suffers. Other countries will no longer subordinate
their interests to those of the U.S. I think the U.S. will have to fight all future wars,
and accept all blow-back, on her own.
It's a waste of time trying to appeal to the commonsense of the Washington Elites. They are
too arrogant and sociopathic to care, and lack anything that remotely resembles a moral
compass.
Sanctions are ineffective because the effects don't fall on those making decisions that are
adverse to the US. After fifty years of sanctions, Fidel died in bed in great comfort.
Sanctions on top of the crazy Juche policies make life hard for the ordinary North Korean,
but Kim doesn't appear to have lost any weight. Our officials pat themselves on the back
for their militancy without checking for effectiveness.
Would it be correct to say that the US embargo on oil exports to Japan in August 1941 led
to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a few months later (Dec. 7)? Was FDR trying to
provoke a war with Japan at the time?
Discuss 10021. Yes. I used to study East Asia and even reading standard collections of
articles, on the article announcing the embargo of steel and oil, and from British
controlled territories in East Asia, one's reaction would be, "This means war." (In like,
Pres. Carter said if Saudi Arabia refused to sell oil to the US we would invade and take
over oil fields.) Se our reaction was similar to that of Japan, though we would blame them
and us doing the same would be good. The US military assessment was, I have forgotten
exactly, but that Japan would be without heat, power, lighting, factories closed (no oil or
steel) and they would be on the point of starvation within, I have forgotten, 9 months to 1
1/2 years. So they "had to do something".. Their war plan was not to invade the US but
start a surprise war and strike quickly hoping to get forward bases in the Pacific and we
would need to negotiate and turn on the spigot. Japanese assessment was if they did not
achieve this by the end of 1942 they were finished. Interestingly, Hitler's assessment of
Germany's war was if they had not defeated USSR and gone after United Kingdom by the end of
1942, they, also, were finished. If I recall the report, Eleanor Roosevelt had told on US
writer the day the attack occurred, something like, "We thought they were going to attack,
but we thought it would be in the Philippines, not Hawaii."
The hubris is overwhelming. All empires fall, and the USA certainly seems headed for a
fall. However, we still have a choice. We could reject empire, stop all our illegal foreign
wars, close all our foreign military bases, drastically reduce our military budget (it is
NOT a "defense" budget; it is an offense military budget), end our campaigns of economic
sanctions, and stop being the Big Bully of the world. The result would be to free enormous
resources for our own country which ranks behind almost all other affluent nations - and
sometimes many not-so-affluent nations - in almost all indicators of ecnomic and social
well being. Replacing the military sector of our economy with civilian alternatives would
be a big boon. Weapons are notable for not continuing in the economic cycle as civilian
products do. There are many more jobs per dollars spent in the civilian sector than the
military sector. Empire is killing our country even as it is killing other countries.
Agreed, but the elites make BILLIONS from Empire & the associated militarism.
Psychopaths don't care about the damage they inflict on others, even their own countrymen,
and they won't willingly surrender the machinery that generates their wealth and privilege.
Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo. He could use the diet. Maybe raiding his pantry
would feed Iraqi for a couple months. He is truly perfect spokesman American empire.
Sadistic, bloated, and corrupt.
I think any sane human being can agree that while war was never a good idea, war in the 21st
century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the
forces driving world events towards an all-out war of "Mutually Assured Annihilation" are
anything but sane.
While I'm obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a
particularly virulent strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled "neo-conservative" and
while many of these disturbing figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a
risk worth taking in order to achieve their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to
make one subtle yet very important distinction which is often overlooked.
What is this distinction?
Under the broad umbrella of "neo-conservative" one should properly differentiate those who
really believe in their ideology and are trapped under the invisible cage of its unexamined
assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages the ideology
from the top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called Origins of the Deep State
and Myth
of the Jewish Conspiracy .
To re-state my meaning: This group doesn't necessarily believe in the ideological group they
manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to
achieve certain behavioral patterns in their children.
While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic
neocon worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the
point.
Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now
Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia
and Rome who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout
the ages. It is well documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome's control, as
long as said cult denied any claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic
monotheistic faiths more than a little antagonistic to empire.
Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?
Hell no.
Was it politically necessary to create them?
Of course.
Why?
Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts but since they
deny any principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc) , empires are merely a sum of
parts and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum. Each cultish group may
coexist as an echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity they wish
without judgement of moral right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their group's
beliefs- but nothing universal about justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise
permitted. Here the a-moral "peace" of "equilibrium" can be achieved by an oligarchy which
wishes to lord over the slaves. Whether we are dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich's
Congress of Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger, or Leo
Strauss (father of modern neo-conservativism), "Peace" can never be anything more than a
mathematical "balancing of parts".
Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?
To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit
more personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.
Smith at Her Majesty's
Service
Do Smith's modern followers sincerely believe in the "self-regulating forces of the free
market"?
Sure they do.
Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?
Whether he did or not, according
to recent research conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission
to compose his seminal book Wealth of Nations
(published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from Edinburgh to
London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who
essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised
all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said
credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his 1729 Necessity
of Paper Currency and Colonial Script.
Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new "Law" of "absolute advantage" demanded that
everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land,
so they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry
(don't ask how that happened because it wasn't through free trade), so they should stick with
that! India had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then
have a lot of opium fields so she could do that which China could then smoke to death under the
watch of British Gunships. "Free Trade" demanded it so.
Let's look at another example: Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
A
Not-too-Natural Selection
Darwin's theory published in his Origins of Species (1859) was based on the assumption that
all changes in the biosphere are driven by "laws" of "survival of the fittest" within an
assumed closed ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an "invisible
hand" brought creative order to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin
asserted that creative order on the large scale evolution of species could be explained by
chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that no power of reason, free will or God
could pass.
Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.
But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: "Darwin's Bulldog") whose efforts to destroy all competing
theories which included "purpose", "meaning", or "design" were crushed and ridiculed into
obscurity? Huxley himself was on record
saying he did not believe in Darwin's system. So why was this theory promoted by forces
(like
Huxley's X Club ) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to
Darwin's own account of his discovery from his
autobiography where he wrote:
"In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to
read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals
and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would
tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the
formation of a new species. Here then, I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Malthus's 'Dismal Science'
And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted "Man of God" who taught
economics at the British East India Company's Haileybury College) provided the very foundation
upon which Darwin's system stood! Thomas Huxley
and the other "high priests" of Huxley's X Club were always Malthusian (even before there
was Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources
of an age, rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring
new resources into being- overcoming nature's "limits to growth" (a dis-equilibrium not to be
tolerated). Whether Malthus actually believed in the system which bears his name, as
generations of his adherents sincerely do, remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the
needed extermination of the "unfit" by the Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded
Social Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called for the encouragement of the plague
and other "natural forms of destruction" to cull the herd of the unfit in his Essay on the
Principle of Population ( 1799):
"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the
operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation
of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction,
which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more
people into the houses, and court the return of the plague."
A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of
low value to society when he said:
"I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage
taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate
child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance The
infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately
supply its place."
The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley's
own grandson Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity
today called the Green New Deal were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect
of this worldview upon races deemed "unfit" in the global south should also not be ignored. It
is no coincidence that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund,
1001 Nature Trust and Club of Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world
over the bodies of countless statesmen during the Cold War.
The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire
Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious
and ethnic groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity
increases its capacity to sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to
parasitically drain their host. In Lincoln's great 1859 speech ,
the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the British Empire
when he said:
"All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth, and all within it, upon
it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual nature,
and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various "leads" from which, man, from the first,
was to dig out his destiny Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who
improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions."
Lincoln's economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal
improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben
Franklin.
Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the
leaders of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking
the post-truth neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics. The
folly of America's new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump's disastrous
foreign policy agenda is tied to the oligarchy's absolute fear of losing America to a new
Eurasian partnership which Trump has promoted repeatedly since entering office in 2017.
Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an
alternative system of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological
progress but they have also managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen
have demonstrated a clear recognition that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to
neo-conservativism are entirely unsustainable, and defeatable (but not militarily) . Xi expressed this
insight most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.
Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to
be woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them
from their own hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without
understanding that those who fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed
in them.
Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard
Lewis absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or
Kristol have adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called
humanity must ultimately be governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman
Empire), and that Leviathan could only be created in response to an intolerably painful period
of chaos which their twisted tooth fairies would usher into this world.
As'ad AbuKhalil analyzes the Trump administration's decision
to escalate hostilities with Iran and its regional allies.
By As`ad AbuKhalil
January 21, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - S omething big
and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran's
top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.
The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian
"resistance-axis" in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence
presence in the Middle East. Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented
Israel in the past from killing Suleimani. But with the top commander's death, the Trump
administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East
has been removed.
The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous
assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad
Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in
Syria.
The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to
U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel
and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.
For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and
officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders
or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided
directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would
unleash a series of tit-for-tat.
But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for
operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.
Different Level of Escalation
The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation.
In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd
forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS.
(Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted
a finger in the fight against ISIS.)
On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump. Here is a man who pledged
to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil -- turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear
the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee
intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S.
forces.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war
empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. There is not much a president -- even a
popular president like Barack Obama in his second term -- can do to change the course of
empire. It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to
retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from
the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress
and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry. The pressures to preserve
the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future.
But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors -- until this strike.
Trump's Obama Obsession
Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama. He decided to
violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its
adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher
than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint.
Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his
name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the
second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment
that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the
U.S.
Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani. On the one
hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only
invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.
On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or
diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside
Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have
been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside
Iran.
Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made
life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and
weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to
exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not
real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).
Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this
would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.
Iran Sending Messages
In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through
attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it
take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future
conflict would not spare their territories.
That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which
suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and
secretively) with the Iranian government. Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes -- which
constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals -- are also eager to distance
themselves from U.S. military action against
Iran . And Kuwait quickly
denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while
Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death
of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S.
attack).
The Iranian response was very measured and very specific. It was purposefully intended to
avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile
capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.
Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically
implied that it would be left to Iran's allies to engineer military responses. He also
declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to
stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6yyC897UliI
Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the
assassination. The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah
although Nasrallah -- due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his
party in the July 2006 war -- may have attained a higher status.
It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking
Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and
self-restraint. But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East
war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S.
is yet to complete.
As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California
State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon"
(1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for
Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Supporters of Donald Trump often make the point that he has not started any new wars. One
might observe that it has not been for lack of trying, as his cruise missile attacks on Syria
based on fabricated evidence and his recent assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
have been indisputably acts of war. Trump also has enhanced troop levels both in the Middle
East and in Afghanistan while also increasing the frequency and lethality of armed drone
attacks worldwide.
Congress has been somewhat unseriously toying around with a tightening of the war powers act
of 1973 to make it more difficult for a president to carry out acts of war without any
deliberation by or authorization from the legislature. But perhaps the definition of war itself
should be expanded. The one area where Trump and his team of narcissistic sociopaths have been
most active has been in the imposition of sanctions with lethal intent. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo has been explicit in his explanations that the assertion of "extreme pressure" on
countries like Iran and Venezuela is intended to make the people suffer to such an extent that
they rise up against their governments and bring about "regime change." In Pompeo's twisted
reckoning that is how places that Washington disapproves of will again become "normal
countries."
The sanctions can kill. Those imposed by the United States are backed up by the U.S.
Treasury which is able to block cash transfers going through the dollar denominated
international banking system. Banks that do not comply with America's imposed rules can
themselves be sanctioned, meaning that U.S. sanctions are de facto globally
applicable, even if foreign banks and governments do not agree with the policies that drive
them. It is well documented how sanctions that have an impact on the importation of medicines
have killed thousands of Iranians. In Venezuela, the effect of sanctions has been starvation as
food imports have been blocked, forcing a large part of the population to flee the country just
to survive.
The latest exercise of United States economic warfare has been directed against Iraq. In the
space of one week from December 29 th to January 3 rd , the American
military, which operates out of two major bases in Iraq, killed 25 Iraqi militiamen who were
part of the Popular Mobilization Units of the Iraqi Army. The militiamen had most recently been
engaged in the successful fight against ISIS. It followed up on that attack by killing
Soleimani, Iraqi militia general Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and eight other Iraqis in a drone
strike near Baghdad International Airport. As the attacks were not approved in any way by the
Iraqi government, it was no surprise that rioting followed and the Iraqi Parliament voted to
remove all foreign troops from its soil. The decree was signed off on by Prime Minister Adel
Abdul Mahdi, based on the fact that the U.S. military was in Iraq at the invitation of the
country's government and that invitation had just been revoked by parliament.
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion of
2003. The persistence of U.S. forces in the country is ostensibly to aid in the fight against
ISIS, but the real reason is to serve as a check on Iranian influence in Iraq, which is a
strategic demand made by Israel and not responsive to any actual American interest. Indeed, the
Iraqi government is probably closer politically to Tehran than to Washington, though the neocon
line that the country is dominated by the Iranians is far from true.
Washington's response to the legitimate Iraqi demand that its troops should be removed
consisted of threats. When Prime Minister Mahdi spoke with Pompeo on the phone and asked for
discussions and a time table to create a "withdrawal mechanism" the Secretary of State made it
clear that there would be no negotiations. A State Department written response entitled "The
U.S. Continued Partnership with Iraq" asserted that American troops are in Iraq to serve as a
"force for good" in the Middle East and that it is "our right" to maintain "appropriate force
posture" in the region.
The Iraqi position also immediately produced presidential threats and tweets about
"sanctions like they have never seen," with the implication that the U.S. was more than willing
to wreck the Iraqi economy if it did not get its way. The latest threat to emerge involves
blocking Iraq access to its New York federal reserve bank account, where international oil
sale revenue is kept, creating a devastating cash crunch in Iraq's financial system that might
indeed destroy the Iraqi economy. If taking steps to ruin a country economically is not
considered warfare by other means it is difficult to discern what might fit that
description.
After dealing with Iraq, the Trump Administration turned its guns on one of its oldest and
closest allies. Great Britain, like most of the other European signatories to the 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reluctant to withdraw from the agreement over
concern that Iran will as a result decide to develop nuclear weapons. According to the
Guardian , a United States representative from the National Security Council named
Richard Goldberg,
had visited London recently to make clear to the British government that if it does not
follow the American lead and withdraw from the JCPOA and reapply sanctions it just might be
difficult to work out a trade agreement with Washington post-Brexit. It is a significant threat
as part of the pro-Brexit vote clearly was derived from a Trump pledge to make up for some of
the anticipated decline in European trade by increasing U.K. access to the U.S. market. Now the
quid pro quo is clear: Britain, which normally does in fact follow the Washington lead
in foreign policy, will now be expected to be completely on board all of the time and
everywhere, particularly in the Middle East.
During his visit, Goldberg told the BBC: "The question for prime minister Johnson is: 'As
you are moving towards Brexit what are you going to do post-31 January as you come to
Washington to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the United States?' It's absolutely in
[your] interests and the people of Great Britain's interests to join with President Trump, with
the United States, to realign your foreign policy away from Brussels, and to join the maximum
pressure campaign to keep all of us safe."
And there is an interesting back story on Richard Goldberg, a John Bolton
protégé anti-Iran hardliner, who threatened the British on behalf of Trump. James
Carden, writing at The
Nation , posits "Consider the following scenario: A Washington, DC–based,
tax-exempt organization that bills itself as a think tank dedicated to the enhancement of a
foreign country's reputation within the United States, funded by billionaires closely aligned
with said foreign country, has one of its high-ranking operatives (often referred to as
'fellows') embedded within the White House national security staff in order to further the
oft-stated agenda of his home organization, which, as it happens, is also paying his salary
during his year-long stint there. As it happens, this is exactly what the pro-Israel think tank
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reportedly achieved in an arrangement
brokered by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton."
The FDD senior adviser in question, who was placed on the National Security Council, was
Richard Goldberg. FDD is largely funded by Jewish American billionaires including vulture fund
capitalist Paul Singer and Home Depot partner Bernard Marcus. Its officers meet regularly with
Israeli government officials and the organization is best known for its unrelenting effort to
bring about war with Iran. It has relentlessly pushed for a recklessly militaristic U.S. policy
directed against Iran and also more generally in the Middle East. It is a reliable mouthpiece
for Israel and, inevitably, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938.
To be sure, Trump also has other neocons advising him on Iran,
including David Wurmser, another Bolton associate, who has the president's ear and is a
consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser has recently submitted a series of memos
to the White House advocating a policy of "regime disruption" with the Islamic Republic that
will destabilize it and eventually lead to a change of government. He may have played a key
role in giving the green light to the assassination of Soleimani.
The good news, if there is any, is that Goldberg
resigned on January 3rd, allegedly because the war against Iran was not developing fast
enough to suit him and FDD, but he is symptomatic of the many neoconservative hawks who have
infiltrated the Trump Administration at secondary and tertiary levels, where much of the
development and implementation of policy actually takes place. It also explains that when it
comes to Iran and the irrational continuation of a significant U.S. military presence in the
Middle East, it is Israel and its Lobby that are steering the ship of state.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
2] "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." onebornfree http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
Therefor, if you have [always criminal] governments in the first place, then, as night
follows day, you must have [always criminal] government-made wars .
US President Donald Trump chose as the deputy chairwoman [also appointed by Trump, the
current chairman is Steve Feinberg] of the intelligence advisory board a Jewish national
security expert who is well known in the pro-Israel national security community.
Ravich, a former deputy national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, is a
senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential hawkish
pro-Israel think tank. She is also a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, founded by Michael
Chertoff, a homeland security secretary in the George W. Bush administration, and has worked
with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
She has also worked with the pro-Israel community helping to raise money for Israel
Bonds.
It is evident that Trump will win re-election and go to war with Iran afterwards. All this
Impeachment mania is simply theatre created by Jews from both sides of the political spectrum
in order to prepare Trump for the Zionist vs. Iran war.
The Greater Israel Project has always been the main objective of American foreign policy.
Now, Israel hacked the 2016 election and selected Trump as he attains the required
personality, theatre and following in order to deepen the control towards the masses.
@Reality
Check Trump destroyed the Republican contenders in the 2016 Primaries, easily. At the
time, there was minimal Zionist influence over the Trump campaign – the Jewish factor
was heavily focused on the other Republican rivals. Trump won the Primaries in a generic and
motivational fashion. Afterwards, the Zionists took over Trump and related entities. The real
MAGA Trump factor ended once the Primaries were won – enter the Zionists.
Israel rigged the election by fixing the actual voting numbers.
Robert Mercer and Zuckerberg rigged the election by compromising the masses on Facebook.
For the government of one country to designate another country's armed forces as a "terrorist
organization" is essentially a declaration of war. When in April of 2019 Netanyahu claimed
credit for Trump's designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, he created the
pseudo-law framework which became part of the justification for the Israeli-US war crime of 2
Jan. 2020.
Now the pressure is being placed squarely on the NATO countries, but especially Canada, to
follow the Netanyahu-Trump lead by designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The
Canadian branch of the ADL has even gone as far as giving an ultimatum to Justin Trudeau, an
ultimatum to make the designation within a month or else. Is the agenda to get NATO ensnared
in a US war against Iran to serve Israel?
Ever since the misrepresentation of the events of 9/11 we have been engulfed in a massive
propaganda campaign aimed at giving the appearance of legitimacy to pseudo-laws founded in
major war crimes extending from Sept. of 2001 until today. The continuing reign of the
ongoing lies and crimes of 9/11 has brought us to this point where the Axis of Deception,
whose mascot of human degradation is Jeffrey Epstein, stands against the Axis of Resistance.
In recent days a guiding spirit of the Axis of Resistance has become the martyred holy
warrior, Qassem Soleimani.
Sanctions can kill and cause great human suffering. Sanctions are presented as a humane
alternative to war, cheaper and means to avoid military action with uncertain consequences.
But history warns that sanctions aimed at bringing about capitulation or regime change lead
to full-scale conflict. If they are too effective or ineffective one side must escalate. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
Sanctions are the modern day equivalent of laying a siege on the enemy's castle. Such tactic
has been an integral part of warfare ever since the first castles were built by man.
This 21st century crusade against the muslim world is fast approaching its final climax.
Everything is going as planned by the ruler-wannabes and the whole of middle earth seems
destined to be theirs for once and for all.
We are all contemporary witnesses to the war campaign of the MILLENNIUM that was
prescribed by the bible and the tora and few recognize the historic significance.
Will we get to see which of the New Testament and the Tora prevails, not that we want to,
but because we have no choice but to see? Or will there be a rarest of rare black swan event
that will produce an unanticipated course of history?
The war on Iran is in the formative stage with sanctions and the murder of Soleimani who was
helping defeat the AL CIADA aka ISIS terrorists who were created and funded and armed by the
US and Israel and Britain and NATO and for that reason he was murdered...
Terrific article, but I would not use the word "infiltrate" when speaking of theneocons in
the Trump administration. They are there by open invitation by the biggest neo-con of them
all – Trump.
If you review newspaper articles concerning Iran from 2003 onward, you see very clearly the
slow escalation to war and that that war with Iran is inevitable no matter who is in office.
In my opinion, that is why Trump is in office. Maybe they thought there would be too much lag
time with theother Republican or Democrat candidates when he was running in 2016, but if he
gets re-elected, we will see war with Iran. That is thepurpose of the sanctions. To provoke
not only thepeople to war against the gov't, but to provoke the government to war. We did it
to the Japanese, we did it to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time, and we are doing it now.
It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete and utter
chaos,. That is what Israel wants, and that is exactly what they are going to get. Israel has
been trying to help themselves to the land of other countries for many years. You cannot do
that with a vialbe and unified country. You have to break it all up first – turn it
tribal.
But when it is all over, and the Shia Muslims who hate us now, hate us more after their
countries have been all bombedto smithereens, and when China and Russia, who are biding their
time, are strong enough, we will eventually get a taste our just desserts.
I hope that if any Iranian or English people are reading this, that they know that none of
this was the idea of the average American. That we have actually lost our nation and have no
control over it anymore. And that the only Americans left supporting this foreign "policy"
are Evangelical holy rollers from the South and Midwest, dinosaur Baby Boomers who still
think it is civil defense, dupes and suckers who buy into the "support the troops" cult of
military, and the slowly decreasing number of misinformed and brainwashed Americans who get
their "news" from the (((corporate media))).
@anastasia
Agree that "It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete
and utter chaos ." In "Greater Israel and the Balkanization of the Middle East : Oded Yinon's
Strategy for
Israel " globalresearch.ca ,
Adeyinke Makinde argues that balkanization has always formed a part of the rationalization of
political Zionism stating "After the establishment of Israel in 1948 , a national policy of
weakening Arab and Muslim states , balkanising them, or keeping them under a neo-colonial
state of affairs has persisted . The prevailing logic was and always has been that any stable
, nationalist government in the Arab world poses an existential threat to Israel ."
The U.S. was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until,
that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week
(Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).
Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but
assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not
observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.
And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq.
He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior
Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was
all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state
official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of
war.
This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the
sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people.
It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between
Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's
sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and
therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.
Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House
official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen
consequences soon may come home to roost.
Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the
crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always
unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?
Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no U.S. embassy siege 'on my watch' –
unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would
play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly
by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.
Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli
officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring
within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has
requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his
legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its
future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but
much to gain.
Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with
Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for
technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the
March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his
continued tenure of the premiership.
One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of
Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the U.S. will
back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli
and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is
seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to
Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble
to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the U.S. elections? We do
not know.
So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will
Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the U.S. cross another 'red line' by
striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?
Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi
Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as
"Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd
a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist
forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow
approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces
led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on
the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.
These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a
identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common
zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct
experience).
But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be
outraged by the U.S. attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then
blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?
But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from
limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was
not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real U.S.
channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next
days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?
"... "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption ..."
"... "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption. ..."
"... "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak. ..."
"... "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo. ..."
"... In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis. ..."
That was how the English protestant leader saw Catholic Spain in 1656. And it is very close
to how key orientations in the U.S. sees Iran today : The evil of religion – of
Shi'ism – subjecting (they believe) Iranians to repression, and to serfdom. In Europe,
this ideological struggle against the 'evil' of an imposed religious community (the Holy
'Roman' Axis, then) brought Europe to 'near-Armageddon', with the worst affected parts of
Europe seeing their population decimated by up to 60% during the conflict.
Is this faction in the U.S. now intent on invoking a new, near-Armageddon – on this
occasion, in the Middle East – in order, like Cromwell, to destroy the religious
'community known' as the Shi'a Resistance Axis, seen to stretch across the region, in order to
preserve the Jewish "peoples' desire for simple liberties"?
Of course, today's leaders of this ideological faction are no longer Puritan Protestants
(though the Christian Evangelicals are at one with Cromwell's 'Old Testament' literalism and
prophesy). No, its lead ideologues are the neo-conservatives, who have leveraged Karl Popper's
hugely influential The Open Society and its Enemies – a seminal treatise, which
to a large extent, has shaped how many Americans imagine their 'world'. Popper's was history
understood as a series of attempts, by the forces of reaction, to smother an open society with
the weapons of traditional religion and traditional culture:
Marx and Russia were cast as the archetypal reactionary threat to open societies. This
construct was taken up by Reagan, and re-connected to the Christian apocalyptic tradition
(hence the neo-conservative coalition with Evangelists yearning for
Redemption , and with liberal interventionists, yearning for a secular millenarianism). All
concur that Iran is reactionary, and furthermore, the posit, poses a grave threat to Israel's
self-proclaimed 'open society'.
The point here is that there is little point in arguing with these people that Iran poses no
threat to the U.S. (which is obvious) – for the 'project' is ideological through and
through. It has to be understood by these lights. Popper's purpose was to propose that only
liberal globalism would bring about a "growing measure of humane and enlightened life" and a
free and open society – period.
All this is but the outer Matryoshka – a suitable public rhetoric, a painted image
– that can be used to encase the secret, inner dolls. Eli Lake,
writing in Bloomberg , however, gives away the next doll:
"Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani –
justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's
advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime
disruption
"The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John
Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who
then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in
the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek
an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the
Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's
incompetence and corruption.
"Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions
taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a
U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser
writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its
leaders are weak.
"Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against
Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone
[in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a
message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This
could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top
deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo.
In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says
the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)."
Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's
domestic legitimacy crisis.
So there it is – David Wurmser is the 'doll' within: no military invasion, but just a
strategy to blow apart the Iranian Republic. Wurmser, Eli Lake reveals, has quietly been
advising Bolton and the Trump Administration all along. This was the neo-con, who in 1996,
compiled Coping with Crumbling States (which flowed on from the infamous Clean
Break policy strategy paper, written for Netanyahu, as a blueprint for destructing
Israel's enemies). Both these papers advocated the overthrow of the Secular-Arab nationalist
states – excoriated both as "crumbling relics of the 'evil' USSR" (using Popperian
language, of course) – and inherently hostile to Israel (the real message).
Well (
big surprise ), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and destroy
Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the Iranian
leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's domestic
legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and pretend that
the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government.
Eli Lake seems, in his Bloomberg piece, to think that the Wurmser strategy has
worked. Really? The problem here is that narratives in Washington are so far apart from the
reality that exists on the ground – they simply do not touch at any point. Millions
attended Soleimani's cortege. His killing gave a renewed cohesion to Iran. Little more
than a dribble have protested.
Now let us unpack the next 'doll': Trump bought into Wurmser's 'play', albeit, with Trump
subsequently admitting that he did the assassination under
intense pressure from Republican Senators. Maybe he believed the patently absurd narrative
that Iranians would 'be dancing in the street' at Soleimani's killing. In any event, Trump is
not known, exactly, for admitting his mistakes. Rather, when something is portrayed as his
error, the President adopts the full 'salesman' persona: trying to convince his base that the
murder was no error, but a great strategic success – "They like us", Trump claimed of
protestors in Iran.
Tom Luongo has
observed : "Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week, and it's clear that
this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the
Republicans hold the Senate, simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first
place. It is [occurring because it offers] the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose
desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C.
Swamp." Ah, so here we arrive at another inner Matryoshka.
This is Luongo's point: Impeachment was the leverage to drive open a wedge between
Republican neo-conservatives in the Senate – and Trump. And now the Pelosi pressure on
Republican Senators is
escalating . The Establishment threw cold water over Trump's assertion of imminent
attack, as justification for murdering Soleimani, and Trump responds by painting himself
further into a corner on Iran – by going the full salesman 'monte'.
On the campaign trail, the President goes way over-the-top, calling Soleimani
a "son of a b -- -", who killed 'thousands' and furthermore was responsible for every U.S.
veteran who lost a limb in Iraq. And he then conjures up a fantasy picture of protesters
pouring onto the streets of Tehran, tearing down images of Soleimani, and screaming abuse at
the Iranian leadership.
It is nonsense. There are
no mass protests (there have been a few hundred students protesting at one main Tehran
University). But Trump has dived in pretty deep, now
threatening the Euro-Three signatories to the JCPOA, that unless they brand Iran as having
defaulted on JCPOA at the UNSC disputes mechanism, he will slap an eye-watering 25% tariff on
their automobiles.
So, how will Trump avoid plunging in even deeper to conflict if – and when –
Americans die in Iraq or Syria at the hands of militia – and when Pompeo or Lindsay
Graham will claim, baldly, 'Iran's proxies did it'? Sending emollient faxes to the Swiss to
pass to Tehran will not do. Tehran will not read them, or believe them, even if they did.
It all reeks of stage-management; a set up: a very clever stage-management, designed to end
with the U.S. crossing Iran's 'red line', by striking at a target within Iranian
territory. Here, finally, we arrive at the innermost doll.
Cui bono ? Some Senators who never liked Trump, and would prefer Pence as
President; the Democrats, who would prefer to run their candidate against Pence in November,
rather than Trump. But also, as someone who once worked with Wurmser observed tartly: when you
hear that name (Wurmser), immediately you think Netanyahu, his intimate associate.
What a chilling statement attributed to Henry Kissinger that American soldiers are "
dumb , stupid animals to be used as pawns in the conduct of [ American ] policy." Martin
Luther King recognized that our soldiers were "pawns " and in his "searing" anti-war speech
on April4, 1968
he advised ministers and boys facing the draft to register for conscientious objector status
. This speech is said to have help seal his death warrant and exactly a year later he was
assassinated . See :
"When MLK turned on Vietnam , even 'liberal' allies turned on him " cnn.com
"The verdict was harsh .By one count 168 newspapers condemned his speech . King became
'persona non grata' in the Johnson Whitehouse."
The MIC/deep state does not take kindly to anti-war/peacemakers .
"... Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018. The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former, said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group. ..."
"... A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack. ..."
Russia urged to convene a briefing with the participation of OPCW
Fact-Finding-Mission (FFM) experts, who worked on the report on alleged chemical attack in
Syria's Duma in April 2018, to reach an agreement on this controversial case, Alexander
Shulgin, Russia's envoy to OPCW, said at a Security Council meeting. On Monday, members of the
UN Security Council, at the request of the Russian mission,
held an informal meeting to assess the situation around the FMM's Final Report on the incident
in the Arab Republic .
In November, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks published an email, sent by a member of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission to Syria to his superiors,
in which he voiced his "gravest" concerns over the redacted version of the report in question,
which he co-authored. According to the OPCW employee, the document, which is understood to have
been edited by the secretariat, misrepresented facts, omitted certain details and introduced
"unintended bias," having "morphed into something quite different to what was originally
drafted."
"We once again propose to resolve the conflicting situation through the means of holding of a briefing under the auspices of the OPCW and, possibly, with the assistance of
all concerned countries and with the participation of all experts of the
Fact-Finding-Mission, who worked on the Duma incident, to find a consensus on this resonant
incident," Shulgin said on Monday.
Shulgin also suggested that the working methods of FFM must be improved, stressing the
necessity for its members to personally visit sites of alleged use of chemical weapons and
collect evidence samples, as well as strictly adhere to the chain of custody over the items of
evidence and guarantee geographically-balanced makeup of the mission.
In July, Shulgin said that the head of the mission probing claims of a chemical attack in
Duma had never travelled to this city.
Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018.
The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while
the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former,
said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group.
A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United
States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities
with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to destroy the nuclear agreement with Iran. He has
threatened the EU-3 poodles in Germany, Britain and France
with a 25% tariff on their car exports to the U.S. unless they end their role in the
JCPOA deal.
In their usual gutlessness the Europeans gave in to the blackmail. They
triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the deal. The mechanism foresees two 15
day periods of negotiations and a five day decision period after which any of the involved
countries can escalate the issues to the UN Security Council. The reference to the UNSC
would then lead to an automatic reactivation or "snapback" of those UN sanction against
Iran that existed before the nuclear deal was signed.
Iran is now countering the European move. Its Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
announced that Iran may leave the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) if any of the European countries escalates the issue to the UNSC:
Zarif said that Iran is following up the late decision by European states to trigger the
Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the context of the JCPOA, adding that Tehran officially
started the discussion on the mechanism on May 8, 2018 when the US withdrew from the
deal.
He underlined that Iran sent three letters dated May 10, August 26 and November 2018
to the then EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, announcing in the latter that
Iran had officially triggered and ended the dispute resolution mechanism and thus would
begin reducing its commitments to the JCPOA.
However, Iran gave a seven-month opportunity to the European Union before it began
reducing its commitments in May 8, 2019 which had operational effects two months later,
according to Zarif.
Iran's top diplomat said that the country's five steps in compliance reduction would
have no similar follow-ups, but Europeans' measure to refer the case to the United
Nations Security Council may be followed by Tehran's decision to leave NPT as stated in
President Hassan Rouhani's May 2018 letter to other parties to the deal.
He stressed that all the steps are reversible if the European parties to the JCPOA
restore their obligations under the deal.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end up
with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in urgent
need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU. Cooke has piece at Strategic
Culture on Wurmser who may be the strategist behind Trump admin moves on Iran. Adds to this
piece by b.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/20/many-matryoska-dolls-america-way-imagining-iran/
"Well (big surprise), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and
destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the
Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's
domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and
pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government."
Overall, the strategy looks to be aimed at weakening and disrupting Iran and removing
its allies in the region from the game before US strikes begin.
The downing of the Uki plane and Trump Pompeo immediately saying they were with the
Iranian people would fit very well into this strategy though it is not mentioned by
Crooke.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end
up with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in
urgent need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU.
We shouldn't humanize entire nations when analyzing geopolitics.
The Europeans are simply aware of the objective fact they are de facto occupied
countries thanks to the many de facto American bases scattered around Western and Central
Europe (Germany being the country with the most American bases in the world). They obey the
USA for the simple fact they are occupied by the USA.
That's why some neocarolingians/European nationalists mainly from Germany, France and
the Benelux (e.g. Macron, Juncker) avidly defend the creation of an European Army. You
don't need to be a geopolitics genius to infer the grave consequences such move would have
to the European peoples' welfare.
As long as NATO exists, Western Europe will remain firmly in American hands.
Besides, there's also the ideological factor.
Many Europeans still see today the USA as their "most illustrious child", their
continuation as the Western Civilization's center. New York is the new Paris+London. They
see themselves as the dwarf countries they really are and rationalize that, ultimately, it
is better to live under the hegemony of another Western nation than under the hegemony of
the "yellows" (i.e. Chinese) or the "slavics" (i.e. Russia). They really see themselves as
a true North Atlantic family, which share the same race and the same cultural values.
These Atlanticists are specially numerous in the UK, which is not surprising, given its
geographic location and the fact that it was indeed the country that founded the USA.
Of course Iran and what happens in Iraq are joined at the hip...
Professor Maranadi>
"Seyed Mohammad Marandi
@s_m_marandi
·
10m
Many believe an economic crisis lies ahead of the US & the timing of the crash will
determine the fate of Trump's re-election bid. However, another threat looms. If the US
fails to swiftly comply with Iraqi demands to end the occupation, the resistance will
become very violent."
and in Germany?
USA warnen: "Unmittelbar bevorstehender Angriff auf US-Militärs in Deutschland".
RT/D
"Pulling back" may suit the Clowns, but agreement requires more than that if there's to
be no child.
The Clowns are not contract capable. The only "deal" is for the imperial forces to leave
the ME... the only deal is action....Of one sort or another. The clowns imagine a glorious
victory over smoking ruins.
Fatwa or not, Iran must have the bomb, for the same reason NoKo had to build it. It's the
only way to lance the boil and move on from under the incessant threats from the United
States. We won't let up, even if it takes 100 years, and they have to know this. They do
have the engineering know how to do it; now they must, but they will have to be discrete
and stockpile enough 90% U235, then fiddle around with the details involved in assembling a
staged device with enough yield so it's understood by all. I expect this whole process will
now move forward.
One is reminded of Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in 1914: "As the German ambassador
to Vienna reported to his government on July 14, the [note] to Serbia is being composed so
that the possibility of its being accepted is practically excluded." As Churchill wrote at
the time: "it seemed absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or
that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor."
Many people refer to the European countries as 'occupied' (vk) and that is the reason they
submit to American policy. I don't believe that is the case. The number of troops is far
too small to 'occupy' a country that was resisting an occupation. Those troops were there
as a 'trigger' to initiate a conflict with the Soviet Union if it invaded Europe. These
days they are just there as some kind of vestigial legacy, and don't really mean anything.
The US exercises its control over the EU and elsewhere through its control of international
finance and trade. This system benefits the elite of those countries that are part of the
'empire', so has substantial support from influential people inside those countries. Unless
and until there is some groundswell of support among the peoples of those countries to
change that system, they will continue to be an obedient part of the US empire.
It's not even clear that resistance isn't futile. Those countries that want to maintain
independence like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey (?), India (?) also have a strong internal
attraction to Western 'culture'. As much as some denigrate that culture as shallow,
materialistic, and worthless, it seems to have a very universal attraction around the
World, particularly among the young. There are a lot of people everywhere that would like
to be a part of a global empire, with a hedonistic Western-style culture. Sad, but
true.
I tend to agree with comments here saying Iran needs to make bomb.
North Korea proved that truth 100%. No amount of agreements or "guarantees" with usual
lying suspects will provide security to Iran - only hard cold nuclear deterrence will.
This time, now, Iran has enough conventional & asymmetrical firepower to deter its
enemies long enough for it to develop nukes (few years?).
It already has proven means to deliver warheads, now it needs them.
I strongly concur with several other commentators here. Iran should immediately commence
enriching uranium to weapons grade levels and assemble at least 10-20 nuclear warheads ASAP
if they ever hope to remain an intact, non-US/Israeli dominated country.
The US understands ONLY raw power and who it perceives has it (Israel, North
Korea..etc.), and who doesn't (Libya, Syria, Iraq..etc.).
The NPT "Treaty" is nothing more than a cabal of nuclear armed countries attempting to
cartel who's allowed to posses a nuclear weapons arsenal and all the rest of the world
countries that's ultimately at their mercy.
"So, what does Iran actually gain by leaving the NPT?"
For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms. It's easy to look
at the lawless rogue US regime and forget this, but: some countries actually do try to have
some semblance of abiding by and respecting treaties and the rule of law.
I am always taken aback when people compare unsavory characters to members of the
primate family. Please do not engage in "zoomorphism." And I am dead fucking serious.
Animals do not deserve to be denigrated in such a way. Keep your insults grounded in the
human sphere.
The U.S. has already used that tactic of insisting on concessions known to be unacceptable
to the other side with the intention of causing war at least twice: to Japan in 1941 and to
Yugoslavia before the Kosovo War.
Does Iran really need a nuke? They have proven they can hit a US base and Saudi oil
infrastructure. It is believed they already have.... or at least have the capability of
mining the Strait of Hormuz. If the global financial elite can't get oil out of the gulf...
what happens to the global economy? My guess is it would implode. Isn't this the real and
only reason the US hasn't bombed Iran back to the stone age yet? They already have
deterrence. The US claims about restoring deterrence was just the projection of sociopaths
and psychopaths.
re:Cornelius von Hamb | Jan 20 2020 19:59 utc | 14
"For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms."
Iran says it won't develop nuclear weapons (anti Islamic), so what steps could they
possibly be not wanting to rule out?
The state of the JCPOA today bears a lot on Trump's negotiations with North Korea.
Kim Un Jung has be spooked by Bolton comparing North Korea's fate to Libya and by the ease
with which US withdrew from the JCPOA. Negotiations have halted.
Trump needs to show that he is serious with deals that he guaranties will be binding the
partners more seriously than the flawed JCPOA.
Iran has only one choice: Press Europe to take a stand against the USA, (which will
probably not happen) then pull out officially from the JCPOA that has become a liability
with no advantages and calls for re-negotiation. Trump will certainly jump in and will try
to get the best deal possible by squeezing Iran on its regional role. Yet he can't have too
excessive demands as he wants to make a similar deal with North Korea.
Iran could ask for withholding sanctions during negotiations. It could take years to
finalize the deal. In the meantime the regional situation could change greatly
That seems to be the only path for Iran.
According to what is said here, the US is still afraid of attacking Iran, and is going for
internal disruption, and sanctions. So what's new? It's been the same policy for forty
years. The fact that Trump doesn't like long-term wars, and will only go for a big bang
without consequences, is neither here nor there.
Rouhani and his team, including Zarif, seem to me pretty bright, and capable of coping
with the politics. Relighting nuclear refinement is essentially a political move.
Again, find it hard to believe that they are in fact such quisling sycophants to the
US.
Suspect they rely on Trump to provide cover for the fact that they (like him) are beholden
to higher powers.
The USE of WMDs is haram.
Words mean things B, much as the PC police have twisted their meanings,and even fatwas can
be reversed.
The frantic efforts to corral the USSRs nukes were never anything like 100% effective,500+
warheads and tonnes of
plutonium were NEVER accounted for from the KNOWN inventory,who knows what the unknown
inventory was ?
Generals of Rocket Forces had to eat,and there were willing buyers for their only
wares.
A CIA assessment I was made privy to,the old boys network for an opinion from outside,
claimed the Iranians did not have the ability to keep those warheads in working order,which
begs a question,how many ?
I told my old schoolmate they were wrong in their assessment, they've had the capability
since the Shahs nuclear program.I know Iran very well,worked and lived there ,during the
Shah times.
The US has turned into such a fake bullshit nation that nothing the people say who run the
place can be trusted. It is totally a Masonic land where money is God and the decent people
are exploited and oppressed. Free speech and democracy are only kosher if the issue is
something like Pooper-Scooper Enforcement Officer with no real money or power involved,
unless of course there is an impressive uniform which goes with the position.
The brainwashed masses are presently transfixed to their TV's watching the theatre of the
fake-impeachment pageant unfold, dutifully believing it is all real. All the performers strut
about keeping to their carefully-scripted lines. Like the establishment-hatched fake
Russia-bashing campaign, it is all theater. With the impeachment drama intended the polarize
the entire nation, the people are once-again being caresully herded into their red and blue
stalls in ensure nothing really populist, and not controlled by the establishment cabal
running things, gets off of the ground. the entire performance will be so carefully
choreographed, on a pro and anti Trump basis that it will also ensure that whomever the
ruling cabal anoints will be chosen for the top puppet job.
Like in the US midterm elections in 2018, issues involving US foreign policy were mum. In
the coming presidential election, Americans will see no real difference in the leading
contenders' position regarding foreign affairs, which most Americans in any case now believe
should be left to the military and the agencies who know best how to protect and advance
their interests. Once again, any real discussion or debate on foreign policy during the
coming election campaign will be taboo, and with the careful censorship of the alternate
media, and with no real protest from the American people, who in fact become willing
accomplices to any further unjust wars and atrocities their so-called "free" nation
commits.
Americans are brought up on Hollywood imagery, life-styles and fantasy. The corporate
media and entertainment industry is so pervasive that most of the people cannot discern the
difference between fantasy and reality, and as result of their constantly-fed addiction, they
now demand more and more theatre and even wars to satisfy their cravings. A false-flag
attack, 9/11, on their own people coming from their diabolical "owners", results in being no
more than a thrilling performance to make life seem more real. If there was any reality to
the people they would long ago have arrested the thousands of insider perps involved,
(especially deep-state ones in and out of the US), and long ago they would hung everyone of
them.
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict
the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is
a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they
never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly
don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov,
a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation:
the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where
debt is to a non-existent entity.
In Syria, the Department of Defense was supporting one group of pet jihadis. The CIA was supporting a different group of pet
jihadis.
At times the two groups of pet jihadis were actively fighting each other. I am not sure how the DoD and CIA felt about their
respective pet jihadis fighting each other. However they felt, they kept right on arming and supporting their respective
groups ...
Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the
works of the USA military machine
Notable quotes:
"... I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet. ..."
"... Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption, and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted villages, a la My Lai. ..."
"... Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies', that's not quite as obvious. ..."
"... And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long progeny. ..."
"... So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA. ..."
"... Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it happened on his 'watch'. ..."
"... We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations remains to be seen. ..."
"... Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse. In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve honesty and common sense? ..."
Previously, most discussions of the Trump presidency reflexively proceeded to either visceral
disgust etc or accolades of some species. Trumps words and manners dominated. As things
developed, and actual results were recorded, a body of more sober second thought developed.
And a variation on these more experience/reality based assessments is what b has delivered
above.
Some of my points that follow are repeats, some are new. On the whole I see Trump as a
helpful and positive-result really bad President.
I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural
catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having
destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet.
As one aspect of this cultural catastrophe, let's refer back to the United States attack
on Indochina, which accomplished millions of dead and millions of wounded people, and birth
defects still in uncounted numbers as a legacy of dioxin etc laden chemical warfare. The
millions of dead included some tens of thousands of American soldiers, and even more wounded
physically, and even more wounded 'mentally'.
Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within
the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism
for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption,
and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted
villages, a la My Lai.
When asked what it was all about, Kissinger lied in an inadvertently illuminating way:
"basically nothing" was how he put it, if memory serves.
During and after the attack on Indochina, the US trained, aided, financed, etc active
death squads in Central and South America, demonstrating that the United States was an equal
opportunity death dealer.
Now this was a bit of a meander away from the Trump topic, but note that Trump came to
power within the above cultural context and much more pathology besides, talking about ending
the warfare state. Again, this is not an attempt to portray Trump as either sincere or
insincere in that policy. In terms of ideas, it was roughly speaking a good idea.
Another main part of the Trump message was 'let's rebuild America'. And along with the
de-militarization and national program of rejuvenation there was the 'drain the swamp' meme,
which again resonated. And once again, I am not arguing that Trump was sincere, or for that
matter insincere. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make: which could essentially
by reduced to: what will be the actual meaning and potential impact of Trump?
Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm
is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed
repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies',
that's not quite as obvious.
And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from
the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine
has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long
progeny.
So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable
control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA.
Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption
of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it
happened on his 'watch'.
Now the deep cultural, including political, pathology in the United States, in its many
manifestations remain. We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of
part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his
disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations
remains to be seen.
The frantic attempt to deflect attention from and give mainly derisive media coverage to
Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming
to dismantle the military empire project?
Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but
related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and
bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse.
In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve
honesty and common sense?
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial
and energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the
MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the
basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior
violence.
It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.
The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we
want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a
little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we
'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or
some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.
To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like
all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's
basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But
mostly take by force .
No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force
(land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just
once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want
to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We
will use violence and armed force to make this happen.
But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead
it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next
poor bastards who stand up to us."
. A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).
He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and
maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its
crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse
underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those
training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty
navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.
Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be
considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago,
have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented.
I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to
commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc |
98
Internal emails from Boeing staff members working on the 737 MAX were made public earlier
this month have revealed new safety problems for the company's flagship 777X, a long-range,
wide-body, twin-engine passenger jet, currently in development that is expected to replace the
aging 777-200LR and 777-300ER fleets, reported
The Telegraph .
Already, damning
emails released via a U.S. Senate probe describes problems during the MAX development and
qualification process. The emails also highlight how Boeing employees were troubled by the 777X
– could be vulnerable to technical issues.
Emails dated from June 2018, months before the first MAX crash, said the "lowest ranking and
most unproven" suppliers used on the MAX program were being shifted towards the 777X
program.
>
The email further said the "Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X
with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule."
Another Boeing employee warned about cost-cutting measures via selecting the "lowest-cost
suppliers" for both MAX and 777X programs.
"We put ourselves in this position by picking the lowest-cost supplier and signing up to
impossible schedules. Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven suppliers receive the
contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just the Max but also the 777X! Supplier
management drives all these decisions."
Like the MAX, the 777X is an update of an outdated airframe from decades ago, which is an
attempt by Boeing to deliver passenger jets that are more efficient and provide better
operating economics for airlines.
Back in September, we
noted how the door of a new 777X flew off the fuselage while several FAA inspectors were
present to evaluate a structural test.
Boeing's problem could stem from how it used the "lowest-cost suppliers" to develop
high-tech planes on old airframes to compete with Airbus. The result has already been
devastating: two MAX planes have crashed, killing 346 people, due to a malfunctioning flight
control system, and 777X failing a structural ground test.
Boeing's C-suite executives push for profitability (at the apparent expense of safety) has,
by all appearances, been a disaster; sacrificing the safety of the planes to drive sales higher
to unlock tens of billions of dollars in stock buybacks - that would allow executives to dump
their stock options at record high stock prices.
If you wonder what the post-Trump Republican Party will look like,
take a glimpse at Tom Cotton, one of the US senators from Arkansas (where I live). Cotton has
waged a
relentless campaign for war against Iran and has supported every horror produced by the US
foreign-policy establishment for the last 20 years. He makes other American hawks look like
pacifists. Cotton once said that his only criticism of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
where people are held indefinitely without charge or trial, is that too many beds are empty.
Typical of take-no-prisoners warmongers, Cotton savages critics of the pro-war policy that
has characterized US foreign policy in the 21st century. No baseless charge is beneath him. He
recently attacked the Quincy Institute in the course of remarks about anti-Semitism. (You can
see what's coming.) According to Jewish Insider , Cotton
said that anti-Semitism "festers in Washington think tanks like the Quincy Institute, an
isolationist blame America first money pit for so-called 'scholars' who've written that
American foreign policy could be fixed if only it were rid of the malign influence of Jewish
money."
This is worse than a series of malicious lies – every word is false. In fact, it's an
attempt to incite hostility toward and even disruption of one of the bright spots on the mostly
desolate foreign-policy-analysis landscape.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft (QI) started last year with money from, among others, the Charles Koch
Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Foundations. Its officers and staff include
respected and sober foreign-policy analysts and journalists such as Andrew Bacevich, Trita
Parsi, Jim Lobe, and Eli Clifton. Also associated with the institute are the well-credentialed
foreign-policy authorities John
Mearsheimer, Paul Pillar, Gary Sick, Stephen Walt, and Lawrence Wilkerson. This is indeed a
distinguished team of foreign-policy "realists" who are heroically resisting America's
endless-war-as-first-resort policy.
Named for John Quincy Adams – who as secretary of state famously declared that
"America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" – QI "promotes ideas that
move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of
international peace." The QI website goes on to state:
The US military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to
act as a global police force. The United States should reject preventive wars and military
intervention to overthrow regimes that do not threaten the United States. Wars of these kinds
not only are counterproductive; they are wrong in principle.
It then goes on to indict the current foreign-policy establishment:
The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible
conception of US interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind.
Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and
indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in
itself.
Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to
intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold
policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the
confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American
interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the
United States had earned.
This may not be pure libertarian foreign policy ("US interests" is too slippery a term for
my taste), but compared to what passes for foreign-policy thinking these days, it's pretty damn
good.
So why is Tom Cotton so upset? It should be obvious. QI opposes the easy-war policy of the
last 20 years. Of course Cotton is upset. Take away war, and he's got nothing in his toolbox.
He certainly doesn't want to see the public turn antiwar before he's had a shot at high office,
say, secretary of state, secretary of defense, CIA director, or even the presidency.
Cotton's charges against QI are wrong on every count.
QI is not isolationist as long as it supports trade with the world and diplomacy as the
preferred method of resolving conflicts.
It's not a blame-America-first outfit because the object of its critique is not America or
Americans, but the imperial war-loving elite of the American political establishment. Cotton is
part of that elite, but that does not entitle him to identify the mass of Americans with his
lethal policy preferences.
It's not a money pit. As you can see, QI boasts an eminent lineup thinkers and writers. So
the money is obviously well-spent on badly needed analysis. QI should have been set up long
ago. Cotton shows his pettiness by putting the word scholars in sarcasm quotes. He
should aspire to such scholarship as Bacevich, Parsi, et al. have produced.
But where Cotton really shows his agenda is his absurd claim that anti-Semitism "festers" in
QI (and other think tanks – which ones?).
Cotton here is performing that worn-out trick that, alas, still has some life in it:
conflating criticism of Israel and its American lobby with people who are Jewish (and who may
well oppose how the Israeli state mistreats the Palestinians). I'm sure he knows better: this
is demagogy and not ignorance.
On its face, the proposition that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel's conduct toward
the Palestinians and its Arab and Iranian neighbors probably hates Jews as Jews is patently
ridiculous. Any clear-thinking person dismisses that claim out of hand.
Undoubtedly Cotton has in mind primarily Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of
The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy , published in 2008. (It began as an essay
in The London Review of Books .) In that work, Walt and Mearsheimer reasonably attribute
the lion's share of influence on US policy in the Middle East to the Israel lobby, "a loose
coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move US foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction." They add, "[I]t is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls'
US foreign policy. It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles,
whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel's case within the United States and influence
American foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit the Jewish state."
This is hardly controversial stuff, although reasonable people can disagree over whether the
lobby was decisive in any given case.
But does anyone doubt that American champions of Israel work overtime and spend a lot of
money to advance what they see as Israel's interests? If so, see this and my book
Coming to Palestine . (Many non-Zionist Jews disagree with them about those
interests.) Organizations like AIPAC often boast about their influence. That they sincerely
believe Israel's interests coincide with America's interests is beside the point. (I won't
address that dubious contention here.) That influence, which supports massive annual military
aid to Israel, has helped to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians, wars against
Lebanon, and attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It has also provoked hostility to America and
vengeful terrorism against Americans. (For example, the 9/11
attacks as acknowledged by the
government's commission .) Pro-Israel American political and military officials acknowledge
this.
Cotton need not wonder why the lobby has succeeded so often since he himself is using the
anti-Semitism canard to inhibit Israel's critics. No one wants to be condemned as anti-Semite
(or as any other kind of bigot), so we can easily imagine prominent people in the past
withholding criticism of Israel for fear of being thought anti-Jewish. (It's Israel and its
champions, not Israel's critics, who insist that Israel is the state of all Jews, no
matter where else they may be citizens.) Thankfully, despite the efforts of Cotton, Kenneth
Marcus, Bari Weiss , Bret Stephens, and others, the invidious conflation has lost much of
its force. More than ever, people understand that to oppose the entangling alliance with Israel
and to express solidarity with the long-suffering Palestinians do not constitute bigotry
against Jews.
Can Cotton produce any evidence that anyone at QI believes that pro-Israel Jewish Americans
should be barred from lobbying and making political donations or that such an obvious violation
of liberty would fix American foreign policy? Of course not. There is no evidence. Moreover,
I'm sure the QI realists understand that other interests also propel the pro-war US foreign
policy, including glory-seeking politicians and generals and the profit-craving
military-industrial complex.
Those who reflexively and slanderously tar Israel's critics as anti-Semites seem not to
realize that the worthy effort to eliminate real anti-Semitism is undermined by their efforts
to immunize Israel and its American champions from good-faith criticism.
Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few
People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the
Conquered.
Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by
Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's
way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat
Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active
Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War
while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.
That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.
WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding
Nation-States with Sanctions.
Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using
Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind
- AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I
am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.
Totally agree with Daniel: "Trump is president and commander in chief. The buck stops with
him. If he is too weak or stupid to prevent himself from getting manipulated by his creepy
cadaverous son-in-law and the bunch of fanatics he hired and surrounds himself with he is
unfit for the job. But given his many transgressions and war mongering ways, it's more likely
he's just another fraud like every other POTUS."
American hubris and bully-ism in the international arena has steadily grown since the end of
the Cold War, since they somehow believe their system won. With Trump, the mask is off. "I'm
taking the oil". In fact, he's taking the oil even though he can't do much with it (can't
develop it, limited selling options, etc). Pure child-like "it's mine, i'd rather break it
than give it back".
I have decreasing confidence that there will not be a nuclear war. It seems to be
increasingly likely that an overstretched American army will, at some point somewhere, be so
outmaneuvered that they will hit the panic button. The world is currently counting on the
Russians, Iranians, Chinese to be the sober ones, the cooler heads, the ones who hurriedly
clear the roads for the drunk adolescent American roaming the streets.
Back in 2003, an alternative media site based in Belgium – Indy Media, published a
rather clever article titled "Why America Needs War" drafted by a renowned political scientist,
Jacques R. Pauwels. Due to the fact that this article has recently been republished by a
well-known and respected alternative media site Global Research, a lot of attention has been
drawn to the topic of Washington's never-ending wars. In the above-mentioned article it was
stated that wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people
are in principle opposed to wars. However, with the US being locked in a state of perpetual
conflict with other international players, it's only natural to wonder what is wrong with
American politicians? Are they all suffering from some mental disease?
The reason the events we're observing on the global stage are actually taking place is the
fact that the US has been relying on the thing that Dr. Pauwels describes as the "warfare
economy" that the US has been relying on for over a century now. This economy allows wealthy
individuals and corporations to profit from violence and bloodshed, which makes them prone to
advocating wars instead of peaceful conflict resolution. Yet, the article states that without
warm or cold wars, however, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form
of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright.
It's clear that the US couldn't escape the cold grip of the Great Depression without entering
WWII, however, as it's been stated in the above-mentioned article:
During the Second World War, the wealthy owners and top managers of the big
corporations learned a very important lesson: during a war there is money to be made, lots of
money. In other words, the arduous task of maximizing profits -- the key activity within the
capitalist American economy -- can be absolved much more efficiently through war than through
peace; however, the benevolent cooperation of the state is required.
Yet, the people of the United States didn't notice this change as they were mesmerized by
the rapidly growing wages and booming corporations that needed an ever increasing number of new
employees. That's why there's been no real opposition to America's warmongering inside the US,
which means that Washington will be looking for new enemies even when it has none. This results
in the states like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, that were willing at
one point or another to discuss their differences with the US, being antagonized and getting
designated as a threat to the US and its national security.
That's why the military expenditures in the US keep going through the roof, with research
and development programs for the US military getting unprecedented funding. However, what is
being presented as a race towards greater security represents a shameless siphoning of the
money paid by American taxpayer into the pockets of the major defence contractors. It would be
only logical if the US legal system, instead of investigating dubious reports of Russia's
alleged meddling in the US election, would take a closer look at the way blood money is shaping
the world of US politics.
Let us recall that the US military budget for 2020 has for the first time reached the
mind-numbing sum of 750 billion dollars! Over the past few decades, the United States has
invested some 30 billion dollars in various weapons programs, all of which have to one degree
or another failed,
according to The National Interest.
There's no shortage of media reports showing the complete failure of modern American
weapons, which, in spite of the massive sums wasted on their development, cannot protect either
the United States or its allies.
For instance, The National Interest has recently taken the effort to draw a comparison
between the Russian Su-35 jet-fighter and a total of four American competitors: F-15s, F-16s,
F-22s, and F-35s. The publication came to a disappointing conclusion that in spite of the
massive advertisement campaign that accompanied the development of F-35, it cannot stand its
ground against its Russian counterpart.
The ill-fated F-35 has recently been included in the list of the worst weapons ever produced
by the US Army due to its unbelievably high cost and reliability issues, says the Business
Insider. Therefore, it is not surprising that on top of Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan
announcing his intention of buying Russian Su-35 and Su-57 fighters instead of siding with the
US, Germany has also made it clear that it has no intentions of acquiring this overpriced
winged catastrophe from the United States. To add insult to injury, the American portal We Are
The Mighty has recently
listed a total of three Russian fighters in the Top 5 list of the fastest jets in the
history of military aviation.
At sea, the situation is no better. In the event of a hypothetical military conflict between
the United States and Russia, even in the Black Sea, American aircraft carrier groups would get
obliterated rather quickly by Russian diesel submarines, land mobile missile systems and small
but dangerous missile boats. That's even before land-based aviation units armed with hypersonic
anti-ship missiles dubbed the Dagger would have something to say about it,
says The National Interest. Another publication
emphasizes that Russian missile corvettes, that go at a price of 30 million dollars a pop
have four times the missile range of the latest US destroyers and cruisers that come with a
price tag of 2 billion dollars.
But it was the American missile defense systems, especially the Patriot, that have recently
covered themselves with scandalous shame. A year ago, US President Donald Trump announced that
among the new priorities of the Pentagon the sale of US missile defense systems to its allies
ranked really high. To achieve this goal, Washington tried to force those states that chose a
far more effective solutions – Russia's S-300 and S-400 to rethink their decision. These
attempts resulted in Washington introducing sanctions against some of its closest allies, such
as Turkey, India and Morocco.
Meanwhile, The National Interest
admits that the new Russian S-500 is by far the most effective air defense system in
existence, while The Hill
acknowledges that Russia's hypersonic weapons have rendered such US missile defense systems
as Patriot and THAAD meaningless.
A year ago, the United States announced that a network of ground and surface missile
interceptors, radars and communications lines at a price tag of 180 billion dollars could
protect the country from a limited attack launched by the DPRK or Iran. However, shortly after
this statement was made, US-produced air defense systems failed to
repel a surprise drone attack on Saudi oil refineries, thus demonstrating their low
efficiency. At the same time, it will not be out of place to recall that a grand total of 88
Patriot launchers cover the northern border of Saudi Arabia, with three more US NAVY destroyers
armed with the Aegis system being stationed off shore in the same area. None of these systems
responded to the attack.
Yet again, during a retaliatory strike launched by Iran, American air defense systems were
powerless to shoot down a single missile launched against two US bases in Iraq.
That is why a number of Western military clients have recently taken steps to acquire
Russian alternatives. This was the result of serious flaws in US-produced air defense systems,
such as the Patriot, the repeated failures of which have recently become apparent in Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The last of these clients was South Korea, which has long shown strong
interest in Russian military jets and air defense systems, but was unable to acquire them due
to the pressure being applied on it from Washington.
Those facts show that the military vehicles and aircraft advertised by Western media are
only good as scrap metal. Actually, this became clear to everyone, when Washington decided to
show its rusty armored vehicles on the parade assembled in celebration of last year's
Independence Day.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vladimir Platov , an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine
New Eastern Outlook ".
The United States has spent about $6 trillion on combat operations over the past 20 years,
according to Brown University
studies . If the warfare ends by 2023, researchers estimate the total cost will be $6.7
trillion at least, not counting the interest on debt.
In total, almost half a million people have died as a result of the wars.
The cost of 87 major programs for the purchase of weapons and military equipment conducted
by the US Department of Defense exceeded $2 trillion in 2018, according to the Pentagon's
Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), which detail the implementation of major defense purchases.
The combined cost of all procurement programs was determined by the Pentagon to be over $2
trillion. This is equivalent to almost 10% of the annual gross domestic product of the United
States ($21.3 trillion).
Trying to justify such exorbitant spending on the army, the US military and political elites
actively promote their interests, advertising the national armed forces as the main fighting
force. Recently, Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that
'there are no forces today capable of resisting an attack by the US Army.' Unsurprisingly, the
Department of Defense (DoD) desires even more money, although there is no logical explanation
as to why the most powerful army on the planet is in need of improvement when everyone else is
clearly lagging behind.
But what is the real face of the US Army today and how does the public feel about it?
Global Research
correctly remarked that, despite the largest military budget in the world (five times greater
than in six other countries), the highest number of military bases in the world (over 180) and
the most expensive military-industrial complex, the United States has failed to win a single
war in the 21 st century.
Every year, Pew Research Center publishes hundreds of studies on a wide range of topics.
Concerning the current problems of the US military, Pew studies note
that most American veterans and the majority of the general US public believe that the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting. Over 60% of the American public is convinced that
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not paid off, when the costs and benefits are weighed.
Responding to questions about the US military campaign in Syria, 55% of veterans and 58% of the
American public said that this campaign failed to pay off as well.
Frustration with the country's military policy has now become a big problem among active US
servicemen, veterans, and even among young soldiers who haven't participated in real
combat.
The incautious question 'How has serving impacted you?' posted by the Pentagon's official
Twitter account, has revealed the deep chasm of the US military's problems. So deep, in fact,
that the Pentagon had to urgently close and remove a huge number of subsequent replies, most of
which turned out to be very depressing in nature. US Army soldiers and officers shared the
shocking consequences of their service, including drug addiction, depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, anxiety disorders and nightmares – some admitting they had repeatedly
wanted to commit suicide.
Currently there are up to 19 million retired veterans 'in the most belligerent democratic
country in the world.' Every day, about 20 of them commit suicide. The causes of suicide cited
by experts are diverse, the main ones being depressions, nervous breakdowns, spiritual and
psychological devastation coupled with guilt for killing innocent people, post-traumatic stress
disorder, increased military operations, medical abuse, and personal financial problems. Social
media are full of horrific stories about how injured soldiers weren't provided necessary
medical attention during military operations, which drove them to shooting themselves in the
head. Meanwhile junior army members state that they are basically expendable for their
commanders, and all of them combined present an endless means of earning money for the highest
elite.
Suicides are rampant among all the branches of US troops, and their rate is increasing. US
officials deliberately hide the horrific statistics of suicides among military personnel,
seriously concerned about the increase in their number since they negatively affect the future
of the 'most powerful armed forces in the world.' To date, suicide is the second leading cause
of death among members of the US military.
Another extremely troubling statistic was revealed by experts from the American publishing
house McClatchy. They studied the health of the US servicemen who had taken part in combat
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 -- 2015. They have been literally mowed down by
cancer, which is confirmed by the sudden increase in the number of cancer patients in military
hospitals in Virginia. As it turned out, a significant cause of the disease is toxic rocket
fuel, which was used to massively burn garbage and waste near military bases. In addition, it
turned out that the fire foam used to extinguish these fires also causes cancer. It was quite
often that US soldiers had to dispose of garbage and waste in war zones, including human
corpses and animal carcasses. The Pentagon has not yet commented on the finding and is in no
hurry to grant applications for disability benefits; out of 11,000 applications only 2000 have
been 'lucky' so far.
The Heritage Foundation analysts published a report which shows that the US Army is at its
limits. One curious fact is significant: the conclusion about the decline of efficiency and
combat capability of the US Army came not from Russian or Chinese sources, but from American
analysts, which is further proof of the systemic problems in the Pentagon. The Heritage
Foundation analysts agree that right now, considering the current state of the US Army,
simultaneous participation in several wars is leading to its noticeable overexertion.
Taking this into account, Washington can only be advised to tread more carefully on the
international arena, avoid provoking armed conflicts that can lead to severe military defeats
for the US Army and result in sizable human losses, both among current servicemen and
veterans.
In the words of the Spanish newspaper El Pais , "The
Americans pose a much greater danger to themselves than the Islamists, North Koreans, Russians,
Houthis and all those who comprise the US-declared 'axis of evil' do."
Vladimir Platov, an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine "
New Eastern Outlook ".
six
principles of political realism , found in his seminal work Politics Among Nations . The second, fourth and fifth
principles are of particular relevance to the current administration. Morgenthau's second
principle states that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through
the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined as power."
Morgenthau believed that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power
(understood in terms of the mutual relations of political control between nation-states), and
that peace is often tenuous in a world lacking a sovereign authority that can protect the
interests and survival of individual states (an insight that has been codified in the
neorealist conception of "international anarchy"). As a result, the "national interest" is
primarily concerned with the resources (especially military and economic capabilities) and
limitations (primarily the balance of power) that determine the national power of the state in
international politics.
The fourth principle states that "political realism is aware of the moral significance of
political action, but maintains that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of
states in their abstract universal formulation." Morgenthau did not reject ethical
considerations in foreign policy (as is clear from his criticisms of the Vietnam War), but
believed that political prudence (i.e., the practical consideration of the consequences of
foreign policy) requires that moral principles be "filtered" through the "concrete
circumstances" of power politics. Moral ends should be pursued to the extent that they are
within the limits of national power and are consistent with national interests. The fifth
principle takes this one step further by stating that "political realism refuses to identify
the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe."
Morgenthau cautioned against the dangers of national "exceptionalism," which can lead to
"political folly," such as the fighting of wars that do nothing to advance or protect the
national interest, and can cause unnecessary human suffering through "moral excess." Thus,
"moderation in policies cannot fail to reflect the moderation of moral judgment."
President Trump criticized the Obama administration for getting outplayed and outsmarted by
Russian president Vladimir Putin, and yet he seems to be falling into the same trap as Obama by
thinking that he can do better vis-à-vis Russia through diplomatic rapprochement. The
problem is to see U.S. foreign-policy challenges with respect to Russia in terms of
misunderstandings between political leaders and administrations, rather than the fundamental
differences between United States and Russian national interests. Russia seeks to increase its
power and sphere of influence while the United States aims to maintain hegemony. If the current
administration seeks rapprochement by making concessions to Russia (e.g., by rolling back
sanctions), then foreign-policy analysts will soon be writing about another failed "reset." On
China, Trump broke with diplomatic precedent by accepting a phone call from Taiwanese president
Tsai Ing-wen, which called into question the United States' commitment to a "One China" policy.
The problem here is for foreign policy to extend beyond power, since the military balance
within the first island chain -- and specifically in a Taiwan war -- is rapidly shifting in
China's favor. While realism suggests that geopolitical rivalry between China and the United
States is inevitable, interest as power would suggest that picking a fight with China over
Taiwan is not a prudent course for U.S. foreign policy.
Two brothers are warning Japan not to succumb to this temptation, who were in one of the
Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze groups during the final stage of the war on Pacific, but the
war ended before they had the chance to fulfil their sacrificial military duty. Both elderly
veterans (97 and 99 years old) felt they needed to tell students
and teachers at Waseda University -- one of Japan's most prestigious institutions -- "what [to]
do to ensure that we don't repeat an event like the war."
They asked students to consider their speech and answers to questions as their "last
message" to the youth of today in Japan. They did not choose these words at random. Kamikaze
soldiers would write a "last message" to their closest relatives before flying or sailing out
on a mission which they would obviously not return from (these brothers were suicide vessel
pilots, so they did not fly).
The kamikaze tactic is a centuries-old, very specifically Japanese cultural and military
phenomenon. When other cultures try to copy the Japanese it turns into a parody or a
meaningless act of gang violence. One of these parodies was an attempt made by the German
Luftwaffe to do "something similar" to the Japanese kamikaze soldiers in the last days of the
Second World War.
Then there are today's Islamist terrorists (pumped up with drugs) who do not value their own
lives or anyone else's, and their acts have nothing in common with this concept.
Kamikaze volunteers were mainly undergraduates, which is reflected in the content and style
of their "last messages". The two brothers who gave their lecture at Waseda University were
both students when they voluntarily joined the Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze unit. This is
probably one reason why they chose to address students with the "last message" they have now
written.
Of course, we must take into account that the young sailors from 75 years ago and the
elderly people who speak today are ultimately different people. Japan has experienced a lot
since the war ended, as has the world in general, and the two brothers. All this experience has
undoubtedly affected how the former kamikaze soldiers think about what happened "then" and what
their "last message" should be, which they have now passed on. Apart from that, they will leave
this world in a very different way than the kamikaze soldiers did 75 years ago.
The first thing the audience at Waseda University were interested in hearing about were the
"last messages" written by kamikaze fighters, which make for extremely moving reading, even to
this day . They were
not dictated what to write, but the authors knew that their letters would be read by "the
relevant authorities." This is, by the way, what happens to messages sent by servicemen from
all different countries during times of war.
According to one of the brothers, not one of the kamikaze soldiers he knew really wanted to
die, and even then it was clear that the war was meaninglessness: "Do not follow my example,"
said the author in his message after 75 years had passed. "That's what I want to leave with the
young people today."
In this author's opinion, the main sentiment in the "last message" given by the two former
kamikaze fighters, namely that "war is hell", has a great measure of "the wisdom of hindsight."
That does not take away from this wisdom whatsoever, it is not something to be consigned to the
history books in today's Japan. It is very relevant considering the persistent attempts the
country's leadership has been making to "revise" Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
outlawing war, which would go directly against the prevailing sentiment in Japanese
society.
Japan and its former Axis ally Germany have managed to climb to the top of the world's
political and economic hierarchy without firing a single shot and without any bloodshed.
Without harming any enemies or allies. In today's rapidly changing world, Japan and Germany
will only strengthen their positions on the world stage if they can resist temptation and do
not get trapped in the same vicious circle they got caught up in a century ago.
Moreover, it would be a perfect time for them to reignite and lead the (mistakenly
forgotten) "world peace movement". It could not be more relevant in the current critical stage
of the "Grand Global Game".
Something similar seems to have been implied in the "last message" passed on by the two
former kamikaze soldiers.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the
online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"
.
I do not believe that for a second.
US initiated wars have been going on for decades, but I see no indication that US americans
have any issues with it. The political parties are totally aligned on foreign wars, there are
no people protesting in US cities.
Posted by: Norwegian | Jan 17 2020 21:46 utc | 27
I do not believe it either!
Since a good many Usians are morally bankrupt; they spend words like cheap cash.
Why not? It keeps them from having to actually do anything.
It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
'It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
...and the band played on..."
The band plays on folks, because of that corrupt educational system. Every school kid in
america is brainwashed from nursery school, kindergarten, even before the formal waste of
time. Then if they decide on college, unless their parents are one percenters, or hollywood
insiders the kids are in hock to the tune of six figures when they grab that diploma. No one
has time to protest anymore. 'They' have 'em by the balls and they're in a vice bein'
squeezed daily. Most have to pull two, or even three jobs, just to get by. No one has the
time to realize all of america's boogeymen are cia assets.
Besides, one's protesting against one of the most powerful militaries in the world and the
police state is ever tightening here. Protesting is pretty much a fool's errand anymore, if
it's against the government in general it's not covered by the msm, so only the protesters
and their friends are aware of it.
Life if rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to protest,
however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems collapses
there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking anything
like america's first revolution.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly. The USians are propagandised from cradle to grave every
state has at least one Fort xyz and every stadium has military spectacles to ogle at. No
football game without a military parade.
It will take a Herculean effort to turn that propaganda around and thankfully there are
two candidates dedicated to that effort. More strength to their arm.
On the impeachment issue my take is like this:
Trump really cant afford to lose too many of them especially if the first motion to
dismiss the impeachment case is to succeed. He can only be removed from office if there is a
two thirds senate majority on the proposal to remove.
But a simple majority is what he has to hold to succeed at defeating all other forms of
censure motions and getting the witnesses he wants dragged before the Senate.
The numbers are:
Democrazies 45
Independent 2
Repugnants 53
So three repugnant defectors would give a tied vote (assuming the independents vote with
the democrazies).
Not a comfortable position and certainly not now after assassinating Souleimani,
Afghanistan war report looking ugly and who knows what else. The 'permanent state' gangsters
can do much damage to his brittle ego by getting four repugnants to defect.
So if Trump is damaged goods going into the election cycle he could well be defeated by
Bernie Sanders IF he can overcome the jackals in the democazie party machine. Hope is all I
have.
Life is rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to
protest, however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems
collapses there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking
anything like america's first revolution.
Posted by: aye, myself & me | Jan 18 2020 6:35 utc | 107
Yea, I know. I have a sister living in Oregon. She's still working @ 70yo.
Revolution almost never has a good ending; in the U.S., at this time; it would be the worst,
IMO.
Probably a sizeable chunk of the people. But not the ruling class.
"Most of this carnage by the United States is done in the name of dishonest and
non-existent defense of country, of "spreading democracy" or of forced regime change based
on the lie of protecting by force the people of other lands. The truth of all these
politically motivated lies is that the brutality of U.S. aggression is purposeful slaughter
for political and geo-political gain, all at the expense of innocent populations around the
globe."
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7
trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."..."I wouldn't go to war
with you people,"..."You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
If this is true, it means that Trump does not consider those ME wars useless or
unwinnables, but only the people who manage them are not clever or resolute enough, which is
quite scary, because imply that instead of "dupes and babies" if he put in charge "winners"
and "real men" may be they can "go to Theran", or "win a land war in Asia" (Montgomery
recommend not to start any never).
This language about "winners" and "losers" is so....American, it means that you do not
"win" or "lose" as a matter of life, NO, but you are inherently a "winner" (always win)or a
f**king "loser", it is the predestinationist (calvinistic) roots of the American culture and
you can see it clearly in almost all the Hollywood movies with the "good gay" ("winner")
overcoming an incredible number of obstacles, and at the end he kills all the "bad gays"
("losers"). It is all about is the Good against the Evil, the Winners (The Justs) against the
Losers (The Doomed)
May be now the "winners" start to learn (again) how to lose (as in Vietnam), and this
cultural roots make very dangerous for the US to lose a war, because it crumbles all this
narrative of the Manifest Destiny, the Chosen People, and all that BS. The blow back could be
devastating.
I think The American people love wars, they love to see in the CNN Tomahawks flying inside
the Revolucionary Guard buildings and blowing them, US helicopters piercing with missiles the
Iraqi APAC's packed with soldiers, the Abrams tanks blowing-up the Iraqi T72 with DU rounds,
the videos US planes crushing the hangars, the command centers, the A10 straffing with their
guns the "Highway of Death" and the bodies of Saddam soldiers scorched black inside the
destroyed buses...They like it, especially if you carefully hide the busted bodies of woman
and children from the cameras, or conceal the dead and injures GI's. They like the new tech
weapons and how they "work" against the "bad guys"
American people love wars, what they hate is losing wars...and Trump represents, as
someone said, what a good percentage of American people want to be, it is the archetype of
"The Winner", a populists "Caesar", the last chance of a crumbling Empire
North Korea's cavalier rejection of its NPT membership in 2003 is
a prime example , but many saw it as a case not applicable to most member states. However,
more recently,
Saudi Arabia , and
Turkey and
Iran (which, after the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, is looking for new ways to
upset Washington), have gone so far as ti layout terms under which they would leave the treaty
and even obtain nuclear weapons, statements without precedent in the treaty's history.
A number of otherwise respectable member countries, such as South Korea , also have
political parties in their legislatures that advocate treaty withdrawal and acquisition of
nuclear weapons.
We have to take seriously the possibility that -- without international action to arrest
this tendency -- the already frayed bonds that tie countries to the NPT and the pledge not to
acquire nuclear weapons may not hold. This would presage a world with many more nuclear states
and a vastly increased risk of nuclear use.
Victor Gilinsky is program advisor for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
(NPEC) in Arlington, Virginia. He served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Presidents
Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Henry Sokolski is executive director of NPEC and the author of
Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear
Future (second edition 2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office
of the U.S. secretary of defense in the Cheney Pentagon.
Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will
spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it
doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the
European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working
class counter-offensive.
No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump,
avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind
Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.
To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to
a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before
Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25
percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."
Why, after so many assurances to the contrary, have the three European Iran's Nuclear Deal
Partner's – Germany, France, the UK – decided to go after Iran, to follow the US
dictate again?
The short answer is because the cowards. They have zero backbone to stand up against the US
hegemony, because they are afraid to be sanctioned – as Trump indicated if they were to
honor the" Nuclear Deal". Iran is absolutely in their right to progressively increase uranium
enrichment, especially since the US dropped out unilaterally, without any specific reasons,
other than on Netanyahu's orders – of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
also called Iran's Nuclear Deal.
Just a few days ago Ms. Angela Merkel met with President Putin in Moscow, and BOTH pledged
in front of a huge press crowd that the Nuclear Deal must stay, must be maintained and
validated.
And now, because of Trump's Barbarian threats, trade threats on Europe – an increase
of up to 25% import taxes on European cars – and wanting a new deal with Iran, whatever
that means, they, the Europeans – the three Nuclear Deal partners, back down. Why not
call Trump's bluff? As China did. This Barbarian Kingpin is lashing around his deathbed with
tariffs and sanctions, it is only a sign of weakness, a sign of slowly but surely disappearing
in the – hopefully – bottomless abyss.
This threesome is a bunch of shameless and hopeless cowards. They have not realized yet that
the west, starting with the US empire, is passé. It's a sinking ship. It's high time for
Iran to orient herself towards the east. Iran is already a Middle-Eastern key hub for the
Chinese Belt and Road initiative (BRI), or the New Silk road. Iran can do without Europe; and
the US needs Europe more than vice-versa. But the 'chickens' haven't noticed that yet.
On the behest of Washington, the Trump clown, they, Germany, France and the UK, want to
start an official dispute process, bringing Iran back to where it was before the Nuclear Deal,
and reinstating all the UN sanctions of before the signature of the deal in July 2015. And this
despite the fact that Iran has adhered to their part of the deal by 100%, as several times
attested to by the Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Can you imagine what these abhorrent
Europeans are about to do?
This reminds of how Europe pilfered, robbed and raped Africa and the rest of the now called
developing world, for hundreds of years. No ethics, no qualms, just sheer egocentricity and
cowardice. The European Barbarians and those on the other side of the Atlantic deserve each
other. And they deserve disappearing in the same bottomless pit.
Iran may consider three ideas:
1) Call the European bluff. Let them start the dispute process – and let them drive it
all the way to the UN Security Council. Their spineless British Brother in Crime, BoJo, also
called the British Prime-Minister, Boris Johnson, will do the job for them, bringing the case
"Iran Nuclear Deal – and Sanctions" to the UN Security Council – where it will
fail, because Russia and China will not approve the motion.
2) Much more important, Dear Friends in Iran – do not trust the Europeans for even
one iota ! – They have proven time and again that they are not trustworthy. They
buckle under every time Trump is breaking wind – and
3) Dedollarize your economy even faster – move as far as possible away from the west
– join the Eastern economy, that controls at least one third of the world's GDP. You are
doing already a lot in this direction – but faster. Join the SCO – the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, comprising half of Mother Earth's population; ditch the dollar and
the SWIFT payment system, join instead the Chinese Interbank Payment System (CIPS) – and
be free of the sanction-prone western monetary system. Eastern monetary transactions are
blocking out western dollar-based sanctions. Already your hydrocarbon trades with China,
Russia, India and others are not carried out in US dollars, but in local currencies, Chinese
yuans, Russian rubles and Indian rupees.
True – Iran will have to confront Iran-internally the western (NATO) and CIA trained,
funded and bought Atlantists, the Fifth Columnists. They are the ones that create constant
virulently violent unrest in the cities of Iran; they are trained – and paid for –
to bring about Regime Change. That's what Russia and China and Venezuela and Cuba are also
confronted with. They, the Fifth Columnists have to be eradicated. It's a challenge, but it
should be doable.
Follow the Ayatollah's route. He is on the right track – looking East.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. After working for over 30 years
with the World Bank he penned Implosion
, an economic thriller, based on his first-hand experience. Exclusively for the online magazine
" New Eastern Outlook. "
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more
disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned:
"We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an
enemy."
...Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that
confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential
for monumental disaster.
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
1. The interests of these countries may be aligned.
2. Even if the immigrant may be mistaken, if his belief is sincere he may still
provide valuable contact, intelligence, etc.
This is a very naive idea of how perceived "national interests" form. In real life,
highly-motivated groups of immigrants will have an outsized influence on how their host
country thinks of its interests in their regions of birth. This is basically a geopolitical
example of Nassim Taleb's minority rule .
United States is especially vulnerable to such subversion since much of its conception
of itself and its place in the world centers on elastic and easily abused ideas like
freedom and human rights .
"The evening network news shows described the change as a naked grab for power so typical
of Putin."
Well, they would, because if he were a western leader that's what it would be; since they
don't really understand anything about Russia and view it as an enemy which nonetheless
governs itself more or less by western rules, they are consistently wrong. Never seems to
teach them anything, though, and they're always leaning into their next opportunity to be
wrong again.
I mostly found Dimka to be that rarity in Russian politics – a western-leaner with
obvious admiration for western ways and the western lifestyle, but who genuinely loved Russia
and wanted to do the best by it. He couldn't really hold the highest office because he was
still too easily seduced by the west, which had only to frame something as a tremendous gift
to Russia to have him eagerly grab at it, but I don't think any of his decisions were ever
meant to hurt the country. Some suggest Putin kept him on to make him serve out a sentence in
which western bait would be constantly dangled in front of him, but he didn't have enough
power to snatch it, but I don't think so and his service was mostly commendable as long as he
was not allowed to make any decisions involving the west himself. I don't know anything about
the new guy beyond what others have posted here, but you can be sure he is already the focus
of intense western interest.
The bottom line is that whatever they were hoping, Putin is not going to disappear from
politics and the very next day, Washington finally gets its man in charge. The succession
will be carefully managed to ensure there are no regime-change loopholes.
Yes, that's all true, which is why western regime-changers would be more likely to put their
money on a politically-savvy oligarch like Prokhorov, who I am only using as an example. Such
a person follows national politics closely and would be much more likely to know the insider
information the western influencers would like to know, but do not.
Mind you, that kind of meddling was always a risk, including under the previous system.
And it didn't work very well then. Then, though, Khodorkovsky did not seem to have Putin
fooled for one second. It remains to be seen if that perspicacity will survive him.
In fact it is classified information..highly classified according to news reports. And so
we're likely to never see it. Flynn was forced out for some reason, presumably good ones.
It's hard to say anything for certain because the White House was in disarray in Feb2017.
DJT's inexperience in government was glaringly obvious in the first couple of months of his
administration. He mishandled several issues badly, paticularly the Flynn episode and James
Comey. I said then that he should have replaced Comey on Day 1. Had he done so none of the
mess of "Russian collusion" would likely have ever come about. Although he usually gets
things right, eventually, his (early) tendencies toward delayed action cost him.
They always claim something is highly classified when they want to conceal something that
will incriminate or embarrass them before the American people.
Trump came into office without an army of bureaucrats to fill all the jobs in the
government behemoth. He had to put in people that had been vehemently opposed to him in
order to get confirmations. That's why the expression, "The new boss, same as the old
boss." And it has certainly been true of Trump regarding foreign policy.
Well, since it was under Obama that they intercepted Flynn's calls, that's where the
classification came from. The USG grows and maintains its power through myriad levels of
secrecy. (I was in the game as a CIA communications specialist for 8 years). The game is
thoroughly bipartisan.
The White House said on Friday that it was the Obama administration that authorized
former national security adviser Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak during President Trump's transition, according to CNN.
"... The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything that our rulers don't want done. ..."
"... There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval Office. ..."
"... The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election" BS. ..."
Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if the
rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never
allow that.
The elections are a farce, by the way. We have no way to know how people vote, because
they put in electronic voting machines after the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme
Court. We no longer have any idea how people voted, the talking heads on the TV just give us
the name of the selected on, on Election Night.
As Lavrov frequently points out, the "rules-based order" is the US attempt to overthrow
established international law, and replace it with "rules" invented by the US and changed to
suit US goals, i.e. total spectrum dominance.
Note that although Trump has been attacked by the Deep State, the Democrats and the media
24/7 since 2016, the only complaint they have about his blatantly illegal assassination of
Soleimani is that "he didn't tell us first". There is NO mention of international or national
laws which outlaw such assassinations.
The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on
board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken
because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all
he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything
that our rulers don't want done.
@juliania: There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to
military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval
Office.
The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or
diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election"
BS.
Americans may be sick of the US' forever war policy, but not as sick of it as the rest of
the world is. And USicans aren't sick enough of it to turf out both parties and start
again...
st
century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the forces
driving world events towards an all-out war of "Mutually Assured Annihilation" are anything but sane.
While I'm obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a particularly virulent
strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled "neo-conservative" and while many of these disturbing
figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a risk worth taking in order to achieve
their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to make one subtle yet very important distinction
which is often overlooked.
What is this distinction?
Under the broad umbrella of "neo-conservative" one should properly differentiate
those who
really believe in their ideology
and are trapped under the invisible cage of its unexamined
assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages the ideology from the
top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called
Origins of the Deep State
and
Myth of
the Jewish Conspiracy
.
To re-state my meaning: This group doesn't necessarily
believe in
the ideological group they
manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to achieve certain
behavioral patterns in their children.
While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic neocon
worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the point.
Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now
Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia and Rome
who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout the ages. It is well
documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome's control, as long as said cult denied any
claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic monotheistic faiths more than a little
antagonistic to empire.
Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?
Hell no.
Was it politically necessary to create them?
Of course.
Why?
Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts but since they deny any
principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc)
, empires are merely a sum of parts
and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum (1). Each cultish group may coexist as an
echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity they wish without judgement of moral
right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their group's beliefs- but nothing universal about
justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise permitted. Here the a-moral "peace" of
"equilibrium" can be achieved by an oligarchy which wishes to lord over the slaves. Whether we are
dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich's Congress of Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger,
or
Leo Strauss
(father of modern neo-conservativism), "Peace" can never be anything more than a
mathematical "balancing of parts".
Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?
To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit more
personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.
Smith at Her Majesty's Service
Do Smith's modern followers sincerely believe in the "self-regulating forces of the free market"?
Sure they do.
Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?
Whether he did or not, according
to recent research
conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose
his seminal book
Wealth of
Nations
(published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from
Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who
essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all
colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards
internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his
1729 Necessity of Paper Currency
and Colonial Script.
Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new "Law" of "absolute advantage" demanded that everyone
just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should
stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don't ask how that
happened because it wasn't through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced
textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she
could do that which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. "Free Trade"
demanded it so.
Let's look at another example: Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
A Not-too-Natural Selection
Darwin's theory published in his
Origins of Species
(1859) was based on the assumption that
all changes in the biosphere are driven by "laws" of "survival of the fittest" within an assumed closed
ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an "invisible hand" brought creative order
to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin asserted that
creative order
on the large scale
evolution of species could be explained by
chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that no power of reason, free will or God could pass
(2)
.
Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.
But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: "Darwin's Bulldog") whose efforts to destroy all competing theories
which included "purpose", "meaning", or "design" were crushed and ridiculed into obscurity? Huxley
himself
was on record saying
he did not believe in Darwin's system. So why was this theory promoted by forces
(like
Huxley's X Club
) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to Darwin's own
account of his discovery from
his autobiography
where he wrote:
"In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for
amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once
struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had
at last got a theory by which to work".
Malthus's 'Dismal Science'
And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted "Man of God" who taught economics at
the British East India Company's Haileybury College) provided the very foundation upon which Darwin's
system stood! Thomas Huxley
and the other "high priests" of Huxley's X Club
were always Malthusian (even before there was
Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources of an age,
rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring new resources into
being- overcoming nature's "limits to growth" (a dis-equilibrium not to be tolerated). Whether Malthus
actually believed in the system which bears his name, as generations of his adherents sincerely do,
remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the needed extermination of the "unfit" by the
Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded Social Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called
for the encouragement of the plague and other "natural forms of destruction" to cull the herd of the
unfit in his
Essay on the Principle of Population (
1799):
"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of
nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of
famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In
our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of
the plague."
A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of low value
to society when he said:
"I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking
place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years
from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance The infant is, comparatively speaking,
of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place."
The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley's own grandson
Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity
today called the Green New Deal
were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect of this
worldview upon races deemed "unfit" in the global south should also not be ignored. It is no coincidence
that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund, 1001 Nature Trust and Club of
Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world over the bodies of countless statesmen
during the Cold War.
The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire
Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious and ethnic
groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity increases its capacity to
sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to parasitically drain their host. In Lincoln's
great 1859 speech
, the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the
British Empire when he said:
"All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth, and
all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual
nature, and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various "leads" from which, man, from the first, was
to dig out his destiny Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his
workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions."
Lincoln's economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal
improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben Franklin.
Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the leaders
of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking the post-truth
neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics (3). The folly of America's
new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump's disastrous foreign policy agenda is tied
to the oligarchy's absolute fear of losing America to a new Eurasian partnership which Trump has promoted
repeatedly since entering office in 2017.
Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an alternative system
of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological progress but they have also
managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen have demonstrated a clear recognition
that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to neo-conservativism are entirely unsustainable, and
defeatable (but not
militarily)
.
Xi
expressed this insight
most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.
Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to be
woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them from their own
hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without understanding that those who
fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed in them.
Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard Lewis
absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or Kristol have
adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called humanity must ultimately be
governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman Empire), and that Leviathan could only be
created in response to an intolerably painful period of chaos which their twisted tooth fairies would
usher into this world.
Matthew Ehret
January 18, 2020 |
Featured Story
The Geopolitics of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon to Neocon
I think any sane human being can agree that while war was never a good idea, war in the 21
st
century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the forces
driving world events towards an all-out war of "Mutually Assured Annihilation" are anything but
sane.
While I'm obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a
particularly virulent strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled "neo-conservative" and
while many of these disturbing figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a risk
worth taking in order to achieve their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to make one
subtle yet very important distinction which is often overlooked.
What is this distinction?
Under the broad umbrella of "neo-conservative" one should properly differentiate
those who really believe in their ideology
and are trapped under the invisible cage
of its unexamined assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages
the ideology from the top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called
Origins of the Deep State
and
Myth of the Jewish Conspiracy
.
To re-state my meaning: This group doesn't necessarily
believe in
the ideological group
they manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to
achieve certain behavioral patterns in their children.
While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic
neocon worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the point.
Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now
Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia and
Rome who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout the ages.
It is well documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome's control, as long as said
cult denied any claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic monotheistic faiths
more than a little antagonistic to empire.
Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?
Hell no.
Was it politically necessary to create them?
Of course.
Why?
Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts but since they
deny any principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc)
, empires are merely a
sum of parts
and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum (1). Each
cultish group may coexist as an echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity
they wish without judgement of moral right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their
group's beliefs- but nothing universal about justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise
permitted. Here the a-moral "peace" of "equilibrium" can be achieved by an oligarchy which wishes
to lord over the slaves. Whether we are dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich's Congress of
Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger, or
Leo Strauss
(father of modern neo-conservativism), "Peace" can never be anything more than a
mathematical "balancing of parts".
Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?
To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit more
personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.
Smith at Her Majesty's Service
Do Smith's modern followers sincerely believe in the "self-regulating forces of the free
market"?
Sure they do.
Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?
Whether he did or not, according
to recent research
conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to
compose his seminal book
Wealth of Nations
(published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a
carriage ride from Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the
same Lord Shelburne who essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and
who always despised all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or
channel said credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his
1729 Necessity of Paper
Currency and Colonial Script.
Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new "Law" of "absolute advantage" demanded that
everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so
they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don't
ask how that happened because it wasn't through free trade), so they should stick with that! India
had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium
fields so she could do that which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British
Gunships. "Free Trade" demanded it so.
Let's look at another example: Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
A Not-too-Natural Selection
Darwin's theory published in his
Origins of Species
(1859) was based on the assumption
that all changes in the biosphere are driven by "laws" of "survival of the fittest" within an
assumed closed ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an "invisible hand"
brought creative order to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin asserted that
creative order
on the large scale
evolution of
species could be explained by
chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that
no power of reason, free will or God could pass
(2)
.
Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.
But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: "Darwin's Bulldog") whose efforts to destroy all competing
theories which included "purpose", "meaning", or "design" were crushed and ridiculed into
obscurity? Huxley himself
was on record saying
he did not believe in Darwin's system. So why was this theory promoted by
forces (like
Huxley's X Club
) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to Darwin's
own account of his discovery from
his autobiography
where he wrote:
"In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read
for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence
which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it
at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here
then, I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Malthus's 'Dismal Science'
And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted "Man of God" who taught economics
at the British East India Company's Haileybury College) provided the very foundation upon which
Darwin's system stood! Thomas Huxley
and the other "high priests" of Huxley's X Club
were always Malthusian (even before there was
Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources of an
age, rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring new
resources into being- overcoming nature's "limits to growth" (a dis-equilibrium not to be
tolerated). Whether Malthus actually believed in the system which bears his name, as generations of
his adherents sincerely do, remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the needed
extermination of the "unfit" by the Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded Social
Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called for the encouragement of the plague and other
"natural forms of destruction" to cull the herd of the unfit in his
Essay on the Principle of Population (
1799):
"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations
of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid
form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel
nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses,
and court the return of the plague."
A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of low
value to society when he said:
"I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage
taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child
born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance The infant is,
comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place."
The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley's own
grandson Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity
today called the Green New Deal
were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect of
this worldview upon races deemed "unfit" in the global south should also not be ignored. It is no
coincidence that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund, 1001 Nature
Trust and Club of Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world over the bodies
of countless statesmen during the Cold War.
The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire
Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious and
ethnic groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity increases its
capacity to sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to parasitically drain their
host. In Lincoln's
great 1859 speech
, the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the
British Empire when he said:
"All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth,
and all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and
intellectual nature, and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various "leads" from which, man,
from the first, was to dig out his destiny Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the
only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and
Inventions."
Lincoln's economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal
improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben Franklin.
Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the
leaders of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking the
post-truth neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics (3). The
folly of America's new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump's disastrous
foreign policy agenda is tied to the oligarchy's absolute fear of losing America to a new Eurasian
partnership which Trump has promoted repeatedly since entering office in 2017.
Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an alternative
system of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological progress but they
have also managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen have demonstrated a
clear recognition that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to neo-conservativism are
entirely unsustainable, and defeatable (but not
militarily)
.
Xi expressed this insight
most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.
Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to be
woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them from
their own hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without understanding that
those who fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed in them.
Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard Lewis
absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or Kristol
have adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called humanity must
ultimately be governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman Empire), and that
Leviathan could only be created in response to an intolerably painful period of chaos which their
twisted tooth fairies would usher into this world.
(1) From this standpoint, it is worth reviewing the character of Calicles in
Plato's Gorgias dialogue
or Thrasymachus in
book one of the Republic
– both of whom exemplify the oligarchical world view by denying the
existence of moral principles- relegating them to merely useful tools by which the "wise" may lord
over the "slaves" born into lower classes.
Neoconservative founding fathers like Leo Strauss or Alan Bloom
who call themselves
"neo-Platonist" merely take a literal reading of chosen selections from the Republic and then
assert without evidence that Plato really believed in Thrasymacus and Calicles' worldview.
(2) For those interested in digging a bit deeper into this topic, the author delivered a lecture in
2010 titled
The Matter Over Darwin's Missing Mind
.
(3) Throughout the post JFK years, America's clearest representative of this anti-oligarchical
tradition was found consistently in the efforts of the late economist and
Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche
.- a selection of whose works
can be
reviewed here
.
While I'm obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a particularly virulent
strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled "neo-conservative" and while many of these disturbing
figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a risk worth taking in order to achieve
their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to make one subtle yet very important distinction
which is often overlooked.
What is this distinction?
Under the broad umbrella of "neo-conservative" one should properly differentiate
those who
really believe in their ideology
and are trapped under the invisible cage of its unexamined
assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages the ideology from the
top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called
Origins of the Deep State
and
Myth of
the Jewish Conspiracy
.
To re-state my meaning: This group doesn't necessarily
believe in
the ideological group they
manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to achieve certain
behavioral patterns in their children.
While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic neocon
worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the point.
Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now
Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia and Rome
who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout the ages. It is well
documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome's control, as long as said cult denied any
claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic monotheistic faiths more than a little
antagonistic to empire.
Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?
Hell no.
Was it politically necessary to create them?
Of course.
Why?
Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts but since they deny any
principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc)
, empires are merely a sum of parts
and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum (1). Each cultish group may coexist as an
echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity they wish without judgement of moral
right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their group's beliefs- but nothing universal about
justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise permitted. Here the a-moral "peace" of
"equilibrium" can be achieved by an oligarchy which wishes to lord over the slaves. Whether we are
dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich's Congress of Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger,
or
Leo Strauss
(father of modern neo-conservativism), "Peace" can never be anything more than a
mathematical "balancing of parts".
Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?
To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit more
personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.
Smith at Her Majesty's Service
Do Smith's modern followers sincerely believe in the "self-regulating forces of the free market"?
Sure they do.
Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?
Whether he did or not, according
to recent research
conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose
his seminal book
Wealth of
Nations
(published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from
Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who
essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all
colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards
internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his
1729 Necessity of Paper Currency
and Colonial Script.
Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new "Law" of "absolute advantage" demanded that everyone
just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should
stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don't ask how that
happened because it wasn't through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced
textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she
could do that which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. "Free Trade"
demanded it so.
Let's look at another example: Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
A Not-too-Natural Selection
Darwin's theory published in his
Origins of Species
(1859) was based on the assumption that
all changes in the biosphere are driven by "laws" of "survival of the fittest" within an assumed closed
ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an "invisible hand" brought creative order
to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin asserted that
creative order
on the large scale
evolution of species could be explained by
chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that no power of reason, free will or God could pass
(2)
.
Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.
But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: "Darwin's Bulldog") whose efforts to destroy all competing theories
which included "purpose", "meaning", or "design" were crushed and ridiculed into obscurity? Huxley
himself
was on record saying
he did not believe in Darwin's system. So why was this theory promoted by forces
(like
Huxley's X Club
) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to Darwin's own
account of his discovery from
his autobiography
where he wrote:
"In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for
amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once
struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had
at last got a theory by which to work".
Malthus's 'Dismal Science'
And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted "Man of God" who taught economics at
the British East India Company's Haileybury College) provided the very foundation upon which Darwin's
system stood! Thomas Huxley
and the other "high priests" of Huxley's X Club
were always Malthusian (even before there was
Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources of an age,
rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring new resources into
being- overcoming nature's "limits to growth" (a dis-equilibrium not to be tolerated). Whether Malthus
actually believed in the system which bears his name, as generations of his adherents sincerely do,
remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the needed extermination of the "unfit" by the
Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded Social Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called
for the encouragement of the plague and other "natural forms of destruction" to cull the herd of the
unfit in his
Essay on the Principle of Population (
1799):
"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of
nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of
famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In
our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of
the plague."
A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of low value
to society when he said:
"I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking
place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years
from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance The infant is, comparatively speaking,
of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place."
The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley's own grandson
Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity
today called the Green New Deal
were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect of this
worldview upon races deemed "unfit" in the global south should also not be ignored. It is no coincidence
that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund, 1001 Nature Trust and Club of
Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world over the bodies of countless statesmen
during the Cold War.
The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire
Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious and ethnic
groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity increases its capacity to
sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to parasitically drain their host. In Lincoln's
great 1859 speech
, the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the
British Empire when he said:
"All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth, and
all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual
nature, and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various "leads" from which, man, from the first, was
to dig out his destiny Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his
workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions."
Lincoln's economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal
improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben Franklin.
Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the leaders
of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking the post-truth
neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics (3). The folly of America's
new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump's disastrous foreign policy agenda is tied
to the oligarchy's absolute fear of losing America to a new Eurasian partnership which Trump has promoted
repeatedly since entering office in 2017.
Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an alternative system
of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological progress but they have also
managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen have demonstrated a clear recognition
that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to neo-conservativism are entirely unsustainable, and
defeatable (but not
militarily)
.
Xi
expressed this insight
most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.
Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to be
woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them from their own
hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without understanding that those who
fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed in them.
Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard Lewis
absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or Kristol have
adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called humanity must ultimately be
governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman Empire), and that Leviathan could only be
created in response to an intolerably painful period of chaos which their twisted tooth fairies would
usher into this world.
(1) From this standpoint, it is worth reviewing the character of Calicles in
Plato's
Gorgias dialogue
or Thrasymachus in
book
one of the Republic
– both of whom exemplify the oligarchical world view by denying the existence of
moral principles- relegating them to merely useful tools by which the "wise" may lord over the "slaves"
born into lower classes.
Neoconservative founding fathers like Leo Strauss or Alan Bloom
who call themselves "neo-Platonist"
merely take a literal reading of chosen selections from the Republic and then assert without evidence
that Plato really believed in Thrasymacus and Calicles' worldview.
(2) For those interested in digging a bit deeper into this topic, the author delivered a lecture in 2010
titled
The Matter
Over Darwin's Missing Mind
.
(3) Throughout the post JFK years, America's clearest representative of this anti-oligarchical tradition
was found consistently in the efforts of the late economist and
Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche
.- a selection of whose works
can be
reviewed here
.
(1) From this standpoint, it is worth
reviewing the character of Calicles in
Plato's
Gorgias dialogue
or Thrasymachus in
book
one of the Republic
– both of whom exemplify the oligarchical world view by denying the existence of
moral principles- relegating them to merely useful tools by which the "wise" may lord over the "slaves"
born into lower classes.
Neoconservative founding fathers like Leo Strauss or Alan Bloom
who call themselves "neo-Platonist"
merely take a literal reading of chosen selections from the Republic and then assert without evidence
that Plato really believed in Thrasymacus and Calicles' worldview.
(2) For those interested in digging a bit deeper into this topic, the author delivered a lecture in 2010
titled
The Matter
Over Darwin's Missing Mind
.
(3) Throughout the post JFK years, America's clearest representative of this anti-oligarchical tradition
was found consistently in the efforts of the late economist and
Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche
.- a selection of whose works
can be
reviewed here
.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
Colonialism
Imperialism
Neocons
United
States
Print this article
Sign up for
the Strategic
Culture Foundation
Newsletter
Subscribe
For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less
predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
In the European Parliament Russia is accused of distorting the history of the Second
World War
"We in the European People's Party cannot accept Putin's attempts to rewrite history.
Although the Soviet Union suffered huge losses during the war, and its soldiers showed
heroism, there is no denying that the Molotov -- Ribbentrop Pact led to the outbreak of the
Second World War".
Putin's attempts?
His own, personal, maniacal attempts??
The European People's Party -- leader, Donald Tusk.
"There is no denying " -- an appeal to ignorance.
Everybody knows this to be true!
In Poland there were the following Nazi extermination camps [ Vernichtungslager ]:
Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, and Majdanek.
Why?
Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
After all, there's no denying that Poles are at heart anti-Semites, in that they are all
devout Roman Catholics.
If the west – and especially the Poles – could get the Russian Federation to
apologize for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, their lives would be complete. For maybe five
minutes, before they moved on to the next deep grievance. It's all about getting the former
Soviet Union to admit guilt, and the west can never get enough of that.
I wonder if those who draw up this index ever consider that the perceived violence of a
country be considered as a function of the deaths caused by the foreign policies of that
country?
There certainly are advantages to stirring up shit abroad, setting up an opposition and then
sending your soldiers haring off thereward to support it in an effort to overthrow the
government. For one, you get labeled a super-peaceful country by some jag-off index you
probably funded yourself. The USA does not fight in the USA. And until fairly recently, it
got all its military adventures rubber-stamped by the UN as 'peacekeeping'. That, alas,
proved too time-consuming, and so R2P doctrine was devised by that legendary peacekeeper,
Sammy "Genocide" Power to expedite American military adventuring while still remaining
loosely under the 'last resort, but we have to act' rubric.
Yalensis, earlier you said that Russia should restore communism to remove poverty.
How did that work the last time in 1917-1991? The Soviet Union collapsed and historical
Russia was split into many different parts.
I expect that if Russia would experiment communism the second time the outcome would be
another split of Russia. This time it would be the North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan
and possible Siberia and the Far East breaking away from Moscow.
And why is that? Because communism doesn't work, period. It has been tried several times
in many different parts of the world, and it has always failed.
The basics are simple. Once private ownership is banned people stop caring. Motivation to
work hard is gone If you are deprived of the possibility to make money and own private
property.
Say what you want about America but there is a good reason why basically all the greatest
companies in the world are American, or at least from countries that have practiced
capitalism for centuries: Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Shell, Amazon, Intel, Ford, Mercedez Benz,
Toyota, Samsung etc.
You can compare how a middle class American and a middle class Soviet citizen lived in the
1980s. While a typical middle class American lived in a big house in a suburb with two cars
in the household, a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
where many families had to share the same bathroom and kitchen and a Soviet citizen had to
work a certain amount of years before being allowed a right to own his or her own car,
usually a Soviet made Lada. Most of the Soviet citizens never had a chance to get their own
car but instead of to rely on public transport.
I know you are going to say that China is a good example that communism can work. But
there is one problem: China is not really a communist country anymore. Actually the rise of
China began at the same moment when Deng Xiaoping allowed private property and private
enterprise. The horrendous communist policies of Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions of
Chinese people before that. Allowing people to work for their own well being was that made
China what it is today (China is still a poor country compared to the West, but at least
hundreds of millions of people are not starving anymore as was the case during Mao's
rule).
If Russia ever restored communism again it would be the end of Russia.
a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
Really?
I lived in a modern, built in the 1970s block in Voronezh in 1989.: 3 large rooms, largish
kitchen, bathroom and toilet, 2 balconies , 11th floor.
I live in a similar flat now, but on the 3rd floor, built 1976, central Administrative
District, Taganskiy precinct, Moskva.
The only thing communal about those 2 dwellings is the central heating, which is turned on
in October and turned off in May.
In England, during my childhood I lived in a slum street built in the 1850s: no central
heating, no hot water, no bathroom, no toilet. The toilet was in the yard at the back. The
dewelling had 2 downstairs rooms and 2 upstairs room, a so-called "two-up, two-down". I lived
there until 1960.
Wilson St. in my home town, 1969
My hometown is situated in the first capitalist country in the world.
God that picture brings back memories – we lived in similar property in Birmingham
until 1978. My family came over from Ireland in the 1960s and these type of houses were
common place for working class families.
You can still find them in the midlands and the north, although they have been modernised
to include bathrooms.
Capitalism and economic Nirvana are known to be one in the same in the minds of morons.
"Indications of this failure of capitalism are everywhere. Stagnation of investment
punctuated by bubbles of financial expansion, which then inevitably burst, now characterizes
the so-called free market.4 Soaring inequality in income and wealth has its counterpart in
the declining material circumstances of a majority of the population. Real wages for most
workers in the United States have barely budged in forty years despite steadily rising
productivity.5 Work intensity has increased, while work and safety protections on the job
have been systematically jettisoned. Unemployment data has become more and more meaningless
due to a new institutionalized underemployment in the form of contract labor in the gig
economy.6 Unions have been reduced to mere shadows of their former glory as capitalism has
asserted totalitarian control over workplaces. With the demise of Soviet-type societies,
social democracy in Europe has perished in the new atmosphere of "liberated capitalism."7
The capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poorest
regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational
corporations, is leading to an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of
the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion of offshore
funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting
"the fortified refuge of Big Finance."9 Technologically driven monopolies resulting from the
global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based
financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the
riches of today's "1 percent." Forty-two billionaires now enjoy as much wealth as half the
world's population, while the three richest men in the United States -- Jeff Bezos, Bill
Gates, and Warren Buffett -- have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every
region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11 The gap in per
capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations, which has been the dominant
trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world's
employed population, some two billion people, now work in the impoverished informal sector,
forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 percent
larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.
Adequate health care, housing, education, and clean water and air are increasingly out of
reach for large sections of the population, even in wealthy countries in North America and
Europe, while transportation is becoming more difficult in the United States and many other
countries due to irrationally high levels of dependency on the automobile and disinvestment
in public transportation. Urban structures are more and more characterized by gentrification
and segregation, with cities becoming the playthings of the well-to-do while marginalized
populations are shunted aside. About half a million people, most of them children, are
homeless on any given night in the United States.14 New York City is experiencing a major rat
infestation, attributed to warming temperatures, mirroring trends around the world."
Comrade Karl, the vast majority of poverty in this world is in capitalist countries. Latin
America and Africa will toss your silly assertions in the trash bin of history.
And saying China is not communist is equivalent to saying the US is not capitalist. I
leave it to your to figure out what the foregoing means.
"... The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted (which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair. ..."
"... But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed before 2014. I would say there is less unity now. ..."
"... Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate, but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) ..."
"... The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling you something. ..."
"... The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down. De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky is trying to do) ? ..."
I feel like robber barons in Kyiv have harmed you more through their looting of the country than impoverished Eastern Ukrainians,
who were the biggest losers in the post-Soviet deindustrilization, have harmed you by existing and dying of diseases of poverty
and despair.
It reminds me of how coastal shit-libs in America talk about "fly-over" country and want all the poor whites in Appalachia
to die. I'm living in a country whose soul is totally poisoned. A country that is dying. While all this is happening, whites have
split themselves into little factions focused on political point scoring.
I doubt people like Zelensky, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko and all the rest are going to turn Ukraine into an earthly paradise. They're
more likely to be Neros playing harps, while Ukraine burns.
Looks like your understanding of Ukraine is mostly based of a short trip to Lvov and reading neoliberal MSM and forums. That's
not enough, unless you want to be the next Max Boot.
Ukraine is a deeply sick patient, which surprisingly still stands despite all hardships (Ukrainians demonstrated amazing, superhuman
resilience in the crisis that hit them, which greatly surprised all experts).
The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central
heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations
and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted
(which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair.
And, what is really tragic Ukraine now it is a debt state. Usually the latter is the capital sentence for the county. Few managed
to escape even in more favorable conditions (South Korea is one.) So chances of economic recovery are slim: with such level of parasitic
rent to the West the natural path is down and down. Don't cry for me Argentina.
And there is no money to replace already destroyed due to bad maintenance infrastructure, but surprisingly large parts of Soviets
era infrastructure still somehow hold. For example, electrical networks, subway cars. But other part are already crumbling.
For example, in Kiev that means in some buildings you have winter without central heating, you have elevators in 16-storey buildings
that work one or two weeks in month, you have no hot water, sometimes you have no water at all for a week or more, etc). Pensioners
have problem with paying heating bills, so some of them are forced to live in non-heated apartments.
And that's in Kiev/Kyiv (Western Ukrainians love to change established names, much like communists) . In provincial cities it
is a real horror show when even electricity supply became a problem. The countryside dwellers at least has its own food, but the
situation for them is also very very difficult.
Other big problem -- few jobs and almost no well paid job, unless you are young, know English and have a university education
(and are lucky). Before 2014 approximately 70% of Ukrainian labor migrants (in total a couple of million) came from the western part
of the country, in which migration had become a widespread method of coping with poverty, the absence of jobs and low salaries.
Now this practice spread to the whole county. That destroyed many families.
The USA plays its usual games selling vassals crap at inflated prices (arms, uranium rods, coal, locomotives, cars, etc) , which
Ukrainians can't refuse. Trump is simply a typical gangster in this respect, running a protection racket.
The rate of emigration and shrinking population is another fundamental problem. Mass emigration (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
) is continuing even after Zelensky election. Looting by the West also continues unabated. This is disaster capitalism in action.
Add to those problems inflated military expenses to fight the civil war in Donbass which deprives other sectors of necessary funds
(with the main affect of completely alienating Russia) and "Huston, we have a problem."
May be this is a natural path for xUSSR countries after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't know.
But the destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic: they wanted better life and got a really harsh one. Especially pensioners
(typical pension is something like $60-$70) a month in Kiev, much less outside of Kiev. How they physically survive I do not fully
understand.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbass means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split."
I agree that there is a substantial growth of anti-Russian sentiments. It is really noticeable. As well as growth of the usage
of the Ukrainian language (previously Kiev, unlike Lvov was completely Russian-language city).
And in Western Ukraine Russiphobia was actually always a part of "national identity". The negative definition of national identity,
if you wish. See popular slogan "Hto ne skache toi moskal" ("those who do not jump are Moskal" -- where Moskal is the derogatory
name for a Russian). Here is this slogan in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rfqr9afMc
;-)
But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different
ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed
before 2014. I would say there is less unity now.
Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both
categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate,
but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) .
"Donetskie" (former Donbass dwellers, often displaced by the war) are generally strongly resented and luxury cars, villas, etc
and other excesses of neoliberal elite are attributed mostly to them (Donbass neoliberal elite did moved to Kiev, not Moscow)
, while "zapadentsi" are also, albeit less strongly, resented because they often use clan politics within institutions, and often
do not put enough effort (or are outright incompetent), as they rely on its own clan ties for survival.
This sentiment is stronger to the south of Kiev where the resentment is directed mainly against Western Ukrainians, not against
"Donetskie" like in Kiev. And I am talking not only about Odessa. Western Ukrainians are now strongly associated with corrupt ways
of getting lucrative positions (via family, clan or political connections), being incompetent and doing nothing useful.
What surprise me is that this resentment against "zapadentsi" and "Poloshenko clan" is shared by many people from Western Ukraine.
The target is often slightly more narrow, for example Hutsuls in Lviv (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls )
The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist
and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's
why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling
you something.
The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down.
De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders
from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky
is trying to do) ?
Ukraine will probably eventually lose a large part of its chemical industry because without subsidies for gas it just can't complete
even taking into account low labor costs. And manufacturing because without Russian market it is difficult to find a place for their
production in already established markets, competing only in price and suffering in quality (I remember something about Iraq returning
Ukrainians all ordered armored carriers due to defect is the the armor
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705221053859853-armored-vehicles-defects-extent
/). Although at least for the Ukrainian arm industry there is place on the market in countries which are used to old Soviet armaments,
because those are rehashed Soviet products.
Add to this corrupt and greedy diaspora (all those Jaresko, Chalupas, Freelands, Vindmans, etc ) from the USA and Canada (and
not only diaspora -- look at Biden, Kerry, etc) who want their piece of the pie after 2014 "Revolution of dignity" (what a sad joke)
and you will see the problems more clearly. Not that much changed from the period 1991-2014 where Ukraine was also royally fleeced
by own oligarchs allied with Western banksers, simply now this leads to quicker deterioration of the standard of living.
None of Eastern European countries benefited from a color revolution staged by the USA. This is about opening the country not
only to multinationals (while they loot the county they at least behave within a certain legal bounds, demonstrating at least decency
of gangsters like in Godfather), but to petty foreign criminals from diaspora and outside of it who allies with the local oligarchs
and smallernouveau riche and are siphoning all the county wealth to western banks as soon as possible. Greed of the disapora is simply unbounded.
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2016/08/26/the-ukrainian-diaspora-as-a-recipient-of-oligarchic-cash/
Of course, Ukrainian diaspora is not uniform. Still, outside well-know types from the tiny Mid-Eastern country, the most dangerous
people for Ukraine are probably Ukrainians from diaspora with dual citizenship
A report by a research unit of the German Bundestag, just released in Berlin, has defied the
narrative of the European Union, NATO and the US, with the conclusion that since the Ukraine
civil war began in early 2014, there has been no reliable evidence of Russian troop invasion or
intervention by regular Russian military forces in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
After a review of the press, official public releases and reports, as well as European court
rulings, the Bundestag's experts have described the outcome with the German phrase, ohne
belastbares Faktenmaterial – "without reliable fact material."
The Bundestag report, which runs to 17 pages and was completed on December 9, has been noted
in the German-language media. To date, however, it has been ignored by the Anglo-American
press, including the alt-media.
The new German report is entitled "Intervention in civil war zones: The role of Russia
during the east Ukraine conflict". It was prepared by the foreign, international law and
defence department (WD-2) of the Scientific Services Bureau of the Bundestag.
In a preface to the report, the authors say they "support the members of the German
Bundestag with mandate-related activity. Their works do not express the view of the German
Bundestag, its individual organs, or the management of the Bundestag." Responsibility for the
research reporting is "the technical responsibility of the authors as well as the department
management." No authors have been identified by name.
The full German report can be read at the
official website link. No official English translation is available.
For five years Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists have been fighting against
each other in the Donbass/Donets Basin," the report says. " The territorial conflict shows
classical identifiers of a non-international (internal) armed conflict. About the extent,
quality and magnitude of the military involvement of Russia during the Ukraine conflict, there
are few reliable facts and analyses aside from the numerous speculations, part-contradictory
reports and press announcements, and denials from different sources. Altogether, however, the
picture of the situation is not unequivocal."
"Also, the Federal [German] Government holds no reliable knowledge, according to its own
information apparently, on how much influence today Russia actually exercises on the
separatists in the East Ukraine that can be described as credible."
The report summarizes western media reports, social media posts, as well as NATO press
releases in order to cast doubt on their veracity. "Reliable information about the parts of the
region of the Ukrainian-Russian border not controlled by Kiev is rare." The German researchers
are also sceptical of claims published by the monitoring mission of the area from the
Organization for Security and Economic Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which "has, in spite of its
comprehensive mandate, only limited access to this area."
For background details of the anti-Russian leadership of the OSCE's special monitoring
mission (SMM) in Ukraine, read
this .
"The question of whether pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region are currently under
control and directed from Moscow, or whether regular Russian troops still remain on Ukrainian
territory cannot be answered without reliable factual material, in particular without the
appropriate and reliable secret service intelligence."
When the Vindman story broke last week, we were pathetically reminded that there is a
conspiracy against Ukraine and the Diaspora in America. Conspiracy theorists labeled the
Ukrainian government integral nationalists plotting against the current President of the United
States even before the final ballots were tallied 2016.
Although this article will contain many of the elements of the still-developing Vindman
story that have been reported on, the focus shifts over to the bigger question- Why? I propose
we take a walk into the back of Vindman's mind, which easier done than said. As will be shown,
this in part is due to the fact that his thought pattern about Ukraine is reflexive.
There is no need to question his military service before this juncture because it posed no
conflict for him. Although the US Army is backing his right as a whistleblower now, his
motivations in this situation could end up
with Vindman receiving a court-martial . It's all about his motivation.
Alexander Vindman's ties to Ukraine should have made him disclose a few large conflicts of
interest before being assigned in the capacity he has.
Vindman had business interests in
Ukraine which would suffer if the relationship between both countries was jeopardized. Was it
Vindman's American patriotism or Diaspora nationalism that led him to share the Oval Office
transcript with Ukraine's president?
According to the Gateway Pundit , "Colonel Vindman may have violated the federal leaking
statute 18 USC 798 when he leaked the president's classified call to several other
operatives."
As the in-house expert, Vindman would have known this and yet he still conducted himself in
the service of Ukraine. In Vindman's world view it must be acceptable behavior for a foreign
government official to threaten his own country's Commander-in-Chief.
What are his motivations? In his own words, Vindman lays out his priorities.
I
was concerned by the call,"Vindman said, according to his testimony obtained by the
Associated Press. "Idid not think it was properto demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, andI was worried about the implicationsfor the U.S. government's support of Ukraine."-Vindman
Vindman's real concern is the implications of US foreign policy toward Ukraine and keeping
it on track with what he thought it should be. I'm sure every Lt Colonel that has a concern
intercedes in foreign policy everywhere across the US army.
"In this situation, a strong
and independent Ukraine is critical to U. S. national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression. In spite of beingunder
assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukrainehas taken major steps towards
integrating with the West." When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the
administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019,I became aware of outside
influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the
interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency
colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects,this
alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.-Vindman
" Once Ukraine determined that the RF (Russian Federation) was not going to attack and
Russia was not a credible threat, they launched their Anti-Terrorist Operations against the
rebels (p 65)." Russia's Hybrid War in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy's Ability to Resist Finnish
Institute of International Studies by András Rácz
What false narrative was Vindman talking about? It was the fact there was no Russian
aggression, assaults or invasions going on. Where did this "false narrative" originate?
In 2014, Ukrainian-American Mark Paslawsky joined Ukraine's Donbas battalion. He was the
nephew of one of WWII's most sadistic torturers, Mikola Lebed. Lebed was 3 rd in the
Bandera OUN command chain.
Paslawsky was reported to be an officer in the 75 th Ranger Battalion during the
1990s which puts him on the same pedestal as Alexander Vindman in terms of patriotic duty in
the US military.
The volunteer battalions like Ukraine's Donbas are police and cleansing battalions.
Paslawsky was true to his Ukrainian Diaspora upbringing and family heritage. As soon as it was
opportune, he forgot about honor, service, and codes of conduct when he entered Ukraine.
By July 2014, one month before Paslawsky was killed, Oleg Dube, 2 nd in command
of the battalion complained on Twitter that the battalion was full of cowards shooting
everything that moved and throwing grenades into the houses, cellars, and every structure
killing everyone and everything they came across.
These were civilians they murdered. But Paslawsky, who tweeted his adventures under the
handle "bruce springnote" made one thing abundantly clear- There were no Russian troops or
invasion going on as of August 2, 2014.
This means Vindman's tale saying there as five years of Russian aggression is getting
sketchy.
November 6 th , 2015
In an interview with Gromadske.TV , Markian Lubkivsky, the adviser to the head of the SBU
(the Ukrainian version of the CIA) stated there are NO RUSSIAN TROOPS ON UKRANIAN SOIL! This
unexpected announcement came as he fumbled with reporters' questions on the subject. According
to his statement, he said the SBU counted about 5000 Russian nationals, but not Russian
soldiers in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. During a briefing with General Muzenko he announced that "To
date, we have only the involvement of some members of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation and Russian citizens that are part of illegal armed groups involved in the fighting.
We are not fighting with the regular Russian Army. We have enough forces and means in order to
inflict a final defeat even with illegal armed formation present. " – Ukrainian Armed
Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Muzenko said. Is
Russia About to Invade Ukraine? UkraineAlert by Alexander J. Motyl published at the
Atlantic Council December 13, 2018
These are primary sources that LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) Vindman and the Wall Street
Journal's Pulitzer Prize winner Scott Shane call conspiracy theorists. The Ukrainian government
from Torchinov to Poroshenko to Zelenskiy has kept Russia as their primary trade partner this
entire time. This is a bit unusual for a country that says another is committing aggression
against it. Furthermore, where are the international court cases if this is happening?
If the White House Ukraine expert isn't fact-checking, what is he basing his position on?
Hate, just pure unadulterated hate.
"The second reason I mention Paslawsky is that he was, after all, a Ukrainian American.
In killing him -- and make no mistake about it: Putin killed him -- Putin has taken on, in
addition to the entire world, the Ukrainian American Diaspora. He probably thinks it's a joke.
But in killing a Ukrainian American, he's made the war in Ukraine personal for Ukrainian
Americans. Their intellectual, material, and political resources are far greater than Putin can
imagine. Be forewarned, Vlad: diasporas have long memories.And this one will give you
and your apologists in Russia and the West no rest.-Alexander Motyl Loose Cannons and Ukrainian Casualties
The Diaspora's hatred for Russia is hardwired into their culture in America. It was here the
concept was fleshed out, not in Ukraine.
Lonhyn Tsehelsky was Secretary of Internal Affairs and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for
the government of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917-18. When the almost formed
republic collapsed, he immigrated to America. Tsehelsky formed the Ukrainian Congressional
Committee of America (UCCA) and brought W. Ukrainian nationalism to America. He is the great
uncle to Ukraine's ultra-nationalist Rada minister, Oleh Tyanhybok.
According to Wikipedia In 1902 Tsehelsky published Rus'-Ukraïna but
Moskovshchyna-Rossia (Rus-Ukraine but Moscow-Russia) which had a significant impact on
Ukrainian ideas in both Galicia and in Russian-ruled Ukraine. In this book, he highlighted
differences that he claimed existed between Ukrainians and Russians in order to show that any
union between the two peoples was impossible. Tsehelsky claimed that Ukrainians historically
wanted self-rule, while Russians historically sought servitude. Tsehelsky wrote that Ukrainians
who opposed Ivan Mazepa were traitors and that Ukrainian history consisted of a constant
struggle of Ukrainian attempts at autonomy in opposition to Russian attempts to impose
centralization.
Because the formation of the UCCA is based in this thought and OUNb Bandera lead the
Ukrainian-American Diaspora, the politics of hate is what drives them, nothing
else.
According
to LTC Jim Hickman who served on a combined US-Russian exercise with Vindman, "At that
point, I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be
unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far
back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is
not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the
right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our
nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers
intended!" and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic
prosperity .-Vindman
US military officers are not in the business of vibrant economies or democracy. Ukraine
can't realize Vindman's dream of a vibrant democracy because Ukraine has a nationalism built on
Italian fascist philosopher Julius Evola.
"We are not speaking, of course,
of Nationalist ideology, which a radical fringe (or, if you prefer, a leading
elite) of Western Ukrainian society adopted in the 1930s and pursued through violent means.
Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky condemned it at the time, contrasting it with Christian
patriotism.
Some see the result as a defeat for nationalism. Certainly, it looks like a repudiation
of the traditional type of nationalism based on ethnicity, language, history, culture, and
religion.
That is the "old" nationalism of President Poroshenko – and most of our
diaspora"-The Ukrainian Weekly May 11, 2019
Poroshenko made W. Ukraine the model for Ukrainian society today, but what about the
Diaspora? That radical fringe was the OUN political model that the Diaspora stayed immersed in
and is trying to change the United States into.
In their own words- " Unity to act when required has been the diaspora's mantra –
this cannot be disputed. As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see
that two wings of the OUN – Banderivtsi, and Melnykivtsi – are working actively on
the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about
becoming a single entity again".-Ukraine Weekly Aug 26, 2016
Ukraine's Zelenskiy was able to run for president based on how he negotiated through these
two groups. Poroshenko was OUNb Banderivtsi's candidate. Zelenskiy was OUNm Melnykivtsi's
candidate. The difference between the two is nominal. They both have a history built on torture
and murder.
For a background this shows what's going on in Ukrainian politics in 2019.
The Ukrainian Diaspora openly claims not just the violent legacy of Stepan Bandera but also
the mantle and mandate to attack anything they see threatening their power in Ukraine and
influence on the US government. LTC Vindman is part of this culture.
Why are Ukrainian-Americans at the forefront of every attempt to impeach Donald Trump as
well as the deep-state coup going on? Today, Donald Trump is threatening to remove this rancid
influence from American politics.
Looking at the patriotic image the Ukrainian Diaspora tries to project, let's go back to
their charter statement on American civics.
In 1936 the OUN publication, The Nationalist, stated its position pretty clearly about the
United States to the native groups that revolved around the UCCA after the war as well as the
position they deserved in society.
"Nationalism is the love of country and the willingness to sacrifice for her A person
brought up asa Ukrainian Nationalist will make a one hundred percent better AMERICAN
CITIZEN than one who is not.
Was it Nazis or Fascism that guided Washington, Lincoln, or other statesmen to make the
U.S. a world power? Or was it American Nationalism?"
As you can see, they haven't changed methods or politics since the 1930s. If they don't like
a US president, they try to get rid of him or her in the most convenient way possible. Their
issue with Roosevelt is he would never accept Nationalism. Today, they still call the Democrat
president Roosevelt, a socialist.
But, how far across Ukrainian-American society does this go?
"I do care about social and economic issues affecting every American, but given the war
in Ukraine, there is onlyone issue that we as Ukrainian Americans must focus on:
UkraineThe Central and East European Coalition is a coalition of U.S.-based
organizations that represent their countries of heritage,a voting group of over 20
million people A vote for Trump is a vote against Ukraine!The upcoming presidential
election will be the most important election in which Ukrainian Americans will participate. We
can make a difference with deeds not words.Anybody
but Trump!- Ukrainian Weekly
This linked series documents
how the Diaspora does it and the impact they have. This article shows
why Donald Trump won the 2016 election. If the Democrats are successful removing the
Electoral College, the actual vote will be determined by 15 cities. Your vote, win or lose, no
longer counts if you don't live in one of them. This is the reason all the Diasporas are
strategically located for political impact.
The history and involvement of Alexandra and Andrea Chalupa in both the 2014 Ukraine coup
and the election hacking, as well as Russian interference stories, is well known. These two
Ukrainian Diaspora sisters are the originators of the impeachment movement of Donald Trump
which started just after he declared victory in 2016. Inside the above links, we have another
20 million Diaspora people who think the same way politically and socially.
Although this goes beyond partisan lines in Congress, the Democratic Party is overflowing
with Diaspora operatives today. Adam Parkhomenko is a great example of this. He
describes himself as Democratic Strategist, Consultant, Political Adviser. Dad.
Ukrainian-American. Whatever order, son Cameron's my life.
Parkhomenko works with the
DNC, Atlantic Council groups, and other groups trying to illegally overthrow the presidency.
Members of Congress celebrate this same Ukrainian nationalist brutality in Ukraine and its
sister nationalists ISIS in Syria as well as Ukraine. ISIS also adheres to Julius Evola
politically. If you want to know what Ukrainian nationalism looks like with no one buffering
them, ISIS is ideal to study. This is what they want to do in Donbass. This is what they want
America to become.
"I don't want to dwell on Islamicist ideology; I don't know that much about it. Still, we
should note that recent Islamicist terrorists quote Evola with facility One of the features of
political Tradition has been the search for a school of the transcendent that could serve as
the organizing principle of a new society.
Theoretically, any of the great religious traditions might serve. In practice, though,
Traditionalists have usually chosen a radical version of Islam or some kind of neopaganism;
Tradition can be scary, however. Sometimes this knowledge of the inevitable collapse of the
modern world inspires nothing more than the formation of groups of adepts who hope to manage
the transition when civilization collapses. Sometimes, however, Tradition has sparked the
creation of anarchist political groups that hope to accelerate the collapse." After the Third
Age Eschatological Elements of Postwar International Fascism, presented by Professor John
Reilly at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Center for Millennial Studies, Boston
University, November 2 to 4, 2002
Julius Evola was one of the founders of what became known as the "Tradition" and has
adherents infecting all major religions with a fascist/ nationalist construct. According to the
fascist Evola (esoteric fascism), immortality is attained by the conscious act that ignores the
ramifications of death while plunging headlong into it without a thought. This has nothing to
do with the type of religion an adherent is or its afterlife traditions.-
The Millennial Studies project at Boston University is engaged in the study of groups and
ideology that pose existential threats and will eventually destroy the modern world.
Hence, they named the dangerous time we live in post-modern. It is quite literally the study
of an impending apocalypse. The project reports to the government on the real nature of these
groups and ideologies to give the government a basis for dealing with them.
This takes us back to Alexander Vindman as a just another sample of this rabidly nationalist
community.
A Tale of Two Diasporas
Vindman grew up in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn NY. Its nickname, Little Odessa stems from the
large Russians and Ukrainian enclave that grew big from the 1970s onward. Critiques argue that
because of the dense population of Russian speaking people, it's hardly the place you'd find
Ukrainian nationalists. The statement is false.
In reality, what you had during the 1970s and 80s through the end of the Cold War was a
dense anti-Communist population of which the leading edge was the Ukrainian nationalist
Yaroslav Stetsko. After WWII, the Russian anti-communist émigré's that fought
against the Soviet Union relocated from the Displaced Person camps to the US.
This anti-Communist wave sought to be active in US countermeasures against the Soviet Union
alongside the Ukrainian nationalists. Because the Ukrainians refused to work with Russian
nationals, they were rejected.
This is a slice of the Russian emigration experience. The Russians kept the important
cultural ties but assimilated politically into US democracy politically. Many did maintain a
staunch anti-Communist stance throughout the Cold War which transformed into a strong
anti-Putin stance during the years after the wall came down.
For the Ukrainians, almost 50 years of Cold War intrigue kept them bound inside the politics
of extreme nationalism. For Soviet émigrés from Ukraine, Little Odessa's Russian
speaking Ukrainian community which developed in the 1970s would be the most comfortable place
to live.
The most uncomfortable fact about Ukrainian émigrés to the US is even through
this period, the anti-Communist tag meant they came from one side of the Bandera experience or
the other. Ukrainian anti-Communism is synonymous with Ukrainian nationalism.
In Ukraine during the 1970s, your grandparents either fought for the Soviet Army or they
fought against them. This means you were a victim of Nazi aggression, fought for Nazis, or
fought against Nazism. This in itself isn't a smudge or a smear on Vindman or anyone else.
Growing up in Brighton Beach inside a mixed Ukrainian-Russian population would have buoyed
his family's political beliefs. Little Odessa is part of Brooklyn and isn't an island separated
from the Ukrainian nationalist groups critics are arguing applies to Alexander Vindman.
New York is the headquarters of the Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America (UCCA). If
you take part in public Ukrainian cultural life in New York, you rub shoulders with Bandera's
OUNb.
During and after the Cold War, NGOs formed claiming representation in Congress for entire
Diasporas like the UCCA does for Ukrainian-Americans. Today is no different.
The political makeup of the Russian Diaspora in Brooklyn is much the same as it was when
Vindman's family moved there. The Russian-Ukrainian population is staunchly anti-communist
which translated into anti-Putin Russians for many of them. They want to change the face of the
Russian Federation.
"And so it was on a spring day in 2014 that Gindler, in his deep Russian voice, started
talking about Vladimir Putin and called the leader a "nano-Führer."His
distrust and distaste for Russia's president is shared by many in the community.""You shouldn't talk to any Russian-speaking person here in the West and expect any
positive words about Putin," said Gindler, a registered independent voter who cast his ballot
for Trump in November Gindler immigrated to New York from Ukraine in 1995, a few years after
the fall of the Soviet Union.-Business Insider
These sentiments aren't unique in the Russian-Ukrainian Diasporas. It gives a clear insight
into the environment Vindman grew up in except for one thing. The Russian Diaspora found their
expression through voting and adding to the American experience like many Diasporas. According
to official numbers, about 35% of the Russian Diaspora feels this way.
Even after Vindman's family emigrated to Little Odessa in the 1970s, the Ukrainian Diaspora
were known as political animals, or to be kind, the activists-activist. They still are today.
Not content with the American civic experience, they showed how much they are willing to tilt
the table during election 2016.
What does this mean in 2019 for the Russian Diaspora? It means going forward the only
representation they have in Congress today is provided by Ukrainian nationalists. The Ukrainian
Diaspora of which Alexander Vindman is a solid part of represents Russian émigré
interests at the Congressional level.
That's tilting the table.
"We represent and coordinate the Russia diaspora. We pay special attention to those who
haverecently left Russia due to the considerable deterioration of the political and
economic situation.
The Free Russia Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nongovernmental U.S.-based
organization, led by Russians abroad that seeks to be a voice for those who can't speak under
the repression of the current Russian leadership. We represent and coordinate the Russia
diaspora. We pay special attention to those who have recently left Russia due to the
considerable deterioration of the political and economic situation. We are focused on
developing a strategic vision of Russia 'After Putin' and 'Without Putinism' and a concrete
program for the transition period. We will continue to inform international policy-makers, mass
media and opinion leaders on the real situation in Russia We maintain our extensive networks of
key political, business and civil society leaders throughout Russia. This gives us access to
news and events in real-time. In addition, we are a hub for recently transplanted Russians and
experts on every aspect of Russian society."Free Russia Foundation
They U.S.
policymakers on events in Russia in real-time Support the formulation of an effective and
sustainable Russia policy in the U.S.
This is an Atlantic Council production and Michael D. Weiss is on the Board of Directors.
What's notable is they have two locations. One in Washington DC to be close to policymakers and
the other is Free Russia House in Kyiv vul. Kyrylivska, 26/2 Kyiv, Ukraine 04071
Like I said, Ukrainians like Alexander Vindman are trying to represent the Russian Diaspora
and promote Ukraine and the Ukrainian Diaspora's interests.
The basis for understanding why Vindman is clumsily trying to push Donald Trump's
impeachment can be found in the following post. This girl left a mid-west university to relive
the NAZI experience her grandparents had. If they were UPA, her grandparents were involved with
committing the Holocaust and mass murder. This was written just after Maidan ended and months
before the civil war in Ukraine began.
" I have
often thought of my ancestors and how they must have felt during WWII (and earlier
liberation movements) and the partisan struggle to liberate Ukraine from totalitarian powers.
I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), but never in my
life did I think I would feel what they felt, get a taste of war, death, and the fight for
freedom, such uncertainty, and love for Ukraine in a context similar to theirs These sentiments
which were felt by Ukrainians in WWII have been transferred to a new generation of Ukrainians
who are reliving the liberation movement, re-struggling for a free, prosperous, and democratic
Ukraine. Of course, EuroMaidan and Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine . I feel that I was
guided to Ukraine because the love for and attachment to Ukraine was passed down from my
grandparents, and as they couldn't return My grandparents' generation fight for freedom didn't
succeed, there was no independent Ukraine after the war, and so being intelligentsia and having
taken part in the liberation struggle, my relatives would have been persecuted under the
Soviets.
Thus in 1944 when the Soviets were again approaching western Ukraine, my grandparents had to
flee west Eventually sotnias(defense/ military units) were formed during EuroMaidan and I
couldn't help but think that the last time sotnias were formed was during the war by the UPA
The UPA slogan "Glory to Ukraine" and response "Glory to the Heroes" as well as the UPA songs
sounded from maidan's across the country, and the black and red UPA flags flew next to the
yellow and blue ones. There are in fact a lot more parallels between WWII and EuroMaidan/ the
Russian invasion And once we finally had a taste of victory, finally ousted the corrupt
president, finally felt we had a chance to completely reboot the country, root out the Soviet
mentality once and for all."- Areta Kovalsky
To drive it home, long after LTV Vindman's youth was over, NAZI monsters are still to be
emulated in New York and CT.
Can Waffen SS officers and mass murderers like Stepan Bandera be Catholic patron saints in
cities like New York, Philadelphia, Stamford CT, or Boston in the year 2015?
"On October 16, 2011, members
of the 54th branch of CYM "Khersones" in Stamford, CTattended a mass and requiem
service in honor of the great Ukrainian hero and freedom fighter, Stepan Bandera. It was the
first time since its' inception that the branches' members took part in an organized activity
together with the greater Ukrainian community of Stamford.
The SUM members and the faithful present that day enjoyed a beautiful and emotional
homily about the life and achievements of Stepan Bandera delivered by Reverend Bohdan Danylo,
Rector of St. Basil's Seminary in Stamford. He instructed the children on how they can model
their own lives on Bandera's by following his example of self-sacrifice and unwavering
dedication to his country. Following the homily, Father Bohdan distributed candles to each
child which burned brightly during a stirring execution of the prayer "Vichnaya Pam'yat" in
honor of the great hero of the Ukrainian nation."
If you understand the tender emotion expressed watching protesters and police die, you can
understand the mind of a Ukrainian nationalist. Vindman is no exception. His history, heroism,
and sense of duty don't cover him or excuse him. He reported no crimes that were committed by
the sitting President he is trying to impeach. He only said he felt bad for Ukraine. That's not
good enough.
I should think that the transfer of powers from the Presidency to the position of Prime
Minister, and the holders of executive power being chosen by holders of legislative power,
will make US control of the positions of Russian President and Russian PM more difficult. It
takes time, effort and money to build up a lobbying presence in a large parliament; for one
thing, the West needs to know who are the most significant organizations and agencies in
Russia to penetrate and infiltrate, and then influence. Then these people need to know which
politicians and which parties in the Federal Assembly to target. A parliamentary system where
the holders of executive power are not chosen directly by the public but by political peers
is likely to be more resistant to foreign infiltration if only because there are more people
to target. The Russian language and alphabet, and current political culture are also likely
to be barriers to penetration.
It was much easier in the Yeltsin period when Yeltsin appropriated powers that should have
belonged to the Federal Assembly, for the US to control the Presidency; Yeltsin was moving
the country's political structure to a centralized one that to some extent the Americans
could relate to, because then it began to resemble the structures they knew and had
experience with.
Well, we're not quite as fond of Israel as is the USA – it's not yet the acid test of a
political candidate in Canada to learn his/her position on Israel, as if he/she were running
for election there, although the lobby groups do try to develop the same level of fervor. But
I could buy being ensconced in Uncle Sam; our trade is so inextricably linked that the two
nationalities are barely distinguishable. Many Canadian companies are actually owned by
Americans, and vice-versa. At one time, as I used to be fond of pointing out illustratively,
the CEO of American Airlines was a Canadian, while the CFO of Air Canada was American.
There was just an article in the local paper the other day, though, which of course I
cannot find now, which reported local sales of BC agricultural products broke however-many
millions for the first time in 2019, so consumers do go out of their way to not buy American
agricultural products if an alternative is available. And when Canadian fruit and vegetables
are out of season, I notice now that a considerable amount of what is offered in the markets
is from Mexico, so I buy that. Sometimes, though, there is no alternative to California
produce. Onions, for instance – all last year, all the onions sold by Thrifty Foods,
where I usually buy groceries, were from California. I inquired about it a couple of times,
and never received a satisfactory answer. I would have to go to a farm market to buy Canadian
onions, which I found astounding. Pork, too, often originated in the USA; my mom kept buying
it for us because it was so cheap.
Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani
was deterrence.
Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and
China!
I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?
The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think
they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're
invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...
IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...
I think they are using an old version of BASIC from the cold war era, called BASIC Russia
Hate.
10 Print "Russia bad!"
20 Goto 10
Run
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
Russia bad!
BREAK IN 10
READY.
10 Print "Russia good!"
20 Goto 10
Run
SYNTAX ERROR!!!!!!!
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
Life has become easier: Russia has risen in the ranking of the best countries in the
world.
Russia has moved up one point in the ranking of the best countries in the world.
Russia has moved up one place in the ranking of the best countries in the world
according to the American magazine US News & World Report, occupying a position in the
third ten best ranked. At the same time, the authors of the list stressed that amongst the
most powerful of world powers, our country was in second place, behind only the USA.
Tourists, according to the study, have begun to go more willingly to Russia, and the growth
rate of the Russian economy only appears below 11 countries in the world.
According to the 2019 results, Russia is still second amongst the world's strongest
powers. The US News & World Report reports that Russia is second only to the US in terms
of power, overtaking China.
Amongst the best countries in the world there are 73 states. The rating is compiled
every year by the publication on the basis of a variety of criteria.
The magazine's main rating is "The Best Countries in the World". First place, according
to the American edition, was taken by Switzerland, second by Canada, third by Japan. A year
ago, Japan was second.
The first five "best countries" also included Germany and Australia. Russia is in 23rd
place. Our country has risen one place.
So its true!!!!!
Rasha weeeeeaaaak!!!!!!
Amerika stronk!!!!!
Of all the countries that are "better" and "stronker" than "Rasha", I wonder how many of
them have had sanctions hurled against them by "stronk Amerika" and its lickspittle
vassals?
And how many of them lost more than 22 million citizens in WWII?
And how many of them had to endure an 80-year-old experiment whose aim was to create
socialism?
According to the current Constitution, adopted in 1993, the government exercises
executive power; it drafts and implements the federal budget and carries out the national
policy in the sphere of finance, foreign policy, education, healthcare, culture, science, and
so on.
The government may submit its resignation to the President who also has the power to
dissolve it. Another way to dissolve the government is for the Duma, the lower house of
parliament, to pass a motion of no confidence, which can be vetoed by the President.
The President appoints the Prime Minister with the Duma's consent; Vladimir Putin
appointed Dmitry Medvedev as prime minister twice, in 2012 and in 2018, after winning
presidential elections.
The President also appoints the deputy heads of government (there are 10 of them in the
current cabinet) and the federal ministers at the Prime Minister's suggestion. It is in the
President's power to dismiss both the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers.
What is to change?
In a move that looks set to significantly boost the power of parliament, Vladimir Putin
called for changes to the Constitution that would enable the Duma to select the Prime
Minister and cabinet ministers instead of the President.
Having announced the redistribution of power, Putin has stressed that Russia still
needs to remain a "strong presidential republic". According to Russian law, Putin now has two
weeks to appoint a new Prime Minister.
Lawmakers have already started drafting the legislation to put Putin's proposals into
practice.
Seems like the Yeltsin/USA constitution is being s-canned for something that gives more
power to the Duma. We can expect less cooperation with the West. Also, it will undoubtedly be
reported in the West, that Putin is trying to handcuff his successor by giving more power to
the Duma.
All in all, it would seem to bode well for greater Russian independence as Putin will be
less hampered by the Western-leaning faction.
It will depend on who is in the Duma – if they elect people with good qualities it will
be positive.
(Although looking at the parliament here in the Uk. In my lifetime I have see a real sharp
decline in the quality of people who become Members of parliament. I'm not sure why
The US has the same problem. Some of our congresspeople are devoid of common sense,
intelligence or relevant knowledge on important issues. I think that Russians are too
pragmatic to elect similar buffoons.
Voters only have the choice of those who stand for office. If the field consists of Clowns A
through D, the winner is bound to be a Clown. The quality, altruism and dedication of the
candidate pool has indeed receded, and that is throughout the western democracies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has invited the head of the Federal Tax Service (FTS),
Mikhail Mishustin, to become the new prime minister, TASS reports citing the Kremlin's press
service.
For Woden's sake! Kudrin is now spouting at the Gaidar Forum being held at RANEPA (The
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the
President of the Russian Federation, the largest federal state-funded institution of higher
professional education located in Moscow, and where my elder daughter, Yelena Denisovna is
now studying and who is going to be the first Madam President of Russia), as is Dimka,
another Western wannabe -- always was and still is.
Ye gods, I wouldn't be seen dead at a meeting that has Gaidar's name attached to it!
And that other '90s prick Chubais was spouting today, saying what they did wrong in the
'90s.
I tell you what they did wrong, arsehole: they didn't put you in prison!
Refreshing, at least, even bracing to hear someone who was in the liberal vanguard in the
90's actually say that things were done wrong in the 90's, if that's actually what he said.
Normally the liberal elite of Russia affect to believe the only thing that went wrong in the
90's was that Russian weakness caused her to falter without seeing the golden time through to
its capitalist conclusion. Some would not have made it to the celebration party, of course,
but that's reality, innit? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Russia's new (proposed) PM Mikhail Mishustin. Never heard of him before, but did quickie
research. According
to VZGLIAD reporters Andrei Rezchikov and Natalia Makarova:
This guy totally reformed the Russian tax system and implemented electronic automated
system (woo hoo!), also implemented electronic signatures and other high-tech
bling-blang.
A 100% pure-blooded technocat (yay! my kinda guy!)
Born 3 March 1966 in Moscow. Graduated from super-duper tech school in 1989. With
certification as "Engineer – System Technician."
In 2003 successfully defended his dissertation on the topic of "The mechanics of governmental
tax administration in Russia." Almost won a Pulitzer for that.
Continued on as geeky tax specialist. In 2008-2010 entered the realm of private investment
business, with UFG Capital Partners and UFG Asset Management.
Hobbies: Mishustin enjoys playing hockey, as does President Putin. One speculates they may
have encountered one another on the ice.
Religious views: Very religious, and was awarded the Order of Serafim Sarovsky.
That was the nice Russian saint who lived with a bear.
I wrote about him on my blog – little plug there, sorry
Checked his bio on Wikipedia: Mishustin did indeed attend a technological university and
graduated with an engineering degree. This suggests he had no exposure to competing political
and economic ideologies in his youth apart from what was required of him as a student living
in Soviet times.
One of the strongest predictive sign that you have a sociopathic boss is that he/she is not
agreement capable.
The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately
and on purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". ..."
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a
pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I
meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith
actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into
your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia
before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that
"Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in that you
could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill
anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no
longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and
Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay on
time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's
debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.
"World War III is not going to happen because World War III already happened and the global
capitalist empire won. [Where is the "capitalism"?] Take a look at these NATO maps (make sure
to explore all the various missions). Then take a look at this Smithsonian map of where the
U.S. military is "combating terrorism." And there are plenty of other maps you can google.
What you will be looking at is the global capitalist empire. Not the American empire, the
global capitalist empire.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference well, it kind of is, and it kind of
isn't. What I mean by that is that it isn't America (i.e., America the nation-state, which
most Americans still believe they live in) that is militarily occupying much of the planet,
making a mockery of international law, bombing and invading other countries, and
assassinating heads of state and military officers with complete impunity.
Or, rather, sure,
it is America but America is not America."
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs, a move one European
official equated to "extortion," represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United
States' oldest allies, underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic
relationship.
...
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London, Berlin and Paris rather
than through their embassies in Washington, said a senior European official, who like
others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
Yes the US extorted their own "allies" to get them to betray Iran and destroy their own
reputations. I must say the one thing i begrudgingly like about Trump is his honest upfront
thuggist actions. After the backroom betrayals of Obama bush clinton merkel and the rest its
almost refreshingly honest. Also i can think of no quicker way of destroying the US empire
than by threatening your own allies the MIC must be desperate to start a new never ending
war, although perhaps they should be careful of what they wish for
Trumps calculations were (obviously) right. EU would have never risked a massive economic
crisis because of a breakdown in US-EU trade by siding with Iran.
Sadly, they are doing what every other country would do in this position to protect their own
self percieved national interests.
Like China,India and Russia too now more and more totally abiding by sanctions and in case
of China winding down oil trade even more.
In this time of lurking economic crisis, US sanctions could cripple Europe from one day to
the next. With our countries also being on the edge of social unrest, and mass conflict
between elites and people, a massive economic crisis would bring everything tumbling
down.
This is the sad reality. Risking the sure economic meltdown to save an already lost Iran
deal would trade the social and economic welbeing of their voters for Iran. The deal has been
lost ever since Trump annouced his opposition. This is the reality. Triggering a crisis on
the back of its own voters without a real chance to save that deal would have been an empty
gesture anyway.
Realpolitik.
Good thing is Merkel seems to have had a great day with Putin. EU will silently learn from
this and warm ties with Russia. If not for its people, for its business.
The deal was a good idea, but it always was destined to end like this. Iran will go
nuclear, and the US and Isreal will have "no alternative" for shooting war. If they dare
now.
Paragragh 14 of the UNSC resolution is worth thinking about.
"14. Affirms that the application of the provisions of previous resolutions pursuant to
paragraph 12 do not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and
Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the
activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with the JCPOA,
this resolution and the previous resolutions;"
To date, only Russia and China are holding up their ends of the deal. Iran, sticking to
the deal is on the losing side as it has no trade with the EU yet it still must stay within
the provisions of the deal. I believe there were clauses on what Iran could do if other
parties were not upholding their end.
The nuke deal is dead and Iran knows it. Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all
deals allowed under the resolution and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can
still operate contracts it has signed before sanctions reinstated. This way, Iran gets the
benefits of trade and investment with China and Russia that could not have occurred before
the nuke deal, but at the same time, Iran will no longer be bound by the deal.
China signed up a huge oil deal with Iran not long back. Russia have also been signing a good
number of contracts. None of these will be effected by UNSC sanction.
Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran. Pity the US and Euro's have reneged, but still,
a win for Iran.
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
Now Peter, do you really think the Outlaw US Empire or its poodles will abide by contract
law in general and the JCPOA contract law specifically?
IMO, the JCPOA's outcome is becoming similar to the outcome of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
in that it bought time and showed who's the true aggressor. I recall writing the Eurasians
need to behave as if they're at war with the EU-3 and their master--and that includes the
Eurasian nations who so far aren't too much affected by the fallout from the JCPOA's
failure.
What has me curious is the nature of the talks between Iran and Qatar.
Piotr Berman , Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc |
119Jackrabbit , Jan 15 2020
3:12 utc |
120
Peter AU1 @114
= Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all deals allowed under the resolution
and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can still operate contracts it has
signed before sanctions reinstated.
Not sure about that. Paragraph 14 has this constraining language:
... provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are
consistent with the JCPOA, this resolution and the previous resolutions.
My reading of this phrase is that he word "and" implies that the contracts must
satisfy provisions of ALL of these.
Put another way: When the snap back occurs, then contracts signed are exempt except
that they must comply with the provisions that are snapped back (AND) the JCPOA, AND this
resolution!?!?
Yes, it seems nonsensical. But how else can one interpret the "and"?
= Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran.
It was a 'win' for both sides.
I've always believed that USA entered into the JCPOA to buy time because Syrian "regime
change" was taking longer than expected. I've read many times that neocons and/or neocon
sympathizers believed that "Damascus is on the road" to Tehran."
USA-Israel want to fight Iran before it gets a bomb. Iran bought time to prepare for that
fight.
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US. by: AriusArmenian @ 15
evilempire @ 74 <= I agree the Iranians probably did not shoot down the 737.. I posted
to MOA a link to a presstv article, headlined no missile hit the passenger liner, and the
link even said --its official.. within a short few minutes after tha, the pressTV link
disappeared and PressTV replaced it with a new story , Iranians admit they had mistakenly
shot down the PS752 taking off from Tehran. This suggest either a military coup in Iran, or
Iraq double crossed Iran. killed in Iraq by Trump were the leaders of the Shia religious arm
(IRCG leaders )
The unusually harsh words and expression in anger by Khomeini, said he would severely
punish those 8 persons responsible for the mistake, <= non characteristic of Khomeini ,
suggesting a trusted friend let him down; the two arms of the Military may be at war with
each other and Trump was helping the Iranian Military (eliminate the upper leadership of the
Revolutionary guard)? Today's JCOPA by the European powers issue suggest insiders have been
at work all weekend. Russia and China silence all fit betrayal. Have the two separate
branches of Iran military been at odds with each?
Imagine the White house wiping out Qaseum Soleimani and other IRCG members drawn on false
pretense into Iraq.?
here is Bs report on the matter
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just admitted (in Farsi, English translation) that its
air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on
January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the
military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The Iranian
defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's strategic
centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which incited
further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.
3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight PS752 took
off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military
site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due
to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which
caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign
nationals.
4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with
the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error.
It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures
of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also
immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for
prosecution.
The Pentagon had claimed that Iran shot down the airliner but the evidence it presented
was flimsy and not sufficient as the U.S. tends to spread disinformation about Iran.
The Associated Press errs when it says that the move was "stoked by the American drone
strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani". The move was stoked five
days earlier when the U.S. killed 31 Iraqi security forces near the Syrian border despite the
demands by the Iraqi prime minister and president not to do so. It was further stoked when
the U.S. assassinated Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, the deputy commander of the Popular Militia
Forces and a national hero in Iraq.b at 19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
The State Department issued a rather aggressive response to Abdul-Mahdi's request:b at
19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
Very interesting post. something is up Thanks.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jan 15 2020 2:14 utc | 113
thanks, yes, the US economic power directly and indirectly via economic laws or
extra-territorial sanctions. A company simply cannot make a deal with Iran if it doesn't want
to be ruined by US legal means. Sad, but true.
Iranian frozen assets in international accounts are calculated to be worth between $100
billion[1][2] and $120 billion.[3][4] Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in
the United States.[5] According to the Congressional Research Service, in addition to the
money locked up in foreign bank accounts, Iran's frozen assets include real estate and other
property. The estimated value of Iran's real estate in the U.S. and their accumulated rent is
$50 million.[1] Besides the assets frozen in the U.S., some parts of Iran's assets are frozen
around the world by the United Nations.[1]
***********
Now I will have to cry myself to sleep. Trump, such a poor man...
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc | 119
Yes, I am getting tired of that meme too. The poor helpless king of the world, if only he
could do what he wants ... if only he could "drain the swamp"
He promised to abolish the JCPOA, he suggested he would deal with the increase of Iran's
power in the region and he promised to restore US and military power to it's old (lost) world
domination. A world domination Russia and China would need to deal with too:
He already promised he would abolish JCPOA during his 2016 election campaign. And he
promised to not only make both the American economy and military strong again. So America can
exert at least as much power as it did under the great Ronald Reagan.
Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. The Russians and Chinese
have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what's happened to us. Our
nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is
desperately in need of modernization and renewal. And it has to happen immediately. Our
active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.
The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air
Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today.
These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room.
And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget
that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25 percent from what we were spending in 2011. Our military
is depleted and we're asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global
warming.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single
investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to
mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody
and everybody.
Mao | Jan 15 2020 4:19 utc | 124
Current Europe is a selling girl of imperialism.
Indeed! The western band of galoots are captives of their white skin color...
Very unbecoming to the rest of the non-white world = majority.
Fortunately, many of us see past our skin colors, whatever that may be...
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single investment we
can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our
military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody.
Posted by: moon | Jan 15 2020 4:58 utc | 125
Oh, we'll spend the money alright; for more of the inferior, junk, weaponry already in our
arsenals.
Planes that can't fly in the rain, aircraft carriers that can't be commisioned, and battle
rifles (that's a misnomer; the M-14 was the last U.S. battle rifle) (M-4 & M-16) that are
unreliable in intense combat situations. The M-16 should have been replaced during the Viet
Nam war...
But there it still is; almost 60 years later...
Personally I thought the cartoon was pretty good. The artist even thought that the detail
of the dogs' ass holes was important enough to include. Notably none of them have any
external genitalia, hence "bitches" also being accurate. I bet if we could see the rendition
from the other side, Israel's face would be hideous despite the appealing rear view!
This is a repeat of the EU3 negotiations with Iran that ended with a EU3 deal offered to Iran
that experts called "a lot of pretty wrappig around an empty box" because as it turned out,
the EU3 had been promising the US that they would not recognize Iran's right to enrichment
contrary to what they were telling the Iranians as part of the EU3's effort to drag out
Iran's suspension of enrichment.
The result was that Khatami was embarrassed and Ahmadinejad was elected, as Jack Straw said
later:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister/
So again the Eu is playing the good cop to the US bad cop, and they keep goalposts
moving
This has been a consistent pattern going back years.
All along Iran has been making better compromise offers than the JCPOA only to see the
goalposts moved because this conflict was never really about nukes just as the invasion of
Iraq was not about WMDs, all that is just a pretext for a policy of imposed
regime-change.
NOTE That the Obama administration itself said that the JCPOA is "non-binding" funny how
Iran is accused of "breaching" or "violating" it yet Trump is only said to have "abandoned"
or even "withdrawn" from the deal
"President Rohani represent's the interests of the bourgeoisie in Tehran and Esfahan,
merchants oriented toward international trade and hard hit by US sanctions. Sheikh Rohani is
a long time friend of the US deep state: he was the first Iranian contact between the Reagan
administration and Israel during the Iran-contra affair in 1985. It was he who introduced
Hashem Rafsanjani to Oliver North's men, allowing him to buy arms, to become
commander-in-chief of the armies and incidentally the richest man in the country, and the
president of the Islamic Republic."
Thierry Meyssan. Voltairenet. org.
Wednesday morning, my first read before b's M. O. A. is Thierry. Really folks, it is
indespensible. One can support the I. R. I.,but still reserve criticism of the domestic
politics of Iran.
Outside the West, people don't see any difference between Europe and the USA. So it is known
that which ever direction the US takes, Europe will follow. Both the USA and Europe are
Israeli colonies. So unless Israel objects whatever the US does would always be the Eurooean
policy.
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after 5
years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at least.
If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all old
sanctions will 'snap back'.
(Other restrictions are lifted on longer time frames, 8 and 10 years. Also, other matters
remain open forever until security council agrees the nuclear proliferation issue in Iran is
dead and buried.)
V , Jan 15 2020 9:05 utc |
142Russ , Jan 15
2020 11:08 utc |
143
powerandpeople 138 says:
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after
5 years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at
least. If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all
old sanctions will 'snap back'.
There's an example of how appeasement and idiot-legality are way past their expiration
date. It's clear the UN itself, like all other existing international bodies, has been fully
weaponized with Russia the ultimate target.
In the process of "first they came for Irak, then they came for Libya [with the full
consent of Russia and China]...now they're coming for Irak again and for Iran....", well
obviously Russia is the one they'll ultimately be coming for.
It really is time to hang together or hang separately. Although Russia should remain
cautious about direct military stand-offs, it's definitely way past time to start openly
challenging and flouting war-by-sanctions, and to start constructing international bodies
alternative to the UN and other imperial weapons.
As for fighting within the UN, someone earlier said Russia and China wouldn't be able to
prevent the "snap-back" of UN sanctions on Iran. Why not? I'm not asking for a
technical-legalistic answer, but a power-based answer. Self-evidently the "legality" ship has
sunk, and anyone who still makes a fetish of it is fighting with one hand tied behind one's
back.
I don't say gratuitously flout legality; certainly there's great propaganda value in
seeming to adhere to international law in the face of the open lawlessness of the US. But
where it comes to critical battles like getting Iran out from under the sanctions, in the
process dealing a blow to the alleged impregnability of the sanctions weapon, the most
important thing is the real result.
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Russ
Russia and I think China are working towards a multi-polar world order based on international
law.
Russia is pushing this vision and to pull other countries in, it has to walk the talk.
PR information warfare play a big part in state decisions. As we have seen from the Uki plane
shootdown Euro's beginning the process to trigger snapback, A small anti Iran block sprang to
life (UK, Canada, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Sweden) that will be great PR for the US in its
anti Iran crusade.
As I put in another comment, everyone likes a winner
I also recommend the short piece by Patrick Armstrong posted by moon up there.
I've been of the opinion from the beginning of this that the main reason Russia &
China have not leapt to the aid of Iran is that Iran does not need or want them to, yet at
least. Crooke's mention of the attack on the Saudi oil facilities is a connection that needs
to be made, that was not a fluke.
But it's a very "asymmetric" situation, as Crooke points out. Interesting times.
And each consequence leads to yet another consequence. But world leaders do not recognize
where this path is leading humanity. If they did they might be able to stop – or
perhaps not. They delude themselves to the real destination of the journey. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Indeed they were, and now we know it was just a charade. Triggering the Dispute Resolution
Mechanism on basis intel supplied by Bibi is a ruse to replace the JCPOA. Where have we heard
this before? Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
On Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany launched the 2015 Iran nuclear deal's dispute
resolution mechanism, which they said was partly prompted by concerns that Tehran might be
less than a year away from developing a nuclear weapon.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has rejected a proposal for a new "Trump deal" to resolve
a nuclear spat as a "strange" offer, pointing the finger at the US President over his
failure to deliver on promises.
"This Mr. Prime Minister in London, I don't know how he thinks. He says let's put
aside the nuclear deal and put the Trump plan in action. If you take the wrong step, it
will be to your detriment. Pick the right path. The right path is to return to the nuclear
deal", Rouhani said on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Trump to replace the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal with his own
new pact to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The US president responded by
tweeting that he agreed with Johnson on a "Trump deal".
Zarif Says 'It Depends on Europe' if JCPOA Remains After Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Activation. [.]
my apologies if anyone's brought this already, but the plot now thickens. a commenter at the
site at which i cross-post brought this to my attention on my 'iran makes arrests over
accidental downing of Ukrainian airliner'.
it's a tweet leading to new york times coverage of a 'Exclusive: Security camera footage
verified by the New York Times confirms that 2 missiles, fired 30 seconds apart from an
Iranian military site, hit the Ukrainian plane'
i'd used a free click to pull text, including:
"The new video was uploaded to YouTube by an Iranian user around 2 a.m. on Tuesday.
The date visible on the footage is "2019-10-17," not Jan. 8, the day the plane was downed. We
believe this is because the camera system is using a Persian calendar, not a Gregorian one.
Jan. 8 converts to the 18th of Dey, the 10th month in the Persian calendar. Digitally that
would display as 2019-10-18 in the video. One theory is that the discrepancy of one day can
be explained by a difference between Persian and Gregorian leap years or months." "
but it's everywhere already, set in stone, the WSJ news coverage included:
"The video was verified by Storyful, a social-media-intelligence company owned by News
Corp, parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones. It raises new questions about how
forthcoming Iranian authorities were when, after three days of denial, they admitted they had
mistakenly struck the Ukraine International Airlines flight without mentioning a second
missile."
the video obviously bring up a dozen more questions, including what it shows, where, when,
etc., but corporate coverage assures us that 'iran has lied about the airliner thrice now:
evil iran'.
wait for even more sanctions, more assassinations.
What bothers me about this entire thread is no one can see either a way to end the
suppression every player on the field has been subjected to by the private mobsters. . War
whether by WMDs or Sanctions. produces the same, millions will die and nothing will alter the
possession of power, and the abuse of the masses, by the few.
The thesis "the nation state system is the structure that allows the mobsters (private
bankers, private corporations, and privateers) to control sufficient authority to rule the
world". Without strength from deadly force, and authority from engineered consent, ruling the
world is difficult.
No one has found a way to pin the maker of wrongdoing chaos button, or convicted criminal
button on the private mobsters. As the private mobsters dance, and side step their positions
between the 206 or so nation states, they avoid being boxed up, and they install their
puppets in every place they land. It is the puppets who deliver to the international arenas
the voting power that allow the private mobsters to control conflict outcomes; and puppets
in-service-to the private mobsters oversee and manage the regional and local political and
economic domains. In such a situation, the law becomes progressively more suppressive; it
produces a hierarchy of relative power and the hierarchy allows to order the nation states
relative to their power in the hierarchy. The world might even be safer without any
government at all than to allow itself to be victimized by the private mobster use of the
nation state system. Clearly the mightier the actor in the system, the less the system can or
will hold the mighty actor to conform to the rule of law. So the rule of law suppresses the
little guy and enhances the big guy.. If there were no nation state system, there would not
be any push button suppression.
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
The only goal of Europe in sticking to the JPCoA when Trump walks out is to keep Tehran from
developping its nuke while excruciating sanctions hinder all normal life. Regime change is
still the goal, be it at the expense of european trade.
Think of NorthStream, or of the two-state fiction in Palestine where " there's no one to
broke peace with ".
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
Posted by: snake | Jan 15 2020 14:26 utc | 155
One lesson from history is that it is important that those big shots just beneath the
ultimate societal power be held to the strictest standards: The law applies to you too, big
shot. Clovis effectively adhered to this principle many centuries ago. Putin by reining in
the worst of the oligarchs operated in tune with this principle.
The prevailing principle in the West is that oligarchs, the mighty, etc are above the law,
while in the US for example swat teams kill pets that bark at their door-smashing arrival at
the homes of the little people, and those who invest in private prisons feast financially on
slave labor by millions of plebeians 'plea bargained' into servitude.
Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
Since Bibi, Trump and the rest of Iran's enemies and their indoctrinated populations have
been saying this for years it's time for Iran to just get on with it and pull out all stops
in putting several together to be used as an option of last resort. But they should make no
public confirmation, like Israel. If the warmongering US wants a war they and their allies
(and their populations would then be aware of the consequences and would force them to
re-assess the situation. IMO this is the only way Iran will survive. If Trump wins another
term I can almost guarantee he will forge ahead with attempting another regime change. Iran
is already a pariah state in their eyes so really nothing much more for Iran to lose.
Tim Horton's has been foreign-owned (now Brazil) since 2014, but the rot started to set in as
expansion, particularly into the US, became a major goal. Once a reasonable quality purveyor
of coffee and made-from-scratch in-store donuts, now just another hawker of industrialized
brown swill and partly-cooked/frozen-then-shipped and finish-baked chemical-laced products.
I only patronize a Timmie's if I don't know of a decent quality local bakery/restaurant in
that particular area. The devil you know...
To William Gruff: Absolutely, Canada is a vassal state of the US.
Example 1: Cretien managed to keep Cdn troops out of Iraq, but dithering Paul Martin got
forced by the US to send non-combat troops into Afghanistan, then
bribery-cash-in-brown-envelopes Harper turned it into combat roles that persist to this
day.
Ex 2, Diefenbaker scrapped the nearly-complete AVRO Arrow project on direct orders from
the US that the total-crap BOMARC missile system was to be implemented instead.
Trudeau sorta confronted the US by legalizing pot, but other than that... the foreign
policy leash is very visible on the Canadian lapdog.
Iran doesn't react like the US psychopaths do..
They follow the letter of the law, as they have done with JCPOA.
But in my opinion, Iran should get its nuke capabilities up to par asap. Why continue to want
to look as though you're following the law of JCPOA by allowing the IAEA in who reports to
the EU/US to continue intrusive inspections when they all plan war against you leaving you
nuke defenseless while Israel and Saudis have or are getting nukes?
If Iran has nukes the US will back off. Nuff said.
In 70 years of illegal and violent occupation of Palestine through deportation,eradication
and no respect for human lives adding what zionist army and services have done through these
years and this is "some nasty stuff"..no israel it's the cancer of middle-east..just it!
The AVRO Arrow fiasco was criminal... "scrapping" doesn't even begin to tell the story...
utter destruction was more like it, with welding torches, right down to the last bolt. That
plane, with it's mach 2 Iroquois engine was en route to completely embarrassing the US
MIC
As well, few people know the AVRO Jetliner story, which preceded the Arrow - the first
North American passenger jet aircraft - years ahead of anything the US produced
This panel discussion explains how Congress is bought by the military industrial (mostly
oil) complex. Then again Eisenhower included Congress in the Cabal several years after he
overthrew the democratic leader of Iran. The dialogue of these panel members links all
Mideast invasions back to the initial destruction of Iranian government in 1953. Apparently,
we cannot have democracy in the Mideast as it is bad for the mafia business.
I recently heard a story on CBC radio about the Arrow. Not only did they destroy the
prototype and all parts, they even destroyed all the drawings, except for one set which was
smuggled out by a draftsman, who kept them secret for decades. But now they are on display at
the "Diefenbaker Canada Centre at the University of Saskatchewan until April 2020" (from
Wiki)
It's interesting to learn that Uncle Sam wanted the program stopped. Why didn't some US
company just buy Avro instead? Buying out the competition is standard operating procedure for
US corporate parasites.
wendy davis @154 Rouhani's tweet when accepting responsibility for the downing of the plane
stated:
Hassan Rouhani
@HassanRouhani
·
Jan 10
Armed Forces' internal investigation has concluded that regrettably missiles fired due to
human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent
people.
Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable
mistake. #PS752
As you can see, Rouhani stated 'missiles' as in plural.
Great to run into you again. Indeed by signing on to the JCPOA Iran demonstrated a number
of things. 1) Iran keeps her word. 2) The US never does. 3) Europe's role is to smile while
preparing to stab you in the back. 4) The US will sacrifice her own interests for Israel's
everytime.
I think all of us could have predicted all that. But what I could never have predicted was
the complete in your face nature of American imperialism. It is one thing for there to be
overwhelming evidence against a suspect. It's quite another for him to openly brag about his
crimes and then promise to commit even more. That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for
Iran. If you happen to be in Iran, please share with us any information about the national
mood and how people are coping in difficult circumstances.
Didn't know that about Merkel; yet another reason she qualifies as a cowardly poodle. It's
also clear, IMO, that Merkel lied to Putin and the press about her position on the JCPOA at
their post-talks
presser :
Putin: "We certainly could not ignore another issue which is vitally important not only
for the region but also for the whole world – the issue of preserving the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme. After the United States withdrew
from this fundamental agreement, the Iranian side declared that they suspended some of their
voluntary commitments under the JCPOA. Let me underscore this – they only suspended
their voluntary commitments while they stress their readiness to go back to full compliance
with the nuclear deal.
"Russia and Germany resolutely stand for the continued implementation of the Joint Plan.
The Iranians are entitled to a support from European nations, which promised to set up a
special financial vehicle separate from the US dollar to be used in trade settlements with
Iran. The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) must finally begin working."
Merkel, statement: "Of course, we also discussed Iran. We agree that everything necessary
must be done to preserve the JCPOA. Germany believes that there should be no nuclear weapons
in Iran, and therefore we will use all the available diplomatic means to preserve this
agreement, even though it is not perfect, but it includes obligations of all the sides."
Merkel answering a question: " I have mentioned an issue on which we do not see eye to eye
with the Americans (JCPOA), even though they are our allies with whom we are working together
on many matters. But when it comes to German and European opinions, we are acting above all
in our own interests, while Russia is upholding its own interests, so we should look for
common interests in this process.
"Despite certain obstacles, we have found common interests in our bilateral relations
regarding the JCPOA with Iran. We have common opinions and different views, but a visit such
as this one is the best thing. It is better to talk with each other rather than about one
another, because it helps one to understand the other side's arguments."
It's very clear from Russia's reaction that the EU-3's action was a complete surprise. I
doubt Merkel will be invited to Moscow again. For Russians and the rest of humanity, there's
no trusting the West. IMO, it must always be treated as hostile regardless the smiles.
"
While it might work in domestic politics, this mad man negotiating tactic erodes trust in
international affairs and it will take decades for the US to recover from the harm done by
Trump's school yard bully approach.
Even the docile Europeans are beginning to tire of this and once they get their balls
stitched back on after being castrated for so long, America will have its work cut out
crossing the chasm from unreliable and untrustworthy partner to being seen as dependable and
worthy of entering into agreements with.
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
"... On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield." ..."
One of the new bogus explanations that the administration has been offering up is that there was a threat to one or more U.S. embassies
that led to the assassination. Rep. Justin Amash notes this morning that they have presented no evidence to Congress to back up any
of this or their original claim of an "imminent" attack:
The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally
made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval --
with respect to any of this. The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies
claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without
congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. https://t.co/Eg0vaCnqFd
-- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash)
January 12, 2020
The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president
invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated
in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite
their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility
long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and
appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what
happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by
determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing
this. John Cassidy The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what
they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because
they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important
as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have
trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there
is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are
still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are
getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the
leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading
up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action
against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened
at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined
hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John
Cassidy
reports :
On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani
months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's
Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the
Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he
moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests.
It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from
public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield."
Pompeo has Pompeo has
lied constantly
about Iran and the nuclear deal before and after he became Secretary of State, so it is not surprising that he has been the administration's
public face as they lie to Congress and the public about this illegal assassination. No wonder
he doesn't want to appear before Congress to testify.
Add to this the concomitant attempt made in Yemen, where there is no American presence other than the bombs dropping from the
sky, against an Iranian operative, and it shows the push of the administration to go for the kill as the main factor. The US is
becoming more and more like Israel: kill first, no excuses, we are the chosen ones - The "revenge" of Dinah's brothers, Genesis
34:25. This is The US of A's diplomacy nowadays. The world has really been put on notice. And the world will be reacting, see
the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Moscow immediately after that.
The question is what the American citizens are going to do? What are they going to vote for?
Why shouldn't Trump and his Administration's creatures "expect to be believed"? He and his toadies have misstated, misled, BS-ed
and outright lied to the public for three years now; and - despite a "credibility gap" of Vallis Marineris proportions - have
gotten no appreciable pushback from the media.
The right-wing media simply cheerlead him, as usual: and everybody else just sort of nods, grunts, and moves on.
"... Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days). ..."
"... I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror show. Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes on. ..."
"... For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war or other policy. ..."
"... They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda very well. ..."
"... Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional" leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors. ..."
"... But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. ..."
"... He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin. ..."
"... The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US Trade Representative ..."
"... oderint, dum metuant ..."
"... Führerprinzip ..."
"... Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top. ..."
"... This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all. ..."
"... Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything ..."
"... The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS or their academy. ..."
"... I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year before Trump canned him. ..."
"... I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion. ..."
"... Classic predatory behaviors: culling the herd and eating the weak. ..."
"... I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that you have room to make compromises later. ..."
"... But in domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start. Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any given compromise has no particular virtue or value. ..."
"... Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that fate. ..."
"... A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all. ..."
"... The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose. ..."
"... It also helps him do some things quietly in the background ..."
Trump and
the Mad Negotiator Approach Posted on January
14, 2020 by Yves Smith Trump's numerous character
flaws, such as his grandiosity, his lack of interest in the truth, his impulsiveness, his
habitual lashing out at critics, have elicited boatloads of disapproving commentary. It's
disturbing to see someone so emotional and undisciplined in charge of anything, let alone the
United States.
Rather than offer yet more armchair analysis, it might be productive to ask a different
question: why hasn't Trump been an abject failure? There are plenty of rich heirs who blow
their inheritance or run the family business into the ground pretty quickly and have to knuckle
down to a much more modest lifestyle.
Trump's lack of discipline has arguably cost him. The noise regularly made about his
business bankruptcies is wildly exaggerated. Most of Trump's
bankruptcies were of casinos , and most of those took place in the nasty 1991-1992
recession. He was one of only two major New York City developers not to have to give meaningful
equity in some of their properties in that downturn. He even managed to keep Mar-a-Lago and
persuaded his lenders to let him keep enough cash to preserve a pretty flashy lifestyle because
he was able to persuade them that preserving his brand name was key to the performance of
Trump-branded assets.
The MarketWatch analysis shows a variety of lenders, all big banks or listed specialized
finance companies like Ladder Capital, that have provided lots of money to Trump over the
years in the forms of short-, medium- and long-term loans and at competitive rates, whether
fixed or variable.
"The Treasury yield that matches the term of the loan is the closest starting benchmark
for Trump-sized commercial real estate loans," said Robert Thesman, a certified public
accountant in Washington state who specializes in real estate tax issues. The 10-year
Treasury swap rate is also used and tracks the bonds closely, according to one expert.
Trump's outstanding loans were granted at rates between 2 points over and under the
matching Treasury-yield benchmark at inception. That's despite the well-documented record of
bankruptcy filings that dot Trump's history of casino investment.
The flip side is that it's not hard to make the case that Trump's self-indulgent style has
cost him in monetary terms. His contemporary Steve Ross of The Related Companies who started
out in real estate as a tax lawyer putting together Section 8 housing deals, didn't have a big
stake like Trump did to start his empire. Ross did have industrialist and philanthropist Max
Fisher as his uncle and role model, but there is no evidence that Fisher staked Ross beyond paying for his education .
Ross has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion versus Trump's $3.1 billion.
Despite Trump's heat-seeking-missile affinity for the limelight, we only get snippets of how
he has managed his business, like his litigiousness and breaking of labor laws. Yet he's kept
his team together and is pretty underleveraged for a real estate owner.
The area where we have a better view of how Trump operates is via his negotiating, where is
astonishingly transgressive. He goes out of his way to be inconsistent, unpredictable, and will
even trash prior commitments, which is usually toxic, since it telegraphs bad faith. How does
this make any sense?
One way to think of it is that Trump is effectively screening for weak negotiating
counterparties. Think of his approach as analogous to the Nigerian scam letters and the many
variants you get in your inbox. They are so patently fake that one wonders why the fraudsters
bother sending them.
Everyone knows that Nigerian scam e-mails, with their exaggerated stories of moneys tied
up in foreign accounts and collapsed national economies, sound totally absurd, but according
to research from Microsoft, that's on purpose .
As a savvy Internet user you probably think you'd never fall for the obvious trickery, but
that's the point. Savvy users are not the scammers' target audience, [Cormac] Herley notes.
Rather, the creators of these e-mails are targeting people who would believe the sort of
tales these scams involve .:
Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since
his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to
reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the
scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive
ratio in his favor.
Who would want to get in a business relationship with a guy who makes clear early on that he
might pull the rug out from under you? Most people would steer clear. So Trump's style, even if
he adopted it out of deep-seated emotional needs, has the effect of pre-selecting for weak,
desperate counterparties. It can also pull in people who think they can out-smart Trump and
shysters who identify with him, as well as those who are prepared to deal with the headaches
(for instance, the the business relationship is circumscribed and a decent contract will limit
the downside).
Mind you, it is more common than you think for businesses to seek out needy business
"partners". For instance, back in the day when General Electric was a significant player in
venture capital, it would draw out its investment commitment process. The point was to
ascertain if the entrepreneurs had any other prospects; they wouldn't tolerate GE's leisurely
process if they did. By the time GE was sure it was the only game in town, it would cram down
the principals on price and other terms. There are many variants of this playbook, such as how
Walmart treats suppliers.
Trump has become so habituated to this mode of operating that he often launches into
negotiations determined to establish that he had the dominant position when that is far from
clear, witness the ongoing China trade row. Trump did in theory hold a powerful weapon in his
ability to impose tariffs on China. But they are a blunt weapon, with significant blowback to
the US. Even though China had a glass jaw in terms of damage to its economy (there were signs
of stress, such as companies greatly stretching out when they paid their bills), Trump could
not tolerate much of a stock market downdraft, nor could he play a long-term game.
Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called
gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he
demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as
driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his
counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to
identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called
love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first
meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days).
Voters have seen another face of Trump's imperative to find or create weakness: that of his
uncanny ability to hit opponents' weak spots in ways that get them off balance, such as the way
he was able to rope a dope Warren over her Cherokee ancestry claims.
The foregoing isn't to suggest that Trump's approach is optimal. Far from it. But it does
"work" in the sense of achieving certain results that are important to Trump, of having him
appear to be in charge of the action, getting his business counterparts on the back foot. That
means Trump is implicitly seeing these encounters primarily in win-lose terms, rather than
win-win. No wonder he has little appetite for international organizations. You have to give in
order to get.
I think this is pretty astute, thanks Yves. One reason I think Trump has been so
successful for his limited range of skills is precisely that 'smart' people underestimate him
so much. He knows one thing well – how power works. Sometimes that's enough. I've known
quite a few intellectually limited people who have built very successful careers based on a
very simple set of principles (e.g. 'never disagree with anyone more senior than me').
Anecdotally, I've often had the conversation with people about 'taking Trump seriously',
as in, trying to assess what he really wants and how he has been so successful. In my
experience, the 'smarter' and more educated the person I'm talking to is, the less willing
they are to have that conversation. The random guy in the bar will be happy to talk and have
insights. The high paid professional will just mutter about stupid people and racism.
I would also add one more reason for his success – he does appear to be quite good
at selecting staff, and knowing who to delegate to.
There is another figure from recent history who displayed similar astuteness about power
while manifesting generally low intelligence: Chile's Pinochet. He had near failing grades in
school but knew how to consolidate power, dominate the other members of the junta, and weed
out the slightest hint of dissidence within the army.
To the average viewer, Trump's branding extends to the negative brands that he assigns to
opponents. Witness Lyin' Ted , Pocahontas and similar sticky names that
make their way into coverage. He induces free coverage from Fake News as if they
can't resist gawking at a car wreck, even when one of the vehicles is their own. Manipulation
has worked quite a lot on people with different world views, especially when they don't
conceive of any different approaches.
Scott Adams touted that as one of Trump's hidden persuasionological weapons . . . that
ability to craft a fine head-shot nickname for every opponent.
If Sanders were to be nominated, I suppose Trump would keep saying Crazy Bernie. Sanders
will just have to respond in his own true-to-himself way. Maybe he could risk saying
something like . . .
" so Trashy Trump is Trashy. This isn't new."
If certain key bunches of voters still have
fond memories for Crazy Eddie, perhaps Sanders could have some operatives subtly remind
people of that.
Some images of Crazy Eddie, for those who wish to stumble up Nostalgia Alley . . .
I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his
appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other
basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror
show.
Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes
on.
Another indication how bad his delegation skills are is how short his picks stay at their
job before they are fired again. Is there any POTUS which had higher staff turnover?
Its a horror show because you don't agree with their values. After the last few
Presidents, too much movement to the right would catastrophic, so there isn't much to do. His
farm bill is a disaster. The new NAFTA is window dressing. He slashed taxes. He's found a way
to make our brutal immigration system even more nefarious. His staff seems to be working out
despite it not having many members of the Bush crime family.
Even if these people were as beloved by the press as John McCain, they would still be
monsters.
It's not their values that make them a horror show, it's their plain inaptitude and
incompetency. E.g. someone like that Exxon CEO is at least somewhat capable, which is why I
didn't mention him. Though he was quite ineffective as long as he lasted and probably quite
corrupt. Pompeo in the same office on the other hand is simply a moron elevated way beyond
his station. Words fail and the Peter principle cannot explain.
The US can paper over this due to their heavy handed application of power for now, but
every day he stays in office, friends are abhorred while trying not to show it, and foes
rejoice at the utter stupidity of the US how it helps their schemes.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this
is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the
US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war
or other policy. So while I am sort of happy about the outcome, I don't see the current
monsters at the helm worse than the monsters 4 years ago under Obama. In fact I detested them
much more since they had the power to drag my governments into their evil schemes.
Evil and clearly despicable is always better than evil and sort of charismatic.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy,
this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid
the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's
war or other policy.
Indeed, if you look at the trendline from the '80's to now, trump is, in some ways, the
less effective evil.
They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long
sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by
cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda
very well.
I feel exactly the same. Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional"
leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of
democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors.
But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible
people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. But in the
behind the scenes activities, they've been very effective – as an obvious example,
witness how he's put so many conservative Republicans into the judiciary, in contrast with Obamas haplessness.
That is not a Trump thing, getting more judges is a 100% rep party thing and only rep
party thing. Sure, he is the one putting his rubber stamp on it, but the picking and
everything else is a party thing. They stopped the placement for years under Obama before
Trump was ever thought about, and now are filling it as fast as they can. Aren't they having
complicit democrats helping them or how can they get their picks beyond congress? Or am I
getting something wrong and Obama could have picked his judges but didn't?
The people he chooses to run his administration however are all horrible. Not just
horrible people but horrible picks as in incompetent buffoons without a clue. Can you show a
evil, horrible or not but actually competent pick of his in his administration?
The only one I can think of is maybe the new FAA chief Dickson. Who is a crisis manager,
after the FAA is in its worst crisis ever right now. So right now someone competent must have
this post. All the others seem to be chickenhawk blowhards with the IQ of a fruitfly but the
bluster of a texan.
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind?
She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a
intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Some time ago I heard Mulvaney answer the criticism about the Trump budget of the day
cutting so much money from EPA that EPA would have to fire half of its relevant scientists.
He replied that " this is how we drain the swamp".
Citing "corruption" was misdirection. Trump let his supporters believe that the corruption
was The Swamp. What the Trump Group ACTually means by "The Swamp" is all the career
scientists and researchers and etc. who take seriously the analyzing and restraining of Upper
Class Looter misbehavior.
I limited the post to his negotiating approach. One would think someone so erratic would
have trouble attracting people. However, Wall Street and a lot of private businesses are full
of high maintenance prima donnas at the top. Some of those operations live with a lot of
churn in the senior ranks. For others, one way to get them to stay is what amounts to a
combat pay premium, they get paid more than they would in other jobs to put up with a
difficult boss. I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how
good his key lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Regarding his time as POTUS, Trump has a lot of things working against him on top of his
difficult personality and his inability to pay civil servants a hardship premium:
1. He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican
Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned
hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of
perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies
like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin.
The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US
Trade Representative
2. Another thing that undermines Trump's effectiveness in running a big bureaucracy is his
hatred for its structure. He likes very lean organizations with few layers. He can't impose
that on his administration. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how good his key
lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Is it just me or does nobody know? Does it seem to anyone else like there has been
virtually no investigation of his organization or how it was run?
Maybe it's buried in the endless screeds against Trump, but any investigations of his
organizations always seem colored by his presidency. I'd love to see one that's strictly
historical.
I am simply saying that I have not bothered investigating that issue. There was a NY Times
Magazine piece on the Trump Organization before his election. That was where I recall the bit
about him hating having a lot of people around him, he regards them as leeches. That piece
probably had some info on how long his top people had worked for him.
Congratulations Yves, on another fine piece, one of your best. I might recommend you
append this comment to it as an update, or else pen a sequel.
While Trump has more in common stylistically with a Borgia prince out of Machiavelli, or a
Roman Emperor ( oderint, dum metuant ) than with a Hitler or a Stalin, your note
still puts me in mind of an insightful comment I pulled off a history board a while ago,
regarding the reductionist essence of Führerprinzip , mass movement or no mass
movement. It's mostly out of Shirer:
Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic
empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo
ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he
encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old
group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things
his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was
continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker
willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top.
This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit
leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did
their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all.
Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made
everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no
superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything
.
As you note, some of these tools (fortunately) aren't available to Cheeto 45 .
I hope this particular invocation of Godwin's avenger is trenchant, and not OT. Although
Godwin himself blessed the #Trump=Hitler comparison some time ago, thereby shark-jumping his
own meme.
It might be as simple as birds of a feather (blackbirds of course) flocking together.
Trump seems to have radar for corrupt cronies as we have seen his swamp draining into the
federal prison system. The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally
caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS
or their academy.
I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to
appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders
from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he
appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him
firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I
didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year
before Trump canned him.
My recollection of the Reagan years was that he had a lot of staff who left to "spend more
time with their families"; in other words they got caught being crooked and we're told to go
lest they besmirch the sterling reputation of St. Ronnie.
He early-on adopted the concept of "dismantle the Administrative State". Some of his
appointees are designed to do that from within. He appoints termites to the Department of
Lumber Integrity because he wants to leave the lumber all destroyed after he leaves the White
House.
His farm bill is only a disaster to those who support Good Farm Bill Governance. His
mission is to destroy as much of the knowledge and programs within the USDA as possible. So
his farm bill is designed to achieve the destruction he wants to achieve. If it works, it was
a good farm bill from his viewpoint. For example.
I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things
according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign
countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about
international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost
certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion.
He calculates
the risks and takes measures that show he is a strong man defending US interests (in a very symplistic and populist way) no matter if someone or many are offended, abused or even killed
as we have recently seen. Then if it is appreciated that a limit has been reached, and the
limit is not set by international reactions but perceived domestic reactions, he may do a
setback showing how sensibly magnanimous can a strongman like him be. In the domestic front,
IMO, he does not give a damn on centrists of all kinds. Particularly, smart centrists are
strictly following Trumps playbook focusing on actions that by no means debilitate his
positioning as strongman in foreign issues and divert attention from the real things that
would worry Trump. The impeachment is exactly that. Trump must be 100% confident that he
would win any contest with any "smart" centrist. Of course he also loves all the noises he
generates with, for instance, the Soleimani killing or Huawei banning that distract from his
giveaways to the oligarchs and further debilitation of remaining welfare programs and
environmental programs. This measures don't pass totally unnoticed but Hate Inc .
and public opinions/debates are not paying the attention his domestic measures deserve.
Trump's populism feeds on oligarch support and despair and his policies are designed to keep
and increase both. Polls on Democrats distract from the most important polls on public
opinion about Trum "surprise" actions.
Trump has the rare gift of being able to drive his enemies insane – just witness
what's become of the Democrats, a once proud American political party.
Democrats have long been (what, 50 plus yrs. – Phil Ochs – Love Me I'm A
Liberal) exuding false pride of not appearing to be or sounding insane. Their place, being
the concern troll of the duopoly. All are mad. If the Obama years didn't prove it, the Dems
during Bush Cheney certainly did.
Yes, 50 years. Nixon played mad to get his Vietnam politics through, Reagan was
certifiable
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will
outlaw Russia forever." "We begin bombing in five minutes." live on air.
Etc.
I suspect only half of the post was posted? The last para seems to get cut in mid
sentence.
I'd add one more thing (which may be in the second half, assuming there's one). Trump's
massively insane demands are a good anchoring strategy. Even semi-rational player will not
make out-of-this-earth demands – they would be seen as either undermining their
rationality, or clearly meant to only anchor so less effective (but surprisingly, even when
we know it's only an anchor it apparently works, at least a bit). With irrational Trump, one
just doesn't know.
I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten
by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that
you have room to make compromises later.
Sometimes this works better than others – I
don't know how far you can do it with the Chinese, for example. But then Trump may have
inadvertently played, in that case, into the tradition of scripted public utterances combined
with behind-the-scenes real negotiation that tends to characterize bargaining in Asia.
But in
domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is
a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make
counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start.
Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is
something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any
given compromise has no particular virtue or value.
There is actually two parts to a negotiation I should mention. There is negotiating a
deal. And then there is carrying it out. Not only Trump but the US has shown itself incapable
of upholding deals but they will break them when they see an advantage or an opportunity.
Worse, one part of the government may be fighting another part of the government and will
sabotage that deal in sometimes spectacular fashion.
So what is the point of having all these weird and wonderful negotiating strategies if any
partners that you have on the international stage have learned that Trump's word is merely a
negotiating tactic? And this includes after a deal is signed when he applies some more
pressure to change something in an agreement that he just signed off on? If you can't keep a
deal, then ultimately negotiating a deal is useless.
The incapability of the US to keep their treaties has been a founding principle of the
country. Ask any Indian.
Putin or the russian foreign ministry called the US treaty incapable a few years before
Trump, and they were not wrong. Trump didn't help being erratic as he is, but he didn't
cancel any treaty on his own: JCPOA, INF, etc. He had pretty broad support for all of these.
Only maybe NAFTA was his own idea.
He owes the fact he's President not to any skill he has, but to Democrats being so bad.
Many non establishment types could have beaten Hillary.
And Trump owes the fact that he's not DOA in 2020 re-election again because Democrats are
so bad. There are a handful of extremely popular social programs Democrats could champion
that would win over millions of voters and doom Trump's re-election. But instead, they double
down on issues that energize Trump's base, are not off-limits to there donors while ignoring
what the broad non corporate/rich majority support. For example impeaching him for being the
first recent President not to start a major new war for profit and killing millions and then
saying it's really because something he did in Ukraine that 95% of Americans couldn't care
less about and won't even bother to understand even if they could.
That leaves the fact he is rather rich and must have done something to become that. I
don't know enough about him to evaluate that. But I would never what to know him or have a
friend that acts like him. I've avoided people like that in my life.
Did you read the post as positive? Please read again. Saying that Trump's strategy works
only to the extent that he winds up selecting for weak partners is not praise. First, it is
clinical, and second, it says his strategy has considerable costs.
I find it interesting that the primary foreign entity who has played Trump like a violin
is Kim in North Korea. He has gotten everything he wanted, except sanctions relief over the
past couple of years.
However, Trump's style of negotiating with Iran has made it clear to Kim that North Korea
would be idiots to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has watched
Trump's attitude towards Kim since Kim blew up his first bomb and Trump is forcing them to
develop nuclear weapons to be able to negotiate with Trump and the West.
But other than the minor matter of US 8th Army (cadre) sitting in the line of fire, the
bulk of any risks posed by Li'l Kim are borne by South Korea, Japan and China. So for Trump,
it's still down the list a ways, until the Norks can nuke tip a missile and hit Honolulu. So
what coup has Kim achieved at Trump's expense, again?
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence.
And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the
Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Mind you, there's no reason to think that this negotiation approach wasn't an adaptation
to Trump's emotional volatility, as in finding a way to make what should have been a weakness
a plus. And that he's less able to make that adaptation work well as he's over his head, has
less control than as a private businessman, and generally under way more pressure.
I recall reading that Trump's empire would have collapsed during the casino fiasco were it
not for lending from his father when credit was not available elsewhere. NYT investigative
reporters have turned up evidence of massive financial support from Trump father to son to
the tune of hundreds of millions throughout the son's career. So much for the great
businessman argument.
Trump is nothing more or less than a reflection of the mind set of the US people. The left
wing resorts to the same tactics that Trump uses to gain their ends. Rational thought and
reasonable discussion seems to be absent. Everyone is looking for a cause for the country's
failing infrastructure, declining life expectancy, and loss of opportunity for their children
to have a better life than they were able to achieve.
They each blame the other side. But
there are more than two sides to most folks experience. If ever the USA citizens abolish or
just gets fed up with the two party system maybe things will change. In reality most people
know there is little difference between the two parties so why even vote?
This analysis of Trump reminded me of a story I heard from the founders of a small rural
radio station. Both had been in broadcasting for years at a large station in a major market,
one as a program director and the other in sales. They competed for a broadcasting license
that became available and they won.
With the license in-hand they needed to obtain
investments to get the station on-air within a year or they would lose the license. Even with
their combined savings and as much money as they could obtain from other members of their
families and from friends -- they were short what they needed by several hundred thousand
dollars.
Their collateral was tapped out and banks wouldn't loan on the broadcast license
alone without further backing. They had to find private investors. They located and presented
to several but their project could find no backers. In many cases prospects told them their
project was too small -- needed too little money -- to be of interest. As the deadline for
going on-air loomed they were put in touch with a wealthy local farmer.
After a long evening presenting their business case to this farmer in ever greater detail,
he sat back and told them he would give them the money they needed to get their station
on-air -- but he wanted a larger interest in the business than what they offered him. He
wanted a 51% interest -- a controlling interest -- or he would not give them the money, and
they both had to agree to work for the new radio station for a year after it went on-air.
The
two holders of the soon to be lost broadcast license looked at each other and told the farmer
he could keep his money and left. The next day the farmer called on the phone and gave them
the names and contact information for a few investors, any one of whom should be able and
interested in investing the amounts they needed on their terms. He also told them that had
they accepted his offer he would have driven them out of the new station before the end of
the year it went on-air. He said he wanted to see whether they were 'serious' before putting
them in touch with serious investors.
Sorry, assassination doesn't fit into this scenario. That is a bridge too far. Trump has
lost his effectiveness by boasting about this. It isn't just unpredictability. It is
dangerous unpredictability.
I never once said that Trump was studied in how he operates, in fact, I repeatedly pointed
out that he's highly emotional and undisciplined. I'm simply describing some
implications.
If our corrupt Congress had not ceded their "co-equal" branch of gov't authority over the
last 40 years thereby gradually creating the Imperial Presidency that we have now, we might
comfortably mitigate much of the mad king antics.
Didn't the Founding Fathers try desperately to escape the terrible wars of Europe brought
on by the whims and grievances of inbred kings, generation after generation? Now on a whim
w/out so much as a peep to Congress, presidential murder is committed and the
CongressCritters bleat fruitlessly for crumbs of info about it.
I see no signs of this top-heavy imperialism diminishing. Every decision will vanish into
a black hole marked "classified."
I am profoundly discouraged at 68 who at 18 years old became a conscientious objector,
that the same undeclared BS wars and BS lies are used to justify continuous conflct almost
nonstop these last 50 years as if engaging in such violence can ever be sucessful in
achieving peaceful ends? Unless the maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are the actual
desired result.
Trump's negotiating style is chaos-inducing deliberately, then eventually a "Big Daddy"
Trump can fix the mess, spin the mess and those of us still in the thrall of big-daddyism can
feel assuaged. It's the relief of the famiy abuser who after the emotional violence
establishes a temporary calm and family members briefly experience respite, yet remain wary
and afraid.
Kim Jong Un uses similar tactics, strategy, perhaps even style. Clinically and
intellectually, it's interesting to watch their interaction. Emotionally, given their
weaponry, it's terrifying.
Great post! The part about selecting for desperate business partners is very insightful,
it makes his cozying up to dictators and pariah states much more understandable. He probably
thinks/feels that these leaders are so desperate for approval from a country like the US
that, when he needs something from them, he will have more leverage and be able to impose
what he wants.
I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the
people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script,
and it's a bevy of lies, every time.
"... Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this. ..."
"... Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards. ..."
"... The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US. ..."
Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long
as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this.
I always learn some thing here. For example imagine my surprise to learn the EU had a
reputation worth protecting. All you need to know about the EU is bitches will do what
bitches are told. This is just one more step on the road to war with China, is that really
what the citizens of the EU want? Are the people of the EU ready to die for the Trump and the
Republican party?
Think tanks, think tanks, think tanks. In 2009, the Brookings Institute's paper Which Path to
Persia, proposed offering Iran a very good deal and then sabotaging it. Good cop, Obama, bad
cop, Trump. Mission accomplished.
Only a matter of when and how. The warmongers have Trumps balls in a vice, he can't even
resign without making it worse by letting Pence take over. The art of the squeal, very high
pitched is whats happening in DC.
1st of all The UK was always going to side with DC over Iran. 2ndly for France and Germany
they probably aren't ready to put themselves plus their EU partners in the US doghouse for
Iran. When they break it will be a time of their own choosing.
Thanks b, for this detailed coverage of the 3 wimps' efforts to kill JCPOA. You did not
disappoint. Love the image showing mother residing in "occupied Palestine" .. (term coined by
MoA barfly)
I commented in the previous post, Russia warned of unintended consequences
LINK
Moscow is calling on the European parties to the Iran nuclear deal not to escalate tensions
and to abandon their decision to trigger the treaty's Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.
"We strongly urge the Eurotroika [of parties to the JCPOA] not to inflame tensions and
to abandon any steps which call the prospects of the nuclear deal's future into question.
Despite all the challenges it has faced, the JCPOA has not lost its relevance," the
ministry said in a statement.
Ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden is also suspected of corruption, according to a
member of the Ukrainian parliament
KIEV, January 14. /TASS/. Ukraine's Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has obliged the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to launch a probe into seizure of government power
and corruption suspicions. The cases mention the names of the United States' 44th
president, Barack Obama, former Ukrainian president, Pyotr Poroshenko and ex-US
vice-president, Joseph Biden, a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Opposition
Platform - For Life party, Renat Kuzmin, said[.]
"investigate the suspicions over the seizure of government power in Ukraine and of the
embezzlement of state budget money and international financial assistance by members of the
Obama administration"
If it ever was possible to sign a treaty with the US and expect them to abide by it, it
hasn't been possible for a long time. Here as everywhere else, Trump merely openly proclaims
the systemic lawlessness he shares with the rest of the US political class. (His contemptuous
withdrawal from the JCPOA never has been one of the things the establishment and media
criticize him for.)
For as long as US imperial power lasts, anyone who doesn't want to be a poodle (or to get
regime-changed because they foolishly attempt to sit the fence) has to accept that there can
be no legitimate agreements with the US or its poodles. If you sign a treaty with them, you
have to view it exactly the same way you know they do, as nothing but propaganda, otherwise
not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt North Korea, if they were in any doubt before,
registered how Trump and the US media immediately proceeded to systematically lie about the
agreement they'd supposedly just concluded, before the ink was even dry.
Here's hoping that if Iran was in any doubt before, they too are getting the message: As
far as the US and Europe are concerned, the only purpose of the JCPOA is to serve as a weapon
against them.
Face it B, there will be blood. It's a matter of time. It's unavoidable. The empire will
force its own destruction - and perhaps the rest of humanity's. The demons of nihilism will
prevail.
(Sounds like I have been hearing death metal. I swear I did not. And I not under the
influence either.)
The Oct 2020 deadline is important for more than one reason- Irans application to the SCO is
being held up because of it. The SCO membership would obligate support from countries like
India in response to politically motivated sanctions.
Surprised at Germany since Merkel just met with Putin. When I read of this earlier this
morning, that it's based on lies was 100% clear, that the trio are feckless and deserve all
the social instability that will soon come their way. Why did I mention social instability:
"The Fed is considering a plan to allow them to lend cash DIRECTLY TO HEDGE FUNDS in order
to ease the REPO Crisis. [Emphasis original]
"Where is 'bailing out private investment funds' in their alleged 'dual mandate'?"
Which gets us back to the reason Iran's targeted: Because it lies outside the dollar
economy, refuses to engage in petrodollar recycling, and has a quasi-socialist economy with
no private banking. Plus, we now see that Iraq will pursue evicting NATO and Outlaw US Empire
forces and likely join the Arc of Resistance's/Iran's policies which are what the Outlaw US
Empire went to war over to begin with.
Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's
replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO,
the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio
proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards.
The EU is a hopeless craven vassal of the US. The US dropping out of the JCPOA was the acid
test which the EU has spectacularly failed. We are in a historical pivot with the rise of the
coalescing multifarious East which is forcing the EU to make a decision: stay under the US
wing, go it alone, or ally with the East. The EU seems to know it at least should get more
distance between itself and the US but every time there is a major geopolitical event it
starts to talk like it is going independent but then always drops back into the US hand. How
many times does this have to happen for us to admit what the EU is about?
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc |
15
If we accept that EU nations lack sovereignty and go further to suggest that such nations are
more simulations than real, what would an analysis of such events as the fallout from the
demise of the JCPOA look like? How should one talk about international events when corporate
sovereignty and oligarchical decision making are the real? How would we describe this exact
context based not on the simulation but on the real workings of power?
Yes indeed! At least blighty knows the score! The leash is no place for the British bulldog.
When brexit is complete they will be free to crawl straight up muricas bum! Lol!
Haha, great drawing. This pile on the left is incomparable. But the picture is incomplete -
there is not enough proudly walking in front of the masters of a small Polish poodle with a
bone in his teeth.
Agree with Nemo, #1. This is a matter of sovereignty. At the moment, European countries
are not sovereign, and, btw, this is a kind of double non-sovereignty: the submission of a
separate European country to the Americans, plus the submission of the same country to a
Brussels bureaucracy called the EU leadership. What independent, bold decisions can we talk
about? None.
One week after federal prosecutors
changed their tune
in the Michael Flynn case - recommending he serve up to
six months
in prison
for lying to investigators regarding his contacts with a Russian diplomat, the
former National Security Adviser
withdrew his guilty plea
Tuesday
afternoon
.
In a
24-page court filing
, Flynn accuses the government of "bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of
the plea agreement," and has asked his January 28th sentencing date to be postponed for 30 days.
General Flynn has moved to withdraw his guilty plea due to the "government's bad faith,
vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement."
pic.twitter.com/Qp5JcQjXmB
According to Flynn's counsel,
prosecutors "concocted" Flynn's alleged "false statements
by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions."
"It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn,
virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years,"
the filing continues.
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false
statements' (relating to FARA filing) by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions."
pic.twitter.com/o47WO8qClX
Prosecutors initially recommended no jail time over Flynn's cooperation in the Russiagate
probes, however they flipped negative on him after he "sought to thwart the efforts of the
government to hold other individuals, principally Bijan Rafiekian, accountable for criminal
wrongdoing."
The 67-year-old Rafiekian, an Iranian-American and Flynn's former business partner, was charged
with illegally acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Prosecutors accused Flynn
of failing to accept responsibility and "complete his cooperation" - as well as "affirmative
efforts to undermine" the prosecution of Rafiekian."
More on this from attorney and researcher @Techno Fog:
After Flynn refused to lie for prosecutors (Van
Grack), they retaliated by:
1) Reversing course and labeling Flynn a co-conspirator
2) Improperly contacted Flynn's son
3) Put Flynn's son on the witness list for intimidation purposes (never called as a witness)
pic.twitter.com/fP4hpVXfGY
"The govt's tactics in relation for Mr. Flynn's
refusal to 'compose' for the prosecution is a due process violation that can and should be
stopped dead in its tracks by this Court"
pic.twitter.com/ttcFGmyPv7
Most of this prosecution of Flynn has been under TRUMP'S Justice
Department! Isn't there ANYBODY in charge in this government?
Lyndon Johnson would have literally knocked out an Attorney
General that didn't do his bidding. He did, in fact, assault the
head of the Federal Reserve back in the day - when America was
America!
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best 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
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. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
"... What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a carrier battle group marooned on land ..."
The tramp & nutNyahoo machismo show continues to be fun to watch. Both
show off their penis worms as they arrogantly claim they can crush iran. Both the usa and
israel keep banging on the doors and walls of their pissed-off neighbors' houses. That
eventually gets you murdered whether in baltimore or baghdad.
A crushable iran is true if and only if they can mount a full-on nuclear war on Iran.
But such horrendous cheating means all bets are off, and iran's allies will provide the
nukes required to melt down the American homeland too. Nobody, not even Russia and china,
can afford to stay in the sidelines in a nuclear war in the 2020s.
What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy
enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a
carrier battle group marooned on land. Sitting ducks, with nice armor, nukes and all, are
... still sitting ducks. nutNyahoo should ask his technical crew just how few megatons are
needed, or just a few thousand modern missiles are required to transform sitting ducks into
nicely roasted peking ducks.
So a conventional war it is. The usa and israel has exactly zero, zilch and nada chances
of winning a war with iran. The usa keeps forgetting that it is a dying empire with dying
funding value and mental resources. Just like israel which oddly thinks dozens of f-35s
will give it immunity through air superiority. Proof of this fact that iran will win comes
from simply asking american and israeli war experts to go on cnn or the washington post on
how they intend to win a war with iran.
Im sure these expert bloviators will say that it is as easy as winning a naval war
against china, which is capable of launching only 3 new warships in a week. Or an even
easier time against russia, which can launch only a few thousand hypersonic nuke missiles
because its GDP is no bigger than that of texas.
The Pentagon is super slow to adapt and learn. If you understand that
bureaucracy is an ancient organizational structure and that the organizational culture of
the Pentagon is pathologically dysfunctional you could have predicted the moral and
financial bankruptcy of America 15-20 years ago. The "Why?", finally made sense when I
discovered what a sociopath was.
It's about time the US practices what it preachs and start behaving like a normal
country instead of a spoiled narcissistic brat. see more
US military & strategic thought became lazy during the
late days of the Cold War. It mirrored the decline & fall of the foundations of its
opponent, USSR. Post-Cold War, US military & strategic thinking flushed into the sewer.
It was all about maintaining the military as some sort of a social policy jobs program,
operating legacy tech as the mission. And then came the "world-improvers" -- beginning w
the Clinton Admin -- who worked to turn the world into a global "urban renewal" project;
meaning to mirror the success US Big Govt showed in the slums of American cities from sea
to sea. The past 30 yrs of US strategic thinking and related governance truly disgusts me.
see more
Soviet union fall had very different reasons and Soviet military thought was
doing quite well then along with military. Current russian military wonders is completion
of what was started then and not finished earlier because of the disintegration of the
Soviet state. The soviet fall however is extremely regrettable because there was a new way how things can
be done that Soviet union was showing to the world. USA fall long term is a very good thing
because USA is a paragon of how things should be done the old way and basically a huge
parasite. Many negative trends that are afflicting the world were started by USA. Unlimited
individualism and consumerism would be a couple of those. see more
Why does almost every person on Earth feel the need to force others to
bend the knee to their beliefs?
Religious beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in an
afterlife, political beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in this
world.
The world would be a far better, more civilized, of world if such beliefs were only
shared on a voluntary basis.
As for individualism, I would rather be free than live in a modern day egalitarian
hunter-gatherer tribe run by modern day psychopathic alpha-males.
That is certainly not a recipe for success. see more
It also mirrors the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It was Emperor
Augustus that decided the costs to further expand the Empire were too great after losing
one (or two?) legions against the Germanic tribes.
The US has reached its greatest extent. We are living through it. The US didn't go forward
into war with Iran twice. The odds of humanity surviving this immense turn of history is
looking better. see more
Frankly, nothing in common. I read this comparison all the
time.
Yes, Augustus decided not to continue along with expansion into Germany after losing 3
Varus legions due to ambush.
But he famously noted that it does not worth to go fishing with golden hook. Basically
speaking, Germany was not worth fighting for. Poor and remote it had nothing to offer. Just
a drain on resources. As long as conquest was moving smoothly it was ok, but after losses
were inflicted Augustus decided it was not worth it.
Roman expansion under augustus was carried mostly to consolidate previous conquests and
create strategical debth along core and strategical provinces also creating linkage.
When enemy far stronger than germans posed resources which made the whole conquest worthy
no amount of resistance saved Dacians and Parthia also almost died under Trajan attack.
Roman policies were adequate and wise. Treaties were respected, allies supported and
benefited. Empire was build around Mediterranean creating good communication and routes
considering obviously limits of that day technology.
Rome did not behave like crazy and did not deliver threats that she could not follow
through. When war was decided upon thorough preparations were taken. Political goals were
achieved. Wars were won. When Adrian considered that empire was overextended in Parthis, he
simply abandoned all conquered territories. Just like that.
Logical calm thinking USA,is not capable of. Rome truly based upon superior military and
diplomacy dominance lasted many centuries. USA few decades. One hit wonder, lucky fool I
would call it. see more
Yes, this is somewhat puzzling. As I said, let's wait and see where it all
develops to, but as Twisted Genius succinctly observed -- Iran now controls tempo because she
has conventional superiority. Anyone who has precision-guided, stand off weaponry in good
numbers will be on top. see more
The old submarine saying is, "There are two kinds of ships; submarines, and
targets." . The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets." (And per the photos, those Iranian missiles were
quite precise; bulls-eyes.) . Iran and its missiles demonstrated that the entire strategic foundation for US mil presence
in the Middle East is now obsolete. Everything the US would ever want to do there is now
subject to Iran's version of "steel rain." Every runway, hangar, aircraft parking area;
every supply depot or warehouse; every loading pier, fuel site, naval pier. Everything...
is a target. And really... there's no amount of US "airpower" and "tech" than can mitigate
the Iran missile threat. . Meanwhile, related thinking... Iran's true strategic interest is NOT fighting a near-term
war w/ USA. Iran wants US to exit Middle East; and Iran wants to be able to pursue its
nuclear program. Soleimani or no, Iran appears to have its eyeballs fixed on the long-term
goals. see more
The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets."
Exactly, and Iran has long-range TLAMs in who knows what numbers, That, in its turn,
brings about the next issue of range for Iranian indigenous anti-ship missiles. Not, of
course, to mention the fact of only select people knowing if Russia transferred P-800 Onyx
to Iran She certainly did it for Syria. If that weapon is there--the Persian Gulf and
Hormuz Strait will be shut completely closed and will push out CBGs far into the Indian
Ocean. see more
It is simply pathetic after decades of talking non stop about developments of
anti missiles and huge amounts wasted and nobody is responsible. This is the way capitalism
works.profits is everything and outcomes secondary. Thankfully russia has got soviet
foundation and things so far are working well. I come to think that in our times no serious
industrial processes should be allowed to stay in private hands. Only services and so.e
other simpler stuff under heavy state control to ensure quality. Otherwise profit
orientation will eventually destroy everything like with Boeing.
I know, i already wrote a full scale war scenario in one of
the comments. Iran can destroy all US bases in 2000 km range. But this does not mean that
it can not be bombed back to the stone age, if the US really wishes so. The problem for the
US is the high cost as well as the high debt levels, but it does have the technical
capability to do that after 2 - 3 years of bombing.
Also low yield tactical nukes are designed to lower the treshold of the use of nukes in
otherwise conventional war, producing less international outrage than the megaton city
buster bombs. Why do you think the US is developing them again? Because they would want to
use them in conventional conflicts.
Here btw is Yurasumy, he also says that the US can technically bomb Iran back to the
stone age, but the cost will be too high.
Again--what's the plan and what's the price? Iran HAS Russia's ISR on her side in case
of such SEAD.
Does the United States want to risk lives of thousands of its personnel (not
to speak of expensive equipment) in Qatar, KSA, Iraq. Does Israel want to "get it"?
There
are numbers which describe such an operation (it was. most likely, already planned as
contingency). Immediate question: when was the last time USAF operated in REAL dense ECM
and ECCM environment? I do not count some brushes with minimal EW in Syria.
Russia there
uses only minimally required option, for now. Iran has a truck load EW systems, including
some funny Russian toys which allowed Iran to take control of US UAVs, as an example. As I
say, this is not Iraq and by a gigantic margin. see more
I already said that debt levels do not allow it and the price
would be too high, but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By
conventional means. It is another question that it is not in good fiscal shape. Anyway, US
ballistic missiles (non nuclear armed) will be hard to stop by EW. Even if Iran gets rid of
50 % of incoming TLAMs, the US will keep sending more and more until most infrastructure,
bridges, oil refineries, power plants, factories, ports etc. are destroyed. This is why i
said it would take 2 - 3 years. see more
but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By conventional
means
That is the whole point: NO, it doesn't. Unless US goes into full mobilization mode and
addresses ALL (plus a million more not listed) requirements for such a war which I listed
in the post. Well, that or nukes. see
more
Yurasumy is a pretty good analist and he thinks that they can. I do not
see it for the US being too hard to produce more TLAMS, ICBMs and IRBMs (conventional) to
sustain the effort for 2 years, by that time most iranian infrastructure will be destroyed.
If the fiscal situation allowes it. see more
I don't know who Yarasumy is and what is his background, but unlike him I
actually write books, including on modern warfare. This is not to show off, but I am sure I
can make basic calculations. This is not to mention the fact that even Sivkov agrees with
my points and Sivkov, unlike Yarsumy, graduated Popov's VVMURE, served at subs, then
graduated Kuznetsov Academy, then Academy of the General Staff and served in Main
Operational Directorate (GOU) until retiring in the rank of Captain 1st Rank from the
billet of Combat Planning group. So, I would rather stick to my opinion.
see more
Why do you think that the US can not destroy Iran with IRBMs? Actually this
is their strategy vs China. If they think its viable vs China, then it should be viable vs
Iran too. see more
Because unlike the US, Russia's Air Defenses have a rather
very impressive history of shifting the balance in wars in favor of those who have them,
when used properly. But then I can quote for you a high ranking intelligence officer:
A friend of mine who has expertise in these matters wrote me:
Any air defense engineer with a securityclearance that isn't lying through his teeth
will admit that Russia'sair defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never
been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot
3's look like fucking nerf guns.
Mathematics is NOT there for the United States for a real combined operations war of
scale with Iran. Unless US political class really wants to see people with pitch-forks.
see more
"Mathematics is not there..." . Neither is the industrial base, including supply lines. Not the mines, mills, factories to
produce any significant levels of warfighting materiel such as we're talking about here.
Not the workforce, either. Meanwhile, where are the basic designs for these weps? The years
of lab work, bench tests, pilot specimens & prototypes, the development pipeline? The
contractors to build them? the Tier 2, 3, 4 suppliers? Where are the universities that
train such people as are needed? Where is the political will? Where is the government
coordination? Where is the money? Indeed, every Democrat and probably half the Republicans
who run for office campaign on controlling military spending; not that USA gets all that
much benefit from the current $800 billion per year. see more
You see, here is the difference--I can calculate approximate required force
for that but I don't want to. It is Friday. You can get some basic intro into operational
theory (and even into Salvo Equations) in my latest book. Granted, my publisher fought me
tooth and nail to remove as much match as possible. But I'll give you a hint--appearance of
S-500 on any theater of operations effectively closes it off effectively for any missile or
aircraft operations when deployed in echeloned (multi-layer) AD. see more
Back in Autumn 1999, the International Journal published what was either my first or
my second academic article (I produced another in the same year and can't remember which came
first). It's title was '"Ready to Kill but not to Die": NATO Strategy in Kosovo'. As you might
gather from the title, it wasn't altogether sympathetic to what NATO did during its 1999
bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. The Kosovo war was, you might say, my 'red pill' moment,
when I went from being the loyal military officer of my youth into someone who realized that
his own countries weren't above a bit of military aggression allied to a hefty dose of
falsehood and propaganda.
Since then I have repeatedly argued firmly against war (or 'military intervention', 'peace
enforcement', or whatever other term people prefer to use to make it look like it's not war)
whenever it's been proposed. I have argued in favour of substantial cuts in defence spending in
the countries in which I have lived and of which I am a citizen (the UK and Canada). I
published academic articles and chapters in scholarly books laying out the case against
'humanitarian intervention', the 'responsibility to protect', the 'obligation to rebuild', and
so on. I even wrote a short book ( Doing Less with Less ), arguing that the UK would not
only save money but would also be much more secure if it spent less on defence and was less
involved in trying to set the world to rights through the use of military power. I repeated
this argument again several years later in a couple of works for a British think tank, the
Institute of Economic Affairs.
At the same time, exploiting my position as a 'public intellectual', I moved into the world
of op-eds and political writing in an effort to influence public opinion outside of academia.
In December 2002, for instance, I wrote a piece for The Spectator denouncing the
impending invasion of Iraq and pouring scorn on the idea that Iraq was knee-deep in weapons of
mass destruction, if only the UN inspectors could find them. And later, in pieces for the
Ottawa Citizen and other outlets, I expressed scepticism about NATO's military and
humanitarian operations in Afghanistan, the likelihood of military success in Iraq, the bombing
campaign against Libya, and the desire to topple Bashar al-Assad in Syria, among other
things.
I never expected that any of this would have an immediate impact on public policy. But I
felt that someone had to say something, and hoped that my writings might in some small way
contribute to a gradual change in the intellectual climate. If nothing else, they would put
ideas on the table which could be picked up by others at some later point in time when external
circumstances altered to such an extent that it became clear that a change in direction was
needed. 'Surely', I thought to myself, 'those in charge will eventually realize what a mess
their policies have created and will want to find an alternative. So, we need to prepare the
ground now.'
Looking back at it all, I don't see that I got anything seriously wrong about the immoral
and counterproductive nature of the military policies pursued by Western states in the past 20
years. But I was completely wrong on that last point – the idea that those in charge
would one day wake up to the folly of their policies. These have been two decades of total
failure, not only for me but also for everyone else who has been arguing the
counter-interventionist case. It is not just that our governments continue to invest vast
amounts of money into pointless military endeavours. More broadly, there has been absolutely no
accountability for the multiple failures which have accompanied those endeavours. The op-ed
pages of major media outlets, for instance, remain dominated by the same rhetoric, and in many
cases even the same people, as brought us the war in Iraq, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and the
chaos of contemporary Libya. The belief that Western powers represent 'good' in the world, and
have a moral right, even a duty, to use military power against those who represent 'evil',
seems to be as entrenched as ever. The post-Cold War alliance forged between hard-line hawks on
the right and liberal human rights interventionists on the left has a seemingly iron grip on
public policy.
How has this come about? How is that even the catastrophic mess which the United States and
its allies (most notably the Brits) have made of Iraq hasn't allowed us to make even a dent in
public policy, to such an extent that we have found ourselves this week seriously contemplating
the prospect of a war between the USA and Iran? Twenty years of thinking about the causes of
war provide me with the following possible explanations, in no particular order:
Avoidance of cognitive dissonance: admitting that the prevailing paradigm of the past 20
years has been wrong would induce a massive headache of cognitive dissonance in leading
Western states. We'd have to admit that we had committed terrible crimes; that we had made
enormous mistakes; and that we had acted in distinctly immoral and illegal ways. Admitting
that would be a devastating blow to the legitimacy of the West as a whole on the
international stage as well as to the legitimacy of the ruling elites within individual
states. It is much easier to pretend that none of this is the case, and that what has gone
wrong has not been our basic approach, but simply how it has been implemented. The solution
then becomes not changing direction but doing the same thing over again, but better.
The influence of the military industrial complex (MIC): in a strict sense, there is no
such thing as the MIC; there's no formal organization that people join. But in an informal
way, the MIC very definitely exists. Its members have an outsize influence on public decision
making, which they influence in a way which benefits their institutional interests. The
result is threat inflation, excessive military spending, and a preference for military
solutions to problems which are better dealt with in other ways.
Military hegemony: simply put, we use military power because we can. Western military
hegemony is such that we can bomb and invade just about anybody without suffering too much as
a result. This creates an enormous temptation to do so, especially since otherwise our
military power is just sitting around doing nothing. Madeleine Albright's complaint to Colin
Powell – 'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about
if we can't use it?' – demonstrates the point very clearly.
Democracy and its lack: democracy – or more accurately, the need to face regular
re-election – creates some very undesirable incentives among politicians. In
particular, it leads to an obsession with looking 'strong'. Weakness is seen (rightly or
wrongly) as electorally fatal. Associated with this is a perceived need to 'do something'.
The brevity of the electoral cycle creates a preference for action over inaction. At the same
time, though, this preference is also connected to severe deficiencies in our political
system, above all the fact that they're not nearly as democratic as they appear to be.
Opinion polls in America, for instance, show that the general public would like the USA to
extract itself from the Middle East, but yet government after government plunges deeper in.
The influence of the MIC, the 'deep state', the lack of accountability mentioned above, the
dominance of pro-war voices in the media, and so on, all play into this dynamic. So too do
the activities of certain (sometimes ethnically-based, or diaspora) lobby groups.
Arrogance: the West's 'victory' in the Cold War demonstrated to many that 'History' had
proved Western liberalism to be right. This rightness, allied with the power mentioned above,
led to a belief that there was nothing we could not do if only we had the will.
Ignorance: almost as great as our arrogance is our ignorance of the realities of the
countries in which we become military involved. The arrogance and the ignorance are connected
– it is the former which prevents us from realizing the prevalence of the latter.
Ideology: Western states are in the grip of universalist ideology which moralizes
international relations, dividing the world into the 'good' (liberal, pro-Western) and the
'bad' (illiberal, anti-Western). This ideology brooks no dissent. Utilitarian arguments as to
whether military action brings more benefit or more harm are dismissed in favour of moral
ones – Qasem Soleimani had to die because he was a 'monster'; Gaddhafi was 'evil';
Saddam was a 'bad guy', and so on.
Misperception: there's a whole literature on the role of misperception in international
politics, most notably the work of Robert Jervis. It's all relevant. States regularly
misperceive actions taken by other states for their own defence as potentially hostile, fail
to appreciate changes in others' postures over time ('change blindness' in psychological
jargon), and so on.
Groupthink: the West's various multilateral structures, including the NATO alliance,
don't help in this regard. Western leaders – political and military – are all
members of the same club. They want to get on with one another, and don't like to be the odd
one out. So they follow along. Dissenting views are suppressed. This is, of course, a bit of
an over-generalization, but there's some truth to it – how much condemnation did the
invasion of Iraq generate among NATO members? how many states have broken ranks with the USA
over its policy on Iran? etc. Not very many.
It's a heady mixture, and it leads me to something of a revolutionary conclusion. For 20
years, I've taken the view that we can argue our way out of the mania for military
intervention; that we can logically persuade our leaders to change course. In the midst of this
week's war scare, I'm no longer so sure. The problem goes much deeper than political reason.
The multiple wars of the last two decades are rooted in structural deficits in our domestic
political systems, in the dominant political ideology, in the system of media ownership and
control, and in the broader international system. If we really want to bring these wars to an
end, we need to move beyond pointing out how futile and counterproductive they are, and begin
to address these wider structural issues. It will not be an easy task.
'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of
evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself
dependent on them for political survival
Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at
the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike
Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first
things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as
an evangelical Christian".
In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department
office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."
The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to
embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common
cause against Iran.
His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a
preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly
built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".
ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for
Trump Read more
The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats,
and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces
behind the administration's foreign policy.
The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have
far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical
theology as a powerful motivating force.
Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three
years ago to join a fight of good against evil.
"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It
is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."
For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future,
a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful
will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.
For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the
gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan
River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and
it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .
It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes
towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian
minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the
new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000
political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.
Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at
the West Point military academy in the 1980s.
"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he
undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in
Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a
compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."
As Donald
Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence
of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely
to grow.
"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven,"
Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There
is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be
readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."
Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US
Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the
adult population . In a 2015
poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of
Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in
Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.
The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.
Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not
churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But
white evangelicals have embraced him.
Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them
is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his
presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.
Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian
emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
The comparison is made explicitly in
The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in
October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've
chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."
Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed
prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern
Cyrus".
"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the
faithful," said Katherine
Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.
She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived
threats to their values and way of life.
"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some
degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on
Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders
who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."
Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as
he began contemplating a run for the presidency.
Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the
six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the
eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals,
pointing out: "We are all sinners."
Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer
scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever
closer to his most loyal supporters.
Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour
of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.
Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary
of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the
hemisphere, including
Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to
follow the US lead in
moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .
Trump's order to move
the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national
security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.
ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East
policy Read more
The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon
Adelson, but the orchestration of the
embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to
appease.
For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the
Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a
growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.
Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took
more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to
gender and
reproductive health in UN documents.
Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader
Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the
lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the
Iranian government.
ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo
Read more
Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the
forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".
This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks
such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the
legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal
with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.
In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has
reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US
troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian
influence there.
But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.
One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away
from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last
minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction
from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark
Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of
troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of
Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to
respond.
Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the
President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national
security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."
Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that
bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely,"
said the former Republican national security official.
That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's
national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized
influence within the administration.
The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience,
this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo,
Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."
'Such a low bar'
Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former
national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."
"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official
said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a
normal administration. They have no bench," they said.
The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans
who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being
"tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.
As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say
safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump
and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the
President with options for confronting Iran militarily.
Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of
Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of
staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer
"deeply considered advice."
"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who
have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.
Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.
In a full-blown U.S. war
with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.
Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made
refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed
by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,"
Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.
With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq,
President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision
Trump appears to have made while
golfing at Mar-a-Lago .
Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.
The Iranians may
respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt
the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.
In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic
stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning
14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some
3,500 more are now on their way.
"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton
tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his
spirit lives on.
What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a "
bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.
No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of
U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who
invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to
occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).
That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat,
and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will
essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.
"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them
freedom,"
Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback
to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you
tried.
This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as
it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial
votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities,
including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
Trump is betraying them spectacularly.
Yet too many Democrats are
merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the
strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg
offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others
complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."
It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these
complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have
to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in
Washington.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to
another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more
dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.
Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely
reward -- real opposition. Call him on it
before it's too late.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
"The State Dept alert sends a much different message than this one from the leader of the
State Dept, Secretary Pompeo: 'The world is a much safer place today. I can assure you that
Americans in the region are much safer,'" he writes on Twitter. "Which is it? (Answer: more
dangerous, not less)."
The State Department on Friday advised Americans in Iraq to depart the country immediately,
and even went so far as to suggest they travel to neighboring countries by land if they could
not secure passage out of Iraq through airlines. The State Department also advised Americans in
the country to not approach the American embassy in Iraq.
The State Dept alert below sends a much different message than this one from the leader of
the State Dept, Secretary Pompeo: "The world is a much safer place today. I can assure you
that Americans in the region are much safer."
In 2016 during the election campaign of Donald Trump one of the primary factors of his
popularity among conservatives was that he was one of the first candidates since Ron Paul to
argue for bringing US troops home and ending American involvement in the various elitist
fabricated wars in the Middle East . From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Syria and Yemen and beyond,
the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs at the behest of their globalist masters had been waging war oversees
unabated for over 15 years. The time was ripe for a change and people felt certain that if
Hillary Clinton entered the White House, another 4-8 years of war were guaranteed.
There was nothing to be gained from these wars. They were only dragging the US down socially
and economically , and even the idea of "getting the oil" had turned into a farce as the
majority of Iraqi oil has been going to China, not the US. General estimates on the costs of
the wars stand at $5 trillion US tax dollars and over 4500 American dead along with around
40,000 wounded. The only people that were benefiting from the situation were globalists and
banking elites, who had been clamoring to destabilize the Middle East since the day they
launched their "Project For A New American Century" (PNAC). Truly, all wars are banker
wars.
The Obama Administration's attempts to lure Americans into supporting open war with the
Assad regime in Syria had failed. Consistent attempts by George W. Bush and Obama to increase
tensions with Iran had fizzled. Americans were showing signs of fatigue, FINALLY fed up with
the lies being constructed to trick them into being complicit in the banker wars. Trump was a
breath of fresh air...but of course, like all other puppets of the globalists, his promises
were empty.
In my article
'Clinton vs. Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement' , published before the 2016
election, I warned that Trump's rhetoric might be a grand show , and that it could be scripted
by the establishment to bring conservatives back into the Republican/Neo-Con fold. At the time,
leftist media outlet Bloomberg
openly reveled in the idea that Trump might absorb and destroy the "Tea Party" and liberty
movement and turn them into something far more manageable. The question was whether or not the
liberty movement would buy into Trump completely, or remain skeptical.
Initially, I do not think the movement held onto its objectivity at all. Far too many people
bought into Trump blindly and immediately based on misguided hopes and a desire to "win"
against the leftists. The insane cultism of the political left didn't help matters much,
either.
When Trump started saturating his cabinet with banking elites and globalists from the CFR
the moment he entered office, I knew without any doubt that he was a fraud. Close associations
with establishment swamp creatures was something he had
consistently criticized Clinton and other politicians for during the campaign, but Trump
was no better or different than Clinton; he was just an errand boy for the elites. The singular
difference was that his rhetoric was designed to appeal directly to liberty minded
conservatives.
This meant that it was only a matter of time before Trump broke most of his campaign
promises, including his assertions that he would bring US troops home. Eventually, the mask had
to come off if Trump was going to continue carrying out the agenda of his masters.
Today, the mask has indeed come off. For the past three years Trump has made announcements
of an imminent pull back of troops in the Middle East, including the recent claim that troops
would be leaving Syria. All of the announcements were followed by an INCREASE in US troop
presence in the region. Consistent attempts have been made to foment renewed strife with Iran.
The build-up to war has been obvious, but some people on the Trump train still didn't get
it.
The most common argument I heard when pointing out all the inconsistencies in Trump's claims
as well as his direct links to globalists was that "He hadn't started any wars, so how could he
be a globalist puppet...?" My response has always been "Give it a little time, and he
will."
One of my readers noted recently that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) actually goes both
ways. Leftists double down on their hatred of Trump at every opportunity, but Trump cultists
double down on their support for Trump regardless of how many promises he breaks. This has
always been my biggest concern – That conservatives in the liberty movement would
ultimately abandon their principles of limited government, the end to banking elites in the
White House and ending illegal wars because they had invested themselves so completely in the
Trump farce that they would be too embarrassed to admit they had been conned.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people who
are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are. A distinction has to be made between Bush era Neo-Con control freaks and
constitutional conservatives; there are few if any similarities between the two groups, but the
establishment hopes that the former will devour the latter.
I've noticed that the War Pigs are out in force this past week, beating their chests a
calling for more blood. The US government has assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem
Soleimani, retaliations against US targets have begun, and now the Iraqi government has
demanded that US troops be removed from the region, to which Trump has said "no" and demanded
payment instead. A new troop surge has been initiated and this WILL end in all out war. The
tit-for-tat has just begun.
How do Trump cultists respond? "Kill those terrorists!"
Yes, many of the same people that applauded Trump's supposed opposition to the wars three
years ago are now fanatically cheering for the beginning of perhaps the most destructive war of
all. The rationalizations for this abound. Soleimani was planning attacks on US targets in
Iraq, they say. And, this might be true, though no hard proof has yet been presented.
I'm reminded of the Bush era claims of Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction", the weapons that
were never found and no proof was found that they ever existed. The only weapons Iraq had were
the weapons the US sold to them decades ago. Any government can fabricate an excuse for
assassination or war for public consumption; the Trump Administration is no different.
That said, I think the most important factor in this debate has fallen by the wayside. The
bottom line is, US troops and US bases should NOT be in Iraq in the first place. Trump himself
stated
this time and time again . Even if Soleimani was behind the attacks and riots in Iraq, US
assets cannot be attacked in the region if they are REMOVED from the region as Trump said he
would do.
There is only one reason to keep US assets in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at this time, and
that is to create ongoing tensions in the area which can be used by the establishment to
trigger a new war, specifically with Iran.
The War Pigs always have reasons and rationales, though.
They say the Muslim world is a threat to our way of life, and I agree that their ideology is
completely incompatible with Western values. That said, the solution is not sending young
Americans to die overseas in wars based on lies. Again, these wars only benefit the bankers and
globalists; they do not make us safer as a people. The only moral solution is to make sure the
fascist elements of Muslim extremism are not imported to our shores.
The War Pigs say that we deserve payment for our "services rendered" in the region before we
leave, echoing the sentiments of Donald Trump. I ask, what services? Payment for what? The
invasion the Iraqi's didn't want, based on fallacies that have been publicly exposed? The US
bases that should not be there in the first place? The hundreds of thousands dead from a war
that had no purpose except to deliberately destabilize the region?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and the
War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach their
egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win, and they
want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens get killed.
They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war unilaterally
without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and technically they
are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were removed under the Bush and
Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization For Use Of Military Force) in
2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate war on a whim without oversight.
Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is constitutional, or right.
In the end, the Trump bandwagon is meant to accomplish many things for the globalists; the
main goal though is that it is designed to change liberty conservatives into rabid statists. It
is designed to make anti-war pro-constitution activists into war mongers and supporters of big
government, as long as it is big government under "our control". But it's not under our
control. Trump is NOT our guy. He is an
agent of the establishment and always has been.
For now, the saber rattling is aggressive but the actions have been limited, but this will
not be the case for long. Some may ask why the establishment has not simply launched all out
war now? Why start out small? Firstly, they need conservatives psychologically invested in the
idea. This may require a false flag event or attack on American civilians. Secondly, they need
to execute an extensive troop build-up, which could take a few months. Declarations of a "need
for peace" are always used to stall for time while the elites position for war.
War with Iran is pointless, and frankly, unwinnable, and the elites know this. It's not just
a war with Iran, it is a war with Iran, their allies, and every other nation that reacts
negatively to our actions. And, these nations do not have to react militarily, they can react
economically by dumping US treasuries and the dollar as world reserve.
The establishment wants the US embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. until we are so
hollowed out from conflict that we collapse.
They also need a considerable distraction to hide their responsibility for the implosion of
the Everything Bubble and the economic pain that will come with it. The end game for the
establishment is for America to self destruct, so that it can be rebuilt into something
unrecognizable and eternally monstrous. They want every vestige of our original principles to
be erased, and to do that, they need us to be complicit in our own destruction.
They need us to participate. Don't participate, and refuse to support new banker wars. Don't
be a War Pig.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
The main problem of the United States in the existing political and economic system, which
began to be intensively created by the American banking layer since 1885 and was fixed in
1913. This became possible only thanks to the Civil War of 1861-1865. I will explain. Before
the Civil War, each state had its own banking structure, its own banknotes (there were not so
many states, there were still territories that did not become states yet). Before the
American Civil War, there was no single banking system. Abraham Linkol was a protege of the
banking houses of the cities of New York and Chicago, they rigged the election (bought the
election). It may sound rude to the Americans, but Lincoln was a rogue in the eyes of some US
citizens of that time. And this became the main reason for the desire of some states (not
only southern, and some northern) to withdraw from the United States. Another good reason for
the exit was the persistent attempts of bankers in New York and Chicago to take control of
the banking system of the South. These are two main reasons, as old as the World, the
struggle for control and money. The war (unfortunately) began the South. Under a federal
treaty, South and North were supposed to jointly contain US forts for protection. The
fighting began on April 12, 1861 with an attack by southerners on such a fort Sumter in
Charleston Bay. These are the beginnings of war.
This is important - I advise everyone to read the memoirs of generals, and especially the
memoirs of Ulysses Grant, the future president of the United States. The war was with varying
success, but the emissaries of the banks of New York and Chicago always followed the army of
the North, who, taking advantage of the disastrous situation in the battlefields, bought up
real estate, land and other assets. They were called the "Carpetbagger". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger
They were engaged in the purchase throughout the war and up to 1885.
To make it clear to you, in the history of the USA, the period from 1865 to 1885 is called
the "Great American Depression" (this is the very first great depression and lasted 20
years). During this time, the bankers of New York and Chicago completely subjugated the US
banking system to themselves and their interests, trampled the South (robbed), after which
the submission of the US as a state directly to the banking mafia began. At present (since
1913) in the USA there is not capitalism, but an evil parody of capitalism.
I can call it this: American clan-corporate oligarchic "capitalism" (with the suppression
of free markets, with unfair competition and the creation of barriers to the dissemination of
reliable information). Since such "capitalism" cannot work (like socialism or utopian
communism), constant wars are needed that bring profit to the bankers, owners of the
military-industrial complex, political "service staff", make oligarchs richer, and ordinary
Americans poorer. We are now observing this, since this system has come to its end and
everything has become obvious.
For example, in the early 80s, the middle class of the United States was approximately 70%
of the population employed in production and trade, now it is no more than 15%.
The gap between the oligarchs and ordinary Americans widened. My essay is how I see what
is happening in the USA and why I do not like it. It's my personal opinion. In the end, my
favorite phrase is that Americans are suckers and boobies (but we still love them). Good luck
everyone.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people
who are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are.
What does Frank the Skank (ostensibly an American taxpayer, but more likely an Israeli
dual "loyalty" traitor) have to say about this?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and
the War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach
their egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win,
and they want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens
get killed. They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war
unilaterally without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and
technically they are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were
removed under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization
For Use Of Military Force) in 2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate
war on a whim without oversight. Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is
constitutional, or right.
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
The new year opened with the United States committing an extrajudicial assassination in a
foreign country by drone.
I'm not talking about the January 3, 2020 rocket attack that killed Iranian general Qasem
Soleimani. I'm talking about the January 1, 2019 drone strike that killed Jamal Al Badawi, an
alleged Al Qaeda plotter, in Yemen.
The U.S. carrying out assassinations from above -- without trial, without warning -- is
nothing new. What was different about the killing of Al Badawi was that the U.S. military was
public about it, announcing the killing via Twitter
on January 6.
For years, activists, journalists, scholars, and others have been calling for transparency
regarding the notoriously clandestine Defense Department and CIA-run drone programs. How one
ends up on the lists of people targeted, to whom one appeals to get off of such a list, where
the drones are based, and even when they strike are matters that were shrouded in secrecy
during the Bush and Obama administrations.
That's largely remained true under Trump -- in fact, it's
even more difficult to get information about civilian casualties now. But here was an
example of an assassination by drone being done in the open.
Presumably, the reason to have more information about the drone war is so the people running
it can be held accountable for their actions. And yet, given the opportunity to ask questions
about the New Year's Day attack, precious few were asked by Congress or the mainstream
media.
Today, as we spiral perilously toward direct military confrontation between the U.S. and
Iran, it is worth reflecting on the failures to rein in Trump's aggression along the way. Given
the obvious signs that Trump has been keen to escalate the United States' many wars -- and
begin new ones -- the complicity of other institutions in Trump's belligerence, particularly
Congress, is stunning.
Crickets from Congress
Trump's unilateral withdrawal from -- and efforts to destroy -- the nuclear deal sparked a
predictable trajectory of escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Many have pointed that
out, most recently former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice . What we need to examine more deeply are the decisions between then and now
that enabled Trump to pursue such a path.
At several key junctures, lawmakers simply failed to challenge acts of U.S. aggression
carried out without even a pretense of accountability, as when Amnesty International documented
the fact that the U.S. killed civilians in its escalating air war in Somalia, in a report that
received too little attention. Or when journalists
reported that the U.S.-led siege against ISIS in the Syrian city of Raqqa was devastating
for civilians of that city -- whom the U.S. then
abandoned , after saying it would help rebuild.
Other times, lawmakers and other officials did raise their voices in opposition to Trump's
foreign policy moves -- by saying that he wasn't committed enough to pursuing U.S. wars.
Such was the response when Trump announced that he was withdrawing troops from the Turkish
border with Syria. Critics advocated
maintaining the open-ended military presence throughout Syria.
But we don't even have to look back that far.
On December 9 -- barely a month ago -- the Washington Post began publishing a series
of articles known as
the Afghanistan Papers , which documented years of lies by U.S. officials and catastrophes
caused by U.S. actions in its 18-year occupation of that country. Two weeks later, the New
York Times released documents and video, principally testimony from U.S. Navy SEALs, that
confirmed the unmistakable
war crimes committed by Navy SEAL chief Eddie Gallagher, who had been recently acquitted of
the most serious charges -- and pardoned by the president.
Here were the major newspapers of record running front-page coverage of serious abuses
people should be called to account for. Yet where were the congressional hearings?
Instead of taking steps toward that accountability, Congress did the opposite: It passed a
new $738 billion military spending bill, effectively approving and fueling the wars. Despite
vocal condemnation of the bill from California Democrats Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, just 41
House Democrats voted against it, compared to 188 who joined Republicans in
passing it.
Antigovernment protests in Baghdad, November 2019 (Shutterstock)
In a national address today, Trump threatened even more sanctions against Iran. As his
rhetoric becomes more belligerent -- and as he deploys
even more troops to the Middle East to set the stage for attacks on Iran -- members of
Congress' calls to bring the president
into compliance with the War Powers Act are certainly welcome. But the questions that lawmakers
are raising now, after the U.S. has already committed an act of war in assassinating Soleimani
in Iraq, run contrary to their actions up to this point.
Going into the new year, Congress had already sent the message that Trump and the Pentagon
could do whatever they please. And whatever misgivings members of Congress have about military
attacks on Iran, the body has supported
the sanctions imposed on that country by the United States -- which have been
disastrous for the Iranian population , and which act as precursors to war.
The so-called War on Terror is completely out of control. What is needed is for the
widespread opposition in the U.S. to the wars waged in our names --
including attacking Iran -- to be turned into a fighting resistance.
We have seen mass protest under Trump -- even in its brief moments -- have significant
impacts. The Women's Marches may not have ended sexual violence, but they, along with the
#MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns, opened the most wide reaching and serious conversations about
gender-based abuse in recent memory, and some high profile abusers have been made to account
for their actions. (Even a UN convention was passed , though
the U.S. hasn't ratified it.) The spontaneous, mass mobilizations to airports against Trump's
Muslim Ban set back those plans for a time as well.
We need to extend that resistance to a U.S. military machine that's moving like a runaway
train, undeterred by the human costs of its destruction, or even the apparent lack of a
strategy from a military perspective.
Popular power matters. There was, in fact, a moment where there was a conversation in
Congress about ending U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's cataclysmic war in Yemen -- a war that
has only been made possible with U.S. weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support.
Despite votes in both houses to stop that assistance, Trump was able to veto the
legislation , and the moment passed.
What if there had been mass actions in the streets? Could that effort have been pushed over
the line?
We need to ask these questions, and imagine the answers. In doing so, we will be joining in
solidarity with various efforts in the Middle East to challenge governments and the foreign
powers -- particularly the United States -- backing them.
After all, the news that dominated headlines out of Iraq for the months prior to the U.S.
assassination of Soleimani was that Iraqis were mobilizing en masse
against a government whose origins lie in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, and
whose forces are armed and trained by billions of dollars in U.S. aid. (There were Iraqi
protests that
also targeted Iranian influence in the country.)
In fact, focusing on the movements of people throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Central
Asia who find themselves in the crosshairs of the War on Terror must be essential to a movement
here that challenges U.S. wars. Imagine the power, for example, of massive U.S. rallies
coinciding with the movement inside Iraq to remove U.S. troops from the country. Imagine if
more members of the U.S. Congress were compelled to follow Iraq's parliament in calling for
those soldiers to come home.
Behind every Baghdadi
For the few conversations that do take place about our wars, it's distressingly typical for
the people having them forget about the people bearing the brunt of those wars.
After the October 26 killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, for example, Defense
Department officials held a press conference at the Pentagon. You can read the
transcript . Journalists in the room asked two questions about the storied dog who assisted
in the killing operation, and several more about the prospect of U.S. personnel securing Syrian
oil fields.
The reporters in the room didn't ask a single question about whether others besides Al
Baghdadi, including civilians, were wounded or killed in the mission.
Thankfully, other journalists
did ask. NPR reporters learned that in the same raid where Baghdadi was killed, the Syrian
farmer Barakat Ahmad Barakat saw his two friends killed by U.S. rockets -- and his own hand
severed from his body -- as they were caught up in the attack while driving in van.
The three farmers were unarmed. Aside from the trauma of being maimed and seeing his friends
killed, Barakat's work is impossible without his hand. His life as he knew it ended.
Behind every "bad guy" like Baghdadi are masses of ordinary people suffering the endless
grind of war -- a grind that this country has made ever more brutal, with ever fewer
constraints or accountability from the U.S. political system.
It is crucial that we are all talking about Iran now, as we stand on the verge of a new
chapter of catastrophes -- and work to prevent it. But the killing and destruction of the War
on Terror is happening around the world, every day. The lack of attention to it is part of what
keeps it going, and sets the stage for the current situation involving Iran, Iraq, and the
United States.
The truth is, these wars are criminal, and any conversation about them that doesn't center
the people most impacted is unacceptable. That conversation won't start in the U.S. government.
Instead, it must be raised by those of us outraged by wars that have devastated generations,
and who believe that people from Somalia to Afghanistan, and now to Iran -- indeed, all of us
-- deserve a better world.
Khury Petersen-Smith is the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for
Policy Studies.
By killing Soleimani the USA formally declared war of Iran. So sactions is jus secondary
effect of this decition.
Notable quotes:
"... Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response. ..."
The latest move included sanctions on metal manufacturing and other sectors of the Iranian
economy, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin told reporters at a White House press
briefing, noting that the sanctions are both primary and secondary.
Mnuchin also said the Treasury had designated eight senior Iranian officials, including Ali
Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Reza Ashtiani,
deputy chief of staff of Iranian armed force, and others.
"The United States is targeting senior Iranian officials for their involvement and
complicity in Tuesday's ballistic missile strikes," Mnuchin claimed in a statement issued by
the Treasury.
Also on Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump said in a White House statement that the
punishing measures aimed at denying Iran's revenue that "may be used to fund and support its
nuclear program, missile development, terrorism and terrorist proxy networks, and malign
regional influence."
The Pentagon confirmed that Iran had launched 16 ballistic missiles against two military
bases housing U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq earlier this week.
Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had claimed responsibility for the missile
attacks, saying that they were meant to retaliate the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, former
commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC.
Trump said Wednesday in an address to the nation that "the United States will immediately
impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions
will remain until Iran changes its behavior."
Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been
mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance
and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response.
Looks like Iran is Catch22 for the USA: it can destroy it, but only at the cost of losing empire and dollar hegemony...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings 12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own economies? It's an age-old problem. ..."
"... The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight. ..."
"... Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel]. This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it is about the BRI. ..."
"... The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with China shortly before it slid into this current mess. ..."
"... This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time to speed up this development. ..."
"... "Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries." ..."
"... "For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas, China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines' process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq." ..."
"... Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous. ..."
"... I'd never thought of that "stationary aircraft carrier" comparison between Israel and the British, very apt. ..."
"... Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at all costs". ..."
"... This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to the Iraqi parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US admitted to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers. ..."
"... This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11. https://www.voltairenet.org/article ..."
"... "The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire." ..."
"... The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US Financial/Political/Military power. ..."
"... In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world. Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the world. ..."
"... the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few entities. ..."
Introduction: After posting Michael Hudson's article "America
Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East" on the blog, I decided to ask
Michael to reply to a few follow-up questions. Michael very kindly agreed. Please see our
exchange below.
The Saker
-- -- -
The Saker: Trump has been accused of not thinking forward, of not having a long-term
strategy regarding the consequences of assassinating General Suleimani. Does the United States
in fact have a strategy in the Near East, or is it only ad hoc?
Michael Hudson: Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not
reflect a deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and
exploitative that it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if
they came right out and said it.
President Trump is just the taxicab driver, taking the passengers he has accepted –
Pompeo, Bolton and the Iran-derangement syndrome neocons – wherever they tell him they
want to be driven. They want to pull a heist, and he's being used as the getaway driver (fully
accepting his role). Their plan is to hold onto the main source of their international revenue:
Saudi Arabia and the surrounding Near Eastern oil-export surpluses and money. They see the US
losing its ability to exploit Russia and China, and look to keep Europe under its control by
monopolizing key sectors so that it has the power to use sanctions to squeeze countries that
resist turning over control of their economies and natural rentier monopolies to US buyers. In
short, US strategists would like to do to Europe and the Near East just what they did to Russia
under Yeltsin: turn over public infrastructure, natural resources and the banking system to
U.S. owners, relying on US dollar credit to fund their domestic government spending and private
investment.
This is basically a resource grab. Suleimani was in the same position as Chile's Allende,
Libya's Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam. The motto is that of Stalin: "No person, no problem."
The Saker: Your answer raises a question about Israel: In your recent article you only
mention Israel twice, and these are only passing comments. Furthermore, you also clearly say
the US Oil lobby as much more crucial than the Israel Lobby, so here is my follow-up question
to you: On what basis have you come to this conclusion and how powerful do you believe the
Israel Lobby to be compared to, say, the Oil lobby or the US Military-Industrial Complex? To
what degree do their interests coincide and to what degree to they differ?
Michael Hudson: I wrote my article to explain the most basic concerns of U.S. international
diplomacy: the balance of payments (dollarizing the global economy, basing foreign central bank
savings on loans to the U.S. Treasury to finance the military spending mainly responsible for
the international and domestic budget deficit), oil (and the enormous revenue produced by the
international oil trade), and recruitment of foreign fighters (given the impossibility of
drafting domestic U.S. soldiers in sufficient numbers). From the time these concerns became
critical to today, Israel was viewed as a U.S. military base and supporter, but the U.S. policy
was formulated independently of Israel.
I remember one day in 1973 or '74 I was traveling with my Hudson Institute colleague Uzi
Arad (later a head of Mossad and advisor to Netanyahu) to Asia, stopping off in San Francisco.
At a quasi-party, a U.S. general came up to Uzi and clapped him on the shoulder and said,
"You're our landed aircraft carrier in the Near East," and expressed his friendship.
Uzi was rather embarrassed. But that's how the U.S. military thought of Israel back then. By
that time the three planks of U.S. foreign policy strategy that I outlined were already firmly
in place.
Of course Netanyahu has applauded U.S. moves to break up Syria, and Trump's assassination
choice. But the move is a U.S. move, and it's the U.S. that is acting on behalf of the dollar
standard, oil power and mobilizing Saudi Arabia's Wahabi army.
Israel fits into the U.S.-structured global diplomacy much like Turkey does. They and other
countries act opportunistically within the context set by U.S. diplomacy to pursue their own
policies. Obviously Israel wants to secure the Golan Heights; hence its opposition to Syria,
and also its fight with Lebanon; hence, its opposition to Iran as the backer of Assad and
Hezbollah. This dovetails with US policy.
But when it comes to the global and U.S. domestic response, it's the United States that is
the determining active force. And its concern rests above all with protecting its cash cow of
Saudi Arabia, as well as working with the Saudi jihadis to destabilize governments whose
foreign policy is independent of U.S. direction – from Syria to Russia (Wahabis in
Chechnya) to China (Wahabis in the western Uighur region). The Saudis provide the underpinning
for U.S. dollarization (by recycling their oil revenues into U.S. financial investments and
arms purchases), and also by providing and organizing the ISIS terrorists and coordinating
their destruction with U.S. objectives. Both the Oil lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex
obtain huge economic benefits from the Saudis.
Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about.
The Saker: In your recent article you wrote: " The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves ." Others believe that
the goal was precisely the opposite, to get a pretext to remove the US forces from both Iraq
and Syria. What are your grounds to believe that your hypothesis is the most likely one?
Michael Hudson: Why would killing Suleimani help remove the U.S. presence? He was the
leader of the fight against ISIS, especially in Syria. US policy was to continue using ISIS to
permanently destabilize Syria and Iraq so as to prevent a Shi'ite crescent reaching from Iran
to Lebanon – which incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative.
So it killed Suleimani to prevent the peace negotiation. He was killed because he had been
invited by Iraq's government to help mediate a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That was what the United States feared most of all, because it effectively would prevent its
control of the region and Trump's drive to seize Iraqi and Syrian oil.
So using the usual Orwellian doublethink, Suleimani was accused of being a terrorist, and
assassinated under the U.S. 2002 military Authorization Bill giving the President to move
without Congressional approval against Al Qaeda. Trump used it to protect Al Qaeda's
terrorist ISIS offshoots.
Given my three planks of U.S. diplomacy described above, the United States must remain in
the Near East to hold onto Saudi Arabia and try to make Iraq and Syria client states equally
subservient to U.S. balance-of-payments and oil policy.
Certainly the Saudis must realize that as the buttress of U.S. aggression and terrorism in
the Near East, their country (and oil reserves) are the most obvious target to speed the
parting guest. I suspect that this is why they are seeking a rapprochement with Iran. And I
think it is destined to come about, at least to provide breathing room and remove the threat.
The Iranian missiles to Iraq were a demonstration of how easy it would be to aim them at Saudi
oil fields. What then would be Aramco's stock market valuation?
The Saker: In your article you wrote: " The major deficit in the U.S. balance of payments
has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean
War in 1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing
the dollar off gold in 1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to
continue supporting the 800 U.S. military bases around the world and allied troop support
without losing America's financial leverage. " I want to ask a basic, really primitive
question in this regard: how cares about the balance of payments as long as 1) the US continues
to print money 2) most of the world will still want dollars. Does that not give the US an
essentially "infinite" budget? What is the flaw in this logic?
Michael Hudson: The U.S. Treasury can create dollars to spend at home, and the Fed can
increase the banking system's ability to create dollar credit and pay debts denominated in US
dollars. But they cannot create foreign currency to pay other countries, unless they willingly
accept dollars ad infinitum – and that entails bearing the costs of financing the U.S.
balance-of-payments deficit, getting only IOUs in exchange for real resources that they sell to
U.S. buyers.
This is the situation that arose half a century ago. The United States could print dollars
in 1971, but it could not print gold.
In the 1920s, Germany's Reichsbank could print deutsche marks – trillions of them.
When it came to pay Germany's foreign reparations debt, all it could do was to throw these
D-marks onto the foreign exchange market. That crashed the currency's exchange rate, forcing up
the price of imports proportionally and causing the German hyperinflation.
The question is, how many surplus dollars do foreign governments want to hold. Supporting
the dollar standard ends up supporting U.S. foreign diplomacy and military policy. For the
first time since World War II, the most rapidly growing parts of the world are seeking to
de-dollarize their economies by reducing reliance on U.S. exports, U.S. investment, and U.S.
bank loans. This move is creating an alternative to the dollar, likely to replace it with
groups of other currencies and assets in national financial reserves.
The Saker: In the same article you also write: " So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. " We often hear people say
that the dollar is about to tank and that as soon as that happens, then the US economy (and,
according to some, the EU economy too) will collapse. In the intelligence community there is
something called tracking the "indicators and warnings". My question to you is: what are the
economic "indicators and warnings" of a possible (probable?) collapse of the US dollar followed
by a collapse of the financial markets most tied to the Dollar? What shall people like myself
(I am an economic ignoramus) keep an eye on and look for?
Michael Hudson: What is most likely is a slow decline, largely from debt deflation
and cutbacks in social spending, in the Eurozone and US economies. Of course, the decline will
force the more highly debt-leveraged companies to miss their bond payments and drive them into
insolvency. That is the fate of Thatcherized economies. But it will be long and painfully drawn
out, largely because there is little left-wing socialist alternative to neoliberalism at
present.
Trump's protectionist policies and sanctions are forcing other countries to become
self-reliant and independent of US suppliers, from farm crops to airplanes and military arms,
against the US threat of a cutoff or sanctions against repairs, spare parts and servicing.
Sanctioning Russian agriculture has helped it become a major crop exporter, and to become much
more independent in vegetables, dairy and cheese products. The US has little to offer
industrially, especially given the fact that its IT communications are stuffed with US
spyware.
Europe therefore is facing increasing pressure from its business sector to choose the non-US
economic alliance that is growing more rapidly and offers a more profitable investment market
and more secure trade supplier. Countries will turn as much as possible (diplomatically as well
as financially and economically) to non-US suppliers because the United States is not reliable,
and because it is being shrunk by the neoliberal policies supported by Trump and the Democrats
alike. A byproduct probably will be a continued move toward gold as an alternative do the
dollar in settling balance-of-payments deficits.
The Saker: Finally, my last question: which country out there do you see as the most capable
foe of the current US-imposed international political and economic world order? whom do you
believe that US Deep State and the Neocons fear most? China? Russia? Iran? some other country?
How would you compare them and on the basis of what criteria?
Michael Hudson: The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States
itself. That is Trump's major contribution. He is uniting the world in a move toward
multi-centrism much more than any ostensibly anti-American could have done. And he is doing it
all in the name of American patriotism and nationalism – the ultimate Orwellian
rhetorical wrapping!
Trump has driven Russia and China together with the other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), including Iran as observer. His demand that NATO join in US oil
grabs and its supportive terrorism in the Near East and military confrontation with Russia in
Ukraine and elsewhere probably will lead to European "Ami go home" demonstrations against NATO
and America's threat of World War III.
No single country can counter the U.S. unipolar world order. It takes a critical mass of
countries. This already is taking place among the countries that you list above. They are
simply acting in their own common interest, using their own mutual currencies for trade and
investment. The effect is an alternative multilateral currency and trading area.
The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice
their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are
beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew
from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings
12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own
house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US
unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own
economies? It's an age-old problem.
The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another
currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other
countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight.
The Saker: I thank you very much for your time and answers!
Another one that absolutely stands for me out is the below link to a recent interview of
Hussein Askary.
As I wrote a few days ago IMO this too is a wonderful insight into the utterly complicated
dynamics of the tinderbox that the situation in Iran and Iraq has become.
Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel].
This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it
is about the BRI.
The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with
China shortly before it slid into this current mess.
This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used
directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would
help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A
key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time
to speed up this development.
In essence, this would enable the direct and efficient linking of Iraq into the BRI
project. Going forward the economic gains and the political stability that could come out of
this would be a completely new paradigm in the recovery of Iraq both economically and
politically. Iraq is essential for a major part of the dynamics of the BRI because of its
strategic location and the fact that it could form a major hub in the overall network.
It absolutely goes without saying that the AAA would do everything the could to wreck this
plan. This is their playbook and is exactly what they have done. The moronic and
extraordinarily impulsive Trump subsequently was easily duped into being a willing and
idiotic accomplice in this plan.
The positive in all of this is that this whole scheme will backfire spectacularly for the
perpetrators and will more than likely now speed up the whole process in getting Iraq back on
track and working towards stability and prosperity.
Please don't anyone try to claim that Trump is part of any grand plan nothing could be
further from the truth he is nothing more than a bludgeoning imbecile foundering around,
lashing out impulsively indiscriminately. He is completely oblivious and ignorant as to the
real picture.
I urge everyone involved in this Saker site to put aside an hour and to listen very
carefully to Askary's insights. This is extremely important and could bring more clarity to
understanding the situation than just about everything else you have read put together. There
is hope, and Askary highlights the huge stakes that both Russia and China have in the
region.
This is a no brainer. This is the time for both Russia and China to act and to decisively.
They must cooperate in assisting both Iraq and Iran to extract themselves from the current
quagmire the one that the vicious Hegemon so cruelly and thoughtlessly tossed them into.
Also interesting is what Simon Watkins reports in his recent article entitled "Is Iraq About
To Become A Chinese Client State?"
To quote from the article:
"Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal
agreed between the two countries."
and
"For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been
told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and
Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that
central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas,
China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and
build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from
Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as
those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines'
process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to
use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq."
and
"The second key announcement in this vein made last week from Iraq was that the Oil
Ministry has completed the pre-qualifying process for companies interested in participating
in the Iraqi-Jordanian oil pipeline project. The U$5 billion pipeline is aimed at carrying
oil produced from the Rumaila oilfield in Iraq's Basra Governorate to the Jordanian port of
Aqaba, with the first phase of the project comprising the installation of a
700-kilometre-long pipeline with a capacity of 2.25 million bpd within the Iraqi territories
(Rumaila-Haditha). The second phase includes installing a 900-kilometre pipeline in Jordan
between Haditha and Aqaba with a capacity of 1 million bpd. Iraq's Oil Minister – for
the time being, at least – Thamir Ghadhban added that the Ministry has formed a team to
prepare legal contracts, address financial issues and oversee technical standards for
implementing the project, and that May will be the final month in which offers for the
project from the qualified companies will be accepted and that the winners will be announced
before the end of this year. Around 150,000 barrels of the oil from Iraq would be used for
Jordan's domestic needs, whilst the remainder would be exported through Aqaba to various
destinations, generating about US$3 billion a year in revenues to Jordan, with the rest going
to Iraq. Given that the contractors will be expected to front-load all of the financing for
the projects associated with this pipeline, Baghdad expects that such tender offers will be
dominated by Chinese and Russian companies, according to the Iran and Iraq source."
Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and
alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the
military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle
east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous.
They will not sacrifice the
(free) oil until booted out by a coalition of Arab countries threatening to over run them and
that is why the dollar hegemonys death will be slow, long and drawn out and they will do
anything, any dirty trick in the book, to prevent Arab/Persian unity. Unlike many peoples
obsession with Israel and how important they feel themselves to be I think Hudson is correct
again. They are the middle eastern version of the British – a stationary aircraft
carrier who will allow themselves to be used and abused whilst living under the illusion they
are major players. They aren't. They're bit part players in decline, subservient to the great
dollar and oil pyramid scheme that keeps America afloat. If you want to beat America you have
to understand the big scheme, that and the utter insanity that backs it up. It is that
insanity of the leites, the inability to allow themselves to be 'beaten' that will keep
nuclear exchange as a real possibility over the next 10 to 15 years. Unification is the only
thing that can stop it and trying to unite so many disparate countries (as the Russians are
trying to do despite multiple provocations) is where the future lies and why it will take so
long. It is truly breath taking in such a horrific way, as Hudson mentions, that to allow the
world to see its 'masters of the universe' pogram to be revealed:
"Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not reflect a
deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and exploitative that
it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if they came right
out and said it."
Would be to allow it to be undermined at home and abroad. God help us all.
Clever would be a better word. Looking at my world globe, I see Italy, Greece, and Turkey on
that end of the Mediterranean. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. Crete and Cyprus are also
right there. Doesn't Hudson own a globe or regional map?
That a US Admiral would be gushing about the Apartheid state 7 years after the attempted
destruction of the USS Liberty is painful to consider. I'd like to disbelieve the story, but
it's quite likely there were a number of high-ranking ***holes in a Naval Uniform.
The world situation reminds us of the timeless fable by Aesop of The North Wind and the Sun.
Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far
removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at
all costs".
Perhaps the most potent weapon Iran or anyone else has at this critical juncture, is not
missiles, but diplomacy.
"Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about."
Thank you for saying this sir. In the US and around the world many people become
obsessively fixated in seeing a "jew" or zionist behind every bush. Now the Zionists are
certinly an evil, blood thirsty bunch, and certainly deserve the scorn of the world, but i
feel its a cop out sometimes. A person from the US has a hard time stomaching the actions of
their country, so they just hoist all the unpleasentries on to the zionists. They put it all
on zionisim, and completly fail to mention imperialism. I always switced back and forth on
the topic my self. But i cant see how a beachead like the zionist state, a stationary
carrier, can be bigger than the empire itself. Just look at the major leaders in the
resistance groups, the US was always seen as the ultimate obstruction, while israel was seen
as a regional obstruction. Like sayyed hassan nasrallah said in his recent speech about the
martyrs, that if the US is kicked out, the Israelis might just run away with out even
fighting. I hate it when people say "we are in the middle east for israel" when it can easily
be said that "israel is still in the mid east because of the US." If the US seized to exist
today, israel would fall rather quickly. If israel fell today the US would still continue
being an imperalist, bloodthirsty entity.
The Deeper Story behind the Assassination of Soleimani
This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to
the Iraqi
parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US
admitted
to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers.
This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the
Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article
I wish the Saker had asked Mr Hudson about some crucial recent events to get his opinion
with regards to US foreign policy. Specifically, how does the emergence of cryptocurrency
relate to dollar finance and the US grand strategy? A helpful tool for the hegemon or the
emergence of a new currency that prevents unlimited currency printing? Finally, what is
global warming and the associated carbon credit system? The next planned model of continuing
global domination and balance of payments? Or true organic attempt at fair energy production
and management?
With all due respect, these are huge questions in themselves and perhaps could to be
addressed in separate interviews.
IMO it doesn't always work that well to try to cover too much ground in just one giant
leap.
I have never understood the Cebrowski doctrine. How does the destruction of Middle Eastern state structures allow the US to control Middle
East Oil? The level of chaos generated by such an act would seem to prevent anyone from controlled
the oil.
Dr. Hudson often appears on RT's "Keiser Report" where he covers many contemporary topics
with its host Max Keiser. Many of the shows transcripts are available at Hudson's website . Indeed, after the two Saker items,
you'll find three programs on the first page. Using the search function at his site, you'll
find the two articles he's written that deal with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, although I
think he's been more specific in the TV interviews.
As for this Q&A, its an A+. Hudson's 100% correct to playdown the Zionist influence
given the longstanding nature of the Outlaw US Empire's methods that began well before the
rise of the Zionist Lobby, which in reality is a recycling of aid dollars back to Congress in
the form of bribes.
Nils: Good Article. The spirit of Nihilism.
Quote from Neocon Michael Ladeen.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear
down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and
cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do
not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack
us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
@NILS As far as crypto currency goes it is a brilliant idea in concept. But since during the
Bush years we have been shown multiple times, who actually owns [and therefore controls] the
internet. Many times now we have also been informed that through the monitoring capability's
of our defense agency's, they are recording every key stroke. IMO, with the flip of a switch,
we can shut down the internet. At the very least, that would stop us from being able to trade
in crypto, but they have e-files on each of us. They know our passwords, or can easily access
them. That does not give me confidence in e=currency during a teotwawki situation.
One thing that troubles me about the petrodollar thesis is that ANNUAL trade in oil is about
2 trillion DAILY trade in $US is 4 trillion. I can well believe the US thinks oil is the
bedrock if dollar hegemony but is it? I see no alternative to US dollar hegemony.
The lines that really got my attention were these:
"The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That
is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that
other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire."
That is so completely true. I have wondered why – to date – there had not been
more movement by Europe away from the United States. But while reading the article the
following occurred to me. Maybe Europe is awaiting the next U.S. election. Maybe they hope
that a new president (someone like Biden) might allow Europe to keep more of the
"spoils."
If that is true, then a re-election of Trump will probably send Europe fleeing for the
exits. The Europeans will be cutting deals with Russia and China like the store is on
fire.
The critical player in forming the EU WAS/IS the US financial Elites. Yes, they had many
ultra powerful Europeans, especially Germany, but it was the US who initiated the EU.
Purpose? For the US Financial Powerhouses & US politicians to "take Europe captive."
Notice the similarities: the EU has its Central Bank who communicates with the private
Banksters of the FED. Much austerity has ensued, especially in Southern nations: Greece,
Italy, etc. Purpose: to smash unions, worker's pay, eliminate unions, and basically allowing
US/EU Financial capital to buy out Italy, most of Greece, and a goodly section of Spain and
Portugal.
The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as
separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US
Financial/Political/Military power.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this but it sounds like he is saying that the U.S.
has a payment deficit problem which is solved by stealing the world's oil supplies. To do
this they must have a powerful, expensive military. But it is primarily this military which
is the main cause of the balance deficit. So it is an eternally fuelled problem and solution.
If I understand this, what it actually means is that we all live on a plantation as slaves
and everything that is happening is for the benefit of the few wealthy billionaires. And they
intend to turn the entire world into their plantation of slaves. They may even let you live
for a while longer.
I didn't know this until I read a history of World War I.
As you know, World War One was irresolvable, murderous, bloody trench warfare. People
would charge out of the trenches trying to overrun enemy positions only to be cutdown by the
super weapon of the day – the machine gun. It was an unending bloody stalemate until
the development of the tank. Tanks were immune to machine gun fire coming from the trenches
and could overrun enemy positions. In the aftermath of that war, it became apparently that
mechanization had become crucial to military supremacy. In turn, fuel was crucial to
mechanization. Accordingly, in the Sykes Picot agreement France and Britain divided a large
amount of Middle Eastern oil between themselves in order to assure military dominance. (The
United States had plenty of their own oil at that time.)
In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of
world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world.
Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the
world.
That is one third of the story. The second third is this.
Up till 1971, the United States dollar was the most trusted currency in the world. The
dollar was backed by gold and lots and lots of it. Dollars were in fact redeemable in gold.
However, due to Vietnam War, the United States started running huge balance of payments
deficits. Other countries – most notably France under De Gaulle – started cashing
in dollars in exchange for that gold. Gold started flooding out of the United States. At that
point Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Basically stating that the
dollar was no longer backed by gold and dollars could not be redeemed for gold. That caused
an international payments problem. People would no longer accept dollars as payment since the
dollar was not backed up by anything. The American economy was in big trouble since they were
running deficits and people would no longer take dollars on faith.
To fix the problem, Henry Kissinger convinced the Saudis to agree to only accept dollars
in payment for oil – no matter who was the buyer. That meant that nations throughout
the world now needed dollars in order to pay for their energy needs. Due to this, the dollars
was once again the most important currency in the world since – as noted above –
energy underlies everything in modern industrial cultures. Additionally, since dollars were
now needed throughout the world, it became common to make all trades for any product in
highly valued dollars. Everyone needed dollars for every thing, oil or not.
At that point, the United States could go on printing dollars and spending them since a
growing world economy needed more and more dollars to buy oil as well as to trade everything
else.
That leads to the third part of the story. In order to convince the Saudis to accept only
dollars in payments for oil (and to have the Saudis strong arm other oil producers to do the
same) Kissinger promised to protect the brutal Saudi regime's hold on power against a restive
citizenry and also to protect the Saudi's against other nations. Additionally, Kissinger made
an implicit threat that if the Saudi's did not agree, the US would come in and just take
their oil. The Saudis agreed.
Thus, the three keys to dominance in the modern world are thus: oil, dollars and the
military.
Thus, Hudson ties in the three threads in his interview above. Oil, Dollars, Military.
That is what holds the empire together.
Thank you for thinking through this. Yes, the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the
absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the
US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few
entities.
I should make one note only to this. That "no man, no problem" was Stalin's motto is a myth.
He never said that. It was invented by a writer Alexei Rybnikov and inserted in his book "The
Children of Arbat".
Wow! Absolutely beautiful summation of the ultimate causes that got us where we are and, if
left intact, will get us to where we're going!
So, the dreamer says: If only we could throw-off our us-vs-them BS political-economic
ideology & religious doctrine-faith issues, put them into live-and-let-live mode, and see
that we are all just humans fighting over this oil resource to which our modern economy (way
of life) is addicted, then we might be able to hammer out some new rules for interacting, for
running an earth-resource sustainable and fair global economy We do at least have the
technology to leave behind our oil addiction, but the political-economic will still is
lacking. How much more of the current insanity must we have before we get that will? Will we
get it before it's too late?
Only if we, a sufficient majority from the lowest economic classes to the top elites and
throughout all nations, are able to psychologically-spiritually internalize the two
principles of Common Humanity and Spaceship Earth soon enough, will we stop our current slide
off the cliff into modern economic collapse and avert all the pain and suffering that's
already now with us and that will intensify.
The realist says we're not going to stop that slide and it's the only way we're going to
learn, if we are indeed ever going to learn.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates
today: "Assassination is the last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
He's played fast and loose with the facts, undermining his credibility on the world
stage.
Democrats insist the move was hasty and claim there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify
killing Soleimani. Essetually he was murged because Pompeo wanted to show the strength of the USA
in view of the attack on the USA embassy (which did not have any victims)
Pompeo collected more campaign donations from the Kochs and their employees than any
candidate in the country
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region. ..."
"... Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader. ..."
"... While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution. ..."
Consequences: Donald Trump appears to have no strategy for dealing with the fall-out
In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a
declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks
the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region.
Unsurprisingly, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that 'severe consequences'
await the killers of Soleimani, while the country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif,
denounced the assassination as an 'act of international terrorism'.
Meanwhile in the US, a number of major cities have increased security to protect prominent
landmarks and civilians from possible revenge terrorist attacks.
Whether or not that US reaction is justified, it would be difficult to overstate just how
big a loss Soleimani's death is for the Iranian regime, how seriously we should take its vows
of revenge – or, just as crucially, how humiliatingly off-guard Iran's leaders were when
Trump gave his kill order.
Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the
ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which
Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what
will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's
leader.
Meanwhile, so apparently unconcerned was Soleimani about his own safety that the general
– famed for constantly outsmarting his enemies on the battlefield – did not bother
to keep his travel plans secret.
While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before
the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since
the country's 1979 revolution.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision
to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary
of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve
the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence,
the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes
to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian
aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the
rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But
that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor
and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where
the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior
U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong
Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant
factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the
U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the
decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants
from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church
music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric
Twitter machine. A handy compilation:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader
who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime,
including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits
in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any
Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE
HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder
than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and
without hesitation!
And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target,
the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required,
but is given nevertheless!
You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle
East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the
one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been
revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian
commander, CNN
reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating
Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.
According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of
the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the
battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.
Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source
said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year
with Trump.
According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times
believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in
particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is
notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right
decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this
was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of
America, putting American lives at risk".
The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought
to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role
of CIA director and then his current one.
Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS,
Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any
military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.
"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing
the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in
helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the
Cabinet".
Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are
indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After
Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to
be slapped on Iran.
While bragging
about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his
tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising
that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get
more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc
reacting favorably to the suggestion.
Critics of the Soleimani assassination point out that it was an action devoid of strategic
purpose. They are correct to do so. Yet let's not blame Donald Trump and his ever-changing cast
of senior advisers for having strayed off the path of good sense. The United States lost its
way decades ago when members of the policy elite succumbed to an infatuation with military
power and thereby lost their strategic bearings.
The current crisis with Iran brings into focus something that ought to have long ago
attracted attention: t his country has a Samson problem. The United States has become a
21st-century equivalent of the tragic figure from the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible:
strong, vain, and doomed (although we must hope our nation does not share Samson's ultimate
fate).
Most people are familiar with at least the outlines of the biblical Samson story: a mighty
warrior who slays the enemies of the Israelites in great numbers using the jawbone of an ass
among other weapons. Sadly, after the captivating Delilah seduces Samson into revealing the
secret of his extraordinary strength -- his unshorn hair -- he ends up blind, in chains, and
held captive in the temple of the Philistines. Samson asks the Lord to restore his strength.
The King James Bible explains what happens next: "And he bowed himself with all his might; and
the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he
slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life." It was a huge bloodletting,
and among the victims was the hero himself.
It's a dramatic story, made for the movies. The 1949 Technicolor version, directed by Cecil
B. DeMille and starring Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr, remains a camp classic of the
sandal-and-togas genre. But whether in the original text or on celluloid, the denouement does
not qualify as a happy one. Samson was a fool and his own worst enemy. Something of the same
can be said of the United States in recent decades.
As the recently concluded war scare with Iran was unfolding, for example, President Trump
took it upon himself to assure his nervous fellow citizens as to the matchless strength of
America's armed forces. "So far, so good!" he tweeted, more than slightly prematurely. "We have
the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!"
I confess that it's those exclamation points that leave me most uneasy. They suggest a manic
personality oblivious to the seriousness of the moment. Can you imagine Kennedy in the midst of
the Cuban Missile Crisis releasing a comparable statement?
Although not without his faults, Kennedy understood how quickly a position of apparent
strength can dissipate. Our current commander-in-chief possesses no such appreciation. Trump's
confidence in the U.S. military, expressed with his trademark bluster and bravado, seemingly
knows no bounds. And although on this occasion the president and his counterparts in Tehran
found a way to avoid pulling down the temple on all of us, his performance did not inspire
confidence. We must hope that in the future he's confronted with few comparable crises. There's
no saying when his luck (and ours) might run out.
Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that the assassination of General Soleimani was
only the most recent in a long series of actions in which confidence in America's military has
underwritten rash decisions devoid of strategic common sense. Post-Cold War Washington
specializes in rashness. Indeed, in comparison with George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion of
Iraq in 2003, and Barack Obama, who greenlighted the overthrow of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi in
2011, Trump comes across as a small-stakes gambler.
The larger problem to which Trump calls our attention is the militarism that pervades the
American political class -- the conviction that accumulating and putting to use military power
expresses the essence of so-called American global leadership. That notion is dead wrong and
has been the source of endless mischief.
Congress is considering measures that will constrain Trump from any further use of force
targeting Iran, hoping thereby to avoid an all-out war. This is all to the good. But the larger
requirement is for our political establishment generally to wean itself off of its infatuation
with military power. Only then can we restore a measure of self-restraint to America's national
security policy.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory , is just
out.
We start in a considerable hole. Last year (September 12) Forbes reported a survey of
60,000 Europeans in 14 countries and found only 4% trust Trump. "Our polling confirms that
Trump is toxic in Europe, and that this is feeding into distrust of the U.S. Security
Guarantee,"
https://www.forbes.com/site...
Apparently they aren't so impressed by our massive military might . . . or at least they
are not impressed by those who wield our massive military might.
The US military isn't solving world problems, it's CAUSING world problems, primarily for
Israel's Balkanizing Oded Yinon Plan and for the neoconJew's PNAC global agenda.
The Full Spectrum Dominance policy posits that America can never be secure until all
potential rivals are made subservient. What is the character of a nation that demands
submission from the entire world, that all are to be vassals and satrapies?
If Trump really did think that there was some Art of the Deal logic in this, kill
Soleimani, let Iran have a symbolic retaliation, then back down and deal, I can respect
that, but I want to see a deal. Obama got a deal, not a perfect one, but respectable
considering we don't have long term interests in the Middle East anyways. Without a deal he
just furthered the risk of neocons getting to push the fire button and commit us
unprofitably once more, and pushed Iran further into the arms of China.
On the other hand his threatening to attack Iranian cultural sites was inappropriate and
unwise and creating long term problems with no short term gain. It rhymes with some of his
domestic issues too - tribalizing people does not make for a deal-making environment.
Shades of the 1993 Essay in Parameters "The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012.
When the only tool in in your kitbag that works at all is a hammer, every problem is a
nail. That might be okay if we had a small tack hammer, but for some reason all we have is
a 700 Billion Dollar 20 lb sledge. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=586
the assassination of General Soleimani was only the most recent in a long series of
actions in which confidence in America's military has underwritten rash decisions devoid of
strategic common sense
Ah, strategic common sense.
So Bacevich doesn't need to bother with tactical common sense.
Got it.
As a respected authority on both strategy and tactics once suggested: "strategy without
tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before
defeat." Strategy is fundamentally more important than tactics. Perhaps we could be a bit
less dismissive?
"Congress is considering measures that will constrain Trump from any further use of force
targeting Iran, hoping thereby to avoid an all-out war."
I'm always baffled when I hear about new attempts by Congress to limit the president's
unilateral use of force, as if they have chosen to ignore that the Constitution itself
already explicitly forbids it.
Is "national security" really the goal of the US military, or is "multinational corporation
security" the real reason the US has thousands of military bases around the world? The US
taxpayer foots the security bill for the same corporations that buy all of our national
elections. But you have to admit, it's a well-played scam: the CIA stirs up internal chaos
in a country, and the US military then completes the destabilization program by bombing it
into submission or terminal chaos.
"... Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. ..."
"... Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly. ..."
"... Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad. ..."
"... US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020? ..."
"... But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course. ..."
"... Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians. ..."
"... Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go. ..."
"... Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests. ..."
"... People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green. ..."
"... It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated? ..."
"... The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. ..."
"... It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime". ..."
"... The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit. ..."
"... Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack. ..."
Iran told the US they were going to attack and what areas.
Of course the US military is not going to abandon its radar installation is it? Maybe there
were a few others stationed where survival was iffy. If they die then not surprising that their
deaths were covered up because they were told those areas would be hit.
That is the reason we had the Trump presser today that was projection of, we got the
message, don't do any more...stand down.
If the latest about bombs in the Baghdad Green Zone are accurate then either more Iran or
some other factor wanting to trigger US response or ???
We are all still alive so China/Russia is backstopping Iran from nuclear attack seems
clear
With those poor disenfranchised American folks putting all their hope in trump and his
agenda, are they realizing the benefits of their support yet? I've read 71% of young
Americans can't afford to buy a home now the money men have inflated prices to the extreme.
Trump's people, the money men.
Did they vote for him as a show of support for his granting every wish Netanyahu ever
had?
Did they vote for him to support Netanyahu's aggression against his chosen foe, which
clearly was an effort to cast the spear of fear into the hearts of Israeli's?
Demagogues and wannabes set about to rule by making the population afraid.
Walter
Thanks for the explanation.In layman terms and I would guess many professions and trades,
speed and velocity are interchangeable.
Laguerre. Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to
enlist proxies has always surprised me. There always seem to be corruptible people
anywhere, plus others interested in using the US for their small time ends. But Iraq has
changed with the killing of Soleimani. Anti US may end up trumping local grievances for the
majority.
Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly.
What is lost in all this debate whether this was Kabuki or not is that Iran went toe to
toe with the empire -- directly. Pissed on the red lines set by the empire a day earlier.
No need for proxies. No need for false flag from the enemies. Iran has justified legality
under article 51 as Zarif pointed out.
Terror needed re-balancing, and for now, balance of terror has been established.
Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came
into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya,
Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain
al-Asad.
US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight
from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I
see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the
end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough
of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020?
The stage rigging is on plain display here. This was arranged and calculated well in
advance. Arranged by someone with power to compel obedience, who would expect perfect
compliance to a scheme with many moving parts. So may parts of this might have gone wrong,
with WW3 as the consequence of a mistake.
I completely agree, I think this entire thing is a precursor to something much worse,
such as a massive false-flag that will let this conflict turn hot. Last night was but a
small taste or using Iranian wording 'mosquito bite'. People are quick to dismiss that war
would never be a viable option for the powers that be. When really they have been setting
the stage for global calamity for quite some time. The Iran/US/Israel theater is just the
first of a number of dominoes that have been carefully set up (NK-US; India-Pakistan;
Russia-NATO) to name but a few. Tensions are intentionally being ratcheted up for a major
cascading explosion that will ripple around the globe. The ponzi economy bubble-game they
have created during the last 20 years is part of that plan to trigger even worse panic
among the populace. Having said all of this, it seems to me that they want Trump to still
be re-elected before things really turn sour, so there seems to be some time left, which is
why the current de-escalation.
But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high
throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course.
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc |
237ben , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
238
Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response
is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the
differences between the evil empire and the Iranians.
Thanks b, and all. So much better coming here, as opposed to the MSM..
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
239WJ , Jan 8 2020 20:31 utc |
240
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troops home
or will he run on another Middle East war.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108
Were I a zionist advisor/donor to Trump, I would advise/blackmail him to do the
following: Run a 2020 campaign premised on bringing the troops home, and indeed bring
enough of them home (or to Germany) to make that plausible. Then, after you win the
election, stage some action or invent some pretext (we control the media and can help you
do both) that requires you do go to war against Iran. It will be unpopular and many of your
citizens will die. But you are in your second term, we have given you lots of $$$$, and we
still have that video tape from the late 1990s of you and the 14-year old eastern european
girl.
Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed
their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who
believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided
is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US
can do, but go.
Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings
are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave
the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way
that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests.
Of course there are still those who tell us that Iraqi public opinion is divided and
that the sunni and the Kurds will be willing agents of the imperialists: I don't think so.
What the US has done is to unite Iraqis around nationalist objects and to close the
carefully opened divide between the sects. They have come full circle since 2003 and now
even the Iraqi members of ISIS (who are a small minority in the Foreign Legion of Uighurs,
Bosnians, Albanians, Chechens and wahhabis) will not serve as a wedge to keep Iraqis
fighting each other.
Or Iran: it has taken trillions of dollars and decades for Washington to knock it into
the densest politicians' heads but now everyone understands:
"The US is our enemy, it sees us as untermenschen to be exterminated like vermin. In
order to survive and to rebuild our lives and communities we must expel them. We have no
choice.
First we will ask the Swiss Embassy to tell them to leave, then we will pass resolutions
in Parliament, and put on fireworks displays at their bases. And they will leave."
And next will come the matter of Palestine, and the al quds Soleimani's brigade was
named for. Israel is beginning to look very lonely now in the Levant- a very abusive,
violent and noisy neighbour given to trespassing and larceny.
"Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi -- according to well-informed sources in Baghdad --
answered that "this act may carry devastating results on the Middle East: Iraq refuses to
become the theatre for a US-Iran war".
The Iranian official replied: "Those who began this cycle of violence are the US, not
Iran; the decision has been taken."
Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi informed the US forces of the Iranian decision. US declared a
state of emergency and alerted all US bases in Iraq and the region in advance of the
attack.
Iran bombed the most significant US military base in Iraq, Ayn al-Assad, where just in
the last two days, the US command had gathered the largest number of forces. Many US bases,
particularly in Shia controlled areas and around Baghdad, were evacuated in the last days
for security reason towards Ayn al-Assad, a base that holds anti-nuclear shelters."
Easy to see why the US approved of Mahdi as president. A pissweak appeaser how can do no
more than write letters to the UN. If he doesn't want a US Iran war in Iraq then he should
be booting the yanks out as the Yanks are based there purely on Iran's account. What Mahdi
is doing amounts to providing sanctuary to the US on Iran's border.
Some of us are indeed quite skeptical that there were no casualties reported whatsoever
- by "Western" media outlets. This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US
establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible.
Furthermore, to those who are wondering how true casualty figures could be prevented from
being leaked, all the US government has to do is declare such information classified, at
which point it becomes a serious felony (think Snowden or Manning) to leak it.
>>b) The fact that Suleimani was a national hero for a nation of 82 million people
and also for 150 million of shia around the world, mourned by millions in the streets, make
a bigger Trump "victory" over the Iranian "regime", and it is a powerful advice to the
others leaders and commanders in the world that try to fight or oppose to USA.
This is not a gain, the US will be hated and sabotaged by the many shia groups across
the world (a young and growing demographic with combat experience), and there will be many
covert activities against it all over the place. An american dying here and there, a US
company sabotaged here and there. The US will be very busy fighting shia groups undercover
just as it needs to compete with Russia and China, not to mention the security costs. They
will probaly give tacit support to some sunni groups already fighting the US. Taliban
getting manpads and targeting info of US presence in Afghainstan? No, this is not good news
for the US. It means having more and more enemies everywhere and dividing resources into
many fronts. Taking on Russia, China and Iran/Iraq/Shia Crescent will to be too much. The
debt clock is ticking.
>>g) The retaliation of the PMU lob some katyusha rockets in the backyard of few
US bases
No, they will simply make it impossible for any american to get out outside of the
Embassy in Iraq. Workers, companies etc. will be driven out by harrassment.
>>h) Trump is defiant about not leaving Iraq, I think at the end they will go but
after they have a very good deal. Of course it is all about the Iraqi oil, in exchange for
the American blood and money wasted in Iraq. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world
and USA want a good chunk of them, they never ever leave "giving" all of them to the
Chinese or Iranians or anybody else. Trump does not want US soldiers in Iraq, but he wants
the oil above anything else (it is condition "sine qua non" to maintain the Empire)
You don't know much about Iraq then. Iraq (including elites) does not want the US there.
It does not want to be a battlefield and it does not want to have Shia leaders attacked in
their own country. This is a Red Line for iraqis. Muqtada Al Sadr, the most influential
person in Iraq, who kicked the arse of the US occupation in 2004-2007 wants the US and even
the Embassy out, embargo on US products, etc. Iraqi shia are not intimidated by the US, far
from it, they have seen far worse in the past and that only angered them even more. Iraq
will move into China-Russia-Iran orbit, this is a done deal. A chinese delegation just
arrived in Iraq to provide security solutions for the country.
>> Trump has now the full enthusiastic support of the AIPAC and all the others
powerful Israeli lobby he will have more money than required for the election. He has
demonstrated he is the best possible POTUS for Israel.
This is debatable, considering that 80 % of US jews voted against Trump. Israel is not
the only issue for US jews. They do not like loud mouthed white racists. US media is an
expression of US jews and US media continues to be highly hostile to Trump. If they really
wanted him, media would be supportive.
j) In the short term USA will leave Syria and in the medium term Iraq, OK, but they
never ever leave "all the region", they need to be there to maintain the "American Way of
Live" (US $ as reserve currency)
There will be less US presence in the Middle East and it won't be just Syria, Iraq and
Afghanistan drawdowns. US debt levels point to unsustainable military spending. That is, in
2025 - 2030 the US will be forced to cut military spending significantly. Even now the US
is cutting the number of ships due to lack of money. So in general, there will be less US
presence everywhere, including in the Middle East. Too much debt.
As for Iraq, the US HQ for Iraq was just evacuated to Kuwait, US forces stopped
operations and are confinded to their bases (defacto house arrest), and US workers are
fleeing the country.
>>If nothing dramatically change, I expect a crushing victory of Trump in the
coming US election, he has all the cards now in his hand, and he will not waste them.
And i see people in the US and all over the world deeply disturbed by his behavior.
People want calm, not never ending drama, threats, sexism, racism, vulgarity and
warmongering. Women (majority of voters) do not like such behavior. Women and minorites are
very hostile to Trump due to this. Republicans lost the House and it looks like someone did
not get the message. Even if Trump somehow wins, this will lead to civil war like situation
in the US due to the changing demographics. Minorities DO NOT want Trump and their numbers
will only be increasing far into the future. This means growing division and infighting
within the US.
You look at this through the eyes of an American, that is why you see it as 'kabuki' and
'face saving' weakness, because as an American your answer is wholesale slaughter. Body
count is your metric of success.
America cant retaliate because they know the next blow will bleed. They were unable to
intercept the incoming missiles because US point defenses are mediocre. Once a projectile
gets past the patriots, not a difficult task, they will only face some rail mounted
stingers and 20 mm cannon. Has to be scarry for the dumb grunts.
I won't attack you or your post, but it is no good manners to enter somebody's house and
speak shit. If your family didn't teach you this, and your education didn't manage to
polish the animal in you, then you are a lost case, no need to deal with you. You'll live
on mother earth and then die without having any good impact whatsoever.
People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed
them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got
away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger
while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short,
Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green.
If you read Dr.
Hudson's analysis and the transcript from this show , you'll
be informed about a great many facts about the Outlaw US Empire that the vast majority of
its citizens are unaware of thanks to BigLie Media. And I could direct you to dozens of
additional examples that provide even more facts about the situation, the core of the
problem and potential solutions.
Many good academics and others have tried to inform the USA's citizenry about the why of
their dilemma and provided suggestions for action, but their voices are drowned out by
what's known as the Establishment Narrative parroted by BigLie Media. IMO, Sanders would
have waxed Trump in 2016, but he was clearly the target of a conspiracy to prevent him from
gaining the D-Party nomination. IMO, the only reason he endorsed Clinton was he knew of the
sort of domestic mayhem Trump and the R-Party would wreck upon his supporters. Please,
before denigrating the masses within the Evil Outlaw US Empire, try to discover why they
behave as they do. Lumping them all together and calling them dumb fuck-wits won't get you
anywhere and only serves to exacerbate things.
It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is
being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are
isolated?
I am reposting this.
The Iranians care, they sent some of the best gifts, and they're rightly proud of them.
A Hallmark kinna time, the Holidays n all that.
Brother, I have read about the problems involved, I took some calculus long ago, but the
engineering behind what Iran has demonstrated in very complex. They put the clown on the
back foot.
There is a realignment of strategy in the Celestial Heaven of DC... Not a change in
goal, just "whaddwe do now, how r we gunna smash 'em"...
The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed
almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. If
anything, the call for NATO to step up was an indication the Americans planned to step
back. The Turks will not be pouring troops into Iraq. Trump was referring to the Europeans.
The US corporate media continues to report with subdued tone, with ultra hawkish Fox News
continuing to describe the struck airbases as "Iraqi facilities".
This is true only on the assumption that the "US establishment" is united in seeking to
de-escalate with Iran. But evidence suggests that at least two members of that
establishment--Pompeo and Esper--are clearly not interested in de-escalation
(notwithstanding Pompeo's directive to the embassies). For them, the death of dozens of
American soldiers could only be a good thing, as it would easily be manipulated in the
press to motivate the US populace's desire for retribution.
It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to
accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating
actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail
the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli
casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil"
Iranian "regime".
De-escalation with Iran hurts Netanyahoo; actual war with Iran hurts Netanyahoo. What
helps Netanyahoo is the constant threat of war with Iran along with the public perception
that only he, of all Israeli politicians, has the sufficient resolve to face down the
Persian menace. Because I am of the view that Israel is not just an outpost of the US
empire but in many cases the tail that wags the dog of this empire, I fully expect that the
US will continue to seek to ride the escalation-de-escalation wave with Iran until
Netanyahoo either stabilizes his domestic position in Israel or loses it altogether.
Actually the Hashd Al Shaabi militia, which is part of the Iraqi military, wanted to
take over the US Embassy and Mehdi threatened to resign over that, not over the protests in
general or the harrassment of the US Embassy. This is why iraqi troops stayed out as the
Embassy was besieged. He chose China over the US for reconstruction of Iraq and made very
compromising remarks about Trump (how he threatened to put snipers killing people in Iraq,
how Soleimani was there for diplomatic mission as peace envoy, etc.)
Mehdi is an expression of the majority Shia sentiment in Iraq - it is him who came to
Parliament to demand a resolution for US withdrawal from the country. As for Iraqi Shia
sentiment, numerically speaking, 80 % of Shia MPs and the PM demanded a US withdrawal from
the country.
What is the source for the account that the Swiss embassy received advance warning of the
missile strike?
I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not saying that to knock it, but since b doesn't
mention or link to a source, and I don't see it discussed in comments, I'd like to know
where he got that report from.
CNN.com says Iran reached out through various channels, "including through Switzerland
and other countries", but after the strike, to make known there was nothing else on
the way.
If Iran succeeds in forcing the Empire out, then obviously the zionists would be unable
to remain more than briefly. But without zionists Jews and Arabs have always got along
reasonably well... So we may imagine "Israel" going through a "phase change" when Empire
departs...because then the decent people can have a say in things, then justice may prevail
- something all Abrahamic Creeds respect and call for as a basic foundation. Of course
there's nothing pretty about a civil war in Israel, or as it is at present "forward
operating base zion"
"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil
and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."
This entire episode has been an absolute disaster for the Iranians. They sent no message
to the US.
Disaster? How so? The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack
targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have
scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even
closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit.
The missile strikes is also a message to Iranian regional competitors. I can guarantee
you Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken notice.
I'm expecting more small level attacks on US assets in Iraq and it'll likely spread to
other neighboring countries. Death by a thousand cuts. In the end, the US will have no
choice but to leave Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
Scott Ritter also says there was advance warning, though via the Iraqi government, not
mentioning the Swiss embassy in Tehran:
Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime
Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this
information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in
hardened shelters at the time of the attack.
Ritter doesn't give his sourcing either. Of course the significant thing is that such
advance warning was given at all. I'd just like to know how solid the factual basis is, and
to what extent it is officially confirmed by any of the relevant governments.
If US soldiers were killed by the attack, this can't be hidden forever; sooner or later,
coffins will go back home and families will be informed. Specially if it's as high as 80.
Though for the moment, the Pentagon can stay quiet, and won't publicly acknowledge it, the
bodies will have to come back to the US and be buried - as far as I know, they're not
janissaries but US military, most have relatives, friends and family and can't be
disappeared just like that.
The USS Liberty is a different situation: the US didn't hide for decades that people
were lost in the bombing, it didn't acknowledge that it was a deliberate attack. Pretty
much the opposite case to the present one.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates today: "Assassination is the
last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the
deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear
program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions
grew. Then the US killed
Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an
attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump
took office
It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path.
For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America
goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires
intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start
a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must
make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.
This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America
fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute
tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless
policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was
when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is
advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament
has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with
Iran.
Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it.
Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies.
America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with
partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential
threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on
protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking
sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions
– we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777
Paul
Craig Roberts: The Justice Department Is Devoid Of Justice
by
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/09/2020 - 23:05
0
SHARES
In the United States the criminal justice (sic) system is itself not subject to law.
We
see immunity to law continually as police commit felonies against citizens and even murder children
and walk away free. We see it all the time when prosecutors conduct political prosecutions and
when they prosecute the innocent in order to build their conviction record. We see it when judges
fail to prevent prosecutors from withholding exculpatory evidence and bribing witnesses and when
judges accept coerced plea deals that deprive the defendant of a jury trial.
We just saw it again when federal prosecutors recommended a six month prison sentence
for Lt. Gen. Flynn,
the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency accused of lying to
the FBI about nothing of any importance, for being uncooperative in the Justice (sic) Department's
effort to frame President Trump with false "Russiagate" charges. The Justice (sic) Department
prosecutor said:
"The sentence should adequately deter the defendant from violating the law, and to promote
respect for the law. It is clear that the defendant has not learned his lesson. He has behaved
as though the law does not apply to him, and as if there are no consequences for his actions."
That is precisely what the Justice (sic) Department itself did for years in their
orchestration of the fake Russiagate charges against Trump.
The prosecutor's hypocrisy is overwhelming.
The Justice (sic) Department is a criminal organization. It has no sense of
justice. Convicting the innocent builds the conviction rate of the prosecutor as effectively as
convicting the guilty.
The Horowitz report of the Justice (sic) Department's lies to
the FISA court did not recommend a six-month prision sentence for those Justice (sic) Deplartment
officials who lied to the government.
Horowitz covered up the crimes by converting
them into "mistakes." Yes, they are embarrassing "mistakes," but mistakes don't bring prison
sentences.
Gen. Flynn, who was President Trump's National Security Advisor for a couple of weeks
before Mueller and Flynn's attorneys manuevered him into a plea bargain, allegedly lied to the FBI
about whether he met with a Russian.
Flynn and his attorneys should never have accepted
the proposition that a National Security Advisor shouldn't meet with Russians. Henry Kissinger and
Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Russians all the the time. It was part of their job. Trump
originally intended to normalize the strained relations with Russia. Flynn should have been
meeting with Russians. It was his job.
Ninety-seven percent of felony cases are resolved with plea bargains. In other words,
there is no trial.
The defendant admits to guilt for a lighter sentence, and if he throws
in "cooperation," which generally means giving false evidence against someone else in the
prosecutor's net, no sentence at all. Flynn was expected to help frame Trump and Flynn's former
business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, on an unrelated matter. He didn't, which means he is
"uncooperative" and deserving of a prison sentence.
Plea bargains have replaced trials for three main reasons.
One is that the defense attorney doesn't want the hard work of defending his client.
One is that the majority of defendants cannot afford to pay the cost of defense.
One is that refusing to plea guilty and demanding a trial angers both the prosecutor and
judge.
Trials take time and provide a test of often unreliable police and prosecutorial evidence. They
mean work for the prosecutor. Even if he secures a conviction, during the same time he could have
obtained many more plea bargain convictions. For the judge, trials back up his case
docket. Consequently, a trial means for the defendant very high risks of a much longer and more
severe sentence than he would get in exchange for saving prosecutor and judge time and energy. All
of this is explained to the defendant by his attorney.
It was explained to Gen. Flynn. He agreed to a plea, most likely advised that his
"offense" was so minor, no sentence would be forthcoming. Flynn later tried to revoke his plea,
saying it was coerced, but the Clinton-appointed judge refused to let him out of the trap.
Now that we know the only Russiagate scandal was its orchestration by the CIA, Justice (sic)
Department, and Democrats, failing to cooperate with the special counsel investigation of alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election is nonsensical as we know for a definite fact that there
was no such interference.
This is how corrupt American law has become. A man is being put in prison for 6
months for not cooperating with an investigation of an event that did not happen!
If Trump doesn't pardon Flynn (and Manafort and Stone), and fire the corrupt prosecutors
who falsely prosecuted Flynn, Trump deserves no one's support.
A president who will not defend his own people from unwarranted prosecution is not worthy of
support.
In Flynn's case, we cannot dismiss the suspicion that revenge against Flynn was the
driving factor.
Gen. Flynn is the official who revealed on television that Obama made the
willful decision to send ISIS or whatever we want to call them into Syria. Of course, the Obama
regime pretended that the jihadists were moderates seeking to overthrow the alleged dictator Assad
and bring democracy to Syria. Washington then pretended that it was fighting the mercenaries it
had sent into Syria.
Even though the presstitutes did their best to ignore Flynn's
information, Flynn gave extreme offense by letting this information out. That bit of truth-telling
was Flynn's real offense.
Tags
Law Crime
Then there is the fact that Comey admitted he took advantage of
the the situation by catching Flynn off guard without an
attorney. This is a warning to everyone: never answer questions
by FBI without consulting your attorney first and having him/her
present.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision
to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary
of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve
the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence,
the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes
to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian
aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the
rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But
that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor
and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where
the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior
U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong
Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant
factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the
U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the
decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants
from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church
music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric
Twitter machine. A handy compilation:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader
who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime,
including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits
in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any
Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE
HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder
than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and
without hesitation!
And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target,
the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required,
but is given nevertheless!
You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a
modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't.
He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in
public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in
time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.
Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example,
did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of
it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.
President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into
office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity
to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a
different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.
But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a
deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think
this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent
sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.
"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If
you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken
against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of
this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of
many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."
Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican
president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing
utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.
Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a
modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't.
He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in
public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in
time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.
Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example,
did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of
it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.
President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into
office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity
to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a
different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.
But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a
deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think
this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent
sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.
"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If
you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken
against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of
this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of
many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."
Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican
president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing
utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.
I can anticipate no problems arising whatsoever from having an Executive Branch staffed
entirely by people who tell a half-crazy guy what he wants to hear. Unfortunately, back in
1726, the good Dean Swift saw some.
I said, 'there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving,
by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as
they are paid.
This was about lawyers but the description has broadened somewhat in recent days.
I agree that, today, protecting the Dollar Standard is the main national security
objective of the USA. That is so because issuing the universal fiat currency is a
conditio sine qua non of keeping the financial superpower status.
I also agree that the Petrodollar is the base that sustains the Dollar Standard.
But I disagree with the rest:
1) the Cold War didn't begin in 1945, but in 1917 - right after the October Revolution.
There's overwhelming documental evidence of that and, in fact, the years of 1943-1945 was the
only break it had. Until Stalingrad, the Western allies were still waiting to see if the USSR
and the Third Reich could still mutually anihilate themselves (yes, it is a myth the Allies
were really allies from 1939, but that's not a very simple demonstration);
2) in the aftermath of WWII, the USA emerged as both the industrial and financial
superpower in the capitalist world (i.e. the West). But this was an accidental - and very
unlikely - alignment of events. The USA always had imperial ambitions from its foundation
(the Manifest Destiny), but there's no evidence it was scheming to dominate the world before
1945. The American ascension was more a fruit of the European imperial superpowers destroying
themselves than by any American (or Jewish, as the far-right likes to speculate) design;
3) the USSR had nothing to do with Bretton Woods. BW was a strictly capitalist affair. And
it could not be any difference: the USSR was a socialist country, therefore, it didn't have
money-capital (money in the capitalist system has three functions: reserve of value, means of
exchange and means of payment). The only way it had to trade with the capitalist half of the
world was to exchange essential commodities (oil) for hard currency, with which it bought
what it needed for its own development (mainly, high technological machines which it could
copy and later develop on). So, the USSR didn't "balk" at BW - it was literally impossible
for it to pertain to the agreement.
Michael Hudson is not the only one who's come to understand that maintaining the
reserve-currency status of the US dollar (the "dollar hegemony") is the primary goal of US
foreign policy. Indeed, it's been the primary goal of US foreign policy since the end of
World War II, when the Bretton Woods agreement was put into effect. Notably, the Soviets
ended up balking at that agreement, and the Cold War did not start until afterwards. This
means that even the Cold War was not really about ideology - it was about money.
It's also important to note that the point of the "petrodollar" is to ensure that
petroleum - one of the most globally traded commodities and a commodity that's fundamental to
the global economy - is traded primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of the US dollar.
Ensuring that as much global/international trade happens in US dollars helps ensure that the
US dollar keeps its reserve-currency status, because it raises the foreign demand for US
dollars.
I agree that, today, protecting the Dollar Standard is the main national security
objective of the USA. That is so because issuing the universal fiat currency is a
conditio sine qua non of keeping the financial superpower status.
I also agree that the Petrodollar is the base that sustains the Dollar Standard.
But I disagree with the rest:
1) the Cold War didn't begin in 1945, but in 1917 - right after the October Revolution.
There's overwhelming documental evidence of that and, in fact, the years of 1943-1945 was the
only break it had. Until Stalingrad, the Western allies were still waiting to see if the USSR
and the Third Reich could still mutually anihilate themselves (yes, it is a myth the Allies
were really allies from 1939, but that's not a very simple demonstration);
2) in the aftermath of WWII, the USA emerged as both the industrial and financial
superpower in the capitalist world (i.e. the West). But this was an accidental - and very
unlikely - alignment of events. The USA always had imperial ambitions from its foundation
(the Manifest Destiny), but there's no evidence it was scheming to dominate the world before
1945. The American ascension was more a fruit of the European imperial superpowers destroying
themselves than by any American (or Jewish, as the far-right likes to speculate) design;
3) the USSR had nothing to do with Bretton Woods. BW was a strictly capitalist affair. And
it could not be any difference: the USSR was a socialist country, therefore, it didn't have
money-capital (money in the capitalist system has three functions: reserve of value, means of
exchange and means of payment). The only way it had to trade with the capitalist half of the
world was to exchange essential commodities (oil) for hard currency, with which it bought
what it needed for its own development (mainly, high technological machines which it could
copy and later develop on). So, the USSR didn't "balk" at BW - it was literally impossible
for it to pertain to the agreement.
Correction: the three functions of money in capitalism are reserve/store of value, means
of exchange and unit of account . I basically wrote "means of exchange" twice in the
original comment.
Hello! Michael Hudson first set forth the methodology of the Outlaw US Empire's financial
control of the world via his book Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American
Empire in 1972. In 2003, he issued an updated edition which you can download for free
here .
If you're interested, here's an interview he gave while in China that's autobiographical
. And here's his most recent Resume/CV/Bibliography , although it doesn't
go into as much detail about his recent work as he does in and forgive them their debts:
Lending, Foreclosure, and Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , which
for me is fascinating.
His most recent TV appearances are here and here .
Bingo! You're the first person here to make that connection aside from myself. You'll note
from Hudson's
assessment of Soleimani's killing he sees the Outlaw US Empire as using the Climate
Crisis as a weapon:
"America's attempt to maintain this buttress explains U.S. opposition to any foreign
government steps to reverse global warming and the extreme weather caused by the world's
U.S.-sponsored dependence on oil. Any such moves by Europe and other countries would reduce
dependence on U.S. oil sales, and hence on the U.S's ability to control the global oil spigot
as a means of control and coercion. These are viewed as hostile acts.
"Oil also explains U.S. opposition to Russian oil exports via Nordstream. U.S. strategists
want to treat energy as a U.S. national monopoly. Other countries can benefit in the way that
Saudi Arabia has done – by sending their surpluses to the U.S. economy – but not
to support their own economic growth and diplomacy. Control of oil thus implies support for
continued global warming as an inherent part of U.S. strategy....
"This strategy will continue, until foreign countries reject it. If Europe and other
regions fail to do so, they will suffer the consequences of this U.S. strategy in the form of
a rising U.S.-sponsored war via terrorism, the flow of refugees, and accelerated global
warming (and extreme weather)."
@Cynica #38
Financially, the US dollar as reserve currency is enormously beneficial to the US
government's ability to spend.
And oil has historically been both a tactical and a strategic necessity; when the US was
importing half its oil, this is a lot of money. 8 million bpd @ $50/barrel = $146B. Add in
secondary value add like transport, refining, downstream industries, etc and it likely
triples the impact or more - but this is only tactical.
Worldwide, the impact is 10X = $1.5 trillion annually. Sure, this is a bit under 10% of the
$17.7T in world trade in 2017, but it serves as an "anchor tenant" to the idea of world
reserve currency. A second anchor is the overall role of US trade, which was $3.6T in 2016
(imports only).
If we treat central bank reserves as a proxy for currency used in trade, this means 60%+ of
the $17.7T in trade is USD. $3.6T is direct, but the $7 trillion in trade that doesn't impact
the US is the freebie. To put this in perspective, the entire monetary float of the USD
domestically is about $3.6T.
USD as world reserve currency literally doubles (at least) the float - from which the US
government can issue debt (money) to fund its activities. In reality, it is likely a lot more
since foreigners using USD to fund trade means at least some USD in Central Banks, plus the
actual USD in the transaction, plus corporate/individual USD reserves/float.
Again, nothing above is formally linked - I just wanted to convey an idea of just how
advantageous the petrodollar/USD as world trade reserve currency really is.
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito
Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the
effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival
nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', '
Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly,
who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.
Of course, the major difference with movie's Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In
the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our
Freemerika , Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to
dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous
presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution
or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to
advise him. They decide the ' when and if' of such dramatic actions like the other day's
drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was
insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ' This means war!', Mr. Trump gave
the order for the assassination but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised
him.
To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best
. LBJ's use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man
making that call.
Or Nixon's Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son's
ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama's use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest
arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire's wizards who advised them.
When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of
this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a
Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people
are!
Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the
empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of
crossing into another nation's sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this
Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they
now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man
was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid
in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS
terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that,
in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq period! Thus,
the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also
frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian
sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn
College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on
the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also
host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be
reached at [email protected]
After the Trump Administration's 75-minute briefing to the US Senate on the assassination of
Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani,
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was deeply critical , calling it the worst briefing he'd gotten in his
nine years in the Senate.
Saying the administration's briefers offered little on the legal or practical justification
for the attack, Sen. Lee particularly took umbrage at them warning the Senators that they must
not debate the War Powers authorization for a war with Iran .
Those giving the briefing objected to the very idea of the Senate discussing the matter
publicly, saying it would "embolden Iran." Sen. Lee noted that this is a power Constitutionally
reserved explicitly for the legislature.
"For them to tell us ... for us to debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor
would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions, I find very
insulting ," Lee said, who did not specify to reporters on Capitol Hill which briefer made
the assertion.
"It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't
care if they're with the CIA, the Department of Defense or otherwise -- to come in and tell
us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against
Iran, " Lee added.
-- ABC
Not only did Lee express annoyance that there was no pushback from any of the briefers on
telling the Senate not to debate something legally in their purview, but he said that while
he'd had problems with the language of Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-VA) resolution, he has now decided
that he will support the resolution, on condition of some amendments.
"Trump is too stupid, or willfully ignorant to know that Soleimani was at the
forefront of the US led
coalition to
eradicate ISIS from Northern Iraq in March 2015.
Soleimani also, as a commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was part of the American-led
coalition under US General Tommy Franks fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in the October
2001 Battle
of Herat .
Moreover, Soleimani worked to
protect Eastern Christians against
ISIS in both Syria and Iraq, and
empowered them to
defend themselves as best they could.
As for the flunkie at State, Pompeo put up a clip of a few Iraqis celebrating the death of
Soleimani while parroting Trump's own lies that Iranians
"hated and feared him."
However, Pompass didn'tshow the millions mourning
Soleimani in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, including the minorities in Sunni states such as Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain.
That's not "hate and fear," that's "honor and respect."
Most Americans never heard of Soleimani -- a soft-spoken man of high refinement -- until
his murder last week. Now they're clamoring as if Trump had slain the devil himself."
When World?
Have you not had enough of the *** monstrosity Yet?
@Authenticjazzman
The US could afford lots of things if we cut the military budget by 99%, as we should have
done after WWII.
The military works for the plutocrats, stealing money from the taxpayers. The ruling class
turned Vietnam from an agricultural nation into a low paid factory nation which took
thousands of textile jobs from Americans – i.e winning the Vietnam war. The problem
lies in the taxpayers not understanding what winning means. Manufacturing havens with super
low wages and homeless veterans begging at every intersection. West Point teaches people they
have the right to drop bombs on civilians and torture them in Guantanamo. Of course these
folks think of themselves as the smartest people who ever lived.
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. 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. ..."
"... Göring: 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. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. 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.
Gilbert: There is one difference. 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.
Göring: 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.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the
biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American,
we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without
hesitation!
shoe 9:18 PM - 4 Jan 2020
fuck healthcare, fuck our veterans, fuck our crumbling infrastructure, fuck the homless
MOMMY MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDS MORE MONEY HELL YEAH
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the
statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing
nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had
occurred.
One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a
military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the
popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were
wounded.
"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US
military's Africa Command said.
But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest
supporters on the world stage.
He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani
isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be
dragged into it."
In an era of stress and anxiety, when the present seems unstable and the future unlikely, the natural response is
to retreat and withdraw from reality, taking recourse either in fantasies of the future or in modified visions of a
half-imagined past.
Unless you were catatonic this past couple of weeks, dead drunk from Sunday to Saturday, suffered a debilitating
brain injury or were living in Bognor Regis where the internet cannot reach, you heard about the west slapping a
four-year Olympic ban on Russia. Because it could, it did. And not really for any other reason, despite the indignation
and manufactured outrage. It's a pity – now that I come to think on it – that you can't use outrage to power a vehicle,
fill a sandwich or knit into socks: because the west has a bottomless supply, and it's just about as renewable a
resource as you could envision.
As I have reiterated elsewhere and often, the United States of America is the cheatingest nation on the planet where
professional sports is concerned, because winning matters to Americans like nowhere else. Successful Olympic
medal-winners and iconic sports figures in the USA are feted like victorious battlefield generals, because the sports
arena is just another battlefield to the United States, and there's no
it's-not-whether-you-win-or-lose-it's-how-you-play-the-game in wartime. Successful American sports figures foster an
appreciation of American culture and lifestyle, and promote an image of America as a purposeful and powerful nation.
Successful sports figures anywhere, really; not so very long ago Olympic gold medalists were merely given an
appreciative parade by a grateful nation, and featured in lucrative advertising contracts if they were photogenic. More
recently, some nations have simply
paid athletes by the medal
for
winning. This
includes most nations
, with the notable exceptions of the UK, Norway and Sweden. So the pressure is on to win, win,
win, by whatever means are necessary.
Since Russia is in second place only to Germany for all-time medal rankings in the Olympics, and since Russia
eventually made it back up to Public Enemy Number One in the USA – after a brief hiatus during which it looked like a
combination of Boris Yeltsyn and teams of Harvard economists were going to make a respectful pauper of it while it
became a paradise for international investors – the USA spares no effort to beat Russia at everything. On occasions
where it is not particularly successful, as it was not in the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, it has turned to other
methods – screaming that the Russians are all dopers who benefit from a state-sponsored doping scheme, and implementing
bans to prevent as many Russian athletes as possible from competing.
And that's my principal objection. In media matters in the world of sports, just as in other political venues, the
USA relies on a combination of lying and relentless repetition to drive its points home. Thus it is that the
English-speaking world still believes Russia was convicted of having had a state-sponsored doping plan, found guilty and
justly sentenced upon the discovery of mountains of evidence, its accusers vindicated and its dissident whistleblowers
heroes to a grateful world. Huzzah!!
"Russia operated a state-sponsored doping programme for four years across the
"vast majority" of summer and winter Olympic sports, claims a new report.
It was "planned and operated" from late 2011 – including the build-up to London 2012 – and continued through the
Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics until August 2015."
The BBC is Britain's state-funded broadcaster, financed by the British government, and the British government is
second only to the United States in its virulent hatred of Russia and Russians. But that was back then, when the 'doping
scheme' was newly 'discovered', and all the western reporters and government figures were nearly wetting their pants
with excitement. What about now?
"It's the latest twist in a long-running saga of investigations into widespread, state-sponsored doping by the
Kremlin."
My soul, if it isn't the USA's star witness, Doctor Grigory Rodchenkov, in
AFP
;
"Doped athletes do not work alone. There are medical doctors, coaches and managers who provided substances,
advised and protected them. In Russia's state-sponsored doping scheme, there is also a state-sponsored defense of many
cheaters including state officials, witnesses and apparatchiks who are lying under oath and have falsified evidence.
These individuals are clearly criminals," he said.
More about him later; for now, suffice it to say the western media still finds him a credible and compelling witness.
"In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a
massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed illicit
performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national drug-testing
mechanisms.
The evidence was incontrovertible."
I was going to go on, listing examples in the popular press from around the world, published since the latest ban was
announced, all claiming investigation had proved the Russians had a massive state-sponsored doping scheme in place which
let them cheat their way to the podium. But I think you get the picture, and that last lead-in was my cue; it was just
too good to pass up.
Independent investigations confirmed. The evidence was incontrovertible.
Well,
let's take a look at that. Incontrovertible evidence ought to be able to withstand a bit of prying, what?
When the evidence of something being so is both massive and incontrovertible, beyond question and the result
of proof beyond a doubt, then that thing IS. Therefore, the western press is proceeding on the assumption
that western investigations proved the Russians had a doping program in which all or most Russian athletes
took prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, at the instruction of sports-organization officials, who were
in turn directed by state officials to use such methods to permit Russian athletes to win where they would
otherwise likely not have been capable of a winning performance. And there were such allegations by western
figures and officials, together with assurances that there was so much evidence that well, frankly, it was
embarrassing. But the western media and western sports organizations and officials apparently do not
understand what 'evidence' is.
The
Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS), established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and headquartered at Lausanne,
Switzerland, is recognized by all Olympic international organizations as the highest authority for
sports-related legal issues. An Investigative Commission consisting of Dr. Richard McLaren (Chair), Dick
Pound and Gunter Younger was appointed to look into allegations of widespread and state-supported doping of
athletes of the Russian Olympic team for the 2016 Winter Olympics at Sochi, Russia. The Commission's star
witness was Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, former head of the Moscow laboratory. According to what became known as
the McLaren Report,
more than 1000 Russian athletes across 30 sports
were involved in or benefited from "an institutional
conspiracy" of doping. The Investigative Commission settled on sanctioning 35 Olympic athletes with
Anti-Doping Rules Violations (ARDV), and they were banned from further international sports competitions;
those who had won medals had them confiscated. Nearly all the sanctioned athletes appealed their cases to
the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Sorry to keep hopping back and forth, but I'm trying to stay with two major themes at the same time for
the moment – the accusations against the Russian Olympic athletes, which were entirely based on
the revelations of the 'doping mastermind'
, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, and Dr. Rodchenkov himself. Western
organizations and media were bowled over by the affable Rodchenkov, and eager to accept his jaw-dropping
revelations about widespread doping in Russian sport. Sites specializing in sports doping with steroids
feted him as the brilliant mind behind not only doping Russian athletes, but devising a test for common
steroids which increased their detection window from only days to in excess of months. This enabled the
retesting of previously-stored samples from international athletes which had already passed as clean. I
suspect not a lot of followers of the Russian doping scandal are aware of that, and any such results should
be viewed with the utmost suspicion in light of what a colossal fraud he turned out to be. I'd like you to
just keep that in mind as we go further. Dr. Rodchenkov also claimed to be behind the brilliant – everything
he does is brilliant – formulation of the now-notorious and, at the time of its alleged widespread use,
top-secret "Duchess Cocktail", a steroid-stacker mixed with alcohol which made the presence of the steroids
undetectable. Remember that word; undetectable, because we'll come back to it. Additionally, please keep in
mind that Dr. Rodchenkov's unique testing method was the one used to re-test stored samples from the 2008
Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics.
So, back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 39 Russian athletes who had been accused of doping in the
McLaren Report appealed their sentences of lifetime Olympic bans and forfeiture of medals won.
Of those 39 appeals,
28 of the
appeals were completely upheld
, the judgments against the athletes reversed, and any medals forfeited
were reinstated. A further 11 appeals were partially upheld, but the lifetime bans were reduced to have
effect only for the upcoming Olympic Games at Peyongchang, Korea. That makes 39 of 39. Not a single athlete
accused was found to have participated in a state-sponsored doping program administered by Russian sports
officials acting under orders of the Russian government. The appeals of a further 3 Russian athletes were
not heard by the date of release of the statement, and were stayed until a later date.
It is important to note, and was specifically addressed in the release, that the CAS did not examine the
matter of whether there was or was not a state-sponsored or controlled doping program; that was not within
the Court's mandate. So for evidence of evidence, I guess you might say, and for an overall feel for the
credibility of the witness whose revelations underpinned the entirety of the McLaren Report, we turn to Dr.
Rodchenkov's testimony before the CAS.
As we examine his performance on that occasion, I'd like to point out that this likely represents the
first time Rodchenkov was cross-examined by and on behalf of individuals who were not necessarily delighted
to believe everything he said without questioning it further, as the McLaren Commission apparently was.
Because his story fell apart, often in ways that would have been amusing in anything other than the serious
setting which prevailed. That's Rodchenkov in the balaclava, which his handlers evidently thought necessary
to conceal his appearance. Perhaps he's had extensive cosmetic surgery, because his face was all over the
news before that – he is in the US Witness Protection Program, after all. In my opinion, it only lent to the
overall sense of unreality, but to each his own. I'll also be jumping back and forth between what Rodchenkov
or his backers confidently claimed prior to the hearing, and during testimony, when I think it is important
to highlight manifest umm inconsistencies. Ready? Let's do it.
Pre-CAS hearing:
"The latest WADA report suggests that Rodchenkov helped as many as 1,000 Russian
athletes get away with doping. Hundreds of those athletes were able to get away with the use of the "Duchess
steroid cocktail" while avoiding detection."
During testimony and under questioning by counsel for the defendants,
Rodchenkov admitted
(a) that he had never personally distributed the 'Duchess cocktail' to any Russian
athlete, (b) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete take the mixture known as the Duchess
cocktail, (c) that he had never personally witnessed any Russian athlete being directed by a coach to take
the Duchess cocktail, or any coach being directed by any Russian state official to distribute it to his
athletes, and (d) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete tamper with a doping sample.
Forgive me if I jump to the conclusion that the foregoing rules out a state-sponsored doping program
insofar as it was ever witnessed by the McLaren Report's star and principal witness; McLaren did not
interview any other Russian officials, he claimed he didn't have time.
But
it
gets better
. Or worse, if you are Rodchenkov, or one of those who gleefully relied on his testimony to
put those filthy Russians away forever.
Pre-CAS hearing:
"In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a
massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed
illicit performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national
drug-testing mechanisms The evidence was incontrovertible."
When examined on his statements that he had swapped samples of positive-test athletes urine after 1:00
AM, passing them through a 'mousehole' in the laboratory wall to FSB agents outside and exchanging them for
clean samples, in light of the fact that his meticulously-maintained daily diary recorded him as being at
home in bed by midnight, he claimed he had lied in his diary. What a clever intelligence asset, to have
anticipated questioning years in advance, and added an extra layer of obfuscation! It was not specifically
addressed in testimony to my knowledge, but I would like to highlight here that Dr. Rodchenkov was allegedly
alone at the lab at these alleged times – except, of course, for the secret agents waiting outside the
mousehole – and could have driven a gurney with a squeaky wheel loaded with conspiratorial piss samples out
into the parking lot, and loaded it into the trunk of his car with nobody the wiser: why all the
John le Carré espionagery through the wall? Comes to that, why would you
contaminate a sample with salt, coffee granules and hilarious incompetence like accidentally getting male
DNA in female samples, when the doping compound only you knew was in the samples was undetectable by anyone
else, because you had specifically engineered it that way?
McLaren claimed in his report that he had seen a method demonstrated, which he presumed was the method
used by the FSB to open the sealed sample bottles and replace the sample inside with clean urine. He further
claimed that scratches found on the glass bottles were proof of tampering. Other analysts suggested the
scratches were probably made when the sample bottle was sealed in accordance with the instructions for its
proper use, and
the manufacturer claimed
the bottle had never successfully been opened, once sealed, without breaking
the cap, which is by design an indication of potential tampering. The alleged secret method of successfully
doing it was never demonstrated by McLaren or any of his operatives for independent verification. For
Rodchenkov's part, he claimed it had been done by 'magicians', and offered no clue as to the alleged method,
and it seems clear to me that McLaren simply proceeded with Rodchenkov's hearsay assurances that it had been
accomplished.
The controversial and pivotal claim by McLaren that Russian Minister for Sport Vitaly Mutko, "directed,
controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete's [
sic
] analytical results or sample swapping"
was not supported by anything other than Rodchenkov's diary. You remember – the one he admitted to having
embellished with lies so that stories he told years later would make sense. This is absolutely critical,
because the claim to have proven the existence of a state-sponsored doping program rests only on this –
Rodchenkov has admitted he never personally saw any Russian state official give orders to coaches or
athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren's bombshell allegation appears to have been extracted
from the diary of a proven and admitted liar, and is supported by no other evidence. Yet the western press
still maintains there was a Russian state-sponsored doping program, administered with the knowledge and
facilitation of the state government, and that this was proven. Rodchenkov is still accorded the respect of
a credible witness. Rodchenkov is still speaking authoritatively about the nature of cheating, and –
astoundingly – describing those who have lied under oath and falsified evidence as criminals, just as if he
had not done both himself. It is as if the CAS hearings which exonerated the majority of the accused Russian
athletes, and sharply reduced the punishments of the rest, had never happened. For all the mainstream media
coverage the event received, it might not have.
Before the CAS hearing, WADA and the IOC regularly dangled reinstatement of the Russian anti-doping
agency (RUSADA) in exchange for the Russian government openly and completely accepting the conclusions of
the McLaren Report, officially admitting to having cheated on a massive scale and with the full knowledge
and support of serving government officials. It never did. The Russian state acknowledged it has a doping
problem, and it has – some athletes were found guilty of having taken banned substances, and there are a few
every Olympic competition. But Moscow has never accepted the conclusions of the McLaren Report. And after
the CAS Appeals decision, RUSADA was reinstated anyway.
Which brings us to here; now. The entire focus of the McLaren Report and the bullying by the IOC was
directed toward making Russia admit it was guilty of organized doping, with the drive for momentum seeking a
ban on further competition. Since it never did, the alternative was to prove it without an admission, so
that no doubt existed. Exonerating the few athletes ever charged among the thousand or so said to be guilty
looks like a hell of a funny way of doing that. The McLaren Team's star and main witness fell apart on the
stand and admitted he had either lied about everything or simply made it up. There is no reason at all –
outside stubborn western prejudice – to imagine Russian athletes are doping any more than any other national
teams.
But then, hackers – Russians, of course, it goes without saying – calling themselves "Fancy Bear" and
"Cozy Bear" (hint to Russians, do not call yourself "anything Bear" – the Bear is synonymous with Russia.
Call yourself "Elon Tesla" or "Mo Money") began to publish stolen medical data revealing the scope of
western athletes who had been granted permission to use banned performance-enhancing drugs by their Olympic
Associations, for perceived medical reasons, through the TUE – the Therapeutic Use Exemption. The western
sports industry was outraged – that information was
private
, God damn it – and it was just
grotesque that the cheating Russians would have the gall to allege
western
athletes were cheaters.
But after it had time to calm down, and after some revelations proved hard to defend, the industry had to
grudgingly
admit the TUE was a problem
.
Iconic American cyclist Lance Armstrong
doped for years
, but was revered by an entire generation of American kids and sports fans as the finest
example of a stoic and selfless sportsman the human race could provide. Teammates and his sports doctor
helped him avoid tests, and in one instance he dropped out of a race after receiving a text message from a
teammate that testers were waiting for him. When he actually tested positive for corticosteroid use in the
1999 Tour de France, his doctors claimed he had received the steroid in a cream used to treat a saddle sore,
and a back-dated prescription was provided.
Retroactive TUE's sound phony right out of the gate, and consequently their use is supposed to be very
rare, since the immediate perception is that the exemption was issued to protect the athlete from the
fallout of a positive test; what could be simpler? Just issue them a prescription to take a banned
substance, because they really, really needed it.
Most of the TUE's issued to tennis world champion Serena Williams were retroactive
, in some cases going
back two weeks or more. A TUE issued during a period that an athlete has withdrawn from competition sounds
understandable, because they cannot be using it to enhance their career or win medals. A retroactive TUE
issued during competition that allows an athlete to use a stimulant which increases drive, or a painkiller
which lets them power through without the limb failing, is hard to see as anything other than a cheat issued
to protect a national sports asset.
TUE's are the vehicle of choice in professional cycling, with both British cyclists who won the Tour de
France – Scott Froome and Bradley Wiggins –
revealed to have secured TUE's
allowing them to take steroids during the competitions. They claimed to
be suffering from 'sport-induced asthma', which is apparently a documented condition when you try to make
your body process air faster or more efficiently than it is capable of handling. USADA head Travis Tygart,
who is withering in his contempt of and hatred for Russia, loses no opportunity to defend the integrity of
American athletes who are allowed to dope because they have a form that says they need to. I find it hard to
believe Russian athletes who secured a TUE allowing them to take a performance-enhancer during competition
would meet with such hearty approval from him. It's because Americans are inherently honest and are
genetically incapable of cheating, while Russians are just natural-born cheats.
American gymnastics champion Simone Biles quickly became the national face of ADHD by proactively
defending her need for a banned substance. Tygart and American Olympics officials were maudlin in her
defense, like everyone is just picking on a little girl and trying to rob her of hard-earned success. What
effect does her permitted drug have? It permits an enhanced level of concentration and focus, so that no
energy is lost to distractions such a a shouting crowd, bright colours and rapid movements, and she sees
nothing but the target of her efforts. Is that helpful? What do you think?
The
jury seems to be out
on whether corticosteroids would help Biles focus on her routines, although there
seems to be a fairly well-established body of evidence that these are not anabolic steroids, and do not
increase muscle mass – that's all her. But the zeal with which WADA went after meldonium – just because,
apparently, eastern-European athletes used it extensively, although it has never been demonstrated to
enhance performance – speaks volumes about the western bias in favour of therapeutic use of drugs by the
Good Guys. They're just looking after their health. Russians are cheating. How did WADA find out about
meldonium? I'm glad you asked – USADA received a 'confidential tip' that east-European athletes were using
it to enhance performance. Despite expert advice that there is
no evidence at all that it enhances performance
, WADA banned it. Because, you know, east-European
athletes might
think
it helps them, and if they think that, then it is.
Just like Simone Biles and her TUE. But that's not only allowed, she's a hero for being so open about her
ADHD.
In the USA,
cheating seems to be focused on Track and Field
, because that's where the USA wins a lot of its medals.
Hence the effort to minimize the Russian participation, and thus cut down the opposition.
"The United States in fact has a lengthy history of doping at the Olympic Games and other
international events, and of turning a blind eye to its own cheating. That's especially true in track and
field, the front porch of the U.S. Olympic program because of track's ability to drive American medal
supremacy.
Nike's track-and-field training program, for example, has been dogged by doping allegations since at
least the 1970s, when its top officials were allegedly aware that athletes used steroids and other
performance enhancing drugs. Since the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games,
every single U.S.
Summer Olympic team has included at least one sprinter who either had previously failed a drug test or would
later do so.
And that's to say nothing of athletes in the other disciplines.
American drug cheats include some of the country's most notable Olympians. Carl Lewis admitted in
2003 that
he had failed three drug tests
prior to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but
avoided a ban with the help
of the U.S. Olympic Committee and won two golds and a silver instead.
Justin Gatlin won the
100-meter dash at the 2004 Athens Games before later failing a drug test. Tyson Gay, the world's fastest man
entering the 2008 Beijing Games, later failed a drug test too.
Gay and Gatlin nevertheless formed
half of the American men's 4×100 relay team in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.
"
American athletes routinely fail drug tests, but are waved ahead to compete anyway.
"
Eighty-four
American Olympians failed drug tests in the year prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Games but went on to compete
anyway
,
according to author Mark Johnson
. Carl Lewis claimed that "hundreds" of Americans failed tests while
remaining eligible to compete, with the assistance of the U.S. Olympic Committee, in Seoul. The USOC faced
allegations ahead the 2000 Sydney Games that it had
withheld information on 15 positive tests
from international officials; by 2003, it had been accused of
covering
up at least 114 positives
between 1988 and 2000."
Curiously, the latest Russia ban is attributed to allegations that Russia fiddled with the athletes
database it provided to WADA, covering up positive drug tests. But it appears the United States has a
well-known history of fudging and obscuring positive drug-test results, refusing to reveal them to
regulatory bodies, and pushing its doper athletes into international competition. Yet the United States has
a loudly self-awarded reputation as the Defender Of Clean Sport.
Russia's position is that the ubiquitous Grigory Rodchenkov – a proven and self-confessed liar, remember,
who claimed to have lied in his diary where he was supposedly only talking to himself –
modified the
database from abroad
, after he fled to the United States and made such a Godsend of himself in America's
drive to move up the medal rankings. He apparently retained administrator rights on the database, which was
accessible online, even after fleeing from Russia. His lawyer's defense, curiously, is that he did not and,
significantly, 'could not' access the database. To me, that sounds like he's going out a little bit on a
limb – all the Russian side needs to do is prove that he could have to discredit Rodchenkov's story. It
looks like it is headed back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the spring – the same venue which
exonerated the Russian athletes after Rodchenkov's previous epic thundering-in on full afterburner. Will it
happen again? We'll see. Until then the western press appears not to have noticed that Rodchenov lied his
charming face off last time. And still is, through his shyster lawyer –
"If WADA or any other agency
needs Grigory to testify, Grigory will uphold his promise to co-operate fully to help atone for his role,"
Walden said.
You know – the role he admitted he never played, in that he never saw any Russian athlete
take the Duchess Cocktail he claimed to have devised to make doping undetectable, never heard any Russian
sports official order his players to take it, and in fact could not remember exactly what was in it.
Stay tuned – this should be interesting. Count on the Americans to press to the end for a full and
lasting ban, probably for life.
As the Trump Administration continues to
barrel toward a war with Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a press
conference in which he once again claimed that every dubious accusation made by the
administration was true, and the internally inconsistent comments among top officials are all
somehow in agreement.
Pompeo's comments, even the ones that made no sense or were obviously untrue, were echoed
across US media outlets as absolute facts following the briefing. Everyone was clearly more
comfortable just reporting " Pompeo says "
than analyzing it.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
was very critical of some of the worst claims Pompeo made , saying one would have to be
brain-dead to believe them. He noted it made no sense to attack Iran to "preempt" attacks when
the attack just made attacks even more likely.
Pompeo was largely dismissive of questions about the US attack, and rejected claims that
Gen. Qassem Soleimani was working on Saudi diplomacy, saying
nobody believed Soleimani was engaged in diplomacy and that Iranian FM was lying about
that. In reality, Iraq's PM Adel Abdul Mahdi was the one who broke the story of why Soleimani
was in Iraq. Instead of evidence to the contrary, Pompeo just denied.
On the question of the US barring Zarif from the UN in violation of the headquarters
agreement, Pompeo said the US doesn't comment on why they deny people entrance, and insisted
that the US always complies with the headquarters agreement, despite it flat out saying you
can't block officials from speaking at the UN, and the US doing exactly that.
The closest anyone at the briefing came to calling Pompeo on his contradictions was on the
matter of the US attacking cultural sites. President Trump threatened to attack Iranian
cultural sites on Saturday, Pompeo said Trump never said that on Sunday, and Trump said it
again on Sunday evening. Pompeo was asked to address this.
Pompeo said that what he said, that Trump never said there would be attacks on cultural
sites, was "completely consistent with what the President has said," which repeatedly was that
he intends to attack cultural sites. This was a bit too glaring, and one of the press said "No,
but the President has -" before being interrupted by Pompeo.
At this point, Pompeo went off on a tangent claiming that the ayatollah is the "real threat"
to Iranian culture. When asked if that meant US attacks on cultural sites are "ruled out,"
despite Trump's comments, Pompeo promptly ended the briefing and left.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also claimed on Tuesday that Soleimani was planning to
attack Americans "within days" if the US hadn't killed him. As with Pompeo, his claim did not
include any evidence, and ask with Pompeo's claims, the press is echoing it.
"Isolationist" is a imperialist label put on someone against war. And the U.S. has always
been an imperialist nation. There's no such thing as a limited era of imperialism for the
U.S.
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the
biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American,
we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without
hesitation!
shoe 9:18 PM - 4 Jan 2020
fuck healthcare, fuck our veterans, fuck our crumbling infrastructure, fuck the homless
MOMMY MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDS MORE MONEY HELL YEAH
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
I agree with the first part. Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is
prt of terrorising and unsettling and even freezing the capacity to 'think'.
All thinking proceeds from presumptions, and one of the ways 'power' works deceit is in the
ability to set it up so that the 'controlled' or 'leveraged' believe that their thinking is
free while setting the fame of their perceived self-interest.
I just watched Corbett and Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond on this issue,
that touches on a little of the military political context – a key part of which is the
'Israeli' agenda – and its style of 'politics' by pre-emptive strike under aggressively
defended narrative assertion.
As for what the US(a) CAN execute as all-out war is linked to the will to do so –
along with the costs or consequences of doing so. Meanwhile broad spectrum dominance operates
transnationally by stealth and deceit. The US(a) is wagged by its Corporate tails.
A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection
racket. For some this means believing the narrative they are given and for others it means they
have to be seen to comply and conform to signal 'virtue' of allegiance under an enforced
narrative dictate or lose their jobs, and reputation and incur penalties of social exclusion
for the rest of their lives.
The act of state-endorsed murder without trial or evidences – that also kills others
in the vicinity – aimed anywhere in the world – based in classified 'intelligence'
that is without any oversight, accountability or challenge – is seeking to be as 'gods
over men' – indeed a 'god' jealous of any and all rival as monopoly over life on earth
– such as will survive under such a parasitic and destructive deceit. 7 0 Reply
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing
out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S.
officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with
claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught
in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly
exposed as a complete falsehood.
CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj
It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity
within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about
Syrian chemical attacks and
the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some
clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.
When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was
planning, the State Dept. responds with:
"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"
Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as
part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to
Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth
get in the way of a good story.
Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate
Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get
Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP
As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who
genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:
Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American
action last night as giving them freedom."
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were
among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the
crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow
Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future
role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important
things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a
resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and
actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.
WOW,
Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the
American strike that killed Suleimani.
Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the
group in 2008.
Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been
a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either
country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him
to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more
dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.
Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already
transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are
cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly
nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic
blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran
having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an
enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the
ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time
being.
Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1
Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and
will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total
focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far
easier to achieve now.
If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation
of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American
stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of
consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That
said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will
be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the
region.
This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either.
Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he
was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely
inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way
Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost
skepticism.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate
Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens.
I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about
Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the
phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming
Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of
lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the
list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a
"threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must
assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have
provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important
to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the
assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States,
Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials
stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that
will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is
absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased
risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government
– would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it
has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been
a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression
– and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong
defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from
the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It
makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the
bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US
interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed
overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that
for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself
from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as
a "crime of aggression," based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our
government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification
of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without
treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state
to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations
to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put
in place by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad
cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community,
would be replaced by savagery.
Chris Hedges, an Arabic speaker, is a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York
Times. He spent seven years covering the region, including Iran.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself
up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who
did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.
But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the
debris of the explosion.
"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the
Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That
requires the Congress to fully engage."
Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates
the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."
... ... ...
Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating
that killing Soleimani saved American lives.
"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says
that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not
an intelligence conclusion," he
told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have
not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks
to the United States."
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them
into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's
request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how
depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all
in with Zionists and is one of them.
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder
cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of
the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous
grounds.
Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so
it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in
place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful
citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.
I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and
their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and
so many others before them to a place where the just repose.
Daniel
Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer
report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister.
Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N.
headquarters:
"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the
United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry
Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement
with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."
Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School,
noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called
Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals
invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they
are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would
require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security
interest while here in the United States."
Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing
him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it
also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S.
has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the
"toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and
insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of
what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?
By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another
opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further
conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that
off-ramp won't be found in New York.
More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me
trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office
in the land!
The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis,
the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?
Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted
to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by
an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving
half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence.
Learn your history.
All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever
heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from
having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from
kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for
him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt
care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American
that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing
The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil.
The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the
Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung?
Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to
distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.
Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .
Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American
status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .
If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to
do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .
The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues
to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be
quite late .
I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing
protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .
There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like
khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .
Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he
is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the
killing of top Iranian
Gen.
Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an
imminent threat.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision
"will get us into what he calls
another
endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or
impulsively getting us into a major war."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such
a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.
"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes
manipulate
and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.
"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have
an obligation to present the evidence."
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides
answers on "how this decision was reached ... then
this move is questionable
, to say the least."
"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives
are at stake right now."
The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters
sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base
in Kirkuk.
The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling
Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting
the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said
Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.
"
We
took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
"We did not take action to start a war."
But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years
of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations,
which have led to U.S. deaths .
Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself
up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who
did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.
But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the
debris of the explosion.
@ChuckOrloski
At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know
that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in
9/11.
Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.
What's more, now I
know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it
says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of
the time.
So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
"... Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices. ..."
"... We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in generations. ..."
"... "The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators." ..."
"... "Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end." ..."
"... That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade". ..."
"... US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag propaganda. ..."
"... The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced them to imbeciles. ..."
The US shows every symptom of an empire on the brink of collapse: an irreconcilably divided
and decaying citizenry, racial and cultural incoherence, a totally detached oligarchy, no
overarching mission or narrative, and an over reliance on international mercenaries to fight
its wars. By 2009, soldiers of fortune outnumbered US military personnel 3-1 in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making
wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and
suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see
tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices.
A war with Iran is our line in the sand as well. All white men must boycott the military,
which is run by people who despise us more than any supposed international enemy ever will.
The last 3 years of having our rights and civil liberties whittled away show that it is white
Americans who will always be the US plutocracy's first and last enemy. If you are currently
serving, you can get honorably discharged by declaring yourself a worshipper of Asatru and
anonymously emailing your superior officers pretending to be a deeply concerned member of
Antifa. Even if open war doesn't break out, the recent massive troop buildups in the Middle
East guarantee you will be a target. Let Zion send its anarchist neo-liberal foot soldiers in
your place!
We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must
remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in
generations.
The people of Iran are not our enemy. They share the same abominable foe and deserve our
solidarity. They must know that the citizens of America are ignorant of who rules them, and
that decisions made using our flag are not made by us.
In the name of the existence of our people and the future of our children, and even
broader in the name of humanity, we must ensure that this will be Judah's last war.
thank you b... i see you articulated a paragraph that is out of grasp of the american msm
crowd, so i am going to repeat it.. it is worth repeating...see bottom of post... my main
thought is that no matter what happens everything will be blamed on iran - false flag, and
etc. etc. you name it... all bad is on iran and all good is on usa-israel.. that is the
constant meme that the msm provides 24-7 and that us politicians and the state dept run with
24-7 as well. it is so transparent it is beyond despicable..
@ 13 old hippie.. that about sums up my impression.. thanks
@ 22 BM.. thanks.. i share your perspective, but am not as articulate..
here is the quote from b..
"The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi
government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the
Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed
while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime
Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their
murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators."
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
You guys are right on money! I'm a retiree in my seventy's. My social circles are old
school college graduates in late fifties to late seventies, supposedly the segment of
population wise enough to decipher world affairs.
But no, they care more about who's gonna
win today between Titans and patriots or whether Tiger Wood will win another major in 2020.
US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential
terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent
and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to
ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean
to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag
propaganda.
"24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq. Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their
response across their soil. End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun."
The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as
their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced
them to imbeciles.
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe
Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his
predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and
a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to
be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is
a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key
national security advisors to Trump.
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm
perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate
for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned
on."
Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time
on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of
the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only
the neocons want is coming on in full force.
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the
damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing.
But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the
area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so
the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other
words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy
to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the
embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out
the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq
itself. Now there is a real problem.
T he drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani
evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to
World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe
revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And
escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the
multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in
nearby waters.
What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated.
Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval
exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S.
in the region.
Cui Bono?
It is time to call a spade a spade. The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities
between Iran and the U.S. is Israel (with Saudi Arabia in second place). As you no doubt are
aware, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He continues to
await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving. Likewise, it appears that you, your
son-in-law, and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are as susceptible to the influence of Israeli
prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush. Some commentators are citing your
taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable.
Looking back just a decade or so, we see a readily distinguishable pattern.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to
destroy Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Usually taciturn, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security
adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned in August 2002 that "U.S. action
against Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron." Bush paid no heed, prompting
Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized"; that Sharon has him "wrapped around his
little finger." (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.)
In Sept. 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Secretary
of the 9/11 Commission, stated publicly in a moment of unusual candor, "The 'real threat' from
Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel."
Zelikow did not explain how Iraq (or Iran), with zero nuclear weapons, would not be deterred
from attacking Israel, which had a couple of hundred such weapons.
Zombie Generals
When a docile, Peter-principle, "we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan" U.S. military
leadership sends more troops (mostly from a poverty draft) to be wounded and killed in
hostilities with Iran, Americans are likely, this time, to look beneath the equally docile
media for answers as to why. Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel? Many
Americans will wake up, and serious backlash is likely.
Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic
terrorist attacks. And when bodybags arrive from abroad, there may be for families and for
thinking Americans, a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to
pull the wool over their eyes.
Those who may prefer to think that Gen. Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on
Oct. 13, 2004, the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from
words straight from Netanyahu's mouth. On Aug. 3, 2010, in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your
predecessor, we provided some "Netanyahu in his own words."
We include an excerpt here for historical context:
"Netanyahu's Calculations
Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he
enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your [Obama's] reluctance
even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as
affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship.
During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly
confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.
Netanyahu's attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli
TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu)
was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them.
The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward -- and wonderment at -- an America so
easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:
" America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't
get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."
Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be "a con artist who
thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes," adding
that such behavior "does not change over the years."
Recommendation
We ended VIPS' first Memorandum For the President (George W. Bush) with this critique of
Secretary of State Colin Powell's address at the UN earlier that day:
"No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is
"irrefutable or undeniable" [as Powell claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell
today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond
the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and
from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
We are all in a limina l moment. We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid
doubling down on catastrophe.
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and Division Director, State
Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Graham Fuller, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate
VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense
watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel
(ret.)
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate
VIPS)
"... Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint operation prove to be true. ..."
"... "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate. ..."
"... The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State wins! ..."
"... Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers (except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the electorate. Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran will show. ..."
When President Trump announced the assassination of General Qassim Soleimani, he said that
there was "unambiguous" information that Soleimani was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq
and Syria. My first thought was what were the sources of that "unambiguous" information?
I'll
bet dollars to donuts that it was Israel's Mossad. The sheer precision and timing of that
"hit" had all the smell and feel of a Mossad operation. While the US did the actual killing,
the Israelis did the 'fingering.'
Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into
this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint
operation prove to be true.
"America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get
in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu
This bold statement of Israeli/Jewish hubris remains as true today as it was when he said
it, over 20 years ago. This fact is only understood by examining 'who' controls the
media.
Israel requested this hit. And the Americans were stupid enough to oblige.
Joerg , Jan 4 2020 18:49 utc |
31Paul Leibowitz , Jan 4 2020 18:51 utc |
32
CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily
assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with
WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate.
Having 'beheaded' Trump and launched what will be enormous death and destruction, the PNAC
pesharim and their Neocon noodniks are desperate to deflect responsibility onto Trump,
essentially they are 'necklacing' Trump and the Republican administration using the compliant
poodled MSM.
This allows the DNC WarHogs to pretend to be the 'People's Populist Party of Peace' at
their Convention in July, and bring about the final Bolshevik takeover that Brexit and Hong
Kong and a 1,000,000 man Deplorable march on Milwaukee had threatened to defeat.
The high crimes of the Biden's, Kerry's and Pelosi's in Ukraine, and the genocidal crimes
against humanity of Maidan itself, are now ink-blotted out of history.
The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into
a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State
wins!
The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner -
they'll get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in
Tel Aviv.
Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and
DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.
One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.
The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner - they'll
get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in Tel Aviv.
Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and
DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.
One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.
Israel wanted USA to go to war with Iran even well before the Syria debacle. Consequential
considerations of such an event caused the US to hesitate, especially after UK parliament
voted against being a partner to such a shenanigan. Now a US-Iran War may well be at hand.
Whether this would conflagrate the whole ME, and later the whole world, remain to be seen.
US soldiers ready to die for Israeli interests under Israeli command:
"The United States and Israel enjoy a strong and enduring military-to-military partnership
built on a trust that has been developed over decades of cooperation," said USAF Third Air
Force commander Lt.-Gen. Richard Clark, who also serves as the commander for the deploying
Joint Task Force – Israel.
...
According to Clark, the US and Israeli troops will work side-by-side under each other's
relevant chain of command.
"As far as decision-making, it is a partnership," he continued, stressing nonetheless that
"at the end of the day it is about the protection of Israel – and if there is a
question in regards to how we will operate, the last vote will probably go to Zvika
[Haimovitch]."
Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist
Israel with missile defense in times of war and, according to Haimovitch, "I am sure once the
order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team
to defend the State of Israel."
And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish
state, Clark said.
"We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic
fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that – as
every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility," he said.
George V 24
Same here. A drone/missile strike to take out a leader, claim he's responsible for many
deaths ("millions" DJT), and then claim innocence at any response is a classic Israeli
tactic. They did this to test Iron Dome. There had been a ceasefire with Hamas, Israel killed
a Hamas leader they claimed responsible for an attack 6 months earlier, and then pointed out
Hamas when the usual rockets were launched.
arata , Jan 4 2020 20:42 utc |
71Circe , Jan 4 2020 20:46 utc |
72
First I want to express admiration of Iranian courage in resisting the corrupting influence
of Zionist expansionism and condolences for the immense loss of a brave hero and unparalleled
military leader, Soleimani, who was not a general's general, but a soldier's general admired
by many.
Iran is a bastion of resistance against Zionism and therefore the number one target and
enemy of Zionists. Despite, the invasion of Iraq, Israeli assault on Lebanon, proxy invasions
of Syria and Yemen, and the severest of sanctions, the Iran domino remains standing. For this
reason, Zionist Trump came into power guns blazing against Iran, intent on its destruction.
There was no doubt on that, and his assassination of Iran's most revered general removes all
doubt on his intent. The murder of Soleimani represents a cowardly act typical of a coward
like Trump not to have to face a foreign opponent and military leader like Soleimani leading
the Iranian offensive against Zionism and the looming war on Iran. But mark my words,
Soleimani's spirit will be there on the battlefield of any war initiated by Trump and
his cabal.
Trump, the jackass liar that he is, justifies his barbaric act as a response to an
imminent threat against U.S. forces and personnel. THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE. If the
threat were imminent then the logical urgent step would have been to sabotage the ACTUAL
threat mounted as Soleimani did not arrive in Iraq to carry out any attack himself. This
proves Trump is lying when he bragged this lie to the crowd at yesterday's rally. The truth
is really that Trump wanted a shrewd Iranian general and formidable opponent out of the way
to facilitate the Zionist goal to take on Iran. Trump resorted, as usual, to his con way of
fooling everyone with this fabrication. Also, Soleimani had the stature to become the next
President of Iran, and this was a sobering thought feared by the Zionist Trump cabal. Imagine
a man of strength and intelligence, feared by many but loved by more, ruling Iran. Gutless,
crass Trump killed that potential. As I wrote previously, Trump killed the albatross and
misery will follow him for it. All said, Iran did have every right to avenge the killing of
numerous militia by the U.S.; the funeral of which Soleimani was to attend in Iraq, making
the act perpetrated on him from a drone all the more repulsive and dishonorable. It was as if
yellow-belly Trump shot Soleimani in the back robbing him of the dignity of death in battle
he deserved as a warrior of his calibre, albeit not of the glory that will never be
Trump's.
IMHO, Iran should first and most importantly, ferret out TRAITORS not loyal to the cause
of resistance who delivered Soleimani to the enemy. Iran needs to tighten its security and
scrutinize, clean up and enhance its intelligence network especially in view of escalating
momentum towards war. It must use this time of mourning to rally public sentiment both in
Iran and Iraq and strengthen its alliances great and small to the cause of resistance to
imperial domination and, regionally, OCCUPATION--Zionist U.S. OCCUPATION in the Middle East.
Unifying, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, even Palestine to the cause of ending ZIONIST U.S.
OCCUPATION and ousting America from the Middle East and derailing corrupt Zionist expansion
and influence should be PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. This means decrying high and low the monumental
destruction, corruption and evil that this occupation has wrought on the entire Middle East
and the hardship of massive displacement suffered and being suffered by millions.
That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces
first is Iran's domino to victory . As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged
strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more
effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of
Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with
deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy.
My first thought with all of this has been, why now? After reading I have a possible
answer.
Background:1. The Russians have been building up in Syria for a major assault on remaining
ISIS on the Syrian/Iraq border, the Iraqi/Iran forces announced that the planned assault
would begin hours before the five Iraq/Iran military bases were hit. 2. Israel just suffered
a defeat when they launched six missiles at Syria and five were taken out by Syria using
Russian supplied weaponry. The sixth missile fell in the desert, was recovered by Syria and
given to Russia.
These two events are key; the US/Israeli ISIS teams in Syria and on the Iraqi border were
about to be wiped out and control of the border by Syria leaving the US northern Syria
installations without a supply line. The Israeli failed attacked showed that the Syrian
defense systems were now fulling integrated with Russia and that the upcoming attack on ISIS
would probably end them as well as Israel's ability to destroy Syrian/Iranian sites in
Syria.
I think the US military and Pompeo panicked, they came up with a quick casus belli by having
one of their proxies lob missiles at a US encampment with the intent of killing a US citizen.
They then hit the Iraqi/Iran teams that were part of the planned Russian assault shutting
down the planned Russian attack. Pompeo and the Generals immediately flew to Fla to tell
Trump what they had done. Silence from Trump,why? Because he knew that this decision was a
trap to damage his reelection, he saw the plot which is why he stayed in Florida.
Then things really went sideways IMO. Israel seeing it's chance in the confusion, used it's
pawn Pompeo to order a hit on the airport killing the General, you will note that Israel says
it was told before the hit, my guess is no, they told Pompeo to take the hit and he did.
Israel immediately said it had nothing to do with the decision, Pompeo immediately said Trump
ordered it. Trump was forced to say it was his decision and defend it IMO.
Yes it is possible that Trump was told of an opportunity to take out the General but the
MIC/Pompeo know Trump historically pulls back from attacks, remember the Bolton fiasco with
the tankers, with the drone, they couldn't get Trump to attack then, why would he now attack
a Iraqi airbase when the attack on the Iraq/Iran bases was such a disaster for US Iraqi
relations? Why would they bother to ask him now after having put him in a box with the first
strikes?
Now there is talk that Trump has sent a Qatar rep to Iran to cut a deal. THAT is his
initiative, none of the prior events are his initiatives. Could be wrong, and for all that is
not to like about Trump he is not stupid, his goal is to win a Pulitzer prize as the peace
president.
Yes he rants about Iran, the guys who finance his campaign demand that, but push come to
shove, who the hell wants to be remembered as the guy who started a nuclear war...and lost??
Told you all it's Nutandyahoo who is in charge of jUSA. The Tronald is only his stooge:
Patriot Ali
@LogicalAnalys1s
Viral video shows official from SaudiArabia congratulating Israel pm Netanyahu over the
death of #Qasem_Suleimani . Video is spreading like wildfire in pro #Iran accounts
😡
World OSINT
/>
1:04
8:44 AM - 4 Jan 2020 https://twitter.com/LogicalAnalys1s/status/1213501484790407171
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84
Thank you. Someone making sense.
Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and
for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many countries
which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an economic
beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war -
the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the
Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.
In all of this, and the many comments, I must praise Circe for this final one @ 72. It
strikes a definitive chord:
"...That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces
first is Iran's domino to victory. As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged
strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more
effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of
Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with
deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy."
It is clear that Qasseem Soleimani was of a stature for Iran that his legacy will be part
of the determination for what follows in the eyes of his dedicated compatriots. I agree with
Circe here - what will immediately follow is important. It might even include the extraction
from Syria of American influence, which would require the cooperation of Assad. I am
remembering that Iraq's foreign minister recently gave a speech concerning the unification of
Arabic countries toward a peaceful end. That now must include the departure of US troops and
is the antithesis to war, something that would make a commendable legacy for both generals
who have now had their funeral at an important spiritual center.
War is not on. The fall of the black domino is. But this is not retribution; that will
come. Bravo Circe; good post.
" I cannot recall an act of this kind in the last 50 years especially in the extent to which
it seems to take for granted an underlying legitimacy and thus an naive openness, almost
childlike in its self-belief..."
patroklos @77
Doesn't Osama bin Laden count? Obama ordered and took open credit for the assassination of
dozens of individuals, many of them later shown to have been totally innocent of any
involvement in politics, many children etc.
And then, of course there was one Colonel Ghadaffi publicly assassinated, after his
surrender, with extreme brutality.
The only new thing about this is that the victim was a person of power and eminence.
Pepe Escobar: "According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, "Israel gave the US the
coordinates for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the
repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves." https://thesaker.is/us-starts-the-raging-twenties-declaring-war-on-iran/
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may
happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that
makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag
incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US
troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base
another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war
erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths
of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not
too many Americans get killed in its wake.
I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will
jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that
warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the
only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now
the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has
put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start
the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers
(except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the
electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done
to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran
will show.
I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger
will assuredly take his place.
"CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily
assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' "
Leibowitz # 32
Why would they do this *after* the strike?
That sounds kind of silly. And "hastily" sounds as though they were taken unawares . . . They
were surprised to hear that Solameini had been taken out?????
Lozion@62 - Re: Your Magnier quote, "The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the
Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier
General Qassem Soleiman"
The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe
Lang?): something to the effect of 'Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence'. Maybe it
was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.
Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi
vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes . They were trying to kill him because they found
out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US
didn't realize Soleimani was even there . I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew
commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have
expected that ? How devious!
This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target - end of the
State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd
al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind
of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful
graphics.
The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous
scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up
of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion's doing.
I'm an innocent conspiracy primate.
Russia is unlikely to tolerate the destruction of Iraq yet again and it's descent into
Libya-like chaos - which is what could happen if the US refuses to leave. Russia is unwilling
to see a repeat of Libya. My speculation is that Russia might have issued very severe
warnings to the US with respect to this to deter such conduct, similar to what seems to have
happened when the US threatened Venezuela. One example of such a possible threat that I see
as plausible might be that if the US takes further action in Iraq likely to result in civil
war, Russia will totally destroy every US base in Syria (which on the invitation of the
Syrian President they are legally entitled to do at any time).
The alleged recent movement of Russian strategic command aircraft to Syria, capable of
controlling the launch of strategic ballistic missiles, might be directed either to assist
Russia in controlling any escallation connected with the destruction of US bases in Syria, or
it could be to control the threat of Israel launching a nuclear attack against Iran, in the
event of a war against Iran and Iran's inevitable reprisals against Israel.
Russia repeatedly emphasises that it is not the world policeman, which is why Russia is
normally very restrained in responses to US aggression, and responds only in relation to
threats to Russian national security; nevertheless the breakdown of Iraq due to the refusal
of the US to leave would certainly pose serious threats to Russian national security, and
President Putin has been signalling recently that Russia's tolerance for US lawlessness is
coming to an end.
In traditional Arab culture, a mediator - someone with the trust of both parties, objective,
and who has the stature and ability to force compliance should a possible agreement be
abrogated - brokers a 'pause', consults with both parties, to convey expectations.
If the mediator considers the parties 'reconcilable' he arranges a "sulha" - a meeting
where the leaders concerned meet face to face to to haggle out the details.
Only Putin or Xi has such stature, only Putin may be able to enforce agreement.
Reconciliation requires a level of respect for the other. The US respects no one, not even
Putin.
Iran has zero reason to trust any US agreement (JCPOA?)
The US brings $ to its negotiations(offer to lift sanctions) reflecting its values-$, Iran
looks for justice(punishment of those who did the deed), reflecting its value of life.
The red flag says there is no possibility of reconciliation.
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try
invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.
1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a
military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest
internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that
would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical
fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").
2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to
leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire
for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran
could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to
pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.
3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and
diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.
Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded
terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
We need to begin by quickly summarizing what just happened:
General Soleimani was in
Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the USA on the
29th The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder The Iranian Supreme
Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
has officially declared that " However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who
painted their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions ' blood last night "
The US paints itself – and Iran – into a corner
The Iranians simply had no other choice than to declare that there will be a retaliation.
There are a few core problems with what happens next. Let's look at them one by one:
First,
it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the USA that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and
loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact, Secretary Esper has basically
painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring
that " the game has changed " and that the US will take " preemptive action "
whenever it feels threatened . Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to
anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation. No less alarming is that this
creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la " USS Liberty " . Right now, the
Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire
Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN
ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they
did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the
USS Liberty if you don't know about it) There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous
retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies) . In fact, in his message,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically declared that " Martyr Suleimani is an international
face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his
blood . All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and
Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for
those who fight in this path. " He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many people
all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might
well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not
be the result of any Iranian actions at all. Finally, should the Iranians decide not to
retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his
putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions.
A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
If we look at these four factors together we would have to come to the conclusion that Iran
HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly .
Why?
Because whether the Iranian do retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US
attack in retaliation for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not
.
The dynamics of internal US politics
Next, let's look at the internal political dynamics in the USA:
I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons . What
do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly
fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria)
for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either
get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the
consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison
him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other
words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and
fantastically stupid is a win-win situation !
Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into
committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now
think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to
strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something like
this:
Trump looks set to win 2020. We don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in
our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If
he "wins" (by whatever definition – more about that further below), we win. If he
loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always jettison him like a
used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself).
Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry
behind Israel. Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course,
obtain) a massive US attack on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and
media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the
goyim that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the
Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.
Ever since Trump made it into the White House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a
delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I suppose that this calculation goes
something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe in the White House".
He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along. To his
(or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against
Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different
case as it is the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The
Neocons even had this
motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran ". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost
all this wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time
to restore the "macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.
Biden immediately capitalizes on these events
The
Dems (Biden) are already saying that Trump just " tossed a stick of dynamite into a
tinderbox ", as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and
power. Still, I have to admit that Biden's metaphor is correct – that is exactly what
Trump (and his real bosses) have done.
If we assume that I am correct in my evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's
"disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the
Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is also the
Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that from
the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with
Iran .
In truth, the position of the Dems is a masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as
follows: the assassination of Soleimani is a wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for
making it happen .
A winner, no?
What would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be?
I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios
here. All I will say is the following:
For the USA, "winning" means achieving regime change
or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive
the US onslaught.
This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only
win.
And, not, the Iranians don't have to defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large
scale military operations. All they need to do is: remain "standing" once the dust settles
down.
Ho Chi Minh once told the French " You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of
yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win ". This is exactly why Iran
will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?), but that will
still be a victory.
Now let's look at the two most basic types of war scenarios: outside
Iran and inside Iran.
The Iranians, including General Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by
trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East with numerous forces and facilities the USA have
given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most obvious battlefield for a proxy war is
clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to provide the conditions
for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that the Mahdi
Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of
violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct
attack or by attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and,
potentially, Pakistan. In terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from
missile attacks, to special forces direct action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more
options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the Iranians and, believe me, they have
plenty of that!
If such a retaliation happens, the US will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends
and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case,
we can safely assume that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation on US
forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Keep in mind that the Neocon motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran "
implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be qualitatively (and even
quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US seriously
plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars
since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and
his minions are "real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president
who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.
Now,
let's quickly look at what will NOT happen
Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one. Neither will the USA use
this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for
a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a
war against the USA. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia
and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help Iran.
There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I
know, Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest
of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention
span (weeks at most) with the one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?
Absolutely!
If the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which it is), an
occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which it does) and that the Iraqi
people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack and
leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once the tiny
figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation,
the political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both
outside and even inside the USA.
In fact,
Iranian state television called Trump's order to kill Soleimani " the biggest
miscalculation by the U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow
Americans to stay," it said.
Next, both Russia and China can help Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems,
advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.
Finally, both Russia and China have the means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other
targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the perfect time to strike at US interests
(say, in Far East Asia).
So Russia and China can and will help, but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call
"plausible deniability".
Back The Big Question: what can/will Iran do next?
The Iranians are far most sophisticated players than the mostly clueless US Americans. So
the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are unlikely to do something the US is
expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or they will act much
later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").
I asked a well-informed Iranian friend whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is
what he replied:
Yes I do believe fullscale war can be avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its
political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially ask for the removal of US
troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern
Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans
leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a
single shot.
I have to say that I concur with this idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do
next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq first,
and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also protect Iranian lives and the
Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give the murder of
General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the
Middle-East!
Finally, if that is indeed the strategy chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a
tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price from US forces in the region or even
elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the
destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct
retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian
Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only
that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.
Conclusion: we
wait for Iran's next move
The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not believe that the US will gentlemanly
agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political realm. That is –
by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might
seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some
honor and spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US:
Yankees, go home!
If that happens this will be a total victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat
(self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of all possible scenarios.
But if that does not happen, then all bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest
act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.
As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale
war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events" (hopefully good
ones).
The Saker
PS: this is a text I wrote under great time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or
other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo to take a break and not protest again.
Thank you
Saker, je partage votre point de vue, la pire sanction qui pourrait être
infligée aux USA, serait de leur faire quitter l'Irak (et la Syrie par ricochet)
Espérons que le parlement Irakien aura le courage de prendre cette décision
historique, toutes les factions irakiennes sont révoltées par les actions
américaines, le temps est venu pour eux d'en finir avec cette occupation
mortifère.
yandex translate mod
Saker, I share your point of view, the worst sanction that could be imposed on the USA would
be to make them leave Iraq (and Syria by ricochet) let's hope that the Iraqi parliament will
have the courage to take this historic decision, all the Iraqi factions are outraged by the
American actions, the time has come for them to put an end to this deadly occupation.
Seriously how can this happen? The USA leave? The ANZ mercenary army walk away from its
spoils?
USA formally just took control of the Oil Fields in Syria.
USA just asked all non-military to leave Iraq, USA just sent in 3500 new soldiers to
'secure' all Oil Fields in Iraq.
Seriously, there is only "One Outcome" and that is "Greater Israel", and its on track.
We know that in the past almost all the stolen oil from Iraq-Syria was shipped to Israel
via Turkey, where it was re-sold and Israel made an enormous profit.
The neocons can never lose, they're siamese twins with the neo-libs, and all NEO is ANZ;
All MSM, all country's on earth are administered by ANZ agents. Much of the 'war' between
Soros&Adelson left-vs-right NEO is just fighting over scraps that haven't yet been stolen
from the goy. NEOCON & NEOLIB are siamese twins that share a common asshole, they own the
world as the ANZ, the siamese twin is the International-Kleptocrat Elite. They have their
fingers in every nation on earth, including Iran & North-Korea. They have been
controlling China-Russia for 100+ years, all has been planned for year the 'controlled
demolition' of the USA. Most like a an engineered civil-war, followed by an ANZ re-population
of a de-populated USA with a 'beautiful wall' to protects Trumps chosen people.
The soldiers like Gabbi sent to Iraq are just mercenarys. Like Saker say's "Israel owns
the USA", Israel also owns the USA-MIL, the US-GOV, and that includes Gabbi & Trump. The
soliders in Syria&Iraq could very well die there, as the USA that they knew may not be
around in the future, but who cares? Israel controls the oil, and most likely an AIIB-SCO
deal with CHINA-ISRAEL has already been signed, with Israel as the 'Seller of Choice', China
doesn't care, and it respects Israel for its ability to lead the Goy by the nose.
The General is just one man, human life in the eye of the ANZ is worthless, the leaders of
Iran all called themselves "Living Martyrs", now their real power has begun, just like in
Lord of the Rings, when Gandolf was killed, he came back stronger.
IMHO this is all much like a 'magic show', where people talk about what Gabbi says, or
insinuate that USA will leave the mideast, all the while the USA-Israel secures the
middle-east oil fields with USA soldiers.
We know the USD is kaput, we know that Saudi oil is kaput, and the USA knows that in the
future being the worlds largest user of 'portable energy' (oil) that they need infinite free
oil.
Killing the "General", just provides the context to re-occupy Iraq, which now means just
occupying the oil-fields.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
The brain dead 'thankyou for your service' spouting American morons and deluded American
'Christian Zionists' who put another religion before their own (whilst also forgetting about
King Solomans breaking of the Covenenent made with King David they wave in everyones faces)
will be expecting action by Iran before the weekend.
If it does not come they will ignorantly and arrogantly assume 'Victory' and make threats
of further death and murder (and gross hypocracy).
The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese) do not need to act impulsively or recklessly.
Thier time (and ample opportunities to humiliate the arrogant) will come in the months and
years ahead.
Once the world fully wakes up to the fact that the Dollar is the source of all US power
and influence globally, and then turns against it – rejecting it as the evil toilet
paper (and imaginary digits on a screen) that it is, the Satanic empire of the US will
collapse under its own weight and will not be able to support (pay for and bribe) a global
empire. No massive war, no nukes exploding, just the repudiation of worthless pieces of paper
and digits on a screen called the US Dollar.
Thank you, Saker; another brilliant analysis. There are no winners here; but this event was
not unexpected, i.e. U.S. aggression but I am surprised Soleimani was in Iraq and unaware
that something like this wouldn't happen.
Saker, a wise article on the consequences of Soleimani's murder. However, I believe you may
have the wrong 'take' on Trump only being a "disposable President." Miles Mathis wrote an
article on Trump, pre-election, that is pertinent. (Since then, Mathis has been silent on
this matter; he may have been 'warned off'.)
" both Trump's parents died at Long Island Jewish Medical Center."
"So let's return to Friedrich Drumpf, Donald's great-grandfather. Two of his sisters are
listed as Elisabetha Freund and Syblia Schuster. Those are both Jewish surnames So at least
two of Trump's great-aunts married Jewish men. This reminds us that his daughter Ivanka
married a Jewish man, Jared Kushner. We are told this is an anomaly, but it isn't."
"Trump was brought up in Jamaica Estates, Queens, which has a large Jewish population. He
went to Kew-Forest School, ditto. Trump's father was on the Board of Trustees at
Kew-Forest."
"Trump allegedly went to the Wharton School of Business, a famous spook academy."
"Ivana [Trump's former wife] is also Jewish. An early boyfriend was George Syrovatka. That
is a Jewish name. Her first husband was Alfred Winklemeier. Winklemeier is a Jewish name.
Ivana went to McGill University in Montreal, a spook academy we have run across many times.
Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint:
drop the second 'e'. You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish,
too."
"Both Trump and his father ran with top Jews in New York, including Samuel Lindenbaum and
his father Abraham (Bunny), and Roy Cohn. These guys weren't just their attorneys; they were
their enablers."
If we throw-in his moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his recognizing of Israel's
annexation of the Golan Heights, his non-censure of Israeli settlement in occupied Palestine,
and his appointment of pro-Israel & anti-Iran 'advisors', a 'pattern' emerges which is
consistent with Trump being both a crypto-Jew and a Zionist. This state-of-affairs
dramatically changes the odds of escalation to a "US" strike on Iran. If Mathis' assertion is
indeed the case, Soleimani's murder is the deliberate 'kickoff' of a series of events
pre-planned to satisfy Israeli goals
A fine analysis.Trump and Co. are so busy brown nosing the Israelis they don't seem to care
what anyone else thinks. I think every Iraqi not on US payroll will demand Yankee go home,.
The us and its corporate media and the "interagency consensus" makes it unlikely ant rational
decision making will come out of babylon on the Potomac.
This 'could' be contained and may yet well be. Or it could not.
Both Iran and Iraq have been attacked. This was NOT a defensive move. Soleimani had been
declared a terrorist by the US and also declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.
That is the figleaf of justification the US is providing. What must be considered is that
there is a bill in the US Senate that had passed committee declaring Russia to be a state
sponsor of terrorism. If that comes to pass, could Russia be given the same treatment as just
witnessed. Not to mention that China could also fall into that category at some point soon
using the same .. errr logic.
The point here is that should this be seen as an incident that doesn't directly affect
those countries within the Resistance that weren't directly attacked, or should this be seen
as the beginning of the US campaign to establish a Global Reich while there is still
time?
If the latter is true, then it would be foolish to let this play out as purely a regional
event.
Remember Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
The Anglo Saxons really believe there short presence will prevail against the ancient
dominance the Aryans(the real ones that is the Indo-Iranians) have exercised, physically and
mentally, in the region. They have no idea what they are going up against, technical
knowledge will not win a war.
Dear Saker,
I agree with you that hot war is very likely now and also on the possible USAn goals in such
a war. They had to learn at least a decade ago that a full-scale invasion of Iran would be so
impractical that it is essentially impossible for the Empire to do.
But they do not need that. I said I agreed with you that the USA need not invade: for them
(and the true instigator of this incoming conflict: Israel) it is more than enough if Iran is
devastated by naval and airstrikes.
So, in fact this war can and will be won by both sides: Iran may survive a full-scale war but
with her economy and infrastructure destroyed. That is what you called a win-win.
However, you also say that "Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this
one". And therein lies my problem.
Now please enlighten me why on Earth would the USA not deploy a couple of dozens of tactical
nukes in a disarming, debilitating first strike, thus decapitating both the political and the
military leadership of Iran, destroying all nuclear sites and also the bulk of the Iranian
infrastructure and economy (the latter one with mainly sustained conventional strikes for a
couple of weeks).
Why would they hesitate? Knowing that they need not afraid of another nuclear-armed country's
interference it would be quite rational to do so. If this happens, Iran will be in no
position for the coming decades to assist anyone else: no more aid for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Palestine and Yemen. In this case it really does not matter anymore if the current theocratic
democracy of Iran survives or goes away, at least from the Empire's point of view. As a
matter of fact, the USA may even claim "humanitarian reasons" to employ nuclear weapons: it
would be claimed as a painful but necessary surgical operation, far better than a
long-standing conventional war with years of bombing campaigns, siege of large cities and
full-scale assault on the ground. 'Sparing both American and Iranian lives.'
All in all: Iran may protect herself and exact a very high price for a conventional attack
but is defenseless against a nuclear one. So without Russian / Chinese guarantees against an
American nuclear strike I think Iranian resistance would prove futile. In case they lack such
guarantees they would rather capitulate than suffer complete destruction. Iran may only
manage this situation when shielded against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes – otherwise
they better give up before it begins.
The Samson Option say's Israel will not be attacked.
Given that Israel owns the world, why would they allow themselves to be attacked, they
(NSA) didn't just create TIA for nothing ( poindexer-raygun Total Information Awareness )
They know all, they control all. They own all.
Back to Real Politics, Israel owns the USA, and the USA is going down. Israel needs a new
cow to bleed, and that be China. China needs oil, so "Greater Israel", via US-MIL seizes all
middle-east oil fields, and then Israel becomes custodian, of course this will be sold as a
'peace plan'.
Doesn't really matter, as USA is kaput. Broke. USA soliders will do best to remain at
oil-fields and sell black-market oil for Israel, to make money to send home.
Russia will stand down, as in Reality Israel is doing the business of Russia. China needs
oil, Israel needs hard-cash to control the Goy, so they can control their world-wide cattle
ranch ( chattel – prostitution )
Lives whether they be Iranian, or American, or Palestinian have no value, the only life on
earth that has value is the Jewish life.
A large percentage of China are Jewish, like Xian, at least +10M Jews exist in China, and
they're in total support of the castration of the West.
The best selling book in China is called "How Israel Controls the USA", a true story of
how AIPAC took control of USA gov, and killed JFK. The Chinese don't see this book a 'shock
book' they see it as a cook-book, of how to control, farm, and tax the western goy.
I would be interested in hearing an answer to this. It seems logical to me. I don't see any
US wars as being a defeat, since they succeeding in destroying countries. Israel's border's
have not grown yet, but I am sure that is still the goal.
In my view, Russia got involved in Syria because they knew if Syria fell to the US, Iran
would be next, followed by Russia. Russia forced a momentary setback by stopping the fall of
Syria, but Usrael is proceeding on with Iran anyway. Russia, of course, then follows. Why
would Russia get involved in Syria and let Iran fall, possibly by a preemptive "humanitarian"
nuclear strike like you mention? All of Russia's work over the past decades will be destroyed
if they watch Iran get destroyed.
Bc if the terror regime in washington uses nuclear weapons that is a known redline for Russia
and Putin have made this VERY clear. I suggest you use duckduckgo and start typing in
relevant search frases, it might enlighten you.
I am sorry I am so stupid, but I still don't understand. Please explain it to me. Russia has
made it clear that if nukes are used against them, they will respond with nukes. I have not
seen the same message sent regarding third parties. And I tried Googling it.
The zionazis had to act before the US empire crumbles with the overstreched dollar, dollar
that no globalist Rothschild in the world will be able to save for much more time.
The globalists in the City want to get rid of the dollar, but they also want to hurt Iran in
order to weaken Russia (and China), and they need a still powerful USA to perform that.
The war might therefore be a powerful transition (as were the previous ones) toward a new
economical global order, while also weakening the axis of resistance .
As for Trump, one has to wonder if he is really the one who ordered those strikes, and if he
really still has any power over the Pentagon.
It's not just the US and Iran painted into a corner, Iraq, but humanity even.
This United States claimed terrorist act of this import must only mean one thing: their
own recognition the time is up, namely, dollar-as-a-reserve-currency is done for.
Every party, not just Iran, will have to figure a way forward from this shortened horizon
(a single quarter? less?) imposed by the USofA. Of course Europe doubts itself and there's no
worse time for that. I do trust the Iranians, their artfulness and rationality, I am sure
though, by themselves the effort won't suffice. They won't be alone.
The answer is surely asymmetrical, but any "symmetrical" false flag must be
prevented/minimized likewise.
The content of Iran's painful message to America
✴️محتوای پیام
دردناک ایران به
آمریکا
🔸محتوای پیام
ایران به طرف
آمریکایی داده
به گونهای بوده
که مقامات
آمریکایی را
دچار وحشت شدیدی
کرده است. هر چند
هنوز از ابعاد
این پیام اطلاعی
ندارم اما به
نظر میرسد
آمریکاییها به
شکل کامل اعتماد
بنفس خود را از
دست دادهاند،
خبرهایی که به
وسیله واسطهها
به سمت تهران در
طول ساعتهای
گذشته به گوش
رسیده بیانگر آن
است که مقامات
کاخ سفید پس از
این اشتباه
راهبردی، هر کسی
که فکر میکنند
با ایران
کوچکترین
ارتباطی داشته و
دارد و می تواند
به مقامات
ایرانی دسترسی
داشته باشد
متوسل شدند تا
پاسخی که قرار
است دریافت کنند
در همان ابعاد و
نه بیشتر باشد!!
🔸اما اگر قرار
است ابعاد این
پاسخ مشخص گردد
باید رئیس ستاد
مشترک، فرمانده
نیروی دریایی و
هوایی و بالاتر
از آن شخص ترامپ
که دستور این
ترور را صادر
کرده است کشته
شوند تا با هم
برابر شویم
(البته که باز هم
نخواهیم شد) و
این چیزی است که
آمریکاییها
خودشان بهتر می
دانند. وزیر
امور خارجه
آمریکا در طول
ساعتهای گذشته
به همراه سایر
مقامات این کشور
یک نبرد
رسانهای را
شروع کردند تا
به زعم خود
تصمیم مقامات
ایران را تحت
تاثیر قرار
دهند!! ولی آنچه
به عنوان پیام
سفارت سوئیس از
طرف ایرانیها
برای آنها
فرستاد تمام
برآوردهای آنها
را نقش بر آب کرد.
🔸دونالد ترامپ
که در سیاست
خارجی خودش به
بنبست خورده
بود و کنگره او
را به جرم خیانت
فراخوانده بود
تا محاکمه اش
کند، از سوی
دیگر در آستانه
انتخابات نمی
دانست باید
چگونه صحنه بازی
را عوض کند دست
یک قمار خطرناک
زد، این قمار آن
اندازه خطرناک
بوده که در
آمریکا هیچکس
حاضر به پذیرش
مسئولیت آن نیست
و ترامپ تحت
فشار سیاسیون
مخالف خود ناچار
شده شخصاً
مسئولیت این
اقدام جنون آمیز
را برعهده
بگیرد. ترامپ یک
قمار را شروع
کرده که سعی می
کند با تهدید و
فشار و همچنین
التماس و رایزنی
و حتا با دادن
امتیازهای
مختلف از آن
فرار کند. خودش
بهتر میداند که
آنچه درباره
مذاکره و
گفتوگو با
ایران میگوید
جز تحقیر بیش از
پیش خودش نیست.
🔸هنوز از متن
مذاکرات وزیر
خارجه آمریکا با
همتای روسی خبری
منتشر نشده اما
او در گفتگویی
با رئیس جمهور
مفلوک عراق گفته
که خواستار
افزایش تنش
نیست! و عراق
نباید محلی برای
تنش آفرینی
باشد!! این
اقدامات مقامات
مختلف آمریکایی
که شامل پمپئو،
برایان هوک مارک
اسپ و حتی
سناتورهای
نفتخواری مانند
لیندزی گراهام
می شود، در واقع
تهدید ناشی از
ترس را نشان می
دهد. لیندزی
گراهام وقتی
سهمیه اش از نفت
سوریه را گرفت،
اینگونه طرفدار
ترامپ شده است.
منافعی او در
چاههای نفت
سوریه و عراق
دارد که بعدها
مشخص خواهد شد
که چه
پیمانکارانی
وابسته به این
جانور بی شاخ و
دم هستند.
🔸در کاخ سفید
همه از وحشت
احتمالی هدف
قرار گرفتن یکی
از پایگاه های
این کشور در
عراق که صدها
نظامی در آن به
سر میبرند توسط
موشکهای زمین
به زمین ایران
خواب راحت
ندارند. آنها به
خوبی می دانند
که اگر همزمان
یکصد فروند موشک
به این
پایگاهها
اصابت کند هیچ
چیزی از آن باقی
نخواهد ماند و
تلفاتی که به
نظامیان
آمریکایی وارد
خواهد شد همه به
پای حماقت ترامپ
نوشته می شود.
بنابراین بادام
با گفتن این
واژه که دنبال
جنگ نیست و می
خواسته با این
اقدام جلوی جنگ
را بگیرد در
حقیقت دارد کلاه
سر خودش می
گذارد.
The content of Iran's message to the US has been so intense that it has frightened
American officials. Although I am not aware of the magnitude of the message yet, Americans
seem to have completely lost their confidence in themselves, the news that has been heard by
the intermediaries in Tehran over the past few hours indicates that White House officials
have since this strategically mistake, asking anyone who has the slightest connection to Iran
and can reach out to Iranian officials to ask Iran to respond their aggression in the same
dimension and no more !!
But if the magnitude of this response is to be determined, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Navy and Air Commander and even Trump who ordered the assassination must be killed in order
to equalize the crime(of course it won't) and This is what Americans know better. During the
past few hours, the US Secretary of State, along with other officials in the country, has
launched an infowar to influence the decision of the Iranian authorities! But the message
that Iran sent back via the Swiss embassy to the American government undermined all Trump
gang's plot.
Donald Trump, who had been stalled in his foreign policy and had been convicted of treason
by Congress, that the Congress is trying to prosecute him, did not know how to change the
game on the eve of the election and risked playing a dangerous gamble. It is so dangerous
that no one in America is willing to accept responsibility, and Trump, under the pressure of
his opposition, has been forced to personally take responsibility for this heinous act. Trump
has started a gamble that tries to escape with threats and pressure, as well as begging and
consulting, even by offering concessions. He knows that what he says about negotiating with
Iran is nothing more than humiliating himself.
The US Secretary of State's talks with his Russian counterpart have not yet been released,
but he has said in an interview with the beleaguered Iraqi president that he does not want
tensions to rise! And Iraq should not be a place for tension! The actions of various US
officials, including Pompeo, Brian Hook Mark Spar, and even oil senators such as Lindsay
Graham, actually show the extent of fear. Lindsey Graham has become a pro-Trump when he took
his quota of Syrian oil. His interests in the oil fields of Syria and Iraq will later
determine which contractors are connected to this hornless and tailless beast(Graham).
In the White House, everyone is scared of the potential target bases in Iraq, where
hundreds of troops are stationed. They know very well that if one hundred missiles hit these
bases at the same time, nothing will be left behind, and the casualties that will be
inflicted on American troops will all be attributed to Trump's stupidity. So, by saying the
word that he was not seeking war and wanted to stop the war by doing so, he was actually
fooling himself
پیام
قدرتمندانه
ایران اینگونه
صدای
رئیسجمهور
آمریکا را لرزش
واداشت ترامپ
چهار دقیقه و ۱۱
ثانیه در مورد
دستور ترور
سپهبد سلیمانی و
سایر همراهانش
صحبت کرد و در
تمام طول این ۴
دقیقه نتوانست
بر اعصابش مسلط
باشد و صدایش
نلرزد. خوب گوش
کنید که چگونه
پیام ایران
زنگها را در کاخ
سفید به صدا
درآورده است. به
زودی برای شما
خواهم نوشت
ایران چه پیامی
به آمریکاییها
داده که اینگونه
به هم ریخته اند.
نه خبری از سر
تکان دادن ترامپ
است و نه خبری از
شانه تکان دادن
و نه خبری از
بستن چشمان و سر
بالا گرفتن
هنگام سخنرانی.
ترامپ تازه
فهمیده بلانسبت
چه . خورده است.
@syriankhabar@syriankhabar
A machine translation:
Fear and fury in Trump's speech
Iran's powerful message shook the voice of the American president in such a way Trump
spoke for four minutes and 2 seconds about the assassination of Lieutenant General Soleimani
and his companions, and he could not control his nerves all this time. Listen well to how
Iran's message has sounded the bells at the White House. Soon, I will write to you what kind
of message Iran has given to the Americans who have messed up like this.
There is no shaking of Trump's head, no shaking of his shoulder, no closing eyes and a
high-pitched speech. Trump has just figured out what he ate.
'Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction
corner" by declaring that "the game has changed" and that the US will take "preemptive
action" whenever it feels threatened'.
As I mentioned in another article, the Strait of Hormuz comes to mind. What would be the
consequences of it being blocked by the Iranians is something that no one seems to consider.
Any thoughts on this?
I tend to think that odd are opposite to what you've said about hot war. With regard to
leaving ME it was presidential candidate Trump's promise. As well as declared desire of Tulsi
Gabbard. So he can easily spin it as doing it on his own volition. And than (my speculation)
redirect freed money into infrastructure repair and preparation for real economic competition
with China and Russia. Particularly in space where (for now) we have advantage due to private
enterprise..
1. To put this into an historical context. After the failure of the Douma attacks in
April, 2018, the Neocons (Globalists) were basically out of options to win the war in Syria.
But this did not mean that they would give up on their quest to control the entire
Middle-East, of which Syria was the stepping stone to Iran. They just needed a new plan (Plan
D?, E?, F??). We now see that the new plan, painstakingly put in place since April, 2018, is
to attack Iran directly.
2. The attack on Soleimani suggests to me that the U.S. strategy is to decapitate the
Iranian leadership, and then to take advantage of the anarchy that follows to install a
pro-Western puppet in Tehran.
3. I think that the Neocons (Globalists) are extremely impatient to get this done. They
need to control the M-E in order to block Eurasian integration into the Russia/China sphere,
via the Belt and Road initiative. And the window to launch a war, before the U.S. elections,
is very narrow.
4. Based on the above, I expect the U.S., or her 'allies' to rachet up the provocations,
over the next 3 or 4 months, until they get a plausible excuse to launch a full fledged
attack on Iran. I expect that such an attack would be a short, but massive, aerial campaign
with the objective of taking out the Iranian government and its institutions, with the hope
that in the anarchy that follows, a pro-Western puppet, that is already prepared and sitting
in the wings, will be able to claim power.
Trump is not a Neocon, but, about Iran, he shares a common interest with them. And he is
likely foolish enough to go along with such a scenario. As other commenters have pointed out,
the Neocons think that this is basically a win-win for the Neocons. If all goes well, they
get Iran, if not, they get rid of Trump.
Yes, a coordinated and united front in the ME against the Zionazis would be an appropriate
and proportional response a palace coup, the demise of MBS/MBZ, geopolitical realingment,
grassroots protests, rapproachment those sorts of things might shake things up enough to see
the warmongering US finally get kicked out of the ME.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that the United States and the European
Union should either comply with the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran, or
recognize it as nonexistent.
Lavrov made the comments on December 30 after meeting in Moscow with Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who said that the European signatories to the deal were "not
taking any practical steps" to support it.
The military budget of USA speaks loud. This means they are planning.
Iran will not do any foolish movements and calculate any tactic extremely careful.
China and Russia cannot allow that USA will "swallow" Iran. That's the point.
If USA is doing something foolish in order to "secure" its hegemonic aspirations the
outcome could be completely detrimental to what they had wished for.
I also can't help but notice the amount of meetings between US officials and Israeli
officials, particularly where Iran appears to be the major theme. At the time of Netanyahu's
most recent warning, US General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had
visited Israel to meet his Israeli counterpart, Aviv Kohavi, to discuss "operational
questions and regional developments." A week prior, the US Air Force chief of staff also
visited Israel to participate in the Blue Flag joint military exercise. Not long before that,
the commander of the American military forces in the Middle East arrived in Israel for
meetings with top IDF officials.
US government is throwing everything into the propaganda fire to justify its murder of Qassem
Solemani. In his desperation to connect Iran to 9/11 attacks, Mike Pence says there were 12
hijackers (forgetting they were 19 hijackers of which 15 were Saudis)
Over 16 years ago, the Bush Regime was trying to pin some of the blame for 9-11 on Iraq to
justify America's war of aggression on that nation.
Now, years later, the Trump Regime is trying to pin the blame on Iran to justify the
escalation of yet another American war.
And Pence can't even get the number of 9-11 hijackers correct, or that the majority of
these hijackers were from America's head-chopping ally of Saudi Arabia!
Very good recap. The table is set for a lot more death. Iran is damned if they do and damned
if they don't and someone else does because they will simply be blamed. It fits the agenda of
the beast.
All the flag-wavers will be out shouting U.S.A., U.S.A. because this murder has left them
more secure and safe. I don't know whether to vomit or weep.
I don't believe war can be avoided because the agenda is to topple Iran as part of their new
world order. If they won't surrender, war it will be.
This has nothing to do with anything other than the price of oil. The U$ absolutely must
force the price of oil over 100 U$D per bbl. in order to profit from U$ oil reserves, and
save the petro-dollar. If Iran does nothing overt, and Russia continues to pump oil, thus
keeping the price of crude around $60, the U$ economy will wither. I think Iran will peck at
the U$, and Iraq will most likely finally order American forces to leave, but I think
Iran/Russia/China are just going to wait on the U$ economy to collapse, and then allow the
global predator to eat itself. Of course the wild card is the U$ lashing out in its death
throes, and just flat starting a major regional conflict or worse.
Saker,
Many thanks for the clear and succinct analysis.
I for one wonder if Iran decides to go asymmetrically rather than a direct confrontation as
the Iran people have shown to be strategic in their approach. In my humble opinion, I
consider Iran has much (more) to lose if the confrontation path is chosen.
Iran and its allies have reserves of oil and are located in a strategic position vis a vis
shipping routes. Additionally, a part of the conversation that has cropped up is the falling
value (and use of) the U$D. I think that is the weakest part of the US armour.
I hope Iran resists direct retaliation and works along the lines of accelerated debasement
and usage of the U$D.
That is a longer term goal but may be shorter than others. By the way, any resulting damage
may well be permanent.
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try
invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.
1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a
military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest
internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that
would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical
fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").
2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to
leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire
for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran
could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to
pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.
3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and
diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.
Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded
terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.
"... Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that. ..."
ran hawks have been agitating for open conflict with Iran for years. Tonight, the Trump
administration obliged them by assassinating the top IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
and the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah in a drone strike in Baghdad:
Hard to understate how big this is
• Qassem Suleimani is Iran's most powerful mil figure in Region
• He runs Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
• Both men designated by US as Terrorist
• Muhandis was at US embassy attack protest, calls himself "Suleimani soldier"
Reuters reports
that a spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq also confirmed the deaths:
Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy
in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.
Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the
more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that
guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners
in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that
he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a
high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new
war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers,
diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they
were this morning, and the president is responsible for that.
It is hard to convey how irrational and destructive this latest action is. The U.S. and Iran
have been dangerously close to war for months, but the Trump administration has made no effort
to deescalate tensions. All that it would take to push the two governments over the brink into
open conflict is a reckless attack that the other side cannot ignore. Now the U.S. has launched
just such an attack and dared Iran to respond. The response may not come immediately, but we
have to assume that it is coming. Killing Soleimani means that the IRGC will presumably
consider it open season on U.S. forces all across the region. The Iran obsession has led the
U.S. into a senseless new war that it could have easily avoided, and Trump and the Iran hawks
own the results.
Trump supporters have often tried to defend the president's poor foreign policy record by
saying that he hadn't started any new wars. Well, now he has, and he will be responsible for
the consequences to follow.
When US politicians comment about the country's adversaries, a an official narrative
harangue of disinformation and Big Lies follows so often these figures likely no longer can
distinguish between truth and fiction.
Washington's hostility toward Iran has gone on with nary a letup since its 1979 revolution
ended a generation of US-installed tyranny, the country regaining its sovereignty, free from
vassal state status.
On Monday, White House envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook stuck to the fabricated
official narrative in discussing Iran at the State Department.
He falsely called Sunday's Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraqi and Syrian sites
"defensive."
They had nothing to do with "protect(ing) American forces and American citizens in Iraq" or
Syria, nothing to do with "deterr(ing) Iranian aggression" that doesn't exist and never did
throughout Islamic State history -- how the US and its imperial allies operate, not Iran, the
region's leading proponent of peace and stability.
Hook lied saying Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah paramilitaries (connected to the country's Popular
Mobilization Forces) don't serve "the interests of the Iraqi people."
That's precisely what they do, including their earlier involvement in combatting
US-supported ISIS.
Hook turned truth on its head, accusing Iran of "run(ning) an expansionist foreign policy"
-- what US aggression is all about, not how Tehran operates.
Like other Trump regime officials, he threatened Iran, a nation able to hit back hard
against the US and its regional imperial partners if attacked -- why cool-headed Pentagon
commanders want no part of war with the country.
Kata'ib Hezbollah, other Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, and the vast majority of Iraqi
civilians want US occupation of their country ended.
For decades, US direct and proxy aggression, including sanctions war, ravaged the country,
killing millions of its people, causing appalling human suffering.
Hook: "(T)he last thing the (US) is looking for is (war) in the Middle East "
Fact: It's raging in multiple theaters, notably Syria and Yemen, once again in Iraq after
last Sunday's US aggression, more of the same virtually certain ahead.
State Department official David Schenker participated in Monday's anti-Iran propaganda
exercise with Hook.
Claiming the US wants regional de-escalation, not escalation, is polar opposite reality on
the ground in all its war theaters and in other countries where it conducts subversion against
their governments and people.
The best way the US could protect its citizens worldwide is by ending aggressive wars,
bringing home its troops, closing its empire of bases used as platforms for hostilities against
other nations, and declaring a new era of peace and cooperative relations with other
countries.
Based on its belligerent history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day,
this change of policy, if adopted, would be un-American.
Hook: "Iran has been threatening the region for the last 40 years" -- what's true about US
aggression, not how Tehran operates anywhere.
Hook: Iran "is facing its worst financial crisis and its worst political crisis in its
40-year history."
Fact: US war on the country by other means, economic terrorism, bears full responsibility
for its economic hardships, intended to harm its people, including Trump regime efforts to
block exports of food, drugs and medical equipment to Iran.
Fact: Hostile US actions toward Iran and countless other nations are flagrant international
law breaches -- the world community doing nothing to counter its hot wars and by other
means.
Fact: The Iranian "model" prioritizes peace and stability. Endless war on humanity is how
the US operates globally -- at home and abroad.
Fact: Iran isn't an "outlaw regime," the description applying to the US, its key NATO
allies, Israel, the Saudis, and their rogue partners in high crimes.
Hostile US actions are all about offense, unrelated to defense at a time when Washington's
only enemies are invented as a pretext for endless wars of aggression.
The US under both right wings of its war party poses an unparalleled threat to everyone
everywhere.
As long as its aggression goes unchallenged, the threat of humanity-destroying nuclear war
exists.
It could start anywhere -- in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, or against Russia by
accident or design.
On New Year's day 2020, I'd love to be optimistic about what lies ahead.
As long as Republican and Dem hardliners pursue dominance over other nations by brute force
and other hostile means, hugely dangerous tinderbox conditions could ignite an uncontrollable
firestorm anywhere.
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard
University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research
analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until
retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005.
In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on
the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen
live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project
Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
What's not to defend? "It contained secret protocols in which the two countries agreed to invade Poland jointly
and to divide Poland and the Baltic states between them in a sharing of the spoils of
aggressive war."
Totally untrue. Northern Star is just spouting Westie propaganda.
The Russian Foreign Ministry recently opened and published all the archives, including to
so-called "secret protocols". There is nothing in that to condemn Russia, even Stalin comes
out smelling like a rose.
I covered some of this
in my blog post here .
By the time the Red Army marched throug the "corridor", there was no Polish government left
to tell them no. The Poles did it to themselves, basically. They had an opportunity to ally
with the Soviets against Germany. Instead they did their usual stubborn, stupid thing and
brought it all upon themselves.
You cock sucking piece of shit! Worthless scum bag of oozing puss! A moronic failure of
single cell life unable to form a thought worth uttering yet that doesn't stop you!
Thought I would give your approach a try. Nope, not for me.
Must Putin be 'defending the Nazi-Soviet pact'? Or could he be defending the USSR's having
made an agreement after it approached all its erstwhile allies to stand with it against the
Nazis, and got only silence? Is he defending the substance of the pact itself, or the fact
that such an agreement had to be made after every attempt to avoid it through the building of
an alliance to resist the Nazis?
Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the killing of General Suleimani an act of
"international terrorism" and warned it was "extremely dangerous & a foolish
escalation."
"The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Mr. Zarif
tweeted.
... ... ...
"From Iran's perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act," said
Robert Malley, the president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group. "And it is
hard to imagine that Iran will not retaliate in a highly aggressive manner."
"Whether President Trump intended it or not, it is, for all practical purposes, a
declaration of war," added Mr. Malley, who served as White House coordinator for the Middle
East, North Africa and the gulf region in the Obama administration.
Some United States officials and Trump administration advisers offered a less dire scenario,
arguing that the show of force might convince Iran that its acts of aggression against American
interests and allies have grown too dangerous, and that a president the Iranians may have come
to see as risk-averse is in fact willing to escalate.
One senior administration official said the president's senior advisers had come to worry
that Mr. Trump had sent too many signals -- including when he called off a planned
missile strike in late June -- that he did not want a war with Iran.
Tracking Mr. Suleimani's location at any given time had long been a priority for the
American and Israeli spy services and militaries. Current and former American commanders and
intelligence officials said that Thursday night's attack, specifically, drew upon a combination
of highly classified information from informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance
aircraft and other surveillance.
The strike killed five people, including the pro-Iranian chief of an umbrella group for
Iraqi militias, Iraqi television reported and militia officials confirmed. The militia chief,
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was a strongly pro-Iranian figure.
The public relations chief for the umbrella group, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq,
Mohammed Ridha Jabri, was also killed.
American officials said that multiple missiles hit the convoy in a strike carried out by the
Joint Special Operations Command.
American military officials said they were aware of a potentially violent response from Iran
and its proxies, and were taking steps they declined to specify to protect American personnel
in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.
Two other people were killed in the strike, according to a general at the Baghdad joint
command, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the
news media.
... ... ...
The United States and Iran have long been involved in a shadow war in battlegrounds across
the Middle East -- including in Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The tactics have generally involved
using proxies to carry out the fighting, providing a buffer from a direct confrontation between
Washington and Tehran that could draw America into yet other ground conflict with no
discernible endgame.
The potential for a regional conflagration was a basis of the Obama administration's push
for a 2015 agreement that froze Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Mr. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, saying that Mr. Obama's agreement had emboldened
Iran, giving it economic breathing room to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign
of violence around the region. Mr. Trump responded with a campaign of "maximum pressure" that
began with punishing new economic sanctions, which began a new era of brinkmanship and
uncertainly, with neither side knowing just how far the other was willing to escalate violence
and risk a wider war. In recent days, it has spilled into the military arena.
General Suleimani once described himself to a senior Iraqi intelligence official as the
"sole authority for Iranian actions in Iraq," the official later told American officials in
Baghdad.
In a speech denouncing Mr. Trump, General Suleimani was even less discreet -- and openly
mocking.
"We are near you, where you can't even imagine," he said. "We are ready. We are the man of
this arena."
Multiple
news sources are reporting the assassination, near Baghdad Airport, of Suliemani, the leader of
Irans Quds force. Some commentators are saying that this is "bigger than killing Bin Laden".
According to the Pentagon, the assassination was at the direct command of President Trump. I am
afraid this event, allegedly taken to forestall further attacks on US forces in Iraq, may have
unintended consequences.
To me, the logic of Trump in doing this is unfathomable. Did he intend to provoke Iran and
the Russians? What did he expect to achieve? Clearly the stress on the Iraqi Government is
going to be extreme. How has this assassination improved the security of U.S. forces in the
region? What does the Committee think?
I agree the stress on the Iraqi government will be intense. Will they force the US out?
Did Trump order this expecting that to happen? Or did he order this at the behest of Bibi,
MbS and the neocon contingent (Pompeo, Haspel, Esper, Kushner) he has surrounded himself
with, not really thinking through the implications.
The one scenario that I speculate that took place is the low-level "warfare" between US
forces and the various Iraqi/Iranian/Syrian militias got escalated. And Trump was being
"briefed" that it was all Iranian "influenced". That would have fit his generally anti-Iran
mindset and then he was presented with this "target of opportunity" and given seconds to
decide and he went with the flow to pull the trigger.
My sense is that while Iran will heat up the rhetoric, they won't retaliate militarily in
a direct and open manner. Instead they'll pile the pressure on the Iraqi government to expel
US forces.
The Mahdi Army is reportedly being reactivated, presumably they have some more combat
experience now thanks to the ISIS war. We have some 5,000 troops in the country and God knows
how many citizens there along with whatever we have in Syria. The Iranians are pissed and
want their revenge. The Iraqis are pissed too as is Hezbollah I'd imagine. I fear that this
is going to be bad.
Who is driving US policy in the region now, who is Trump listening to?
Once again the neocons have pulled off the seemingly impossible, imagine have the power
and cunning to have a country use their own servicemen as bait and cannon fodder to serve the
interests of a foreign country. Another nail in the American coffin, unfortunately.
I guess all Col. Lang's effort for the past 2 decades have been undermined. There is no way
that the assassination of a member of an Iranian equivalent of JCS will be tolerated. The
Iranian government will consider a lack of response to be interpreted as an invitation for
more adventurism by Trump admin. The whole talk about covert action is ignorant as the
Iranian foreign minister has already stated that there will be consequences.
The dice has been cast and at this point it really doesn't matter which faction within
Trump's entourage managed to start a conflict: the king-of-gamblers, Sheldon Adelson &
the rest of NeoConLibs, got their wish.
Not happy about it but nothing to do to reverse course.
I could it see it playing out in two general ways. Clearly, this could make things much
worse, across the entire Middle East. That's a given. On the other hand.....
It MIGHT be so that there are a lot of people in Iraq, Iran (yes, Iran) silently (for now,
if they know what is good for them in the short run) celebrating this hit. A lot of Iraqis
and Iranians have been killed by this guy's forces in the last few months. Alone. Who do we
think the people in Iraq and Iran have been protesting against? Al Quds. And there might even
be a few people in the Iranian govt who think now is the time to reduce, dramatically, the
influence of Al Quds. These facts should not be dismissed out of hand. But again, on the
other hand....
it may be deemed unholy and unpatriotic to celebrate taking out this SOB...as the lament
might go, 'he's an SOB but he;s our SOB!'.
I know this...I would be tempted to evacuate our embassy. Now. Like starting
yesterday.
We'll see. But I shed no tears for this guy. Nor do I celebrate it. Because either
way...it is grim. Now, if there was someone like the Col exploiting the vacuum and shock
waves certain to come in the wake of this...I would see opportunities. I repeat, a lot of
people in the Middle East did not like this guy or his organization...even if they don't like
the US too. But that kind of thing requires a mind that plays chess. And can kill, too. And I
don't see too many minds, and souls, like that in DC anymore.
"... Since May 2019 the U.S. deployed at least 14,800 additional soldiers to the Middle East. Over the last three days airborne elements and special forces followed . The U.S. has clearly planned for an escalation. ..."
Earlier today a U.S. drone or helicopter
killed Major General Qassim Soleimani, the famous commander of
the Iranian Quds ('Jerusalem') force, while he left the airport of Baghdad where he had just
arrived.
The Quds force is the external arm of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Soleiman was responsible for all relations between Iran and political and militant movements
outside of Iran. Hajji Qassim advised the Lebanese Hisbullah during the 2006 war against
Israel. His support for Iraqi groups enabled them to kick the U.S. invaders out of Iraq. He was
the man responsible for, and successful in, defeating the Islamic State in iraq and Syria. In
2015 Soleimani traveled to Moscow and convinced Russia to intervene in Syria. His support for
the Houthi in Yemen enabled them to withstand the Saudi attackers.
Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad on a normal flight from Lebanon. He did not travel in
secret. He was picked up at the airport by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, the deputy commander of the
al-Hashd al-Shaabi, an official Iraqi security force under the command of the Iraqi Prime
Minister. The two cars they traveled in were destroyed in the U.S. attack. Both men and their
drivers and guards died.
The U.S. created two martyrs who will now become the models and idols for tens of millions
of youth in the Middle East.
The Houthi in Yemen, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the paramilitary
forces in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere have all benefited from Soleimani's advice and support.
They will all take actions to revenge him.
Moqtada al-Sadr, the unruly Shia cleric who commands millions of followers in Iraq,
has
given orders to reactivate his military branch 'Jaish al-Imam al-Mahdi'. Between 2004 and
2008 the Mahdi forces fought the U.S. occupation of Iraq. They will do so again.
The outright assassination of a commander of Soleimani's weight demands an Iranian reaction
of at least a similar size. All U.S. generals or high politicians traveling in the Middle East
or elsewhere will now have to watch their back. There will be no safety for them anywhere.
No Iraqi politician will be able to argue for keeping U.S. forces in the country. The Iraqi
Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi has called for a parliament
emergency meeting to ask for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops:
"The targeted assassination of an Iraqi commander is a violation of the agreement. It can
trigger a war in Iraq and the region. It is a clear violation of the conditions of the U.S.
presence in Iraq. I call on the parliament to take the necessary steps."
The National Security Council of Iran is
meeting with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to "study the options of response". There are many
such options. The U.S. has forces stationed in many countries around Iran. From now on none of
them will be safe.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a statement calling for three days of public mourning and then
retaliation.
"His departure to God does not end his path or his mission," the statement said, "but a
forceful revenge awaits the criminals who have his blood and the blood of the other martyrs
last night on their hands."
Iran will tie its response to the political calender. U.S. President Donald Trump will go
into his reelection campaign with U.S. troops under threat everywhere. We can expect incidents
like the
Beirut barracks bombing to repeat themselves when he is most vulnerable.
Trump will learn that killing the enemy is the easy part of a war. The difficulties come
after that happened.
In 2018 Soleimani publicly responded
to a tweet in which Trump had threatened Iran:
"Mr. Trump, the gambler! [ ] You are well aware of our power and capabilities in the region.
You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare. Come, we are waiting for you. We are
the real men on the scene, as far as you are concerned. You know that a war would mean the
loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine
its end. "
Since May 2019 the U.S. deployed at least 14,800 additional soldiers to the Middle East.
Over the last three days airborne elements and special forces
followed . The U.S. has clearly planned for an escalation.
Soleimani will be replaced by an officer of equal stature and capability. Iran's policies
and support for foreign groups will intensify. The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but
will feel the consequences for decades to come. From now on its position in the Middle East
will be severely constrained. Others will move in to take its place.
Posted by b on January 3, 2020 at 9:05 UTC |
Permalink
If Iran is smart they would ask Tulsi Gabbard to come to Tehran and try to make peace with
Trump. Israel and the neocons in the Trump orbit want an excuse to attack Iran. Don't give
them one. Take the high road.
Oh, it was certainly a grave miscalculation by the US. The NeoCons must have been pushing for
it for years, and it wasn't the first assassination attempt. But I don't think the reprisal
will be immediate. Retaliation needs to be carefully thought out, in order to avoid an
exchange mounting in tension leading to outright war (certainly part of the US plan).
I was wondering, seeing as Netanyahu has suddenly dropped his Greek visit, and run back home,
whether the retaliation won't be against Israel. Netanyahu certainly fears it.
Do not retaliate immediately to suit your enemies .
Let the world see how a civilised Iran responds to utter provocation by an uncivilised
bully.
They used to call it Buck Braking.
The world (except the usual arselickers) will understand that retaliation is justified and
the cost of defending every USA and Israel target will be huge.
When a threat is carried out it is weakened.
Go to World opinion.
Hope al-Sadr has got sore balls from sitting on the fence. Small minded prick trying to use
US for his small minded shenanigans. But whatever, if he mobilize his forces against the US,
we might be able to cheer a few US bodybags on there way home. With no defences, Iraqi's will
pay a high price, but bodybags have a major influence on US public.
Soleimani will be replaced by an officer of equal stature.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sulaimani was a figure of exceptional stature,
and skill. But, as you say, he may yet be worth more dead than alive, as a martyr.
There have been all kinds of threats of retaliation for so long. Nothing materializes. Israel
has been bombing targets in Syria with impunity. They've even bombed in Iraq.
There's all kinds of strong words and rhetoric. Let's see what if anything Khamanei does?
Let's see if the Iraqi parliament does anything? How are they going to force the US military
to exit?
The world will remember Qassim Soleimani as a pivotal figure in the struggle against US
domination in the Middle East. Rest in peace Major General.
This surely must be the single most stupid thing Trump could do entering the election
year.
How ironic that the warmongering Democrats will use the consequences of the targeted
killing of an Iranian official as ammunition to kill this presidency.
Iran is not looking for an all out war, the response will be asymmetric and
appropriate.
Straining US-Israeli relations and poisoning the political well in the US to accelerate
the decline of the American Empire would be the ultimate revenge.
Trump repaid Sheldon Adelson, but more people will pay the ultimate price.
Though I fully believe Trump is capable of ordering a hit one of the highest ranking generals
in the Iranian military, I'm not necessarily convinced that is the case. My first thoughts on
hearing news of the assassination were as follows: when the Pentagon and its corporate
bullhorns make such a special point of telling us that Trump gave the order to kill such a
high ranking military figure why do I harbor suspicions that might not have been the case? I
don't need telling in capital letters that Trump did it, as I would assume the order would
have to have come from the president without having to be told. Normally, Trump does the
bragging bit himself. If it is to be done at all. That Trump ordering the hit gets such a
special mention suggests that the Pentagon more often than not carries out similar operations
irrespective of what the president might want. Well, my might musings may amount to what some
what label a conspiracy theory but might a military coup just taken place in the US? After
all, would the president have enough courage to tell the American people he had not given the
order if that were the case? When we can't trust our leaders and we can't trust the media,
who can we trust? And who is to be believed? Apart from that, the way the news is being
released has a few unsubtle hints of dumping blame on Trump. A lot of people in the Pentagon,
might either regret the operation, or were never given an inkling of what was about to
happen.
"The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to come.
Others will move in to take its place."
Wait for awhile on that one. Iraq will have to take some major hits if it tries moving to
the Russia China sphere. And it will have to deal with the fith column which are strong. Iraq
will have to go through the fire - like Donbass, Syria ect until it is distilled to a solid
core and then they will get support that will drive back the yanks.
To summarize b: The US doesn't gain anything, and potentially loses everything they sought
out to do in Iraq (and by extension; Syria), from the killing of Soleimani.
So why do it? Was Soleimani really the target? Who benifits by drawing the US and Iran
closer war?
I wouldn't be surprised if an article about 'bad intel received from a 3rd party' pops up
in the NYT in a few months time.
Iranians have to do nothing, every rocket, bullett or treeleave which falls in the vicinity
of an American will be labeled a counter attack of tthe iranians. And thus striking fear,
they will live their own nightmare.
The tweet of khamenie yesterday provoked trump, ttrump did exactly as aspected when sulieman
made his public trip to iraq. Maybe he is as dead as Epstein or he did underestimatte the
american stupiditty.
There's all kinds of strong words and rhetoric. Let's see what if anything Khamanei does?
You underestimate the gravity of the crisis. It's much more profound than that,
not far off 9/11 level. But there won't be instant retaliation. That would be foolish.
I've been following Elijah M. and several others on twitter, as well as more mainstream
sources for several hours after learning of these assassinations.
the absolute stupidity, maliciousness and wickedness of the US Political and Military
Elites is truly astonishing. They have misjudged every single thing in that part of the world
since 9/11 and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and then Iraq - and spent/wasted
well over $5 trillion. not to mention the horrific loss of life everywhere from Syria to Iraq
and Yemen. And we are now looking at another even more catastrophic war.
it is unbelievable
The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news
I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two
major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and
Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?
Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport
is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".
That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.
AND
S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders
killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and
internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for
#Iraq".
Really, the ball is in Iraq's court. This is an attack on Iraqi sovereignty as much as an act
of war on Iran. We will now see what the Iraqi are made of.
Trump was personally responsible for having the organisation Soleimani led declared a
terrorist organisation. Time to quit the "Trump is a dumbfuck led by others" Trump is around
70 and has been his own boss all his life. He is now commander in chief of the US military.
He gives the orders, nobody else. He doesn't give a shit about the cold war and Europe, hence
people thinking he is a peacenik. What he does care about is enemies of Israel and control of
energy.
I am left wondering to what extent the events were pre-planned.
Seems very possible that Trump will never actually be impeached. As a war President, his
legacy will be guarded. Was impeachment ever anything but a distraction prior to a false-flag
and escalation?
IMO Trump's Presidential contract with the Deep State likely includes NO IMPEACHMENT and
NO RELEASE OF HIS TAXES. Both to guard his "good name" because Trump see the the "Trump"
brand as his biggest asset.
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and
Syria, which by the way was also the overarching goal of Soleimani...
If the Iraqi politician had anything resembling balls, they would have kicked the US out
the moment Trump proclaimed he had 'secured' the Syrian oil. Will have to do some research on
whether Iraqi politicians can produce kids.
You (far more elaborately) illustrated my take.
I personally think he gets 'strongly advised' on which course to take, and even if he
disagrees goes along anyways. Maybe it's just plain selfish expediency, or one of many other
reasons.
Makes one wonder if the raids on Epstein's residences landed the deep-state some very
incriminating footage.
Perhaps they 'own' him outright now.
I'll be surprised if the next election doesn't bring major civil unrest to the USA.
Then 'they' will have something to really worry about, directly in their own laps, for a
change.
Trump doesn't give a shit about soft power. He believes in hard power. Iraq has no defence
against the US, and Trump intends to attack Iran. He needs a 9 11 to take the American
population with him.
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures,
in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as
well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under
the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate
their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also
known as Da'esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United
Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support
Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven
they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
USA have made it very clear that they are not leaving Syria and the same thinking/excuses
likely applies to Iraq.
Some will argue that using UN2249 as justification for over-staying and virtual
occupation is wrong-headed. Nevertheless, USA claims to remain to ensure against a resurgence
of ISIS. Clearly they intend to stay until their goals are met or they are forced out
militarily.
I suspect I'm not the only MoA barfly who thinks the assassination of Hossein Soleymani could
have been planned with Mossad or other organisations and individuals in Israeli society.
The Iraqis are certainly capable of making life for the US very uncomfortable in Iraq and
Syria, even if not force withdrawal. The present US structure and numbers depend on Iraqi
acquiescence, and that's about shot, even before the assassination. If the position is to be
maintained without Iraqi acquiescence, then thousands more troops would be required, and that
wouldn't go down well back home in the States. That's one of the reasons why the act was a
grave miscalculation.
Prayers for *Qassim Soleimani* and the 'engineer' *Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes*.
RIP.
Amen.
WE who respect Life & Freedom have, a huge debt, to Qassim Soleimani.
It was Qassim Soleimani who was in Moscow many times, BEFORE the Russian Federation went
'all-in' in Syria September 2015. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Syria+Russia+2015&t=ffcm&ia=web
He was a brilliant military strategist, who after these meetings had convinced V.Putin &
Russian Military of a....very very effective 'game plan' to free the Syrian People of the
wahhabbi-terrorists & jizzreali-mercenaries.
Yes. Brilliant Man.
Besides this characteristic, Qassim Soleimani was a man of faith.
Unafraid to travel openly, knowing Our God would be with him both in Life & Death.
People like Soleimani and Zahreddine had their religion, but they were also secular in their
world veiw - not religious nutcases. Not good when the yanks kill them. But then there's all
- to us - the unknowns the US has killed. Perhaps unknown to us, like the SAA soldiers on the
hills out of Dier Ezzor killed in the US Australian and other assorted rabble strike. 100 or
so SAA, unknown to us but known to family and friends. Sooner the yank frankenstein made up
of assorted so called dissidents and genuine zionists is wiped off the earth the better.
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially
thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.
This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He
will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis. By then it is too late.
The US and its vassals are speeding up confrontation with the Axis because they know that the
showdown is inevitable. However, It will not happen according to the US timetable.
Keep a good supply of popcorn on hand. The pandora box has plenty of surprises. The question
remains,
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially
thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.
Posted by: TEP | Jan 3 2020 10:49 utc | 36
The Iranians would be foolish to allow themselves to be goaded like that.
Putin has warned Trump against attacking Iran. Trump needs an excuse. I may be wrong but I
doubt an Iranian response to the US killing will cut it. This will be interesting to see.
Trump may have to wear the Iranian response or bear the same consequence as if he had
attacked Russia.
Iran has a choice. It can suffer hit like this one left right and center, at least until
the end of the Trump regime, or it can strike back and initiate ware. Unless Iran strikes
back, which will intimate war, Trump will up the the game to where he is hitting Iran at will
and Iran is taking major losses. Like Putin says, 'when a fight is inevitable, hit first'.
Iran is better off kicking things off now rather than after they have taken big losses.
"This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in
command. He will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis."
I too look to twitter. I see claims that Iran has dispersed fighter aircraft to fields near
the borders. I see that "out bound heavies" are flying out of the US...calls for people to
pack and bugout...signs here and there of this conflict becoming very destructive and
impossible to control. The Iranian 3 day pause makes sense, but no one should assume that the
aggressor will wait 3 days..is not looking like simple attack, but like a campaign. If so,
then it's a red hot fight. S. Mohamad Marandi and Mark Sleboda often have interesting tweets.
If this is a campaign, yes of course there was/is a plan. However no plan survives first
contact with the enemy. Persia has been there a long time, Yankee fatboy...something the fine
gentlemen perhaps may not have known, since they're barking insane and know zero history. The
US history is merely the blink of history's eye, so far. Education by war is a harsh process,
and expensive.
If state a is attacked, then internal mechanism of state a tends to force leadership of a
to "reply". similarly if state b attacks state a, it's because of the internal calculus of
state b that this occurs. all war may be seen as domestic in origin.
Maybe I ought to fill the car with gas... That's my internal calculus.
Does anyone here follow Trump's Twitter posts (I don't)? If so, please link his tweet in
which he claims responsibility. The vile narcissist that we are led to believe him to be
would want to brag loud and first if he ordered the assassination, regardless of the time it
happened.
No Twitter post? Then I doubt Trump was in the loop.
The neocons are "making history" again and Trump will have to choose to go along
with it rather than fight it, but it is clear to me now that he is not even being briefed on
these operations until after the fact.
In fact, Trump being holed up in his Florida compound and not even in Washington as this
war is launched suggests to me that he may have been threatened with being Kennedy-ed.
"Shut up and go along or an Iranian will snuff you... and we know it will be an Iranian
because we already have his passport ready to be found at the scene of the crime."
Insanity? Yes, America has collectively gone insane, as has its population individually.
It could be that Trump tried to fight it, but fighting mass insanity is like trying to hold
back a hurricane. Even a President cannot do that.
I'd expect the Iranians to be more subtle than that. I don't think there's any advantage
for the Iranians to directly attack the US position in the ME.
, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the
image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
"With each passing day of the impeachment crisis, the distance between the official reasons
for the conflict in Washington and the real reasons grows wider.
It has become increasingly clear that the central issue is not Trump's attempt to "solicit
interference from a foreign country" by "pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of
the president's main domestic political rivals," as alleged in the whistleblower complaint
that triggered the impeachment inquiry.
Rather, the conflict raging within the state centers on Trump's decision to temporarily delay
a massive weapons shipment to Ukraine.
The ferocity with which the entire US national security apparatus responded to the delay
raises the question: Is there a timetable for using these weapons in combat to fight a war
against Russia?
A New York Times front-page exposé published Monday, coming in at 5,000 words and
bearing six bylines, makes it clear that Trump's decision to withhold military aid -- over a
month before his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky -- triggered the conflict that
led to the president's impeachment.
As the Times reports, "Mr. Trump's order to hold $391 million worth of sniper rifles,
rocket-propelled grenades, night vision goggles, medical aid and other equipment the
Ukrainian military needed to fight a grinding war against Russian-backed separatists would
help pave a path to the president's impeachment."
"Despite the unforeseen and disastrous consequences of the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine, the
United States is determined to continue its efforts to militarily encircle Russia, which it
sees as a major obstacle to its central geopolitical aim -- control of the Eurasian landmass,
which would give it a staging ground for a conflict with China."
If a conflict between USA led NATO and Russia goes thermonuclear, we can all kiss our
asses goodbye. Two maybe three hundred million dead outright within an hour or so. What
then?? Who the fuck knows.
However if the conflict remains non thermonuclear -but possibly involving tac nukes -- I
can conceive of no scenario in which Russia does not stomp the living shit out of a USA/NATO
aggressor. Russia and China allied and working together? Capitulation of the USA/NATO forces
within a month tops.
The problem is that we have psychopaths in D.C. and Brussels who actually believe that the
peoples of the Eurasian land mass can be subjugated. As long as their insanity is tolerated
,we are all living on borrowed time.
Nothing untrue in this article. Secondary sanctions are evil because they prevent minor
transactions because banks don't think it is worth the severe penalties. So Iranian cancer
patients aren't allowed to buy chemotherapy medications. Trump has gone overboard because he
has learned that there is no political cost to doling these out.
I think this is how US dominance will end. No challengers will end it, although some may
rise in the vacuum. The internal changes the US needs to make to come back are politically
impossible. Sanctions are big government on steroids, and having the US Government sitting
atop the global economy will cause it to seize up. The question is how long commerce will be
able to continue under these conditions.
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... "The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said in his Dec. 16 opinion ( pdf ). ..."
"... In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it late. ..."
"... Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation. ..."
"... Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something it could allege was false. ..."
"... Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers, Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview." ..."
"... Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI investigation of election meddling. ..."
"... Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what his first team of "counselors" advised. ..."
"... Flynn is as deep state as it gets. He would throw the book at any one of you. Make no mistake. Being a general is a political appointment. ..."
"... Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore. ..."
"... "Michael Flynn reportedly filed paperwork on Tuesday for the $530,000 worth of work he did last year that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey." https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/08/michael-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying ..."
"... NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet. ..."
"... They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile. ..."
"... Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses. ..."
"... Oh how soon you forget that Flynn commited war crimes in Grenada. ..."
"... Then bring him up on those charges. In court those kinds of leaps are inaddmissable. ..."
"... Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year ..."
"... Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is sentencing him is PISSED. ..."
"... Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say you weren't warned. ..."
"... They threatened his son if he did not plead guilty. Of course, to you Dems the means justifies the end. He will be pardoned, and deservedly so. ..."
"... I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other criminals. ..."
A federal judge has denied requests by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to prompt the government to
give him information he deems exculpatory and to dismiss the case against him .
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the government in arguing that Flynn was
already given all the information to which he was entitled. The judge also dismissed Flynn's
allegations of government misconduct, noting that Flynn already pleaded guilty to his crime and
failed to raise his objections earlier when some of the issues he now complains about were
brought to his attention.
"The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of
innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said
in his Dec. 16 opinion (
pdf ).
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, pleaded guilty on Nov. 30, 2017, to
one count of lying to the FBI. He's been expected to receive a light sentence, including no
prison time, after extensively cooperating with the government on multiple investigations.
In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the
government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it
late.
Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they
testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told
the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should
have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to
show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation.
Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place
and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something
it could allege was false.
Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers,
Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview."
Flynn was interviewed by two FBI agents, Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, two
days after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
The prosecutors argued that the FBI had a "sufficient and appropriate basis" for the
interview because Flynn days earlier told members of the Trump campaign, including soon-to-be
Vice President Mike Pence, that he didn't discuss with the Russian ambassador the expulsion of
Russian diplomats in late December 2016 by then-President Barack Obama.
Flynn later admitted in his statement of offense that he asked, via Russian Ambassador to
the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, for Russia to only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner and
not escalate the situation.
The FBI was at the time investigating whether Trump campaign aides coordinated with Russian
2016 election meddling. No such coordination was established by the probe, which concluded more
than two years later under then-special counsel Robert Mueller.
Powell argued that whatever Flynn told Pence and others in the transition team was none of
the FBI's business.
"The Executive Branch has different reasons for saying different things publicly and
privately, and not everyone is told the details of every conversation,"
she said in a previous court filing .
"If the FBI is charged with investigating discrepancies in statements made by government
officials to the public, the entirety of its resources would be consumed in a week."
Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI
investigation of election meddling.
Sullivan, however, thought otherwise, using a broader description of the investigation. The bureau, he said, probed the "nature of any links between individuals associated with the
[Trump] Campaign and Russia" and what Flynn said was material to it. The description Sullivan used appears to omit the context of the probe, which focused
specifically on the Russian election meddling.
Powell was dealt a bad hand by Flynn's previous corrupt and incompetent attorneys. The
judge has an obligation to honor the new views of new counsel. He can't assume that Flynn had
been well advised by former counsel. There's no evidence or history of that. They sold him
out.
Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring
Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting
Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what
his first team of "counselors" advised.
He's so Deep State that Brennen and Clapper went to Soetoro to get him fired after the
election. Flynn was going to rat them out on the treasonous Iran deal. When Obama said no
because it was too close to the end of his presidency they then criminally framed Flynn.
Flynn was lied to. Flynn was a 30 year veteran and General. Flynn couldn't imagine his
country turning against him like this. None of us could. But with the cabal running our
country, it could and did happen. Now we have to stamp out the cockroaches before it's too
late.
Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without
disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore.
NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet.
This ***** judge will give him a mouse sentence to protect his own *** . We don't know the half of it . How close is the judge to Obama ? I think we are going to find out .
President Trump should step in now and Pardon Gen.Flynn and Roger Stone both trial were
fixed unethical and not based on fact and law. In Stones case a radical jury of Demon
Rat-Brains were assembled to hand down a guilty verdict.
They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.
Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile.
Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses.
Those who violated the constitution and rule of law are media pundants and
undisturbed.
Orange dotard please divert some of your swamp creatures from destroying Iran, Venezuela
and Bolivia.
America needs the secret police smashed and held accountable for sedition and treason.
Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year
The minute they let Flynn off he talks and they sure as hell don't want that. They want to drag this out as long as possible and hope for a miracle (Trump gets beat
) or at least time enough for them to bugger off. FISA has known for years they were lied to by the FBI and now it has been confirmed . So why didn't they do anything then or now ? Were they in on it ? How do you draw any
other conclusion ?
Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead
guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is
sentencing him is PISSED.
Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner
you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in
bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn
inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say
you weren't warned.
I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other
criminals.
Flynn can ask to withdraw plea, but he's turned down that opportunity three times, so
judge might not allow it. Then everything Powell has been doing becomes relevant. Up to this point it's just a bunch
of noise, unfortunately.
So let me just be sure I understand this: he is being denied evidence that could prove
innocence on a trial related to a guilty plea, which was largely the result of persecution by
the FBI and we ALLOW this to happen in America? What has happened to this country?
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
"... Wellsir, I'm old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using the often-heard line, "We fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." Seriously, young folks, look it up online. ..."
"... And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She was there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed to play his part as a warmonger ..."
"... The American elites didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq ..."
"... On the contrary. They learned that, via deceptive rhetoric and on false pretenses, they could easily manoeuver the U.S. into fighting a war on behalf of another nation's interests rather than its own, and face no repercussions for committing such treason, no matter how many lives it costs and how much it impoverishes the U.S. (to say nothing of what bloodshed and chaos it will cause in the targeted nation -- because after all, destabilization is the point). ..."
"... Trump will never beat an actually decent candidate, he occupies the White House because Clinton was the worst candidate in American history. He's (probably) going to win again because his opponents are even more unpopular and incompetent than he is. ..."
"... No, they are only using the mendacious phrase "spreading democracy" as a cover for what they really want to spread: globalist neoliberalism. ..."
"... The left is shameless, duplicitous and disingenous in the extreme when it comes to Russia (and frankly anything else). To be honest it was my collegiate experiences in the 1980s, comparing the handwaving garbage with what my own eyes saw in the East Bloc, that made me a lifetime, permanent rightist. The left is bankrupt, full of liars and dissemblers and needs to be stopped at any cost. ..."
"... I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $) for a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich in 2014). ..."
"... NATO should have been moth-balled c. 1992. Instead it is hell-bent on aggressive expansion and antagonizing Russia, for no reason (other than to line the pockets of corrupt US and other officials, "business-men" i.e. oligarchs, etc.). ..."
"... The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of the USSR. ..."
In the Year of Our Lord 2019, sixteen years after this nation launched the catastrophic Iraq War, the following words were spoken
on Capitol Hill this week:
We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is.
And one of the things we understand most profoundly is it's not a real democracy, it's not a mature democracy, if the party in
power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. And I think you heard testimony - the Intelligence Committee heard testimony
about how it isn't just our national interest in protecting our own elections. It's not just our national interest in making sure
that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front line so they fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here, but
it's also our national interest in promoting democracy worldwide.
This was not the second coming of the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bolton brigade. This was Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor and Democrat
called by her party to testify in this week's House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing.
Wellsir, I'm old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using the
often-heard line, "We fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." Seriously, young folks, look it up online.
And I'm old enough to remember these lines from President Bush's second inaugural address, in 2005:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants,
and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every
man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and
earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and
no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement
of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation
and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
That didn't work out too well for us, for Iraq, or for the Middle East.
And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She was
there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed to play
his part as a warmonger.
The American elites didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq
On the contrary. They learned that, via deceptive rhetoric and on false pretenses, they could easily manoeuver the U.S.
into fighting a war on behalf of another nation's interests rather than its own, and face no repercussions for committing such
treason, no matter how many lives it costs and how much it impoverishes the U.S. (to say nothing of what bloodshed and chaos it
will cause in the targeted nation -- because after all, destabilization is the point).
There are, as Victoria Nuland put it, 5 billion reasons for backing the CIA-led coup that overthrew an elected government and
replaced it with leaders that the she and the rest of the Obama/Clinton State Department chose. It was the Democrats, since the
nineties under another Clinton, that decided to move the American military right up to Russia's borders, interfere in the 1996
election to keep the puppet Yeltsin in power, and with Wall Street leaders to pillage the Russian economy with the stated end
to break up Russia into smaller satrapies with governments appointed by the IMF.
Did Joe Biden brag about a quid proof not releasing funds to the Ukraine until it ended the probe into Burisma, which was paying
son Hunter millions, and dismiss the investigators altogether? Does it turn out Ukrainian power brokers favored under Obama then
sought to influence the American elections against Trump, viewed as wanting to make peace with Russia? Yes, and yes.
The US are not a democracy, since the people do not rule. Rather, it's an oligarchy, since a few influential groups do get
their way all the time. Pamela is just shilling for one of these groups, the war party.
It does not matter who you vote for, you always get John McCain.
Agreed, I hope the Republicans agree to impeach him immediately after Election Day if he does win (which I think he will due
to the opposition candidates). I'd much prefer Mike Pence to represent us than freaking Trump. I voted third party last time,
but even as bad as Trump is, he's not nearly as bad as every democratic front runner.
Why the Democratic Party doesn't back Tulsi Gabard is insane, she's the only candidate who everyone could be somewhat happy
with.
Taking a "Unity-Party" angle this election and nominating an anti-war military Veteran who's also a super patriotic minority
women would absolutely destroy Trump. She's also a religious conservative while simultaneously being a sane social liberal, she
satisfies some of the concerns of literally every part of the electorate. A Tulsi Gabard/ Joe Manchin ticket would be an 84 level
blowout. A Joe Biden/ Kamala Harris ticket is literally the best thing that has ever happened to Trump. Trump will never beat
an actually decent candidate, he occupies the White House because Clinton was the worst candidate in American history. He's (probably)
going to win again because his opponents are even more unpopular and incompetent than he is.
An article from someone I trust on that evidence which is not hearsay would be useful, any chance you would write one? I ask
because impeachment is either political or legal. If it's political then it's just the normal noise from D.C., if it's legal then
I want legal standards of evidence. The times I've paid attention the "evidence" has been at the level of someone told me they
overhead a phone conversation or we all believed this, but Trump directly told me the opposite of what we all believed.
I'm looking for something like saying "I did not have sex with that woman" under oath as evidence of committing perjury.
...OTOH, Trump's move against Hunter Biden could possibly be a "high crime and misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, but given
the existence of Acts of Congress against foreign corrupt practices and the New York Times investigation of Hunter Biden, it becomes
hard to untangle Trump's motives. It would seem to be difficult to prove that an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor" occurred
if probable cause for a Hunter Biden investigation existed. If we prove (NOT assume, as the Dems currently are doing) that probable
cause did not exist then impeachment would be a slam dunk. If we don't prove that then Trump's impeachment will not be seen as
legitimate by large segments of the public. We really are teetering on the edge of something deep here.
You think that finding out what the son of a sitting vice President, a VP who was also 'point man' for Ukraine, was doing getting
millions from a corrupt Ukrainian entity is strictly 'personal gain'? You think that looking into Ukrainian influence into our
election is 'personal gain'?
Oh the spreading of democracy worldwide nonsense again! Democracies are earned not given, that lesson cost us trillions and
in blood! This sycophant also brought up Pres. Trumps son Baron into the proceedings for no good reason but to score points at
tea time back at Stanford. What a demagogue.
It's always such a lie too, because it's never really about spreading "democracy" -- that is, they don't at all like
the spread of true democracy when the people genuinely prefer and vote for Putin, Assad, Orban, etc., to say nothing of when democracy
demonstrates the true will of the people in cases such as Brexit.
No, they are only using the mendacious phrase "spreading democracy" as a cover for what they really want to spread: globalist
neoliberalism.
Democracies are earned not given, that lesson cost us trillions and in blood!
Yes please give us more democracy, so the uniparty can sell our jobs to global capital and our children's future to foreigners.
Nations have survived tyranny, despots, and brutal civil wars. It is not at all clear whether the nations of the West will survive
your beloved democracy.
...Of course, anyone with a brain knows it's not about Ukraine, a country having no bearing at all on the vital interests of
the United States. Rather, Ukraine is a handy pretext serving the interests of America's military-industrial complex and the enrichment
of our Ruling Class.
If Trump wanted to prove a really great president, he could forge a peace with Russia (which would entail getting a settlement
with Ukraine). It is insane, and only to the benefit of woke liberal capitalists to frame Russia as a permanent enemy. Carving
developed nations into 'us vs them', so the liberal elite can divide and rule us. They use this strategy on multiple fronts, to
ensure success:
US vs Russia
US/UK vs EU
'pseudo-Christian' west vs islam
1st world vs multicutural diversity migration
Pragmatically, we will need an alliance with Russia (and possibly with a post-communist China) to stave off the invading colonisers
looking to grift a free lunch in the 'rich' west (its only the 1% wealthy in the west who are really rich, not the >90% peasant
class), not to mention the ideologically/religiously motivated muslims planning to implement the global sharia subjugation of
the pseudo-Christian west demanded in the Koran.
Sadly, Trump does seem to be proving he lacks the organisational skills to drain the swamp - a virtually impossible task for
any one person. A 'friendship pact' with Russia (perhaps swapping trade access to US for human rights, democratic and media freedoms
in Russia) would be a big step forward to building a united free west. Perhaps bring Poland and Hungary in to to reassure Russia,
and strengthen the protections for Christians and traditional family life. But for this to happen Trump needs to have a Secretary
of State he trusts heavily.
... Signify... whatever, anything, but please not too much thinking. Same with Washington's foreign policy blob. What matters
is that the world's is forced to take America's opinions into account, no matter how bone-headed they are. If they put the world
on fire that's called collateral damage (Ledeen Doctrine).
What I find funniest about this whole "impeachment" shenanigan is how the Democrats honestly think anyone doesn't believe they're
guilty of exactly what they're accusing Trump of. All Trump has to do is reveal seven such cases to the American people after
this whole shenanigan is over and turn their own words against them and they are THROUGH! This might honestly be the biggest political
mistake in the history of our Republic.
The whole thing is nonsense. Democracy is particular to the West, and is frankly innately fragile and dying a proper death
-- slowly, mind you, but dying it is, and thankfully so.
The whole Russia situation is hilarious and a thousand percent ideological. I sat next to these same assholes in college in
the 1980s as they blithely handwaved "no true Scotsman" type arguments about the Soviet Union, and moral equivalency and so on,
and then of course without their precious hearts skipping one single beat, they switched immediately to "Russia is evil and must
be stopped at all costs" when Russia emerged with a nationalist/rightist government.
The left is shameless, duplicitous and disingenous in the extreme when it comes to Russia (and frankly anything else).
To be honest it was my collegiate experiences in the 1980s, comparing the handwaving garbage with what my own eyes saw in the
East Bloc, that made me a lifetime, permanent rightist. The left is bankrupt, full of liars and dissemblers and needs to be stopped
at any cost.
My guess is that Russia has enough nuclear weapons and the capability to launch them at every major city in the US. Vladimir
is no drunkard like Boris Yeltsin was. We should not provoke the Russian bear into lashing out at the US. The old Soviet Union
lost some 20 million of its citizens in WWII and did the heavy lifting in defeating the Nazis. Hands up if you want to send your
19 year old son to fight the Russians in Sevastopol. Does the average American even know where Sevastopol is? More than likely,
a war with Russia would result in the nuclear bombing of New York, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Houston for
starters.
I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $)
for a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the
coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary
President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich in
2014).
NATO should have been moth-balled c. 1992. Instead it is hell-bent on aggressive expansion and antagonizing Russia, for
no reason (other than to line the pockets of corrupt US and other officials, "business-men" i.e. oligarchs, etc.).
I'm halfway cheering for Russia in their conflict with Ukraine. That's Russia's sphere of influence, Ukraine has no business
in the EU or in NATO. Any sane American government would be courting Russia in the new Cold War that's obviously coming with The
Chinese Communist Party. Instead we pulled all of the former European countries in the USSR into our sphere of influence.
The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of the
USSR.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Finian Cunningham is an award-winning journalist. For over 25 years, he worked as a sub-editor and writer for The Mirror, Irish Times, Irish Independent and Britain's Independent, among others. 14 Oct, 2020 14:56 / Updated 3 hours ago Get short URL
Five US-made F16 jets fly over the Presidential Office during Taiwan's National Day. 10.10.2020 TAIPEI, TAIWAN © Getty Images / Walid Berrazeg / SOPA Images / LightRocket 17 Follow RT on
In a reckless provocation to China, the Trump administration has given notice of three major arms deals with Taiwan. The rocket launcher and missiles on offer are advanced attack systems. Beijing is infuriated and vows to respond.
Trump's claim he'll 'make China pay' is more pre-election saber-rattling and he'll up the ante even further over next three weeks
The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy
" Presidential Memorandum: Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council ", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network , 28 January 2017. And " Donald Trump winds up "the" organization of US imperialism ", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network , 31 January 2017.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
was " hiding in your Facebook ," and that, variously, Paul Manafort, Felix Slater and/or General Michael Flynn would, somehow, bring down Trump. That Dreyfuss would prove so credulous in the face of what was so clearly an absurd distraction is perhaps not surprising given his past ties to Lyndon Larouche .
SUPPORT MENU SHARE EVENT Diaspora Communities: Influencing U.S. Foreign Policy
AFRICA PROGRAM
ASIA PROGRAM
MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM
DIASPORA COMMUNITIES: INFLUENCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICYVIDEO ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Benjamin Gedan Interviews Argentina's Minister of Productive Development Matías Kulfas (Part 1)
BLOG POST CORONAVIRUS Ukraine's Dilemma Amid the Pandemic: Depopulation and its Effects on the Ukrainian Economy By Mark Temnycky on June 23, 2020
ARTICLE ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION The Future of the North American Workforce in a COVID-19 Scenario By Earl Anthony Wayne on June 22, 2020
BLOG POST ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Default, the Day After By Aníbal Nicolás Saldías on June 19, 2020
ARTICLE ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Mexico, North America, and Workforce Development - Remarks by Earl Anthony Wayne to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico By Earl Anthony Wayne on June 18, 2020
PUBLICATION U.S. FOREIGN POLICY Beyond the COVID-19 Horizon
PUBLICATION GLOBAL HEALTH Think 7 USA 2020: Report of the Think 7 Summit
BLOG POST CORONAVIRUS Event Recap: Economic Implications of COVID-19 for South Asia By Lesley Lu on June 10, 2020
AUDIO CORONAVIRUS Pandemic Politics in the Americas
BLOG POST ECONOMICS AND GLOBALIZATION Brazil's Post-Pandemic Economy By The Brazilian Report on June 5, 2020
Twitter by: Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
Robert Bridge Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge 8 May, 2020 13:43 Get short URL
FILE PHOTO December 01, 2017 Gen. Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to US President Donald Trump, leaves Federal Court in Washington, DC © AFP / Brendan Smialowski Follow RT on
Trump 'strongly considering' Michael Flynn pardon, points at FBI 'conveniently losing' his records
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Flickr / DonkeyHotey On
the 17 September 1656, Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant Puritan, who had won a civil war, and had
the English king beheaded in public, railed against England's enemies. There was, he told
Parliament that day, an axis of evil abroad in the world. And this axis – led by Catholic
Spain – was, at root, the problem of a people that had placed themselves at the service
of 'evil'. This 'evil', and the servitude that it beget, was the evil of a religion
– Catholicism – that refused the English peoples' desire for simple liberties: "
[an evil] that put men under restraint under which there was no freedom and under which, there
could be 'no liberty of individual consciousness'".
Matthew Ehret
January 18, 2020 |
Featured Story
The Geopolitics of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon to Neocon
I think any sane human being can agree that while war was never a good idea, war in the 21
st
century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the forces
driving world events towards an all-out war of "Mutually Assured Annihilation" are anything but
sane.
Print this article
See also
January 15, 2020
Trump Steps Back From the Edge. Neocons Rage Accordingly
To the top
Print
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
