The failure of today’s war advocates to learn from previous disasters makes their position that much
worse. But the same was true in 1914.
We can consider Bill Clinton to be the founder of "Vichy left", a pro-war neoliberal democrats, not
that different from classic neocons.
Contrary to what US media say, Bill and Hillary Clinton are certainly not liberals or progressives,
but typical run-of-the-mill neoliberals, with distinct militarism bent (despite, of may be due to the
fact that Bill Clinton was Vietnam War Dodger). Hillary is really unrepentant neocon warmonger in best
traditions of Madeleine Albright
Bill Clinton sold the Democratic Party to Wall Street, gave us NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagill, deregulation
of media, etc. He essentially switched Democrats from the policy of Americanism (or "America first"
in Trump terms) – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of neoliberal globalism,
focusing on how to make money for transnational corporations who can move their wealth and workers to
foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.
Speaking of "Clinton family" Hillary is a war hawk and supported TPP. During her tenure as the Secretary
of State turned "Public Service" into shady, lucrative business. In a nutshell, they got rich by making
super big $$$ speeches to shady groups and persons who wanted to influence in the US government. Bill's
speech fees skyrocketed when she became Secretary of State. See Clinton Cash
Bill Clinton was a staunch neoliberal, one of 12 apostils of deregulation. He also is a kind of Judas
Iscariot of Democratic Party who helped to sell Democratic Party to Wall Street for an annual "pension"
about 20 silver coins (sorry million of USD), delivered via speakers fees. He can can be viewed as a
Godfather of kleptocratic neocons called Mayberry
Machiavellians. He also was the first the neoconservative president, completely in bed with
Likud lobby.
The President which destroyed the USA relations with post-Soviet Russia by attack on Serbia (On 24
March 1999, Primakov was heading to Washington, D.C. for an official visit. Flying over the Atlantic
Ocean, he learned that NATO had started
to bomb Yugoslavia.
Primakov cancelled the visit, ordered the plane to turn around over the ocean and returned to Moscow
in a maneuver dubbed "Primakov's Loop".Yevgeny Primakov ). His
main achievements were:
This regime was the first kleptocratic regime in modern USA history. Increased inequality
at some point becomes, in essence, a kleptocracy i.e. a reverse Robin Hood organization where the
elites enrich themselves at the expense of the others. At some point, the ruling class overreaches
in a way that subtracts from rather than adds to the overall prosperity of the society.
"Bill Clinton conveniently forgets the hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that
he and Hillary so famously raised from Wall Street for the Democrats. They taught their party,
always a bit chaotic but left dispirited after the Kennedy assassinations, that 'greed is good.,'
and it certainly pays well. You can put up $1000 and obtain a return of $100,000 in a futures
market of which you know nothing, and do nothing, if you know the right people."
Completion of neoliberalization of the county and removal of New Deal laws that restrict financial
oligarchy. See Corruption
of Regulators. If you mix a lack of oversight with deregulation knowing that the political and
economic playing field is not even, you are inviting corruption (aka crony capitalism).
Attempt to colonize Russia and as a result dramatic deterioration (from love to hate) of Russians
attitude toward the USA and revival of Cold War.
Cynical and disgraceful abandonment of trade unions interest ("they have nowhere to go")
and reorientation of his government under the disguise of "triangulation" (which was later adopted
by Blair). In news articles and books, this betrayal of interests of trade unions by Democratic Party
brass is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation".[
In politics, triangulation is the strategy in which a political candidate presents their
ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g.
American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the
ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's
ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Started series of aggressive neocolonial wars with attack on Serbia. Installed the first female
hawk in State Department (Madeleine Albright).
See New American Militarism
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus
for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and
huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all
it was Bernanke size if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia.
His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely
a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory.
Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did
not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland
(which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are
actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which
Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we
think the price is worth it."
Selling neoliberalism under the disguise of triangulation
The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor
Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential
election. In Dick Morris' words, triangulation meant "the president needed to take a position that not
only blended the best of each party's views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in
the debate." In news articles and books, it is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation".
Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic
Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets.
One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996
State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over."[5]
Politicians alleged to have used triangulation more recently include US President Barack Obama,[6][7]
former Senator Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair with "New Labour" in the United Kingdom, Jean Chrétien and
Paul Martin with the Liberal Party of Canada, Fredrik Reinfeldt with "The New Moderates" in Sweden,
and Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labor Party. In France, the Socialist
candidate in the 2007 presidential election, Ségolène Royal, advocated “military supervision” (encadrement
militaire) for first offenders.
During the 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama insisted that he would remain with his agenda
in the face of criticism, rather than resort to triangulation.[5]
The Third Way actually means neoliberalism
The term "Third Way" was picked up in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm
Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy -- an early attempt
to justify neoliberalism. Later Röpke distanced himself from the term and located the social market
economy as "first way" in the sense of an advancement of the free market economy. Most significantly,
Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, based his philosophy of government on what
he entitled in a book, The Middle Way
In politics, the Third Way is a set of neoliberal policies that on the surface tries to reconcile
right-wing and left-wing politics by selling trade union interests to the higher bidder under the smokescreen
of adopting synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. The Third Way was by proponents
of neoliberalism as an attempt to weaken power of the state to regulated transnational corporations
and discredit economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism.
It rise corresponds to the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right. The Third Way managed
completely co-opt and destroy some Democratic Parties (in the USA, GB and Germany).
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different
from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based
around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and
rightly". Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as
socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen,
and equal opportunity.
Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional
conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony
Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable
ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other
policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition
of capitalism.
Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism" -- neoliberalism.
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution
of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means
to achieve this. Like neoliberalism in general it emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, an emphasis
on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible to restore
the power of financial oligarchy), encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labor supply
(with Wal-Mart and McDonalds as two examples what they can do for impoverishing labor class), privatizing
of education, protection of transnational corporations, which are above the law.
It been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular
as a betrayal of left-wing values.
Believe it or not, the president says that human rights R us.
Hear that, BLM? Women? Asian Americans? Hispanics? homeless? heavily indebted students? .
. the list goes on.
Biden said so, May 30, 2021
"I had a long conversation -- for two hours -- recently with President Xi, making it clear
to him that we could do nothing but speak out for human rights around the world because
that's who we are. I'll be meeting with President Putin in a couple of weeks in Geneva,
making it clear that we will not -- we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights." . .
here
..reminds me of Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd's insistence, he will back down on
the JCPOA.
Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That's ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The
basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about
sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once
again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just
lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza
to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and Silent
generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get
gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South
Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East.
What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent between
exhausted participants.
But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil
markets it will cut down on Russia's dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price
setter in oil today, as the producer of the marginal barrel, is because of Trump taking Iranian
and Venezuelan oil off the market.
With these negotiations ongoing and likely to conclude soon I'm sure the thinking is that
this will help save Iranian moderates in the upcoming elections. But with Iran's Guardian
Council paving the way for Ebrahim Raeisi to win the election that is also very unlikely(
H/T to Pepe
Escobar's latest on this ) :
So Raeisi now seems to be nearly a done deal: a relatively faceless bureaucrat without the
profile of an IRGC hardliner, well known for his anti-corruption fight and care about the
poor and downtrodden. On foreign policy, the crucial fact is that he will arguably follow
crucial IRGC dictates.
Raeisi is already spinning that he "negotiated quietly" to secure the qualification of
more candidates, "to make the election scene more competitive and participatory". The problem
is no candidate has the power to sway the opaque decisions of the 12-member Guardian Council,
composed exclusively by clerics: only Ayatollah Khamenei.
I have no doubt that Iran is, as Escobar suggests, in post-JCPOA mode now and will walk away
from Geneva without a deal if need be, but Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil
and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran's nuclear ambitions because they've
gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.
Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the
Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put
off for a year because of Trump's killing Soleimani.
The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the
House of Saud's future in its hands.
Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that 'peace' work by Trump will be undone
quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone,
Israel just got
defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of
Jared Kushner's idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the
situation.
The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire
situation into perspective:
The Goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces,
and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by
Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone,"
but this time in Lebanon.
Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East
and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas
or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional
coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
The Outcomes:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports,
they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally
"plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on local flashpoints.
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country,
including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now,
which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
(2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility
left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace. This
is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's no way for
Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
Trump's hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are
real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in
the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his
Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.
But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They
still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They
still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It's clear they don't listen to
him because the policy never seems to change.
So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil
prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe.
With a free-floated ruble the Russians don't care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in
food and raw material production.
None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas
with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall's State Duma elections.
Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best
return in that sector.
This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will
only get worse when the Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the
German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will grand coalition as the
junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.
Don't miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden
administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S. -- no Keystone
Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges's Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc. --
while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.
This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President. This is part of why he hated
the JCPOA. Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his
mind.
Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.
Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production
until they are thrown out of office, either by the overwhelming shame of the election fraud
lawsuits which recall Senators from Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, the mid-term elections which
brings a more pro-Trump GOP to power or by military force. That last bit I put a very low
probability on.
Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of
John Kerry's mouth.
The Brent/WTI spread will likely collapse and go negative for the first time in years as
Iran's full oil production comes online over the next two years while U.S. production falls.
We'll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is
getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.
Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not
just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman
Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
If I'm the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one
other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and
angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the assault on the country with no
lack of geopolitical skill.
Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos , have left Israel out to twist in
the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We'll see if they get their wish. I think the
win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.
The oil wars aren't over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main
battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.
About time that fcking Project for the New American Century(aka Greater Israel from the
Nile to the Euphates) got derailed .
Fcking useless neocon sh its gutted and bankrupted the U.S. for their fcked up ziosh it
garbage.
Sheldon Adelson belongs in the Aus witz Mengele suite in hell. He was the biggest
cheerleader for the last 20 years of this hell on earth that was created in the middle
east.
Woodenman 2 hours ago remove link
Trump got it *** backwards , he should have defunded Israel and fast tracked Iran to be
a nuclear power, Iran is an oil producer, what does Israel do for us?
Would I care that Israel cannot sleep at night knowing Iran has the bomb, not at
all.
AGuy 37 minutes ago
" what does Israel do for us? "
Keeps the ME unstable so the US has the excuse to keep a lot of military resources in
the ME, in the name of being the worlds policemen. Plus the US needs to protect the Petro
dollar, but at this point I don't think that will matter soon considering the amount of
money printing & spending the US is doing at the momement.
wellwaddyaknow 2 hours ago (Edited)
Soleimani was very good at destroying ISIS trash.
And which countries backed ISIS?
JR Wirth 2 hours ago
NeoCon tears as the world attempts to move on from deranged foreign policy. Will the US
throw a fit and drag the world into war? Let's call Tel Aviv and find out.
Der Steppenwolf 2 hours ago remove link
Iran already sells huge amounts of oil to China and likely many others, there just isn't
going to be a significant increase in Iranian oil hitting the market as a result of any
deal. Moreover, this relatively small increase will occur over time. Even if Iran
eventually increases production the 2.5-3 million bpd the author cites, world consumption
in 2021 is forecast to increase about 6 million bpd over 2020. Considering these facts any
changes in Iranian oil production should do little to affect the overall
price.
lay_arrow
AGuy 42 minutes ago
" Iran has huge potential to increase production "
I doubt that very much. Iran has very old oil fields which have been producing since the
1920s. Global Oil production peaked in 2018 & is now in permanent decline. Iran could
increase NatGas production, but Oil production is in permanent decline.
Apollo 32 minutes ago
God, I hope half of the above comes true. Bibi needs to be court martialed and Israel
needs to go back into smaller and more peaceful version of itself (if that is even
possible) . USA can just bugger off home, and try to deal with transgendered army,
president's dementia and critical race theory nonsense first.
What the world needs is less wars, less central bankers screwing the game and less
stealing of other people's natural resources. Instead it just more plain old hard work,
honest trading and no bs diplomacy.
dead hobo 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Amazingly perfect analysis.
Israel will survive. I wish them well.
So many US wars are oil based. Lies abound to cover this up. Neocon Economics turns
every war opportunity into a profit center. No Profit = No War potential. Whenever you see
a Neocon pumping a war somewhere, you need to look for who will make scads of money from
it.
Trump isn't an angel. He's the guy who destroyed Establishment Republicanism. That begat
populism. I detested him working his book when he pumped QE and ZIRP. I considered it a
temporary price to pay to remove Establishment Republicans from the world. Yes, the US also
needed a good Front Door with a lock. He also did good there. Trump playing the Imperialism
Game clumsily worked in the favor of Peaceful Coexistence. Probably by mistake. Ok by me if
everyone else declares peace anyway.
The US economy can still outpower anyone even if it is forced to play fair.
This brings us to the Deep State. Who exactly are they?
Are they Neocons who want war profits by making it look like others are the war mongers?
Are they anti-peace as long as it doesn't start a full blown war - providing a profit can
be made from it by their oligarch bosses?
Or is the Deep State the Davos oriented oligarchs who wants the 99% to whistle while
they work to support uncountable billions of dollars flowing into the asset piles of the
1%?
Why did the Deep State allow the BLM / Antifa / Democrat cabal take over? Are they
stupid? Or did they think Covid-19 along with these freaks would work in their favor
somehow?
Is the Deep State only common ordinary Imperialism? Is it only oil, and natural gas and
who gets to control the markets? Ukraine has a lot of natural resources. Is that a
coincidence?
What is it about Peaceful Coexistence that makes them go crazy?
What does The Deep State really want?
AGuy 49 minutes ago
" The only difference will be the wars will be fought for lithium and other rare metals.
"
Unlikely Oil will remain the King for causing wars. electricification of transportation
is doomed to fail. First average Americans cannot afford EV. heck they are struggling with
cheaper ICE vehicles. Auto loan duration have ballooned & most Americans are rolling
over debt from their older vehicle when they buy a new one. Second the grid is struggling.
Most of the older power plants are getting replaced by NatGas fired plants & at some
point we are going to see NatGas prices shoot up. Much of the US grid was built in the
1930s & 1940s and will need trillions just to maintain it and replace equipment &
power lines operating beyond their expected operating lifetime.
The US economy is slowly collapsing: Mountains of debt, demographics, dumbed down
education, and worthless degrees for Millennials, failing infrastructure (ie I-40 bridge).
We are on borrowed time.
AJAX-2 1 hour ago remove link
The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to prop
up their derivative portfolios. As a result, they are at odds with the Davos Crowd and
their desire for cheap/plentiful oil for Europe. We shall see who prevails.
AGuy 1 hour ago
" The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to
prop up their derivative portfolios. "
Nope:
Higher oil prices leads to higher defaults, which is likely to trigger derivative
losses. Banker shady deals come under congressional\agency scrutiny usually ending with
billion dollar fines, and bad press. A lot of banks probably will get nationalized when the
next banking crisis happens & all those bankers will lose out on the financial scams
they play.
European Monarchist 46 minutes ago remove link
Currently:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all
reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah
were literally "plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on
local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large
chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the
country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is
backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in
charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no
credibility left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace.
This is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's
no way for Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
ut218 2 hours ago remove link
Solarcycle 25 had a bad start. By 2028 people will realize we are in a period of global
cooling. oil prices will soar
Itinerant 18 minutes ago
There won't be major investments of European majors in Iran's oil industry.
For Iran, Western partners have proved too fickle
For Western corporations, the risk is too great for long term investment.
China will be reaping most of the investement opportunities.
2 play_arrow
Marrubio 1 hour ago
.... the NWO & Davos idiotards ,they have been trying since March for oil not to
exceed the $ 70 barrier and they are not succeeding. Week after week they try to lower the
price, frightening with the covid, the production of Iran or whatever, and the following
week the oil rises again. The only thing left for them is mass slaughter ... but now people
know that what is going to kill them is in the "vaccine". Of course they will be stupid
enough to do it; if they have shown anything it is that they are profoundly idiots. They
will not be successful in getting cheap oil, simply because PeakOil is running since 2018
and since then oil production decreases at 5% per year: -5% per year, I am telling to the
NWO deep idiotards.
European Monarchist 55 minutes ago (Edited)
Interesting, but it remains to be seen where this is going, short term and long.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate
just lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to
bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and
Silent generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then
get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North
South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle
East. What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent
between exhausted participants.
play_arrow
Einstein101 55 minutes ago remove link
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their
country, including every single city in Syria).
Really? Hell no! The Syrians and the mighty Russians and the Hezbollah for many months
now are not able to overcome lowly terrorists militia in northern Syria's Idlib. Plus,
the Israelis has been launching hundreds of airstrikes over Syria while the Russian made
Syrian anti air defense can do nothing about it.
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
Clearly there is no coherence or logic to US foreign policy even from its own warped
viewpoint. If they really regard China as the number one adversary then they should be
courting Russia, that is, doing what the Nixon administration did with China to help contain
the USSR.
One can only surmise that it's the Zionist faction that is pushing for hostility towards
Russia because of Russia interfering with Israel's Mid-East plans, so the Zionist faction
with its regional interests is undermining the efforts of the deep state elements more
interested in world hegemony.
"Then, we basically gave permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as a ploy to send
in our advanced army to knock him out and demonstrate our superiority to the world in
weaponry, which very much demoralized the Russians and put the fear of God into Islamic oil.
Then we created the Star Wars fiction. Russia to our surprise lost their nerve and
collapsed."
Can't really buy this silly Deep State propaganda from Mr S. The Berlin Wall collapsed in
November 1989. After this the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was surely
inevitable. USMIC needed a new theatre of war in a hurry to keep itself in the style to which
it is accustomed. Gulf War I, beginning with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990,
was clearly planned in advance in order to install US bases in the Middle East as the
"˜pivot' to use the currently popular term to this new theatre. This long term planning
all bore juicy malevolent fruit not long after with 911, Gulf War 2 and the War on Terror.
It's only now, with the Middle East petering out as the preferred theatre of operations that
the new pivot is under way with the beatup for a new cold war with China.
"our values" is continually repeated by US politicians and the MSM like a mantra.
when the US has no values left but anarchy, looting, and burning down hundreds of
cities.
And also war, bombing, killing, assassination of the indocent leaders, impoverishment of
the others, overthrow of the insubordinate governments ("Color revolutions").
Every picture tells a story = USA & China (lol)
Could have added Old Masked Joe and the Camel for further effect "¦
Anyway"
I had trouble believing this account by the mysterious Mr S, though it does make good
copy, perhaps more as entertainment. So skimmed after the first few mentions of the Deep
State, Mr S's professed Christianity and his concern for Afghans.
The "Deep State" is a more or less meaningless buzzword on a par with Alex "Medicine Man"
Jones and his "Illuminati" and it's getting as dated as that imho.
WHO are these people, Mr S ? Names, please.
We are to believe that a long-serving high echelon member in USG professes Christianity in
a Gangster Cartel, which is what USG is and the source of the gross immorality, murder,
looting, permanent war, occupations which is poisoning the world and has been such for a long
time, well over a century "¦
Russia, by contrast, is a Christian country.
And you are fighting it, Mr S, as well as continuing to serve gangsters "¦
Basically this article is just bullshit, sorry to be blunt.
Worse, it doesn't say anything new except that the zio's have sacrificed their old man
Kissinger as this USG "christian" indicates.
Kissinger sprinkles his talk with preemptive catch words such as "free markets",
"democracy", and as noted here "principles"...
His greatest coup was was the petrodollar which reigned for decades; free markets huh? His
petrodollar scheme is crumbling and the age of missiles is neutering the US's imperial
ambitions. He is wallowing about in outdated imperial nostalgia.
Conspiracy theory drivel. So called "Deep State" are American elites, who are not
unanimous about most points; it was R.M. Nixon- not Kissinger, not some imaginary Deep State
segment which even does not exist- who decided to completely change policy towards Communist
China. And there, Nixon showed that he was, despite his failings, a remarkable statesman.
@alwayswrite ion. Just in the last few months the SpaceX Crew Dragon has finally come
online and that is an excellent achievement""although Nasa is still buying seats on Soyuz,
just in case.
The Boeing Starliner spacecraft is flying with the Russian engines, although not yet with
live crew. Good thing there's a Russian "˜superstore' for space tech where you can do
one-stop shopping, eh?
I'm not going to get into the Chinese program, which also bought its entire manned space
program lock, stock and barrel from Russia. They also bought advanced Russian engines, but
unlike the US, they have been able to knock off their own versions [YF100], which now power
their big Long March 5 rocket.
Oh, and the Russians landed their first rover on Mars back in 1971, the first spacecraft
to land successfully on another planet.
There's an inherent contradiction I've never been able to understand.
On the one hand the Deep State wants the United States to be and continue to be the world
hegemon. Ergo the playing off of China against Russia, as well as other ploys undercutting
potential challengers.
On the other hand the Deep State was all in on the deindustrialization of America, the
great offshoring of whole industries and the jobs they provided. Offshoring has clearly
weakened America's position as world hegemon.
@GMC xt generation gets better yet and so on. It is not an instant process, but China is
very systematic and determined and they will get there sooner than people may think.
And finally a word about why it is important to have numbers in terms of hard science
intellectuals. It is like society in general""the bottom slice is going to be barely
competent; the majority in the middle are going to be average"¦and the top ten percent
are going to be the ones that actually do all of the work, in terms of advancing of the state
of the art. And from that top group, only a few INDIVIDUALS are really going to be
visionaries that have a chance at transforming the technology and solving the really big
problems.
Obviously if you have a larger pool to start with, you will have more of those key
achievers at the top.
It may have been in the self-interest of people in the MIC to continue Cold War
conditions, but a patriot would put the good of the Republic over his own self-interest. The
late Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency, was such a man.
He was as close to the center of the American Deep State as anyone could be.
I know from Odom's writings that he shared at least many of the views of Mr. S. Odom
himself may be gone, but his opinions may survive in his aides, friends, and associates.
The tragedy of the ZUS deep state department is , that is controlled and populated with
zionists, as is the entire ZUS government and the deep state chain dogs aka the CIA, the FBI,
the NSA, all of the 17 chain dog departments are under zionist control,
@alwayswrite tinued to circle Mars and transmit images back to Earth for another eight
months.
Mars 3 Spacecraft
The cause of the failure may have been related to the extremely powerful martian dust
storm taking place at the time which may have induced a coronal discharge, damaging the
communications system. The dust storm would also explain the poor image lighting.
@SafeNow
eing expressed now about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Although it has churned out
hundreds of papers, nothing groundbreaking has ever come of it.
Quantum computing is also turning out to be a nothingburger, as some of us had predicted
long ago. But if the point is to sell the sizzle and not the steak, then all of these
"˜great' projects have been a wonderful "˜marketing' success, with untold millions
of trees having given their life for the glossy magazines that breathlessly trumpeted all of
this hullabaloo. Only to end up in the landfill.
So to get back to your question about US pharma "˜scientists', I would place them just
slightly above the municipal sanitation worker that will be emptying my bin tomorrow, in the
overall scheme of things. Maybe a better person to ask would be Bill Gates?
*** Please Note: Russia is not weak considering that it has the ability to nuke America in
to ashes within 30 minutes, or any other bunch of idiots that chooses to step over her red
lines. Okay the US has 350 million people compared to 150 million Russians, but the US is
irrevocably divided and Russia is fully united even the Muslim minority is united with the
State in Russia. A divided house can not stand no man can serve two masters. On top of that
the US has no moral values whereas Russia is a Christian country where marriage is between a
man and a woman, by State law. Biden can fly all the queer flags he likes but he still leads
a divided nation with a corrupt State comprised of dual passport holders, amoral materialists
and deluded mentally challenged idiots like Waters and Pelosi.
"... Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of international relations. ..."
"... in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was bizarrely appointed as ambassador. ..."
"... Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken , Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen Donfried , and State Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia. ..."
"... Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that the Maidan would lead to consequences like these. ..."
"... importantly, this 'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging ..."
"... the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were actually quite deliberate and planned ..."
"... the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda. ..."
The rejection
of Matthew Rojansky's candidacy as a Russia adviser to Joe Biden represents an escalation, and
not a departure, from a pervasive bipartisan American pattern of dangerous ignorance about
Russia in the post-Soviet era.
It was reported last week that Joe Biden's government would not be hiring Rojansky, of the
Kennan Institute think tank, to help form policy towards Russia. Though the analyst is known as
a moderate realist regarding Russia issues – in other words, he is not a virulent
anti-Moscow ideologue – he was considered too controversial to be allowed a hearing
during White House deliberations on policy regarding the world's largest country.
Rojansky's sin? Unlike many of the current crop of foreign policy officials, he actually has
some expertise and experience on the subject.
While the scholar's fate may be a glaring and extreme
example of an anti-Russia mindset in Washington that is counterproductive, it represents
only a new low, and not a change from a pervasive bipartisan pattern in the post-Soviet
era.
Those who aspire to, or attain, the most powerful executive position in the United States
have shown a disturbingly willful ignorance of Russia. I learned from a former State Department
official that, in response to a renowned Russia expert attempting to brief presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little
interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold
war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content
to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of
international relations.
Similarly, an American business executive told me that, during a lunch with him and other
leaders of commerce at the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012, then-Vice President Joe Biden showed
no interest in his interlocutors' suggestions that it was in the US' best interests to partner
with Russia after they offered social, economic, and strategic justifications for their
view.
Biden seemed to see the meeting as an opportunity to lecture on his position rather than to
learn or seek insight on Russia.
Moreover, once a US president is in power, the advisers that are appointed to counsel the
commander in chief about Russia have been less than impressive from the 1990s onward.
Condoleezza Rice served as an expert in the George Bush Senior administration and was
wrong about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. During her stint as secretary of
state in the second term of the junior Bush administration, her Russian counterparts who spent
significant time with her made the observation
that Rice was "a Soviet expert, and not a Russia expert."
There was little improvement in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were
given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was
bizarrely appointed as ambassador.
According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, advisers to Obama were so utterly
incompetent that those serving in the administration really didn't think Russia had the ability
or inclination to counter Washington's provocative actions in
Syria, and therefore they did not plan for that possibility. This incompetence was also
highlighted by Obama's public comments to the Economist in 2014, in which he claimed that
Russia didn't make anything, immigrants didn't go there, and male life expectancy was 60 years
– three claims that anyone with actual expertise on Russia should have easily known were
false.
In fact, at that point, Russia was the second most popular migration destination in the
world, after America itself, while average lifespans have been converging with those of the US
over the past decade. As for manufacturing, Obama said these words at a time when the US, for
instance, was totally reliant on Russian rockets for access to space, having retired its own
unreliable Space Shuttle fleet. If he had access to a competent adviser on the subject, would
he have made these mistakes?
Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint
Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken ,
Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen
Donfried , and State
Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous
ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little
on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia.
Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has
put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating
the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine
and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that
the Maidan would lead to consequences like these.
It takes a special kind of hubris for the US political class to keep thinking they can get
away with this level of sloppiness in understanding the world's other nuclear superpower
– a country so massive that it straddles two major continents and is the sixth largest
economy in terms of purchasing power parity – without serious consequences. At what point
will God's providence run out?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations," available at Amazon. She blogs at http://natyliesbaldwin.com/ .
"Washington has a dangerous & destructive pattern of wilful ignorance on Russia in
post-Soviet era" It is not just wilful ignorance per se. Without a 'perceived enemy', the
narrative for Russia will fall apart. Ditto China, Iran, N Korea et al.
But importantly, this
'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military
complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be
regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging, but with the antiquated contents
remaining intact.
dotmafia 6 hours ago 6 hours ago
Good article, but, the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others
were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were
actually quite deliberate and planned. In the example of Obama's remarks to The Economist,
the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think
and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda.
Levin High 8 hours ago 8 hours ago
It used to be said that you couldn't be fired for buying IBM, now days in the US you seem to
be hired for blaming Russia.
apothqowejh 9 hours ago 9 hours ago
The US State Department is packed with idiots, political appointees, ideologues and globalist
nut jobs. Their lack of anything remotely like competence is as astonishing as the CIA's full
on embrace of evil.
wowhead1977 4 hours ago 4 hours ago
The cabal in America always want to blame Russia. I'm a American citizen and have no problem
with Russia. These so called sanctions on other countries is a control tactic that most
Americans didn't vote for. This race baiting tactic is from The Fabian Society play book.
Wolf in sheep's clothing is the Fabian Society logo.
We must realize that our Party's most
powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races,
that for centuries have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mold them to the program of the
Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While enflaming the color
people minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites, a guilt complex for the
exploitation of the color people.
We will aid the color people to rise to prominence in every
walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this
prestige, the color people will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause." ~ Israel Cohen - Fabian Society Founder
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's,
Wayne Madsen writes.
Like proverbial bad pennies, the neocon imperialists who plagued the Barack Obama
administration have turned up in force in Joe Biden's State Department. Secretary of State
Antony Blinken has given more than winks and nods to the dastardly duo of Victoria Nuland,
slated to become Blinken's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the number three
position at the State Department, and Samantha Power, nominated to become the Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Nuland and Power both have problematic spouses who do not fail to offer their imperialistic
opinions regardless of the appearance of conflicts-of-interest. Nuland's husband is the
claptrappy neocon warmonger Robert Kagan, someone who has never failed to urge to prod the
United States into wars that only benefit Israel. Power's husband is the totally creepy Cass
Sunstein, who served as Obama's White House "information czar" and advocated government
infiltration of non-governmental organizations and news media outlets to wage psychological
warfare campaigns.
True to form, Blinken's State Department has already come to the aid of Venezuela's
right-wing self-appointed "opposition leader" Juan Guaido, whose actual constituency is found
in the wealthy gated communities of Venezuelan and Cuban expatriates in south Florida and not
in the barrios of Caracas or Maracaibo.
Blinken and his team of old school yanqui imperialists have also criticized the
constitutional and judicially-warranted detention of former interim president Jeanine
Áñez, who became president in 2019 after the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS)
government of President Evo Morales was overthrown in a Central Intelligence Agency-inspired
and -directed military coup. The far-right forces backing Áñez were roundly
defeated in the October 2020 election that swept MAS and Morales's chosen presidential
candidate, Luis Arce, back into power. It seems that for Blinken and his ilk, a decisive
victory in an election only applies to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not to Arce and MAS in
Bolivia.
It should be recalled that while Blinken was national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden in the Obama administration, every sort of deception and trickery was used by
the CIA to depose Morales in Bolivia and President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. In fact, the
Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, claimed its first Latin
American political victim when a CIA coup was launched against progressive President Manuel
Zelaya of Honduras. Today, Honduras is ruled by a right-wing kleptocratic narco-president, Juan
Orlando Hernández, whose brother, Tony Hernández, is currently serving life in
federal prison in the United States for drug trafficking. For the likes of Blinken, Power,
Nuland, and former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, who currently serves as
"domestic policy adviser" to Biden, suppression of progressive governments and support for
right-wing dictators and autocrats have always been the preferred foreign policy, particularly
for the Western Hemisphere. For example, while the Biden administration remains quiet on
right-wing regimes in Central America that are responsible for the outflow of thousands of
beleaguered Mayan Indians to the southern U.S. border with Mexico, it has announced that Trump
era sanctions on 24 Nicaraguan government officials, including President Daniel Ortega's wife
and Nicaragua's vice president, Rosario Murillo, as well as three of their sons –
Laureano, Rafael, and Juan Carlos – will continue.
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's. Biden
and Brazilian far-right, Adolf Hitler-loving, and Covid pandemic-denying President Jair
Bolsonaro are said to have struck a deal on environmental protection of the Amazon Basin ahead
of an April 22 global climate change virtual summit called by the White House. A coalition of
198 Brazilian NGOs, representing environmental, indigenous rights, and other groups, has
appealed to Biden not to engage in any rain forest protection agreement with the untrustworthy
Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president has repeatedly advocated the wholesale deforestation of the
Amazon region. Meanwhile, while Biden urges Americans to maintain Covid public health measures,
Bolsonaro continues to downplay the virus threat as Brazil's overall death count approaches
that of the United States.
Blinken's State Department has been relatively quiet on the Northern Triangle of Central
America fascist troika of Presidents Orlando of Honduras, Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala,
and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. Instead of pressuring these fascistas to democratize and stop
their genocidal policies toward the indigenous peoples of their nations, Biden told Mexican
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador that he would pump $4 billion into supposed
"assistance" to those countries to stop the flow of migrants. Biden is repeating the same old
American gambits of the past. Any U.S. assistance to kleptocratic countries like those of the
Northern Triangle has and will line the pockets of their corrupt leaders. Flush with U.S. aid
cash, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be sure to grant contracts to greedy Israeli
counter-insurgency contractors always at the ready to commit more human rights abuses against
the workers, students, and indigenous peoples of Central America.
Biden is also in no hurry to reverse the freeze imposed by Donald Trump on U.S.-Cuban
relations. Biden, whose policy toward Cuba represents a fossilized relic of the Cold War,
intends to maintain Trump's freeze on U.S. commercial, trade, and tourism relations with Cuba.
Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, a Jewish Cuban-American expatriate, is
expected to reach out to right-wing Cuban-Americans in south Florida in order to ensure
Democratic Party inroads in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections. Therefore, even restoring the
status quo ante established by Barack Obama is off-the-table for Biden, Blinken, and Mayorkas.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Cuban-American and
ethically-challenged Democrat Bob Menendez, has stated there will be no normalization of
pre-Trump relations with Cuba until his "regime change" whims are satisfied. Regurgitating
typical right-wing Cuban-American drivel, Mayorkas has proclaimed after he was announced as the
new Homeland Security Secretary, "I have been nominated to be the DHS Secretary and oversee the
protection of all Americans and those who flee persecution in search of a better life for
themselves and their loved ones." The last part of that statement was directed toward the
solidly Republican bloc of moneyed Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Bolivian interests in
south Florida.
While Blinken hurls his neocon invectives at Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba, he
remains silent on the repeated foot-dragging by embattled and highly unpopular right-wing
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera on implementing a new Constitution to replace that put into
place in 1973 by the fascist military dictator General Augusto Pinochet. The current Chilean
Constitution is courtesy of Richard Nixon's foreign policy "Svengali," the duplicitous Henry
Kissinger, an individual who obviously shares Blinken's taste for "realpolitik" adventurism on
a global scale.
While Blinken has weighed in on the domestic politics of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and
Cuba, he has had no comment on the anti-constitutional moves by Colombian far-right
authoritarian President Ivan Duque, the front man for that nation's Medellin narcotics cartel.
It would also come as no surprise if Blinken, Nuland, and Power have quietly buttressed the
candidacy of right-wing banker, Guillermo Lasso, who is running against the progressive
socialist candidate Andrés Arauz, the protegé of former president Rafael Correa.
Blinken can be expected to question the results of the April 11 if Lasso cries fraud in the
event of an Arauz victory. Conversely, Blinken will remain silent if Lasso wins and Arauz cries
foul. That has always been the nature of U.S. Western Hemisphere policy, regardless of what
party controls the White House.
This was Bush racket. Invasion on false pretenses to establish a foothold
and get to former USSR republic. This move was initially a big success (and
Putin helped by using his influence on Northern Alliance) but later
backfire. In other words this was typical imperial policy.
I would guess 2 things, 1. He's hoping if he ends the war then none
of the terrorists that just snuck in won't attack. 2. He plans on
starting a war elsewhere.
"Obama may have gotten (U.S. soldiers) out wrong, but going in is,
to me, the biggest single mistake made in the history of our
country." -- Donald J. Trump
The policies of the Biden administration towards Russia and China are delusional. It
thinks that it can squeeze these countries but still successfully ask them for cooperation.
It believes that the U.S. position is stronger than it really is and that China and Russia
are much weaker than they are.
It is also full of projection. The U.S. accuses both countries of striving for empire, of
wanting to annex more land and of human rights violations. But is only the U.S. that has
expanding aspirations. Neither China nor Russia are interested in running an empire. They
have no interest in planting military bases all over the world. Though both have marginal
border conflicts they do not want to acquire more land. And while the U.S. bashes both
countries for alleged human rights issues it is starving whole populations (Yemen, Syria,
Venezuela) through violence and economic sanctions.
The U.S. power structures in the Pentagon and CIA use the false accusations against Russia
and China as pretense for cold military and hot economic wars against both countries. They
use color revolution schemes (Ukraine, Myanmar) to create U.S. controlled proxy forces near
their borders.
At the same time as it tries to press these countries the U.S. is seeking their
cooperation in selected fields. It falsely believes that it has some magical leverage.
Consider this exchange from yesterday's White House
press briefing about Biden asking for a summit with Putin while, at the same time,
implementing more sanctions against Russia:
Q What if [Putin] says "no," though? Wouldn't that indicate some weakness on the part of
the American administration here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the President's view is that Russia is on the outside of the
global community in many respects, at this point in time. It's the G7, not the G8. They
have -- obviously, we've put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there
should be consequences for the actions; the Europeans have also done that.
What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it's in
their interests to take him up on that offer.
The G7 are not the 'global community'. They have altogether some 500 million inhabitants
out of 7.9 billion strong global population. Neither China nor India are members of the G7
nor is any South American or African country. Moreover Russia has
rejected a Russian return into the G7/8 format:
"Russia is focused on other formats, apart from the G7," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
said in a brief statement ..
Russia has no interest in a summit which would only be used by the U.S. to further bash
Russia. Why should it give Biden that pleasure when there is nothing that Russia would gain
from it. Russia does not need a 'bridge back'. There will be no summit.
... ... ...
If Biden wants cooperation with Russia or China he needs to reign in the hawks and stop
his attacks on those countries. As he is not willing or capable of doing that any further
cooperation attempts will fall flat.
The U.S. has to learn that it is no longer the top dog. It can not work ceaselessly to
impact Russia's and China's military and economic security and still expect them to
cooperate. If it wants something it will first have to cease the attacks and to accept
multilateral relationships.
Posted by b on April 17, 2021 at 17:53 UTC |
Permalink
"It can not work ceaselessly to impact Russia's and China's military and economic security
and still expect them to cooperate"
You have to understand the USA. They're doing it against Europe on a daily basis, and it
actually works... Get them confused why it doesn't always work against others.
It's interesting what's happening right now (in the past hour or so).
First: Russian and Belorussian news about the arrest of leaders (or key participants) of
an attempted military coup in Belarus, planned by the US security services.
Then, 30 minutes later: the Czechs expel 18 Russian diplomats, accusing them of spying and
of connection to some explosion back in 2014.
I could've been skeptical about the details of the first story, but the second one seems
to confirm it. The second story appears to be an obvious attempt to squeeze the first one out
of the news. And who else could order the Czech government to do this with a 30 minute
notice?
Wouldn't Oceania rulers love to print more of their own currency to buy up all the paper
rights to industrial output without having to invest in the factories or anything else! They
love this kind of business model.
"The secret of success is to own nothing but control everything."
Because of what's at stake and how little I trust Oceania, I confess I no longer have an
opinion about global warming. Even if many of its scientists are *earnest*, who obtained,
processed, and stored the data before they started building models? Those institutions are
capable of anything.
Dementia Joe and his coterie of enablers have embarked on a foreign policy that is likely to result in a new war that will
endanger America and further a growing perception that the United States is weak and divided. There are three troublesome
flashpoints (Ukraine, China and Iran) that could explode at any time and catapult our nation into a costly, deadly military
confrontation. Topping the list is the Ukraine.
The corrupt dealings in Ukraine over the last four years by Joe and Hunter Biden leaves them completely compromised and
subject to coercion, even blackmail. With this as a backdrop the decade long effort by the United States to weaken Russia's
influence in eastern Ukraine has been revived with Biden's arrival in the White House.
Let me first introduce you to some essential facts:
Larry Johnson,
If the Ukraine blows so will Syria! Then the situation might transition from nemesis to tisis in short order. Here is a
strangely appropriate analysis with just one word blanked out.
In the
years ahead, _____________ will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have
powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a
"hubris-nemesis complex." This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of
godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that
can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior.
Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even
disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal
leaders.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
We, too, pray for sanity.
Ishmael Zechariah
Reply
Larry, I unfortunately agree with your observations and conclusion.
I would add that in my opinion, the Russians are a lot more determined, as are the Chinese and Iranians, then the
generally self absorbed younger generations in the West. "Woke" culture has no answer to sunken warships, downed
aircraft and body bags. Do the SJWs want to die for LBGTIQ rights in Russia or another of their pet obsessions de jour?
I don't think so.
My concern for President Biden and America is that, if Ukraine attacks, unless President Putin succeeds in delivering a
very short, sharp and successful lesson to Ukraine there is not going to be a clear path forward to a negotiated
armistice. If that doesn't happen through bad luck, the fog of war, etc. Then I don't think Biden has the intelligence
to get us out of the mess.
If you add to that the possibility that Zelensky may demand American support "or else" when he starts to lose then we
are in very very dangerous territory. If I were the Chinese, I would just stand back and watch. Taiwanese independence
is a meaningless concept without American military backing and I'm sure the Taiwanese know it.
The wild card to me is what is Israel's attitude? Is it possible that they might be a moderating influence for a change?
Reply
Oh, yeah .!!!!!! The country that shoots women and children who get too close to the fence they have constructed in
PALESTINE on other people"s land will be the moderating party. Or maybe Mad Dog Bolton.
Try getting real, and come up with real world situations. Not some fantasy of killers acting like kittens. The
Russians seem more balanced in responding to such provocations than the U.S. & it's gang of follower- puppets. How
long would any of the these follower-puppets be able to go toe to toe with Russia in all-out-war situation. I'd bet
less than 24 hours, probably far less. Or as a Chinese General once asked: would you want to give up Los Angeles to
save Tiwan? The U.S. doesn't seem to have any sort of reliable anti-missile defence system. Would Ole Uncle Joe
really like to get into such pissing contest so early on in his term of presidency? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I
have seen so far, he just seems to be throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. In this game, if one
blunders, the walls vanish, an the lights go out.
Reply
Russia moves cannon boats and amphibious vessels from Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, but in reality these combatants are
perfect for operations in shallow waters and that means Azov Sea and Ukraine's South-Western flank. These ships can form
both a surface group capable of dispatching anything Ukraine may have on Azov Sea, plus form excellent tactical
amphibious group which can land a battalion or two of marines and support them with fire from the sea, both artillery
and MLRS. Of course, there are other forces Russia has there but it is a good way to give Caspian Flotilla a chance for
yet another combat deployment, after its missile ships spearheaded first salvos of 3M14 cruise missiles at ISIS targets
in Syria in 2015. Here are some of those ships:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Caspian_Corvette_Astrakhan_2.jpg
Russia has an overwhelming firepower in the Black Sea proper and whatever the US is sending there is primarily for ISR
purposes in case Ukies go bananas and decide to attack Donbass in death by cop scenario. The US will not interfere in
any meaningful way other than supplying Ukies with recon data.
Reply
It is bigger than Biden or even the Military Industrial Complex. The establishment foreign policy apparatus transcends
political parties and has a continuity that survives changes in administrations. It is obsessed with Russia. It opposed
not just communism but Russia itself so when the Berlin wall fell for it the Cold War never ended and it successfully
pursued the the break up and looting of the Russian Empire and the relentless eastward march of NATO. Putin pushed back
on this resulting in him being demonized by the orchestrated Western media. Trump for all his faults had at least a
halfway rational view of these matters but now the Borg is back and spoiling for a fight. I never cease to be amazed by
the stupidity of these people, their apparent lack of understanding of the importance of Ukraine and Sevastopol in
Russian history and their inability to read a map or know the basics of military operations to see the obvious
indefensibility of Ukraine's eastern border. The danger now is that Ukraine's leaders will overestimate the support they
think they have from the United States and start something they can't stop. This has the feel of 1914.
Reply
Or the Georgian/Russian of 2008 when Georgia attacked on Russian territory. President Bush was talking tough, saying
he would send aid to Georgia on warships. But the rules governing ships entering the Bosferus proscribed such stuff,
aND Bush ended doing nothing. The Russians quickly neutralized the Georgian forces and pushed deeper into Georgia
where they currently remain. The odiot who started the mess was forced out of Georgia & was afterwards appointed a
governor or some such in Ukraine. But I think that too went bad. Such is the level of governance in Ukraine.
Reply
The last 5 Ukros killed were killed by mines. The contact line has many zones where minefields are employed by both
sides. It appears some were killed in their own minefield according to local reports. Civilians in the LPR and DPR have
been killed by incoming fire, most recently a 5 year old boy. Of course OSCE is worthless except as a "bean counter";
who fired what and where is too much to record..
Reply
US defence attache with a group was up at the front yesterday as well as the comic.
Ukraine really has its back up against the wall financially. This year with big interest payments due and no way to get
the funds as the IMF seems to hit its limit on their 'we're never getting it back' budget. Their only steady source of
funds is ironically Russia with the gas transit fees guaranteed at $7B total over the next four years, much of which
will go to the EU and IMF as interest payments. After that the gas fees will drop to zero as the gas transits move to
TurkStream and NS2. With nothing to pay Russia, apart from the little mentioned oil transit fees, Russia may stop
shipping gas/coal/electricity for local consumption as well. At that point either Ukraine crashes or someone else has to
pick up the bill.
Although Kiev will lose dramatically there are very good reasons why Kiev would push the button. Will they ever again
have this PR opportunity to play the innocent victim?
Reply
Earlier this morning I saw a pic of Zelenskiy visiting the front, behind him was a makeshift field tent with a sign on
it, the sign is in Ukrainian but translates as "Vietnam". Is Biden serious about backing Zelenskiy, I guess we'll find
out soon enough.
Reply
wondering if anyone can point me to a fairly, anyway, reliable, (assuming one exists) 'war games scenario' document on
an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China. Intuitively, it would seem a difficult challenge, especially given China's
lack of any appreciable experience in seaborne invasion. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide, and my
apologies upfront LJ if you deem this offtopic.
Reply
Not meaning to be a smart-alec about it, but why assume that an invasion has to be "seaborne"?
In WW2 the Royal Navy had total control of the waters around Crete. So the Germans simply went over the top of them
and invaded the island from the air.
It was very definitely touch and go for a while until German paratroopers managed to capture an airfield, and from
that point it was all over.
No idea how well defended Taiwanese airfields are, but the PLA would only need to capture one and, again, the final
result will not be in doubt.
Reply
well, the quick answer to your question would be 'fine, alter my initial question to include war games scenarios
on airborne attacks on Taiwan. The glib answer might be, Taiwan is not Crete. And the Chinese PLA are not the
Wehrmacht. Who, by the time of the Crete attack had built up a record that included many successful airborne
attacks. I see no such history with the PLA. That, by no means rules it out. But, in any event, I can't imagine
the PLA would role the dice, SOLELY, on an airborne attack. They would have to have a seaborne plan of attack, in
case Plan A failed. So, in any event, I would be still be in search of that war games scenario.
Reply
Absent any new evidence, I am going to continue to assume that this is really about Nordstream II. The Biden Junta are
probably planning on having their Ukrainian cat's paw make a lunge at DNR/LNR, forcing the Russians to intervene
directly. Ukraine, of course, is not actually a full NATO member, so no Article 5 will be triggered. Instead, Washington
just self-righteously hollers 'Russian aggression!' and demands that Merkel immediately shut down Nordstream II -- the
Russian pipeline into Germany -- just before it's ready to go online.
And then, as a lush reward for their undying loyalty, the Germans get to import frack-gas and oil all the way from the
US at four or five times the market rate. Problem solved!
Reply
you are correct – the Ukraine state does not really want the return of the Donbass region let alone Crimea as it
would result in a complete change in the balance of power in the Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population being
able to form the government, as it had done pre 2014. They really want to push the Germans into stopping Nord Stream
2 by provoking Russia
Reply
Struggling to understand how a Ukraine with such supposedly strong ties to National Socialists of a century ago managed
to end up with a Jewish comedian as President.
Reply
Here's the viewpoint of Ukraine Army's snipers who are primarily composed of volunteer housewives. While to D.C. and
Moscow, it's part of their sphere of political chess, however to those on the front lines, it is survival and protection
of their loved ones.
Almost half a century ago, I took a course in the German language as a refresher during the summer session at my local
junior college. The woman who taught the course was a native Ukrainian. She told the class a little about her
background.
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, she was in her mid- to late-teens. She had an intense dislike (hatred) of the
Russians and took a job working for the German military government of occupation as an interpreter. She said they had
welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviet Communists.
Later, when the Red Army juggernaut was rolling west through Ukraine, she realized that it would not be good for her
long-term prospects to remain at home. She chose to move west with the retreating German army. Subsequent to the end of
the war in Europe, she rattled around for awhile in displaced person camps, and ultimately made her way to the United
States.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her story. This was my first introduction to the enmity between the Russians
and the Ukrainians.
Reply
Biden is a tin-hat emperor moving tin soldiers in his bathtub at play time. Surrounded by self-selected idiots who make
him dangerous as hell. This is what his "return to decency" looks like? May he be struck down deaf and dumb.
Reply
Two front war – Russia moving into Ukraine at the same time China moves on Taiwan. They put their wet fingers up to the
wind to see which way the Biden operation blows.
And they could not escape the conclusion this was the time to strike if there is any fortuitous time to strike. Biden
and his new team muddle deeply into reckless ineptitude. And Kamala Harris doesn't have anything to wear.
Reply
An odd thesis. The Russians are signally very, very strongly that they do not want the Ukraine to start a war by
attacking the rebels in Donbass.
They could not be more explicit if they sent a hypersonic cruise missile through Zelensky's office window with a sign
on it that reads "Don't start something you won't even live to regret".
They very clearly do not think that this is "the time to strike", nor even that they think there is a "fortuitous
time" for them to go to war with Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes first then, sure, they'll strike back. But I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion
that the Russians are provoking this when it is very clearly the Ukies and their promoters in the White House who are
pushing these buttons.
Similarly with Taiwan.
The Chinese are not provoking this. They made their red lines clear to everyone as far back as Nixon's trip to China
i.e. if the USA sticks to a one-China-policy then the mainland will refrain from using force against Taiwan.
But the USA is not sticking to the one-China-policy. Recent US diplomatic moves look exactly like what it is:
maneuverings to prepare for when the Taipei government declares independence.
Which is crazy.
But in both cases the USA may well provoke a conflict and then dump their patsies like a discarded toy.
Which would be beyond crazy. It would be an outcome so loopy that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Reply
Thank you for setting it straight.. it seems pretty evident Russia does not want a war but is sure as hell ready
to finish this business if a war is pushed on to them and pushed on to them by the Americans. Ukraine has been
armed by the U.S , funded by the IMF, and cheered by NATO. They will not do a single thing without their owners
permission.
Reply
Back in December 2020 Putin had an expanded meeting with his Defense Ministry Board. In it he laid out several items and
agendas to be carried out by the Military Staff.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64684
March 24th saw Ukraine's Zelensky virtually declaring war against the Russian Federation. One can not rule out Zelensky
using the trade deals with Doha and use the direct flights between Kiev and Doha to smuggle in Jihad's from Syria and
Libya to fight in Donbas. Zelensky on March 3rd in a joint press conference with the European Council President in Kiev
stated that the retaking of Crimea from Russia was now Ukraine Official Policy.
https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/ukraine-redux-war-russophobia-and-pipelineistan/
Reply
Speaking of 'foreign policy', question is who will win out -- D.C. or Tel Aviv?
'The model' is headed to D.C. to try and convince our IC's head-cheeses that the Iran JCPOA isn't such a good deal, and
Tel Aviv is trying to get him an audience with his high-arsed the 'King', China Joe. If D.C. swallows 'the model's'
spiel, then they're bigger suckers than they already appear to be.
Assume this Mossad meeting will take place between Kackling Kamala who will be channeling Obama-Jarrett; or will it
be Stinking Liar Susan Rose channeling Obama-Jarrett? But the Big Guy will be out to lunch.
Reply
The World Health Organization recently published its report on the
origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which has caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Most scientist agree
that the virus is of zoonotic origin and not a human construct or an accidental laboratory
escape. But the U.S. wants to put pressure on China and advised the Director General of the
WHO, Tedros Adhanom, to keep the focus on China potential culpability. He acted accordingly
when he
remarked on his agency's report:
Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this
requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist
experts, which I am ready to deploy.
The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health
Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global
community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective
global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent
analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the
recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of
working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent,
science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of
unknown origin in the future.
The most interesting with the above statement is the list of U.S. allied countries which
declined to support it,
Most core EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, are missing from it.
As is the Five-Eyes member New Zealand. India, a U.S. ally in the anti-Chinese Quad
initiative, also did not sign. This list of signatories of the Joint Statement is an
astonishingly meager result for a U.S. 'joint' initiative. It is unprecedented. It is a sign
that something has cracked and that the world will never be the same.
The first months of he Biden administration saw a rupture in the global system. First
Russia admonished the EU for its hypocritical criticism of internal Russian issues. Biden
followed up by calling Putin a 'killer'. Then the Chinese foreign minister told the Biden
administration
to shut the fuck up about internal Chinese issues. Soon thereafter Russia's and China's
foreign ministers met and agreed to deepen their alliance and to shun the U.S. dollar. Then
China's foreign minister went on a wider Middle East tour. There he reminded U.S. allies of
their
sovereignty :
Wang said that expected goals had been achieved with regard to a five-point initiative on
achieving security and stability in the Middle East, which was proposed during the visit.
"China supports countries in the region to stay impervious to external pressure and
interference, to independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities
," Wang said, adding that the countries should " break free from the shadows of big-power
geopolitical rivalry and resolve regional conflicts and differences as masters of the
region ."
Suffice to say, the China-Iran pact deeply is embedded within a new matrix Beijing hopes to
create with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran. The pact forms part of a new
narrative on regional security and stability.
Countries in Asia and further afield are closely watching the development of this
alternative international order, led by Moscow and Beijing. And they can also recognise the
signs of increasing US economic and political decline.
It is a new kind of Cold War, but not one based on ideology like the first incarnation.
It is a war for international legitimacy, a struggle for hearts and minds and money in the
very large part of the world not aligned to the US or NATO.
The US and its allies will continue to operate under their narrative, while Russia and
China will push their competing narrative. This was made crystal clear over these past few
dramatic days of major power diplomacy.
The global balance of power is shifting, and for many nations, the smart money might be
on Russia and China now.
The obvious U.S. countermove to the Russian-Chinese initiative is to unite its allies in a
new Cold War against Russia and China. But as the Joint Statement above shows most of those
allies do not want to follow that path. China is a too good customer to be shunned. Talk of
human rights in other countries might play well with the local electorate but what counts in
the end is the business.
Even some U.S. companies can see that the hostile path the Biden administration has
followed will only be to their detriment. Some are asking the Biden gang to
tone it down :
[Boeing] Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told an online business forum he believed a major
aircraft subsidy dispute with Europe could be resolved after 16 years of wrangling at the
World Trade Organization, but contrasted this with the outlook on China.
"I think politically (China) is more difficult for this administration and it was for
the last administration. But we still have to trade with our largest partner in the world:
China," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit.
Noting multiple disputes, he added: " I am hoping we can sort of separate intellectual
property, human rights and other things from trade and continue to encourage a free trade
environment between these two economic juggernauts. ... We cannot afford to be locked out
of that market. Our competitor will jump right in."
Before its 737 MAX debacle Boeing was the biggest U.S. exporter and China was its biggest
customer. The MAX has yet to be re-certified in China. If Washington keeps the hostile tone
against China Boeing will lose out and Europe's Airbus will make a killing.
Biden announced that "America is back" only to be told that it is no longer needed in the
oversized role that it played before. Should Washington not be able to accept that it can no
play 'unilateral' but will have to follow the real rules of international law we might be in
for some
interesting times :
Question: Finally, are you concerned that deteriorating international tensions could lead
to war?
Glenn Diesen: Yes, we should all be concerned. Tensions keep escalating and there are
increasing conflicts that could spark a major war. A war could break out over Syria,
Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Arctic, the South China Sea and other regions.
What makes all of these conflicts dangerous is that they are informed by a
winner-takes-all logic. Wishful thinking or active push towards a collapse of Russia,
China, the EU or the U.S. is also an indication of the winner-takes-all mentality. Under
these conditions, the large powers are more prepared to accept greater risks at a time when
the international system is transforming . The rhetoric of upholding liberal democratic
values also has clear zero-sum undertones as it implies that Russia and China must accept
the moral authority of the West and commit to unilateral concessions.
The rapidly shifting international distribution of power creates problems that can only
be resolved with real diplomacy. The great powers must recognize competing national
interests, followed by efforts to reach compromises and find common solutions.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asked
for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council:
Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should
cooperate to solve today's problems.
"The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special
responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example," he said at the sombre
memorial ceremony.
The meeting would "play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern
challenges and threats," Putin said, adding that Russia was "ready for such a serious
conversation."
Such a summit would be a chance to work on a new global system that avoids unilateralism
and block mentality. As the U.S. is now learning that its allies are not willing to follow
its anti-China and anti-Russia policies it might be willing to negotiate over a new
international system.
But as long as Washington is unable to recognize its own decline a violent attempt to
solve the issue once and for all will become more likely.
Posted by b on April 1, 2021 at 17:52 UTC |
Permalink
Very thought provoking b, I wish time off brought me back firing on all cylinders like
this!
No doubt vk will chime in here better than I but it surely cannot be a matter of "if
America decides". There are historical forces at work in this financialized phase of late
capitalism that are not grasped by the US leadership, let alone factored into intelligent
policy debates. Biden is an arch-lobbyist for the vested interests which compel the US's
unilateral and interventionist foreign policy. I'm quite sure he is incapable of 'deciding'
anything (not just mentally but institutionally). But the underlying dynamic of
world-historical change is beyond him and his whole country. The die was cast long ago when
the Soviet Union fell and the US couldn't help themselves. Junkies for unilateralism since
1989, they will keep shooting up until they OD (Boeing notwithstanding...). I suspect they
will end up like the schizoid UK, psychologically unable to accept increasing and humiliating
losses of empire until it hits the bottom of the dustbin of History.
The US-China meeting in Anchorage took place 75 years almost to the day of the Winston
Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Just as the latter signalled a break point in the
uneasy, war forced cohabit of the West with the communist Soviet Union, so too the Anchorage
will enter the history as the break point in the US hegemony threatening collaboration of the
West and China.
Since WW2, no other nation, not even Russia, has confronted the US so firmly and so
publicly as did Yang Jiechi, one of the ruling member of the Chinese Politburo when he said
that "the United States does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of
strength'.
That was a slap in the face the Americans will have to respond to, and it's in the nature
of the response one will find whether the American Governing elite is prepared to share power
or go for a confrontation.
The real question is not about his neocon delusions, which are pretty predictable, but about
the ability for the USA project global dominance in the decade to come.
Blinken is a marionette. And pretty much second rate even in that.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's consider this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and values well'." [My Emphasis] ..."
Let's consider
this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated
World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words
cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have
all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and
values well'." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, he's referring to the rules put in place by the UN Charter. But as we at this bar
all know, it's the Outlaw US Empire for whom Blinken works that's the #1 criminal when it
comes to violating the UN Charter which is why it's "served our interests and values
well."
Now when we turn to reality, it become very clear that China seeks to uphold the UN
Charter--it's one of the foundational members of the newly established Friends of the UN
Charter Group that the Outlaw US Empire will certainly snub because of the reality of its
actual relations to that Act and Organization .
Indeed, what is being said by the very formation of that Group is a big NO!! to the
Outlaw US Empire's attempt to say it abides by the system it's continuously violated for the
past 75+ years. Yet, it's also clear that NO!! isn't being shouted out by global media
enough, particularly when Outlaw US Empire officials give such an excellent opportunity to be
rebuffed and ridiculed for their lies.
We have many good writers here who could take Blinken's words and turn them into an
indictment of himself and the nation he represents. That implies that writers for global
publications are just as good but need to examine the framing of their articles. Peace won't
come to our planet unless the Outlaw Bully Nation is daily accused for what it is and
does.
NATO is a distinct minority yet it holds the world captive in a terroristic manner. It's
well past time to stop groveling and kow-towing and to stand-up and call out the bullshitters
for what they are since being nice isn't getting us anywhere.
To go back to a previous BTL discussion on Patrick Cockburns recent article in
Counterpunch, Bidens missteps so early on are a very worrying indicator that his foreign
policy team is worse than just being malign. They are incompetent. Thats a very dangerous
combination.
I don't think the Russians, Chinese, or most other major countries (apart from Europe) had
a fundamental problem with Trumps approach. They understood him, and were quite happy to
ignore his bombast and threats and focus instead on what was happening in the real world. But
things are different for someone like Biden, and I'm very surprised nobody in his team seem
to realise this. When he talks on the record, its assumed that it is a reflection of a real
policy. At first, I thought maybe he was just doing the usual new guy in power thing of
talking tough to set the ground for later compromises (the opposite of Obama, who appeared
very weak to other leaders, and then just looked indecisive when his policies turned more
hardline). But that does not seem to be the case so far.
I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I do think that this is one of those
points in history where things take a very sharp and irreparable change in direction.
Obviously, things have been brewing for years, but the ineptness of US foreign policy seems
to have created a strategic Russian/China alliance which will force many countries to make
some very hard choices about which side of the fence they are on.
On a related note, I woke up this morning to find that a speech by Lawrence P. Wilkerson,
who is associated with the conservative paleoconservatives is getting very wide circulation
in China (you know this has to be officially approved otherwise it disappears very rapidly on
WeChat. He makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs as a
sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that, but it
is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the CCP. The
notion that the Uigurs are a sort of third force within China, and as such need to be
destroyed now seems to be very deeply embedded in Chinese thinking, and the interference by
'official' western NGO's are undoubtedly making things much worse for them.
"[Wilkerson] makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs
as a sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that,
but it is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the
CCP."
Just curious as to what your reasons would be for doubting this. The CIA has been doing
precisely this all over the world for over 70 years. There is a clear pipeline between the
Uighurs in China and the CIA-supported "rebels" in Syria. The expatriate Uighur organizations
that are integral to the Western propaganda apparatus is supported and amplified by the NED
and other CIA fronts, as your last sentence implies. This is not to deny the historical
Uighur desire for autonomy in Western China, nor to defend Chinese policies toward them.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the CIA's use of ethnic tensions to sow chaos and division in
non-conforming nations *everywhere*.
1. The US has had little to no success in its many attempts to establish an intelligence
foothold in China. There is zero evidence, direct or indirect, that it has had any successful
contact with Uigur groups directly, although contacts via others, such as the Pakistani or
Turkish intelligence agencies are possible. If there was even the tiniest amount of evidence
of such a link, the Chinese would be broadcasting it from the skies, and not just
re-messaging out tired CT stuff. Chinese intelligence is far ahead of the US in that region,
so they would certainly know if something like that was happening.
2. Uigur groups in general such as we know about them tend to be as virulently anti
Western as anti Han Chinese. All evidence suggests that the brand of Islam that has been
belatedly introduced into those regions is essentially second hand Wahhabism (traditionally,
they were never all that religious).
3. Any such attempt could be easily countered by China – simply by dumping Uigur
radicals into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban, or anywhere else that would create trouble.
The fact that they haven't done this strongly suggests that the Chinese themselves see no
link.
4. US military intelligence is often a misnomer, but even the CIA can't be stupid enough
to think that fostering another islamic state on the borders of Afghanistan is anything but a
terrible idea.
Of course, no doubt some mid ranking CIA officer may have circulated some report saying
more or less 'hey, maybe we can use those Uighurs or whatever they are called'. But thats an
entirely different thing from suggesting that there have been active links and a strategy for
using them to destabilise the borders of China. The reality is that the US has been entirely
unsuccessful in any attempts (when they've been made) to undermine China via internal Chinese
ethnic or religious groups.
Incidentally, the reliability of Wilkerson (who I actually quite like and who says some
interesting things), on that topic can be measured by his statement that the invasion of
Afghanistan was motivated by an attempt to stop the Belt and Road Initiative. It's quite
impressive intelligence if that was the case as the invasion predated the Belt and Road
Initiative by more than a decade.
Yes, I think the important point is your last one. It's not out of the question that on a
rainy afternoon in Virginia some junior CIA analyst amused himself by sketching out such an
idea, and one day the product may leak and be presented as "proof." But for the reasons you
give, the political leaders who would have to approve the scheme would turn it down, even if
it were physically possible. I doubt it would be, actually: from what little information is
publicly available, the US seems to be having little or no luck penetrating that area.
Thanks for the systematic reply. I appreciate each of your points, and pretty much agree
with the first one – including your comment about Turkish intelligence. But regarding
the others, the fact that we are talking about anti-Western Wahabist radicals does not mean
the CIA (or elements of the CIA or other military/intelligence operations) would hesitate to
weaponize them if possible. We did this in Afghanistan, Bosina, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Chechnya etc. Indeed, we seemed to *welcome* the fostering of an Islamic State in Eastern
Syria, because the various jihadists were a means to destroy the Syrian government. When the
goal is to foster chaos and destruction in order to *undermine* an existing state, the
calculus of unleashing the head-choppers is different than if we were actually interested in
fostering stability in the region. I admit that such a strategy might sound insane to *us*,
but Einstein's definition of insanity seems to rule our National Security Establishment.
Not PK, but I would suggest these cases are not only different from each other, but also
different from the Uigurs. Essentially, there was a war going on in all of these cases, and
the US (and they were scarcely the only ones) decided to try to get a bit of influence by
arming one or more of the factions. This is a tactic which is as old as arms themselves, and
has a pretty spotty record of success, if that. Its advantage is that it is low-key and
doesn't require a massive presence (the classic case is the Soviet Union and the Chinese
flooding Africa with AK-47s and copies in the 1960s and 1970s). But the cases you mention are
very disparate. In Bosnia there do seem to have been some (illegal) CIA deliveries to the
Muslims in violation of the embargo, but these were very small scale and in any event the
Muslims were one of the major parties to the conflict, as well as constituting the de facto
government in Sarajevo, because the other ethnicities had withdrawn. Likewise, and in spite
of preening memoirs and films, the US influence in Afghanistan was quite small : the
mujahideen were already forming in the 1970s, and the only contribution the US really made
was to supply anti-aircraft missiles, which complicated the Russians' existence quite a bit.
But actually fomenting and arming an insurgency next to one of the three or four major powers
on the planet, with highly skilled intelligence services? There is stupidity and there's
downright insanity.
I the 1950s, the CIA and MI6 trained and armed the "Forest Brothers" in the Baltics.
Neutral Sweden and Finland were across hundreds of km of water. Land access was through
Soviet territory or satellites. There was no significant international trade or commerce in
the area at the time. Yet they had tens of thousands of well supplied (for that era)
resistance fighters that took a decade for the USSR to stomp out.
To suggest that today's CIA is incapable of stirring things up in a well-connected
Xinjiang when thousands of foreigners travel there, tons of business shipments and
international flights and road transport is a mystifying statement. Particularly after CIA's
decades of experience managing jihadis all across North Africa, Mideast and Central Asia,
more than a few being Uigurs.
And suggesting that the only thing the US supplied the Afghan jihadis were Stinger
missiles is far off the mark. It was a multi-billion dollar per year operation conducted by
the US with collaboration of the ISI and Saudis. All those tens of thousands of jihadis
didn't arrive by camels and make slingshots.
I agree "There is stupidity and there's downright insanity" in fomenting troubles in
Xinjiang. The US has already passed that test. Many times.
We are three generations past the 1950s. Not a relevant example.
The US is not even remotely as good as you'd have to believe to accept this theory. For
starters, we don't begin to have enough people with native level language competence, much
the less willing to live there long enough to be trusted. They'll take our arms, but our
directives?
It is in the interest of the CIA to take credit for all sorts of things where their role
was non-existent to marginal because funding.
I can't claim any great knowledge or insight into the region, but the notion that the
Uighurs were part of a grand CIA strategy, or that they have had sufficient influence in the
region to manipulate them into opposing China, just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unfortunately, like the notion that Covid is spread on frozen food, so far as I can tell it
is now considered 'a fact' by most Chinese, inside and outside the country. As a result, even
Chinese who strongly dislike their government are not at all bothered by reports coming out
of the region.
For what its worth, I knew an English guy who lived for a few years in Urumqi with his
Chinese wife about 15 years ago. He was virulently anti-muslim and didn't much like the
non-Chinese locals he met, but I remember at the time that said that what he saw around him
convinced him that things were going to end very badly for the Uighurs, the Chinese were just
waiting for the opportunity to wipe them out. I was in Tibet at that period (I was fortunate
to get a visa on the last year solo traveller were allowed in) and witnessed the way Tibetans
were openly abused on the street by Chinese soldiers. Even Tibetans said that the Uighurs got
it worse.
The US government and privately motivated US citizens have no credibility on this issue.
That means if anyone is going to raise it, it will have to be someone other than America or
Americans.
That doesn't change the fact of Great Han Lebensraum genocide-policy against the Uighurs
on the part of the Chinese Communazi Party. And Chinese statements about their Lebensraum
genocide against Uighuria are just as much hasbara as Israeli statements about
antiPalestinianitic persecution in the Occupied West Bank.
And if that purely-private opinion of a mere U S citizen makes any Great Han hasbarists (
or might I say . . . Hansbarists) on this thread mad, then that makes me happy.
Your friend was English; I have not seen this attitude on the part of Chinese friends or
Chinese I've talked with. I was traveling on a domestic flight in China a number of years ago
and found myself sitting on a plane next to a random Chinese soldier -- a memorably tall,
handsome young man. He spoke English well enough to have a discussion (the relaxed atmosphere
and the need to pass the time does wonders when it comes to breaking down language barriers).
Major Uighur terror attacks and unrest had been in the news (around 2009), so I asked him
what he thought about it. He said that he grew up in Xinjiang. His parents were Han Chinese
who had first come to Xinjiang during the cultural revolution to build some local
infrastructure/improvement project (he described it to me but I don't remember the details).
They saw their goal as improving conditions in the region. Of course, the government wanted
to solidify Chinese presence in that region of their country, but I heard no hint of anger or
derision toward the Uighur. He said he was very concerned that the Uighur people were happy
and he hoped China could find a way to mend the relationship. He said that growing up, there
were many mixed Chinese/Han marriages and that "people say" that mixed Han/Uighur marriages
produced the most physically beautiful children. I didn't see any evidence of the malignant
racism you describe on the part of your English friend.
Strong central governments vs violent separatist movements tend to create lasting
problems. Growing up in a border state over 100 years after our own civil war, I grew up with
the fact that many people had still not let go of that resentment. Southerners still
maintained a sense of grievance back then. The Maryland state song that I learned as a child
is only now being decommissioned by the state legislature. One stanza refers to the "Northern
scum".
This week's WaPo headline: "Maryland poised to say goodbye to state song that celebrates
the Confederacy".
If your Han Chinese interlocutor's feelings are widely shared among the ruled-over rather
than ruling-over ordinary majority of Han citizens, then it would appear that it is the
MonoParty RegimeGovernment ruling over China which is Communazi, not the people as such.
Regardless, it will be up to countrygovs which have moral standing in this area to comment
or not, not the US anymore. At least for now.
Probably the Uighurs have it even worse than Tibetans because Uighuria is very inhabitable
by Han settlers whereas Tibet is high and dry enough that ( I have read), that
lowland-adapted Hans have trouble physically coping over time with the lower oxygen levels at
Tibet altitude.
If that is so, then the High Tibetan Plateau at least would not provide Lebensraum for
millions of Han Settlers in any case, so why clear the Tibetans off the plateau and out of
existence? Not so much need, in Tibet's case.
@PlutoniumKun
I have no knowledge about points 1 to 3, but totally disagree with point 4.
The hubris and desire of the US alphabet agencies to meddle is remarkable. A current example
is the CIA support of jihadis in Syria that the US military itself is fighting against.
Interesting caution re Wilkerson – do you have a link?
Here is a link to an article talking about that talk PK. Having a coupla thousand Uygurs
in Syria gaining combat experience for use later who knows where was probably proof enough
for China of western intentions. Just think of the other Jihadists who have been used in
places like Libya and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and the Chinese would be drawing their
own conclusions-
Actually, it is the ***American people*** who are fucked. The little people that is.
Fucked on behalf of Israel/Neocons, the MIC, the Neolibs, and the other "owners" of the
country.
The good news is that when the above have thoroughly looted the country, and the rest of
the world sheds the by then worthless US dollar, and the City on the Hill becomes the
Toothless Slum on the Hill,
The Russian government is
responding angrily to Biden's derisive comments about Putin:
The Kremlin has reacted angrily to US President Joe Biden's remarks that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin is "a killer," calling the comment unprecedented and describing the
relationship between the two countries as "very bad."
U.S.-Russian relations have been deteriorating steadily over the last ten years, and it
always seemed unlikely that Biden would improve them. Now there will be even less of a chance
that Biden can work constructively with his Russian counterpart. The president's blunt answer
to a rather silly question from George Stephanopoulos has further damaged the relationship to
neither country's benefit. Anatol Lieven
observed recently that this is a "completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia" at a
time when the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on some important issues. Lieven cites U.S.
reentry into the JCPOA and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan as his examples of issues
where Russian cooperation could be very valuable, but he could have added new negotiations on
future arms control agreements as well. Making progress on any one of these becomes much more
challenging when our president is gratuitously insulting theirs. For an administration that
prides itself on practicing diplomacy, they have a funny way of showing it.
The Joseph Biden administration has named Richard Nephew as its deputy Iran envoy. As the
former principal deputy coordinator of sanctions policy for Barack Obama's State Department,
Nephew took personal credit for depriving Iranians of food, sabotaging their automobile
industry, and driving up unemployment rates.
Nephew has described the destruction of Iran's economy as "a tremendous success," and
lamented during a visit to Russia that food was still plentiful in the country's capital
despite mounting US sanctions.
Nephew's appointment to a senior diplomatic post suggests that rather than immediately
returning to the JCPOA nuclear deal, the Biden administration will finesse sanctions
illegally imposed by Trump to pressure Iran into an onerous, reworked agreement that Tehran
is unlikely to join.
Nephew's "simple framework" for "sanctions to perform their expected function" reads like
a torturer's manual (replace "target state" with "prisoner"):
- identify objectives for the imposition of pain and define the minimum necessary remedial
steps that the target state must take for pain to be removed
- understand as much as possible the nature of the target, including its vulnerabilities,
interests, commitment to whatever it did to prompt sanctions, and readiness to absorb
pain
-develop a strategy to carefully, methodically, and efficiently increase pain on those
areas that are vulnerabilities while avoiding those that are not
-monitor the execution of the strategy and continuously recalibrate its initial assumption
of target state resolve, the efficacy of the pain applied in shattering that resolve, and how
best to improve the strategy
Combatting malign influences in the Americas: OGA (Office of Global Affairs) used
diplomatic relations in the Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba,
Venezuela, and Russia, who are working to increase their influence in the region to the
detriment of US safety and security. OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to
strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade
countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples
include using OGA's Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian
COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer
of Cuban doctors.
Blinken, like his boss, is a complete moron. He blew it with his patronising threatening
'rules based order' drivel because he has no expertise. Blinken has been doing this for a
decade or two: Syria, Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and on and on. He has the form of a
killer, the mind of a killer and the intentions of a mass murderer. He has proven the latter
and is the type of global ambassadorial psychopath that one should meet with once and then
never meet again.
The USA has lost its mind and every day that passes proves that point.
This bar deserves broader analysis of other quarters of the planet and no more references
to the Guardian or NYT.
Biden under pressure to tap fewer political ambassadors than Trump, Obama
Donors are growing impatient as Biden delays naming coveted ambassador posts.
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain relations
with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its terms. Even
though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different genetic,
cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the
United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are
beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our
development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to reckon with this.
The author provides basic but essential definition of conflict resolution. The USians either
don't understand or defy it.
Your link to statement by Blinken & Sullivan is propaganda as you say. It is also an
expression of how deeply limited and very stupid these two are. They have no idea what just
hit them.
"The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winner
takes all and that would be a far more violent and unstable world," Blinken said.
Coming from the Empire this is not an explanation but rather a threat.
@ 139 william gruff... i never thought of it like that, but i think you are right to
characterize it that way... the language of a bully is on regular display thanks the
exceptional nation... i have gotten so used to it, i overlook this feature..
The madness of the Outlaw Empire is not about to shrink from bringing down the curtain on
the human race, if that's what it takes to see their power of command obeyed. The US, as it
is today, doesn't respect any nation's sovereignty and is mostly indifferent to allies and
foes alike. The regime considers itself the only sovereign worthy of such title on earth; and
expects to be allowed to run the table at its pleasure, or else it will supervise the burning
down of the house.
Biden meanders about, not even possessed of his right mind, holding on to the delusions
and lies of several presidents who lately came before him; and he is just the man to keep all
the fires of destruction burning, while the torture of innocence is unceasing, and as the
arrogant demands made against other countries become more absurd. What else is more obvious?
These are the things we have seen foreshadowed before and after 9/11.
As long ago as the 80s Reagan was told about the reality of nuclear winter. In A Man
Without a Country , Kurt Vonnegut described how scientists explained to G.W. Bush that a
nuclear exchange of even a moderate duration and size, could still depopulate the earth of
most of its people. The Bush Administration, toying with the idea of deploying baby nukes,
for strategic exigency, short of total war, went with "guesswork" rather than prudent
scientific advice. It was their best guess that the circumspect, abbreviated use of nukes
wouldn't destroy humanity itself, or cause ice age conditions, or bring about global
starvation.
At least in the conduct between civilized countries, a minimum level of protocol and respect
matters. It may make much of a difference especially when dealing with conflicts. And the conduct
of the US americans is worrying. They are behaving like rabid dogs.
Toothless sabre rattling is about all the USA has left. A bunch of old men with a world
view from the 1950s whose own virility is long gone is not going to come to an epiphany about
their encroaching impotence. The Establishment has no other choice, absent common sense and
critical thinking, but to double-down on arrogant self-righteousness bred by sophomoric
jingoism that defines 'shallow.'
Empire is crumbling before our eyes. The question is will it take the rest of the world
with it as it falls into its own footprint.
Perhaps one of the more predictable mistakes the US will commit next, is misinterpret the
stern warnings of the past few days by Russia, China and even NK, as evidence the new
Biden/Blinken regime is less feared or respected than the Trump/Pompeo one.
I suspect a more accurate interpretation would be, "ok, you had the crazy guy for 4 years
and we cut you some slack, hoping once the grown ups were back we could reason as adults, but
if you're gonna carry on with the same attitude, basically, Democrat or Republican, you can
all summarily go fxxx yourselves".
Particularly at the end of the term, the Obama regime was already being met by a very
hostile China and Russia, well before Trump took over with his less than diplomatic style (or
lack thereof). Anyone recall the airport security debacle with China during Obama's last
weeks?
How our interaction w/China was reported FOX did a full throated, fake narrative
just to suit their pro-Trump agenda. When they quoted, 'you cannot talk to us from a position
of strength' they made is sound like the Chinese were scoffing at Blinken's weakness rather
than his moral turpitude. They made it sound like Blinken surrendering to his Chinese
overlords, squandering the strong hand the Trump gave him.
In FOX land, all that matters is that you come up with a great sounding argument. The
truthfulness of that arguments is not relevant.
The USA's situation is very dire indeed. The Americans are resorting more and more to
"Hail Mary" moves to keep their hegemonic position.
And even then they're blundering. I would not be surprised at all if they start to
straight out have to falsify diplomatic transcripts in order to try to create something
favorable to them.
Related to US-China tensions, if anyone likes documentary shows, CNA (Channel News Asia, a
broadcaster out of Singapore) has a good four-part documentary released in January 2021
called "When Titans Clash", about the US-China trade/tech tensions, that I would recommend.
(I watched the first two yesterday and will watch the other two this weekend.)
Each of the 4 parts is about 48 minutes long and available for watching on YouTube and
CNA's website too.
Touches on some of the things ak74 mentioned in his
comment on the other thread: outsourcing, deindustrialization, the US dollar as reserve
currency, etc.
It's from Pearl Forss who was also involved in CNA's 2015-2019 series " The New Silk
Road ", about China's BRI, that I can recommend as well.
"America is back" claimed Joe Biden to no ones amusement. But the world has changed
after four years of Trump and after a pandemic upset the world. The U.S. position in this
world and its role in it have thereby also changed. To just claim one is back without
adopting to the new situation promises failure.
As candidate Joe Biden promised that there would be no changes.
Former Vice President Joe Biden assured rich donors at a ritzy New York fundraiser that
"nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected.
Biden told donors at an event at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan on Tuesday evening
that he would not "demonize" the rich and promised that " no one's standard of living
will change, nothing would fundamentally change ," Bloomberg News reported.
That Biden statement destroyed the illusion of those who had hoped that he would lift
the standard of living for the average Amercian.
Biden stayed true to his words at the fundraiser. There will be no rise in the minimum
wage. The $2,000 checks he promised to all voters will now be only $1,400 checks. They will
also be
heavily means tested . Those who made more than $80,000 in 2019 but lost their income
in 2020 will get no check at all.
Even as they hold the White House and the House and Senate majorities the Democrats are
unable or unwilling to deliver basic progress. This will likely cost them their House
majority in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.
Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" attitude extends into foreign policy.
Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo - 0:29 UTC · Dec 21,
2019
Today, the #ICC prosecutor raised serious questions about the ICC's jurisdiction to
investigate #Israel. Israel is not a state party to the ICC. We firmly oppose this
unjustified inquiry that unfairly targets Israel . The path to lasting peace is through
direct negotiations.
---
Secretary Antony Blinken @SecBlinken - 1:34 UTC · Mar 4,
2021
The United States firmly opposes an @IntlCrimCourt investigation into the Palestinian
Situation. We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security,
including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.
That nothing will change is also expressed in two policy papers the Biden administration
released yesterday. The early emphasis on human rights, which distinguished it from the
Trump administration, is already gone.
The common theme is now 'democracy' as if that were not just a form of government but a
value in itself.
The White House published an Interim National
Security Strategic Guidance (pdf). The paper is dripping with ideological LGBTQWERTY
librulism. Its central claim is that 'democracy' is under threat:
At a time when the need for American engagement and international cooperation is greater
than ever, however, democracies across the globe, including our own, are increasingly
under siege . Free societies have been challenged from within by corruption, inequality,
polarization, populism, and illiberal threats to the rule of law. Nationalist and
nativist trends – accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis – produce an
every-country-for-itself mentality that leaves us all more isolated, less prosperous, and
less safe. Democratic nations are also increasingly challenged from outside by
antagonistic authoritarian powers. Anti-democratic forces use misinformation,
disinformation, and weaponized corruption to exploit perceived weaknesses and sow
division within and among free nations, erode existing international rules, and promote
alternative models of authoritarian governance. Reversing these trends is essential to
our national security .
It then singles out China:
We must also contend with the reality that the distribution of power across the world is
changing, creating new threats. China , in particular, has rapidly become more assertive.
It is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open
international system. Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play
a disruptive role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in
efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and
allies around the world. Regional actors like Iran and North Korea continue to pursue
game-changing capabilities and technologies, while threatening U.S. allies and partners
and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries whose
governance is fragile, and from influential non-state actors that have the ability to
disrupt American interests.
To fight China the U.S. will (ab)use its allies:
We can do none of this work alone. For that reason, we will reinvigorate and modernize
our alliances and partnerships around the world. For decades, our allies have stood by
our side against common threats and adversaries, and worked hand-in-hand to advance our
shared interests and values. They are a tremendous source of strength and a unique
American advantage, helping to shoulder the responsibilities required to keep our nation
safe and our people prosperous. Our democratic alliances enable us to present a common
front, produce a unified vision, and pool our strength to promote high standards,
establish effective international rules, and hold countries like China to account.
Good luck with that. Neither the European U.S. allies, nor the Asian ones, have any
interest in following the U.S. into a confrontation with China. It is their greatest
trading partner and they do not perceive it as an ideological or security threat.
The more we and other democracies can show the world that we can deliver, not only for
our people, but also for each other, the more we can refute the lie that authoritarian
countries love to tell, that theirs is the better way to meet people's fundamental needs
and hopes. It's on us to prove them wrong.
So the question isn't if we will support democracy around the world, but how.
We will use the power of our example. We will encourage others to make key reforms,
overturn bad laws, fight corruption, and stop unjust practices. We will incentivize
democratic behavior.
But we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by
attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in
the past. However well intentioned, they haven't worked. They've given democracy
promotion a bad name, and they've lost the confidence of the American people. We will do
things differently.
The "lie that authoritarian countries love to tell, that their's is the better way to
meet people's fundamental needs and hopes" is targeted at China. But that China did and
does much better than the U.S. to meet its people's needs and hope is not a lie. The
pandemic has again demonstrated that.
The last quoted paragraph has seen some positive attention on social media. But it is
based on a falsehood. The U.S. has not once used military means to 'promote democracy'. Not
ever. It has used war to gain markets and power, to destroy its competition. The
neo-conservatives have claimed to be motivated by 'democracy promotion'. But that was
always just a pretext to hide the real reasons for waging war. Iraq became democratic not
because the U.S. wanted it to be that. In fact, after invading Iraq the the U.S. pro-consul
Paul Bremer tried to prevent universal elections in Iraq. Only the insistence of Ayatollah
Sistani on a universal vote led to a somewhat democratic system in Iraq.
Blinken is, just like Pompeo before him, focused on China:
And eighth, we will manage the biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century: our
relationship with China.
Several countries present us with serious challenges, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea. And there are serious crises we have to deal with, including in Yemen, Ethiopia,
and Burma.
But the challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable
and open international system – all the rules, values, and relationships that make
the world work the way we want it to , because it ultimately serves the interests and
reflects the values of the American people.
That there is no change from the Trump to the Biden administration in hostility to China
is disappointing only for those who had expected some:
Pang Zhongying, a specialist in international relations at Ocean University of China,
said Beijing would be disappointed with the Biden administration's approach to "continue
and even elevate" the tough policies of the Trump era and to strengthen alliances to deal
with China.
"There does not seem to be any change yet in the serious tensions in China-US
relations," he said. "I think there may be some frustration in Beijing that after more
than 40 days [of the new administration] they have not seen any change but there is
actually more pressure from the US."
Beijing will manage the conflict and it is likely to see it as a chance.
The U.S. failure to adopt to new circumstances will accelerate its demise. The U.S.
empire was a historical abnormality and its twilight is near
:
[The Realist professors of International Relations David Blagden and Patrick Porter]
observe America's "position as 'global leader' is premised on a set of impermanent and
atypical conditions from an earlier post-war era", but " the days of incontestable
unipolarity are over, and cannot be wished back ". The result is that "overextension
abroad, exhaustion and fiscal strain at home, and political disorder feed off one another
in a downward spiral, cumulatively threatening the survival of the republic".
The US empire is, then, at an impasse. Its moral and political justification of
overseeing a global order of universal liberal democracy -- the closest real-world
equivalent to the Kantian perpetual peace that has both motivated and eluded liberal
idealists for the past two centuries -- is now beyond its capabilities to maintain.
...
How does this end for America? Biden and the presidents after him will be forced to make
a hard choice: whether to retrench to a smaller and more manageable empire, or to risk a
far greater and more dramatic collapse in defence of global hegemony.
Biden has made his choice. Nothing will fundamentally change under him. He is thereby
likely to repeat all of Trump's foreign policy failures. There will be no new JCPOA with
Iran nor will there be any win for the U.S. in the Middle East. North Korea will continue
to test bombs and missiles. The U.S. will continue to be stuck in Afghanistan. The
Chinese-Russian alliance will strengthen. U.S. allies will further distance themselves from
it.
We can not yet know what, at what point will cause the collapse of U.S. hegemony. But we
are coming more near to it.
Posted by b on March 4, 2021 at 18:04 UTC |
Permalink
Frankly, Biden's speech to the grand poobahs sounded more like a plea for understanding
than a promise, and if you take what the policy paper says at face value it suggests that
"Biden" understands that we have to change to compete. It is also an admission that they
have presided over a period of decline in Uncle Sugar land, so of course they don't want to
dwell on that. I think Biden is worried the "owners" wom't let him do anything.
And it is totally appropriate that Biden is the guy up there trying to deal with this
mess, because he as one of the prime intigators or the present situation, going back 40
years.
Patrick Porter's book, The False Promise of Liberal Order, is good.
But, his realist critique of vulgar liberal propaganda for US imperialism doesn't locate
the source or material roots of US grand strategy.
Realist theory understands power, hegemony and balancing only in terms of military
power. That is the only currency of power in realist thinking, because realism rests on a
state centricity which insists on the autonomy of the state from any social or economic
factors. Military power is thus all that remains.
This theory obviously fails to explain the real history of US foreign policy, which has
used militarism and other tools in support of strategic economic interests on a global
scale, primarily in the South. The military balance of power is by and large only an
expression of the economic balance of power and the class interests of ruling classes
derived from it.
Porter and other realists point out the contradictions of liberal theory and practice
but fail to provide a scientific explanation for consistent US policies.
There is a partnership currently but it's not yet an alliance. The rationale for one is
very strong. Russia needs China or it will be overwhelmed by a hostile US and fairly
hostile Europe. China needs Russia to save it from a resource embargo by US and allies.
Together they will form a huge power bloc in Eurasia combining their respective territories
with joint influence over Central Asia. Other countries in Asia like South Korea, Vietnam
and India will see bloc and decide to stay neutral or side with the China-Russia bloc.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving faster.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving
faster.
Posted by: dsfco | Mar 4 2021 18:54 utc | 4
A guess: PRC having vastly greater economic power thinks its share of influence should
be greater. Russia having vastly superior military power & technology, disagrees. For
example the Chinese government might like access to the most advanced Russian military
technology; the Russians having been invaded many times from both East & West, probably
take the long view.
This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Wendy Sherman, nominated by the Biden
White House to serve as deputy secretary of state.
The career diplomat answered the usual questions on how she views United States posture toward American rivals and official
enemies like Russia, China, and Iran. Once again it was Sen. Rand Paul who had the most direct pushback and biting
criticism against an administration that seems bent on returning to the foreign adventurism and unilateral military
interventionism of the Obama and Bush years.
"We've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton,"
Paul said of President Biden
during his turn to question Sherman. Paul is especially outraged over Biden's Syria strike without consulting Congress last
week.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HanUqh_-CE
During the above exchange with Wendy Sherman, Paul in his concluding remarks had blasted away at Biden's vision of the
world, citing past failed Democratic-led military interventions in places like Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
"I think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss and that's
something I'm really concerned with,"
Paul said.
"All I will say is that
we're bombing now again in Syria without Congressional
approval and we're sending more convoys in there without Congressional approval
. It's a messy war - it's been
going on forever, there's nothing good that's going to come out of our involvement," Paul explained in his statement.
"People say
'well US lives are at risk'
...
yeah
because we put'em there
. We put them in the middle of a civil war that's largely over but can continue if we
keep putting troops into there... to put our troops as a 'trip wire' to get involved in a further escalation of this war."
And that's when the Republican Senator from Kentucky blasted President Biden on his Syria stance and general
interventionist foreign policy:
"I hope that we'll be sane voices and I hope that you'll be one of those," he said addressing Sherman.
"But I don't have a great deal of confidence that we've actually gone away from John Bolton,
I've
think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss, and that's something I'm very concerned with
."
Sherman in response had tried to claim that the Biden admin is not trying to get more deeply involved in the Syria
conflict, but maintained the 'countering ISIS' stance that the Pentagon has used for years to argue it must continue the
occupation of the northeast portion of the country.
Biden has been a major disappointment for those who hoped that he'd change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts
Who hoped that? He didn't run on such a platform. "Engagement with the world" and a
"restoration of the pre-Trump era" was his platform. Don't ask me why but this made him
more popular. He was literally the VP in the most interventionist Presidency in US
history.
... People like Giraldi sometimes seem like plants put in place to discredit
anti-interventionism by trying to make it synonymous with anti-semitism.
In the late 1980s, Rannie Amiri, an independent commentator on political affairs, challenged
then-Senator Joe Biden on his stance toward the Israel-Palestine conflict following a campus
speech that Biden gave, asking him:
Rather than succumb to the influence of various lobbying groups in Washington, such as
AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- which promotes the views of Israel's
right-wing Likud Party], and the untold amount of money they use to dictate policy,
wouldn't it be more prudent to examine the real effects that collective punishment, daily
humiliation, and countless civilian casualties inflicted by the Israelis have on an
occupied population, and use that understanding to formulate a more rational approach
toward the Palestinians?
Here is Biden response to that:
At the end of the exchange, Biden turned, put his arm around Amiri's shoulder, and
addressed the audience.
If this was not such a fine, articulate, and sincere young man, and he implied that my
vote had been bought, I would give him a swift kick in the ass.
The audience roared in applause, and Amiri sat back down to his chair defeated.
However, a friend rose up to defend him, telling Biden: "If my father heard you say such a
thing, I believe he would have done the same to you first."
The tribal stupidity of the people who support Israel first is beyond words. Who would
think in the 20th and the 21th century we would be led by primitive thinking of tribal
fantasies from thousands of year ago?
Most of the us in the west did not know that this has been going on for so long since we
have been deluded with the term "free press" to describe our press in the west. We are slowly
waking up to reality with some "freedom" here and there on the internet like this site.
So, Biden has been a major disappointment for those who expected that he might change
course regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts while also having
the good sense and courage to make relations with countries like Iran and Israel responsive
to actual U.S. interests.
You're giving the morons way too much credit, Sir. It's doubtful even 5% of voters know or
care about geopolitics, and probably less than 1% who voted based on fraudsident biden's
foreign policies.
For 5 years it was nonstop Trump-hatred from the ((( lügenpresse ))) even as Trump
did weasel jared's bidding. Stevie Fking Wonder could see the election was rigged.
The USA is kaput, the supreme joke spineless
The ((( Underminers ))) are a c ** t-hair away from total control.
The Free United States must part ways with the devils in DC. Texas, Florida,
Oklahoma, the Dakotas and Montana for starters.
The prize for the truly awful story of the week goes to the appointment of AIPAC monster
to head Pentagon planning for the Middle East.
The extension of the nuclear arms agreement between Russia and the United States and the
decision to stop directly supporting the war on Yemen may have been the only good news items to
come out of Washington last week. The really bad news came when President Joe Biden
warned Russia that "the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia's
aggressive actions, interfering with our elections, cyber-attacks, poisoning its citizens, are
over." It was an empty threat full of innuendo that virtually guarantees four more years of
Russiagate or something like it. It was an odd statement considering that it has been
Washington doing all of the provoking during the Donald Trump administration, much of it
instigated by Democrats who are still looking for a scapegoat for the defeat of Hillary in
2016.
The mainstream media hasn't been reporting many second-tier stories because of the still
playing out double impeachment saga combined with the lingering debate over who actually won
the election. Whether Trump personally incited a riot or something worse depends on one's point
of view, but what is really sad to watch is the efforts being made by a "woke" Democratic Party
leadership and a frenzied media to destroy Trump's life and businesses even though he is no
longer in office, a revenge scenario that goes well beyond previous political vendettas. Worse
still, the attempts being made to render White House employees and Trump supporters
unemployable or even try to send them to jail based on convoluted interpretations of
legislation reflects a level of vindictiveness not seen since the Catiline Conspiracy in
Republican Rome.
Well, the incident on January 6 th wasn't exactly a replay of the storming of the
Bastille, but as it is all we have it will have to make do. Were those folks wandering around
inside the Capitol Building tourists who had gotten separated from their tour guide or were
they confused citizens from the Dakotas who had a couple of stamps remaining on their hunting
licenses allowing them to bag a Democrat or two? They would have been better advised to set up
a couple of feeder bait sites under the Rotunda loaded with Benjamins and the Congress-critters
would have arrived in droves. And that guy who stole Nancy Pelosi's podium only had to announce
that he was holding a Black Lives Matter meeting and good old Nancy would have arrived tout
suite on her knees with an African kente cloth stole draped around her neck. Alas,
we may never know the truth about what actually happened on that fateful day, but the
speculation will keep us going for months more.
There is a definite paucity of actual fact-based news that might make sense to a third
grader, particularly given the decline in American public education, which now only teaches
about the holocaust and racism. Consequently, I have fallen into the habit of saving links to
stories during the week and then deciding on the weekend which are worthy of special
recognition for being particularly ridiculous.
There were some really absurd articles last week. A particularly fascinating story describes
what is going on at the Pentagon, which is frantically sneaking more soldiers into Syria and
canceling any reduction in force in Afghanistan until the situation stabilizes, a policy move
by Biden that reverses one of the few good things that Trump initiated. Unfortunately, the
withdrawal from Afghanistan should take another twenty years or so to finish.
But the
really interesting development is the new mission of the U.S. Army, which will soon be
halting training and other bellicose activity to ease the transition into a full-time military
force dedicated to making sure that everyone observes diversity. It is a long overdue move that
the entire nation can be proud of, plus the U.S. will as a result be made safer from the
Chinese, Iranian and Russian threats. The tricky part is identifying those soldiers who think
racist thoughts, even if they never perform a racist act, because they are guilty of not
conforming to "woke world." They will have to be identified by special trained psychologists
before being dishonorably discharged and made unemployable as they are not fit to mix with
decent people.
Paul Kersey reports some of the details,
how the "Pentagon [has ordered] a 'stand down' in [the] next 60 Days" to identify and
address the problem of extremists in the military. It should be observed that soldiers who kill
civilians are not the extremists in question because killing is what soldiers are supposed to
do. It is instead "white people in the U.S. Military who display an insufficient loyalty to
Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Tolerance. [They] are [the] domestic enemy, and unworthy as
individual[s] of defending our nation against the only threat our elite have united to defeat:
that, of course, being whiteness."
And for those apostatizing white supremacist civilians who don't want to get left out when
the diversity train rolls into their town, the Democratic Party is
looking into setting up Truth Commissions to make sure that anyone who ever entertained a
racist thought or used the "N" word will not be missed.
Make no mistake, an army that really knows what is important is surely great news. It will
be an excellent return on the taxpayers' trillion dollars annual investment, particularly as
the Constitution was written by a bunch of slave holders and is no longer worth swearing an
oath of allegiance to. But perhaps of more interest to foreign policy wonks is what is going on
in some of the other Pentagon offices dedicated to finding new enemies so there will always be
a supply of wars to fight after everyone in Afghanistan and Syria is exterminated.
As telling other nations how to behave backed up by the 101 st Airborne division
has become a wonderful indoor board game in this age of Coronavirus-19, my favorite article for
the past week has to be the news that Honest Joe Biden has appointed yet another Zionist harpy
to his team of war planners in an apparent attempt to keep Nuland, Sherman, Haines, Rice, Power
and Neuberger company. Her name is Dana Stroul and she
will be running the Pentagon's Middle East Desk, making her the senior policy official
focused on that region. Indications are that her eagle eye will be fixed on those major
malefactors Iran and Syria.
Stroul has been whisked away from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP),
where she has been the Shelly and Michael Kassen Fellow in the Institute's Beth and David
Geduld Program on Arab Politics. WINEP is the think tank founded by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in an attempt to demonstrate that hatred of all of Israel's enemies
in the Middle East is somehow an American vital interest, so it is perhaps odd to consider that
the organization would even allow Arabs to have politics. Stroul had worked at the Pentagon and
had also co-chaired the Syria Study Group set up by Congress prior to landing at WINEP.
Stroul,
who believes that there is a threat to the U.S. from "Iranian nuclear ambitions and support
for terrorist groups throughout the region," also has had some interesting ideas about what
should be done to Syria, some of which was laid out in a final report that was presented to
Congress in September 2019 by the Syria Study Group.
The report states that "From the conflict's beginning in 2011 as a peaceful domestic
uprising, experts warned that President Bashar al-Assad's brutal response was likely to have
serious, negative impacts on U.S. interests. Given Syria's central location in the Middle East,
its ruling regime's ties to terrorist groups and to Iran, and the incompatibility of Assad's
authoritarian rule with the aspirations of the Syrian people, many worried about the conflict
spilling over Syria's borders The threats the conflict in Syria poses -- of terrorism directed
against the United States and its allies and partners; of an empowered Iran; of an aggrandized
Russia; of large numbers of refugees, displaced persons, and other forms of humanitarian
catastrophe; and of the erosion of international norms of war and the Western commitment to
them -- are sufficiently serious to merit a determined response from the United States. The
United States and its allies retain tools to address those threats and the leverage to promote
outcomes that are better for American interests than those that would prevail in the absence of
U.S. engagement. The United States underestimated Russia's ability to use Syria as an arena for
regional influence. Russia's intervention, beginning in 2015, accomplished its proximate aim --
the preservation of the regime in defiance of U.S. calls for Assad to 'go' -- at a relatively
low cost. Russia has enhanced its profile and prestige more broadly in the Middle East."
One immediately notes the incoherence of the argument being made. To make U.S. presence in
Syria palpable to the long-suffering American public, it is necessary to attempt to establish a
threat against the United States even though in this case there is none. And the repeated
citation of "interests" without credibly explaining what interests might compel invading and
occupying a foreign country is completely lacking in any detail. Stroul also several times
cites the heavy terrorist threat, ignoring the fact that the existing terrorists are being
sustained by Israel and by the United States, while President Bashar al-Assad has the
overwhelming support of most of the Syrian people. Reports are that Syrians are returning home
after a refugee crisis caused by the United States and its allies. And we all know that the
last refuge of a scoundrel is to play the Russian card, which Stroul does, as well as surfacing
that perennial demon Iran. U.S. support of Israeli bombing attacks are also just fine in her
opinion, even though they are a clear violation of the "international norms of war" that she
pretends to defend.
Stroul inevitably supports U.S.
retention and what she curiously refers to as "ownership" of the one third of Syria that is
"resource rich." That includes the Syrian oil producing region now occupied by U.S. troops as
well as by what she euphemizes as "Syrian Democratic Forces." She observes that it also
includes the country's best agricultural land, which, if denied to the government in Damascus,
could be used as leverage to bring about regime change. Starving Syrians are not Stroul's
concern so she consequently opposes any form of international relief or reconstruction funding
for the Syrian people and supports U.S. pressure on international lenders through the worldwide
banking system to deny Damascus any money to rebuild.
So, the prize for the truly awful story of the week goes to the appointment of this monster
daughter of AIPAC to head Pentagon planning for the Middle East, joining a sterling cast of
characters at State Department and in the intelligence community. Also, if one includes the
account of a diversified U.S. Army where soldiers will now be encouraged to snitch on each
other over privately held views, one has to ask "Can it get any worse?" Judging from Joe
Biden's list of appointments so far, it will, yes it will.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
As an ex-Vet and the son of a Korean War Vet let me boldly say that any White that enlists
in the military needs to have his or her head examined. I guess American Indian war hero Ira
Hayes HAD to serve back then with the draft and all, but no way should an American Indian
have been forced to fight for a nation that had treated him so badly. I would have sided with
Muhammad Ali in his refusal to fight for America back then. Ali grew up in a different era
and wasn't spoiled and catered to like all Blacks born in the mid 1950s to now. Right now,
the Whites in this country are being attacked in every way they turn just for having been
born with white skin. Whites are attacked daily in the streets by Blacks not to mention an
assortment of other "diversities." Maybe I am TRULY colorblind when it comes to right and
wrong which is totally opposite to the kind of thinking exhibited by our Jewish overlords and
Black racists. When it comes to RIGHT or WRONG, I, not (((them,))) see no color. With all the
Jewish and Black Privilege out there, I think it is high time they do the fighting. Of course
there are plenty of Blacks in the military because like poor Whites, it often comes down to
needing a job, nothing more or nothing less. I would always laugh when people would tell me,
"thank you for your service.?" What, I needed a job, man. Time for Shlomo to start moving up
the enlisted ranks since he likes fighting so much.
I would always laugh when people would tell me, "thank you for your service.?"
I myself cringe, but at least I like to think that I'm a bit less easily duped now.
Never again.
PS: Shlomo never was in the enlisted ranks in either the USSR or the USSA.
[In] an article written on
12th April, 1919, in a paper called The Communist, at Kharkov, by one M. Cohen :
"The great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews. There are
no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the
Committees, and in the Soviet organization as Commissars, the Jews are [38] gallantly
leading the masses. The symbol of Jewry has become the symbol of the Russian
proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the five-pointed star, which
in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry."
– Captain Achibald.H.Maule Ramsay, The Nameless War, p29.
Mr. Giraldi: At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think that it is vital that the truth
about 9-11 be brought to the forefront of the present discussion. While it is apparent, as
you have been noting so convincingly over recent times, that Israeli/Jewish interests have
been prevailing over what should be an independent US foreign policy that serves the United
States, we must, it seems to me, resurrect the pursuit of the truth about 9-11, which is that
it was a predominantly Israeli/Jewish operation, undertaken with absolutely no concern for
the fact that thousands of Americans would be killed thereby by their own government in order
to foster a narrative that the Arabs in the Middle East had to be subdued to save Western
civilization.
9-11 was characterized by all of the clever and malevolent false flag subterfuges that
also characterized the "coup plotting" that resulted in the fraudulent 2020 election, and all
of its horrible aftermath. It is, for example, quite clear from the evidence that has been
developed through the brave work of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth, so well
documented in the lengthy documentary by Massimo Mazzucco, entitled 9-11 The New Pearl
Harbor, and the writings of several French analysts detailed in Voltaire.net , that while Arab interests might well have had an
aspiration to do damage to the United States/Israel by attacking the World Trade Center, that
the plot was uncovered very early by American/Israeli authorities, who, instead of squelching
it, decided to piggyback on it as a perfect cover for "doing the attacks right" so that they
might elicit the sort of outrage that would put the United States in complete service
henceforth to the Israeli nation-wrecking project in the Middle East.
Among the things that seem apparent to any half way objective observer, are that the owner
of the buildings ( or the lease) on the World Trade Center was completely compliant with the
placement of explosives in the building via the so-called elevator repair project undertaken
by the fictitious front company called Urban Moving Systems out of New Jersey, with its
Israeli demolition experts; that the owner of the buildings insured them shortly before 9-11
against terrorist attack, and that he uncharacteristically stayed away from the buildings on
9-11, that he was Jewish (perhaps a merely coincidental attribute) , and that he cried
crocodile tears after the "murders" of 2000 people who were not in on the "fix" ("such a
shame," I believe he said, shortly before he collected his massive insurance settlement and
started planning for his replacement tower which would have "much better sight lines") .
There is obviously much more evidence than I can detail here, as to the utter fraudulence of
the entire official story. Suffice to say that the horrid and unjustifiable wars that were
unleashed in the Middle East subsequently by the United States were a direct result of the
9-11 fraud. The fact that the bastards got away with that one made it clear to them that
stealing a presidential election in plain sight would be child's play.
Also, if one includes the account of a diversified U.S. Army where soldiers will now be
encouraged to snitch on each other over privately held views, one has to ask "Can it get
any worse?" Judging from Joe Biden's list of appointments so far, it will, yes it will.
Both Trump and Biden are minions of the Deep State both totally support the Deep
State.
@Ugetit n in life
back then was my sex life and clubbing. I NEVER watched (((news))) and my world was very
small. I read the sports pages and drank beer. I enjoyed my youth to the fullest and I slept
like a baby. IF someone would have shown me a book about Hitler or the holocaust, or told me
about how we must stand with muh Israel, I would have given the same old indoctrinated
Pavlovian response that some moronic Whites still have in 2021. I WOULD have said that Hitler
was the most evilest evil man that ever ever walked the earth and that America must stand
with muh Israel no matter what. Oh well, that is life in the fast lane. haha.
Jewish dominance is everywhere. Are they truly qualified? Biden should be ashamed of
himself for his appointments by overlooking more qualified Americans and for selecting Kamala
Harris as his VP. There were many women far more qualified and far more tolerant than Ms.
Harris. 2022 will probably see the Democrats losing both houses. JFK wanted to issue Treasury
currency, stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons, and pulling out of Vietnam. His
assassination caused America's loss of American independence. In June 1967 when Israel
attacked an unarmed American ship of the line, USS Liberty (in international waters), Johnson
refused to allow U.S. carrier planes to splash attacking IDD planes (using napalm) and sink
their torpedo boats from firing torpedos into the USS Libert – adding to the death and
carnage already be inflicted on the defenseless U.S. ships and its sailors. LBJ was worried
about his Jewish constituency and how they might react. Israeli influence took a quantum leap
then and it keeps increasing. Trump was guilty but Biden will be more giving to this small
foreign and theocratic nation. Buchanan's Whose war? in the American Conservative was an
honest eye-opener. Since the Democrats like impeaching out of office president – why
not Johnson RIP?
The tricky part is identifying those soldiers who think racist thoughts, even if they
never perform a racist act, because they are guilty of not conforming to "woke world." They
will have to be identified by special trained psychologists before being dishonorably
discharged and made unemployable as they are not fit to mix with decent people.
The sick irony here is that Judaism can be described as a canon of "racist thought." So it
is racist Jews, crypto Jews and their lickspittle (the Chosen-Elect) who are enforcing this
"anti-racism" social-engineering program on the American people, but doing so to hide their
own racist Zionism and the quest to set up Israel as the moral authority of the planet;
indeed, the moral authority of the universe.
I guess the best defense is a good offense. I guess all people were created equal, but
some people are more equal than others.
Orwell was absolutely dead-on about the sick, warped, totalitarian character of the
Jewish-infiltrated Anglo elite. The Zionism at the center if it all didn't come into fruition
in his day, but he nailed it nonetheless.
Possibly the real motive is to get an army that will be willing to point guns at the
American population should things ever get to that point. They'll psychologically screen them
to make sure they won't identify too closely with the mass of Americans but will follow
orders. Their war fighting capabilities take a secondary consideration to that of shielding
an illegitimate regime. They may have big plans ahead in Syria and Iran and are getting ready
to make sure things don't come apart at home as in the Vietnam war. They're probably getting
the VA hospitals ready for a new influx down the road. Looks like we're on a crash course
with Syria, Iran and Russia. One incident, one false flag coming out of nowhere and here we
go.
Come on, DIET is a clever move for the army. They have a little problem with war crimes.
The ICC began an inquiry into Afghanistan war crimes years ago. There's no statute of
limitations on such universal jurisdiction crimes. Any UN member nation can prosecute or
extradite suspects. And treaty bodies of multiple binding treaties have adjured the USG to
impose command responsibility. It puts a crimp in AFRICOM, IMET, all sorts of army gravy
trains, not just on Blowing Shit Up.
The traditional US way of maintaining impunity for grave crimes is CIA's bad-apples
canard. Lock up a couple hillbillies. With DIET, Army has institutionalized CIA's bad-apples
ploy as a vague ideological taint. If they can tie war crimes to doctrinal impurity, then
they can call inveterate war criminals bad apples instead of special forces. It's not going
to work in the civilized world, but it will probably protect BMD commanders here at home.
Now then. DO killed inter lotsa alia a judge, an ex-attorney general, a Prime Minister of
Congo, a UN Secretary-General, a Prime Minister of Sweden, a legally sacrosanct diplomatic
envoy of Iran, numerous Russia diplomats, more than 3,000 workers in a New York skyscraper, a
US president, and 475,000 Americans (with banned biological weapons!) And you got away with
it all. If you guys really minded, you would take care of this Izzie fifth column toot sweet.
That you do not shows that it works for you.
"Diversifying" the military has a very clear advantage in terms of domestic control. A
Black lesbian will have little compunction in firing upon a group of white people that she is
told are "insurrectionists".
However, what is puzzling is how much less effective these "diversified" forces will be in
future wars on behalf of Israel. You would think that the oligarchs would want to keep the US
military as lethal as possible in support of their future global conquests. Perhaps they plan
two forces, one to battle white supremacists and "misinformation" domestically, and another
less diverse segment to wage war externally.
"Oh say, can you see! By Dawn's early light; a pro-dollar trade; that puts the bears to
flight?" Bloomberg Daybreak this morning boldly states "American exceptionalism is back"
(baby). Apparently better-than-expected data and corporate earnings and the prospects of fiscal
stimulus show the USA is still the global standout after all. As a result, bearish USD trades
touted for the first month of the year need to suddenly be unwound: EUR is now back below 1.20,
AUD is clinging to 0.76, and JPY is past 105.50, while as an EM proxy, MXN is back to 20.38 at
time of writing vs. 19.55 on January 21.
... ... ...
President Biden has called on the military in Myanmar to relinquish power after their recent
coup. What happens when they refuse? A signature criticism of the Obama foreign policy team was
its refusal to match US rhetoric (e.g., "pivot to Asia") with any substantive action (e.g., in
the South China Sea or Syria). The new team gave interviews before assuming office saying they
had learned these lessons. So what options with teeth does the US have for the generals in
Naypidaw to back their demand? Sanctions are meaningless for a group who rarely travel abroad
and whom can look to China for support if needed, despite their coolness towards Beijing to
date.
This underlines the need for any top dog (or cat) to build up a pack (or clowder). Here
again we see problems. Many articles have been written about the new US administration's call
for the EU to stand alongside it to create new global frameworks favourable to the West (and by
extension for USD) and not China (and CNY); and about how the EU is not willing to step up to
that plate because of French exceptionalism and German Merkel-cantilism. Macron now says
the EU should not gang up on China with the US : " This kind of common front against China
risks pushing Beijing to lower its cooperation on issues like combatting climate change, and
exacerbating its aggressive behaviour in Asia, including in the South China Sea, " he says. So
will the US response then have to be Trumpian and EUR negative, like last time? If not, then
what exactly?
Of course, the previous administration had been building bridges to India, which has its own
issues with China. However, this relationship is still in its early stages, and India has
traditionally looked to Russia for muscle, a role Moscow would be happy to play again. In that
regard, the White House backing large anti-government protests in New Delhi against an
agricultural reform programme ostensibly to the US's liking, and criticizing the government for
cutting off the internet to try to disrupt them, is unlikely to help build bridges: indeed,
India has already drawn comparisons to the events of 6 January in the US Capitol, showing the
US is not as exceptional as it likes to project it is. These kind of shifts can matter, even if
this is just one small step on a much longer journey (and USD trend channel).
Meanwhile, the Aussie government (which has also never and will never target house prices,
"just land, bricks, mortar, etc.") might be wondering what the US will help do about a report
that
a Chinese company is planning to build a new city on a Papua New Guinea island near Australia's
northern border . 'New Daru City' allegedly includes an industrial zone, seaport, business
and commercial zone, along with a resort and residential area. Will Canberra regard this as a
market-driven response to the well-known Chinese demand for lifestyle residences in the vibrant
cultural hub that is the PNG hinterland, or as a Bond-villain project to develop a port just
200km from their Northern Territory? The PNG Prime Minister himself says he is "unaware" of
this proposal(!) Yes, this may well not come to pass; but one can again see the paving stones
being prepared for alternative paths for currencies like AUD, USD, and CNY (to say nothing of
PNG's Kina) to travel over the course of the 2020s.
Meanwhile, the US can at least rely on the UK, as usual, where yesterday saw regulators ban
China's CGTN TV news service, and the Telegraph also reports that three Chinese spies posing as
journalists have just been expelled from the country. Somehow, along with the whole BNO
passports issue, this is not likely to help ensure the "golden era" of Sino-British relations
promised under previous UK leadership.
But will it ensure a golden era of Bido-BoJo relations? That is another path as yet
untrod.
Happy Friday! "We love it so much, I think you do too."
On January 19th, the US Senate held confirmation hearings for Joe Biden's Secretary of State
nominee Antony Blinken. Blinken has a reputation on both sides of the aisle for being
exceptionally qualified for the job of America's top diplomat, which is surprising considering
he was on the wrong side of every major foreign policy blunder of the last 20 years ;
Iraq, Libya, and Syria .
When Senator Rand Paul
asked Antony Blinken what lessons he has learned from his disastrous foreign policy record
in Libya and Syria, Blinken replied that after "some hard thinking" he's proud that he has done
"everything we possibly can to make sure that diplomacy is the first answer, not the last
answer, and that war and conflict is our last resort."
Of course war is the last resort. Even the most hawkish war criminals would agree that war
is the last resort. But the question is, war is the last resort to accomplish what? If war is
the last resort to get a country to fully capitulate to Washington's demands then eventually
the US will be at war with everyone. To Blinken, war as the last resort can only be understood
in the same way a mugger considers shooting his victim as a last resort to stealing their
wallet.
Blinken displayed his hubris a few minutes later when he said, "The door should remain open"
for Georgia to join NATO under the justification of curbing Russian aggression .
Rand Paul informed Blinken, "This would be adding Georgia, that's occupied [by Russia], to
NATO. Under Article 5, then we would go to war ."
Senator Paul is right. According to Washington, Russia has been
occupying 20 percent of Georgia since 2008. Under the principle of collective defense in
Article 5 of NATO, the US would be obligated to treat Russia's occupation of the country of
Georgia the same way the US would treat a Russian occupation of the US state of Georgia. That
sounds like a recipe for war. But don't worry, peaceniks, Antony Blinken has assured us that
war is the last resort!
Blinken's framing of the issue exposes his disingenuous approach. Russian aggression is a
term used by Washington insiders to describe a Russian reaction to western aggression. Blinken
knows that the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia was not Russian aggression, he calls it that
because it suits his agenda and the American press is dependably ignorant enough to not ask
questions.
In the 2008 war, Georgia
was the aggressor against the South Ossetians, a people who are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and
who have never --
not even for one day -- considered themselves a part of Georgia. The Ossetians have a
history of Russian
partiality ; they were among the first ethnic groups in the region to join the Russian
Empire in the 19th century and the USSR in the 1920s. Today, ethnic Ossetians straddle both
sides of the current Russian border, and they are more aligned with the Russian government than with the
Georgian government.
When Georgia gained sovereignty from the former Soviet Union in 1991, South Ossetia declared
its independence. In response, Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia, initiating an armed
conflict that killed more than
2,000 people . In 1992, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Sochi between Georgia, Russia
and South Ossetia, which created a
tripartite peacekeeping force led by Russia. Although the international community never
acknowledged South Ossetia's independence, they have enjoyed political autonomy since the 1992
Sochi agreement.
The Sochi agreement held up until Georgia's ultra-nationalist President Mikheil Saakashvili
came to power in the 2003 western-backed
bloodless " Rose
Revolution " coup-d'etat. The pro-western President Saakashvili advocated joining the EU
and NATO, and insisted on asserting Georgian rule over South
Ossetia. U.S. President George Bush
supported the new Georgian president's effort to bring Georgia into NATO, which for Russia
would mean bringing a hostile military up to its border. In 2006, President Saakashvili offered
South Ossetia autonomy in exchange for a political settlement with Georgia. A
referendum was held, and the South Ossetian people overwhelmingly reaffirmed their desire for
independence from Georgia.
In August, 2008, After exchanging artillery fire with South Ossetia,
Georgia invaded South Ossetia's capital city of Tskhinvali, killing
1,400 civilians and
18 Russian peacekeepers . Georgia's attack triggered a Russian invasion into South Ossetia
and Abkhazia (another breakaway region) to restore stability and protect peacekeeping
forces.
Russia is by no means innocent -- they used
disproportionate force attacking targets inside Georgia -- but only a Russophobic shill
would conclude that this war was somehow caused by Russian aggression. The idea that Russia had
no business intervening is laughable. Under the
1992 Sochi agreement , Russia took charge of a peacekeeping coalition to help prevent
exactly the scenario that happened in the summer of 2008.
If George Bush had succeeded in bringing Georgia into NATO, the United States may have been
dragged into war with Russia in 2008. Antony Blinken claims that NATO membership deters Russian
aggression, but does he really believe that Russia would have been deterred from intervening to
protect its own peacekeeping force? Does Blinken believe that Georgia -- backed by the U.S.
military -- would have acted more cautiously in South Ossetia, or is it more likely they would
have been bolder?
It's undeniable that it is in Russia's best interest to have pro-Russian countries on its
borders. But pretending as if Russia is going to march into Tbilisi and reabsorb the entire
country of Georgia into Russia is a level of paranoia that should disqualify anyone from having
an opinion on the subject. The military conflict in Georgia is about the two breakaway regions
and their right to self determination. Russia's self interest happens to align with the wishes
of the people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
By supporting Georgia, America -- the champion of democracy and self determination -- has
adopted the position that South Ossetians didn't really mean to repeatedly choose independence
when given the option. This is a situation where America's professed values are diametrically
opposed to its policy of countering Russian influence everywhere on the map.
Antony Blinken should pause to consider if America's policy objectives are worth fighting a
war for. Is it worth confronting Russia in South Ossetia? Was it worth confronting Russia over
Crimea and the Donbas in
Ukraine ? Is it a good idea to withdraw from the INF
Nuclear Treaty and the
Open Skies Treaty ? Should we have spent the last 30 years marching NATO -- a military
alliance hostile to Russia -- right up to the doorsteps of
Russia ? Is any of this really making us safer?
Blinken has bought into his own propaganda. To Blinken, regardless of the stubborn details
of history, every conflict on Russia's border is simply Russian aggression. Washington's
solution is the expansion of NATO, which Russia describes as "
NATO encirclement. " This is an unacceptable military threat to Russia, who has
a deep distrust of western intentions due to a long history of western invasions into Russia.
Antony Blinken still lives in a bipolar world in which the United States and Russia are
existential threats to each other's existence. Every conflict and every alliance is only viewed
through the lens of the New Cold War crusade against Russia. This maniacal crusade could thrust
America in the unthinkable abyss of nuclear war.
Rand Paul got his answer, Antony Blinken learned nothing from all his mistakes! The danger
isn't merely resorting to war too early, the danger is in sticking our noses in conflicts that
we have no business being in. War should be the last resort to defending America's people and
it's homeland from foreign invasion; it should not be the last resort to enforcing America's
utopian vision on the world, and it certainly shouldn't be the last resort to prevent an ethnic
group in the South Caucasus -- that almost no American has ever heard of -- from the right to
self-determination.
Kenny MacDonald is a former Navy SEAL and Afghanistan War veteran. He is currently pursuing
a bachelor's degree in history. Youtube Channel . Medium . Facebook .
6 Warning Signs from Biden's First Week in Office The "progressive" candidate praised as
a "woke bloke" seems to be carrying on where all his authoritarian Imperialist predecessors
left off Kit Knightly
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the
recently "elected" administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION
PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity
passes or the like) was just a "conspiracy theory", the paranoid fantasy of fringe "covidiots".
All the way back in December, when they were
getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can't do basic maths .
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law,
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
(including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant
international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic
versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden's cabinet is praised as the "most diverse" in history, but will hiring a few non-white
people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn't look like
it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland , a neocon warmonger and
one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan , another neocon
warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the
Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken , is also an inveterate US
Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden's pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this
role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of "progressive" voice int
his cabinet. He's a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the
board of Raytheon Technologies , an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As "diverse" as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender there is most certainly no
"diversity" of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that's
already been displayed in
3. IRAQ
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the
war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump's
more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse
that decision.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to
take its military off their soil , so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically
there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them
before.
4. AFGHANISTAN
Turns out the US can't withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal
with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to "reviewing"
this deal . Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden's admin wanted:
to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any
resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place".
As a great man once
said , nothing someone says before the word "but" really counts. The US will not be
withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will
simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist
attacks.
5. AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden's "diverse" team
will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United
States,
unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the
President , telling Trump they had followed his orders but not withdrawing a single man.
This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a
joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a
vocal critic of the decision to withdraw , claiming it gave ISIS a "new lease of life".
Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was
seen entering Syria from Iraq
.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the
inauguration . They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned
from Nancy Pelosi's desk it was clear where it was all going.
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down
approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a
bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for
algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The "crack down on social media" part, because the anti-Domestic
Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called
"misinformation".
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to
"rein in" the media :
We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just
spew disinformation and misinformation,"
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John
Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
They're casting a wide net. Expect "extremist", "bigot" and "racist" to be just a few of the
words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. "Conspiracy theorist"
will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the "anyone who disagrees with us is
literally insane" model. With many articles actually talking about "de-programming" Trump
voters. The Atlantic suggests "mental
hygiene" would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming
that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that "de-radicalise" "conspiracy
theorists" who are on the "spectrum
of radicalisation" .
*
As I said at the beginning, it's been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his
biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent
and strict clampdowns on "misinformation".
Blinken does not seem to have repented from his fundamentalist belief in American
imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
Barring an earthquake in Washington, Antony Blinken is set to become the new U.S. Secretary
of State and America's top diplomat. The youthful and telegenic Blinken (58) takes over from
Mike Pompeo who was America's representative to the world under the last Trump
administration.
The contrast could not be more stark. In place of Pompeo's thuggish, rough-edged style,
Blinken has the appearance of consummate diplomat. He's fluent in French owing to a European
education, he's urbane and sophisticated and comes from a family which has diplomacy in its
genes. His father was an ambassador to Hungary and an advisor to President John F Kennedy. An
uncle was ambassador to Belgium.
Blinken has Hungarian and Russian Jewish ancestry. His mother remarried a Polish-American
Jewish survivor of the Nazi holocaust. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate this week,
Blinken
told the story of how his stepfather escaped from a Nazi death march in Bavaria and was
eventually rescued by an American tank driven by an African-American officer.
That story has shaped Blinken's worldview of America's prestige and international role. He's
a proponent of U.S. military interventionism with a presumption of moral duty. He's an advocate
of America working with European allies and upholding the transatlantic alliance – in
contrast to Trump's boorish America First sloganeering. Understandably, Blinken is imbued with
an unshakable belief in "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" as a world leader.
The Senators at his confirmation hearing this week
swooned as Blinken spoke. He's certain to be confirmed as the new Secretary of State in the
coming days. That's because he is seen to be perfect for the task of restoring America's
international image which has been so badly tarnished under Trump and his grumpy gofer Pompeo.
The Europeans will lap up Blinken and his transatlantic romanticism.
Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with "humility and
confidence", which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this "quiet
American" is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the "world's policeman".
If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national security
advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken rose to become
deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama administration. In those roles
he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which turned out to be utterly
disastrous.
He was a big proponent of U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the
toppling and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. That intervention along with other NATO powers has left
a ruinous legacy not only for Libya but for North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.
Blinken was also a point-man in Obama's intervention in Syria where the U.S. (and other NATO
powers) supplied weapons to anti-government militants. The so-called "rebels" were in fact
myriad terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists. Up to half a
million people have been killed in the decade-long Syrian war and much of that blood is on
America's hands from its de facto support for terror gangs. Maybe Blinken genuinely thought he
was supporting "pro-democracy rebels". But even if we give him the benefit of doubt, the upshot
is still a disaster of American interventionism.
Another catastrophic consequence of Blinken's policymaking is Yemen. Under his direction,
the Obama administration backed the Saudi war on its southern neighbor beginning in March 2015
and continuing to this day. Yemen has become the worst humanitarian crisis in the world with
millions facing starvation amid Saudi aerial bombardment carried out with U.S. warplanes and
logistics.
The new Biden administration has indicated it will withdraw military support for Saudi
Arabia in its war on Yemen. But that doesn't absolve the U.S., and Blinken in particular, for
having created the horrendous quagmire from which it is belatedly trying to extricate itself
from.
What's rather perplexing, however, is that Blinken does not seem to have repented from his
fundamentalist belief in American imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
During his Senate hearings, he
showed little regret about America's illegal bombing of Libya and its arming of jihadists
in Syria.
He described the world with the conventional brainwashed American ideology as being a place
where China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are enemies that must be confronted. He also
told Senators he was in favor of increasing supplies of lethal weaponry to the Ukraine and
its rabidly anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Recall that it was the Obama administration which
instigated a coup d'état in Kiev against an elected president in February 2014. The new
regime was and is dominated by far-right nationalists who laud past links to Nazi Germany. If
Blinken has his way the war against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine will escalate and could
ignite a bigger confrontation between Russia and the U.S.
One of the hallmarks of the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev is its espousal of Neo-Nazi
traditions and in particular antisemitic hatred.
Given Antony Blinken's own Jewish ancestry and his own intimate connection to the Nazi
holocaust, you do have to question his competence if he becomes America's foreign policy
leader. His boss President Joe Biden has fondly lionized Blinken as a "superstar" of diplomacy.
Superficially perhaps, he has finesse and intelligence. But in much the same basic way of
adhering to American imperialism, Blinken is as crude and thuggish as his predecessor Pompeo.
He just projects a more plausible look and sound, which is most desirable as a moral cover for
America's criminal imperialism.
Blinken is
known to self-deprecate his "insatiable habit" for making up bad puns. For example, on one
occasion when he was addressing an audience on policy regarding the Arctic, he began by joking
he would be "breaking the ice". Given his ability to pursue destructive dead-end policies, he
might therefore appreciate the moniker "Secretary of State Tony Blinkered".
In a matter of hours, Biden's key national security people -- Antony Blinken as secretary of
state, Avril Haines as director of national intelligence, and Lloyd Austin as defense secretary
-- gave us a remarkably fulsome idea of what we are in for these next four years.
Haines and Austin, neither of whose records are to be admired, are at bottom functionaries
who were nominated and swiftly confirmed because they do what they are told and do not think
too much -- always a career-advancer in Washington.
It is instead Blinken, who is said to enjoy some kind of
"mind-meld" with Biden, that we must consider carefully. (Such a meld must be odd
terrain.)
Blinken's Senate
testimony last Tuesday sprawled over four hours. It is best to scrutinize his remarks while
seated in a chair with sturdy armrests, ideally to calm one's nerves with a pot of chamomile
tea.
Seen or read as a whole, those four hours gave us an extraordinary display of how empire
works and how it prolongs itself. One by one, Blinken's senatorial interlocutors told him in so
many words, "Son, this is what you need to say if you want our confirmation. We want you to
endorse our commitment to aggression, to unlawful interventions, to 'regime change' ops, to
merciless sanctions, and altogether to the empire. But you must make it look nice. Make it look
thoughtful and complicated and considered."
July 14, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden, right, and Deputy Secretary of State Antony
Blinken. (Air Force, Christopher Hubenthal)
I am convinced, having endured the entire C–Span recording, that what I watched was
sheer ritual. Blinken won the Senate's support and now succeeds the shockingly bovine Mike
Pompeo at State. He will do so, however, with the élan and faux sophistication
our nakedly bankrupt foreign policy now requires if the American pantomime is to be sustained
another four years.
Among Blinken's many rather sad-to-witness "Yes sirs," two standout: his finely chiseled
endorsement of Pompeo's reckless assassination a year ago of Qassem Soleimani, Iran's revered
military commander ("Taking him out was the right thing to do"), and his approval of the Trump
administration's decision to send lethal arms to the manically corrupt regime in Kiev
("Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine," when the Obama
administration, from which he comes, did not.)
Late last year, Blinken
appeared on "Intelligence Matters," the podcast run by Michael Morrell, the coup-mongering
former deputy director at the Central Intelligence Agency and now -- of course -- a regular
commentator on the televisions news networks. In their exchange, the two took up the question
of our "forever wars" and Biden's well-advertised commitment to ending them. Here is a snippet
from Blinken's remarks:
"As for ending the forever wars, large-scale deployment of large, standing U.S. forces in
conflict zones with no clear strategy should and will end under his [Biden's] watch. But we
also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless wars with large-scale,
open-ended deployment of U.S. forces with [sic], for example, discreet, small-scale
sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces to support local actors. In ending the
endless wars we have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brushstroke."
This is what we are in for these coming years, the hyper-rational irrationality of the
middling technocrat. There will be adjustments at the margin, reconsiderations of method. There
will be no consideration whatsoever of America's hegemonic objectives -- of the imperial
project.
Blinken's testimony reflected these bitter truths start to finish.
Changes to the Iran Deal
July 14, 2015: President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, announcing the signing
of the Iran-nuclear agreement. (White House)
Of the various questions the new secretary of state took up during his confirmation
hearings, Iran is the most pressing. Senator Bob Menendez, Blinken's interlocutor in this case,
insisted that yes, the U.S. wants to rejoin the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs,
but only if this includes prohibitions against Tehran's "destabilizing activities" and a
missile program that Iran justly considers essential to its security.
An honest, clear-eyed diplomat who wanted to get somewhere with Tehran would have rejected
the very frame of Menendez's line of inquiry, with its references to "support for terrorism"
and "funding and feeding its proxies." But Blinken read his cues and tucked right in:
"The president-elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance we would, too, but
we would use that as a platform to seek a longer, stronger agreement and also, as you have
pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's
destabilizing activities. This would be the objective."
This is sheer charade. Blinken knows as well as anyone else that the added conditions the
Biden regime will require before rejoining the agreement -- an end to Iran's ballistic missile
programs and its support for the Syrian government against Islamists and the illegal U.S.
incursion -- effectively cancel all chances that the U.S. will rejoin the accord.
I
predicted in this space shortly after Biden was elected that he and his foreign policy
people only pretended to be serious about reviving the nuclear agreement with Iran. Blinken's
testimony confirms this.
Over the weekend The Times of Israel , citing Channel 12 television,
reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sending Yossi Cohen, chief of Mossad and
a close confidant, to Washington to "set out terms" for any revival of the nuclear deal. Israel
purports to "set out terms," and Biden will receive this spook? This is getting completely
unserious. Completely.
On China, Russia, and Venezuela: Blinken was putty in the hands of the Foreign Relations
Committee's across-the-board hawks. A two-fronted new Cold War across both oceans -- Sinophobia
and Russophobia all at once -- is to be our reality these next four years.
Over the weekend, to be noted, the American Embassy in Moscow had the gall to broadcast
routes protesters could take to demonstrations in various Russian cities to dispute Alexei
Navlany's arrest . A good start.
Marco Rubio, the coup-loving senator from Florida, wanted to know if Blinken thought the
U.S. should continue backing Juan Guaidó, the buffoon Rubio and Pompeo puffed up as
Venezuela's "interim leader" as part of a failed coup operation a couple of years ago.
Blinken:
"I very much agree with you, senator, first of all with regard to a number of the steps
that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guaidó and
seeking to increase pressure on the regime . We need an effective policy that can restore
Venezuela to democracy, and how can we best advance that ball? Maybe we need to look at how
we more effectively target the sanctions that we have ."
Grim, grim times lie ahead if Blinken runs State as he promised the Senate he would.
There are those among us who look for shafts of light. People I greatly respect (some,
anyway) thought it was good news when Biden named William Burns, a career foreign service
officer, to head the CIA. At last diplomacy, not unlawful interventions!
Over the weekend, there were reports
that Biden will review -- not more at this point -- the designation of Yemen's Houthis as
terrorists, a label Pompeo affixed as he emptied his desk last week. Finally, we will stop
supporting the Saudis' savagery!
People believe what they need to believe these days, I find, and belief overrides cognition
in many such cases. I caution these people. At bottom Blinken demonstrated for us that no one
who purports to alter our imperial course will ever be allowed to hold high office. For people
such as Blinken, it is merely a question of wielding influence without having any.
This is where Americans live -- in a crumbled republic no longer capable of changing.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
John Allen aka Ol' Hippy , January 26, 2021 at 12:16
I'm 66, almost 67, and will, most likely, never see any real peace from the US government.
A big portion of the economy is based on imperialist actions and the manufacture of conflicts
around the globe mainly to keeps the arms makers in business. Or simply, war. And no, there
is no nation willing to risk the wrath of the US government by trying to halt this insane
posture of aggression, it's just too big and has a momentum all its own. Biden will continue
unabated this absurd, insanely expensive machine to its eventual implosion in the near
future. All the parts of the fall of the economy are in place, all that's needed is some ill
defined tipping point to be crossed. Perhaps, a war with Iran?
"Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with 'humility and
confidence', which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this 'quiet
American' is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the 'world's policeman'.
"If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
"Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national
security advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken
rose to become deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama
administration. In those roles he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which
turned out to be utterly disastrous."
The once upon a time manufactured aura of Virtue projected by the Outlaw US Empire that
was swallowed by so many naïve nations has vanished with nothing other than its stark
ugliness as a replacement. Refusal to see that reality is what Xi just referred to again as
"arrogance" which puts Blinken into the same ideological camp as Pompeo. As Global Times notes
, if the Outlaw US Empire's attitude's not going to change, than why should China's as
Pompeo's constant lying is replaced by Psaki's:
"When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question Monday about US-China
relations, she said that 'China is growing more authoritarian at home and more assertive
abroad,' adding that China 'is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts [US]
technological edge, and threatens [US] alliances and [US] influence in international
organizations.' She also noted that Washington is 'starting from an approach of patience as
it relates to [its] relationship with China.'"
The editor's response to such inanity:
"Psaki's statement shows that the Biden administration's view and characterization of
China is virtually identical to those of the Trump administration. Psaki stressed that 'We're
in a serious competition with China. Strategic competition with China is a defining feature
of the 21st century,' reflecting that the Biden administration only cares about a "new
approach" to holding China accountable."
And Psaki's words are the same as Blinken's, which were the same as Pompeo's and Trump's.
In other words, the hole digging by the Outlaw US Empire in its relations with the rest of
the world will continue, which will cause further deterioration of its domestic Great
Depression 2.0. Yesterday I posted a comment that highlighted Putin's expounding on the
further enhancement of the educational component of Russia's Social Contract that is
impossible for Navalny's backers to match. On the previous thread, a good comparison was made
between the Yeltsin years and the ongoing drowning of the Outlaw US Empire. The Reset that's
in the works isn't the one envisioned by Global Neoliberals like Klaus Schwab of the
WEF/Davos crew. It's what Xi spoke of yesterday that I commented upon and Escobar reported on
today. The Winds of Change are blowing again, but there's a gaping hole in the USA's wind
sock so it can't see in which direction it's blowing.
blinken is bad news.. i think that is very obvious from a superficial read on him.. the usa
can't get out of the ditch it has made for itself.. nothing is gonna change...
'liberal interventionism' has always been the hallmark of the US Liberal Class and its
foreign policy Establishment, especially since at least Wilson's jumping into WWI.
Has the US ever not intervened in Latin America whenever it felt like it or thought its
"interests" were at stake?
I think Caitlan J. has a good grasp on what to expect from the Biden war mongering crowd
that has recently moved into DC once again:
"....Trump's base has been forcefully pushing the narrative that the previous president
didn't start any new wars, which while technically true ignores his murderous actions like
vetoing the bill to save Yemen from U.S.-backed genocide and actively blocking aid to its
people, murdering untold tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, rolling
out many world-threatening Cold War escalations against Russia, engaging in insane
brinkmanship with Iran, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the
previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians, and reducing military
accountability for those airstrikes....
....Rather than a throwback to "new wars" and the old-school ground invasions of the Bush
era, the warmongering we'll be seeing from the Biden administration is more likely to look
like this. More starvation sanctions. More proxy conflicts. More cold war. More coups. More
special ops. More drone strikes. More slow motion strangulation, less ham-fisted overt
warfare...."
---
Simply put, more small scale wars/ops mostly by proxy, more support for local wankers
(like Guaido in Venezuela, who has incredibly little popular support), and more of these
killing sanctions, which are especially pernicious to the civilian populations in vulnerable
countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Venezuela, etc.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
"... Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported , Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service." ..."
"... We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone. ..."
"... Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by Washington. ..."
"... Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ." ..."
While the saccharine continues to ooze from the mainstream media for the incoming Biden
Administration, the real iron fist of what will be the Biden foreign policy is starting to
materialize. As if on cue, major bombings in Baghdad – by ISIS remember them? –
have
opened the door for the Biden Administration to not only cancel President Trump's troop
drawdown from Iraq but to actually begin sending troops back into Iraq.
Is this to be Iraq War 4.0? 3.7? 5.0? Anybody's guess.
If Biden uses this sudden – and convenient – unrest in Iraq as a trigger to
return US troops (and bombs), it should not surprise anyone. As Professor Barbara Ransby points
out in this video , Biden did much
more to make the disastrous 2003 attack on Iraq happen than just vote "yes" on the
authorization to use force. As Professor Ransby reminds us, Biden used the full power of his
position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the Senate approved
George W. Bush's lie-based war on Iraq. Biden prevented any experts who challenged the "Saddam
has WMDs and he's about to use them" narrative from being heard by Members of Congress,
guaranteeing that only the pro-war narrative was heard.
As much as Bush or Cheney, Biden owns the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which killed a million
Iraqi civilians. And he may well be taking us back.
One figure in the Biden Administration who will play a pivotal role in returning the US to
its hyper-interventionism in the Middle East is Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken . As
a Biden Senate staffer in 2003, he helped the then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman put
together a pro-war coalition in the Democratic Party to support President Bush's Republican
push for invasion.
Later on Blinken was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, where he successfully made
the case that destroying both Libya and Syria were fantastic ideas. Both countries drowned in
the Obama Administration's "liberation" bloodbath and neither country has recovered from the
"democracy" brought by Washington, but being a neocon foreign policy ideologue means never
having to say you're sorry.
And Blinken isn't.
Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported ,
Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be
very fortunate to have them in public service."
We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has
blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you
promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his
addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone.
Paul reminded the Secretary of State nominee that his only criticism of the Syria "regime
change" plan was that the US did not successfully overthrow Assad. But the US was using
jihadist proxies to overthrow the
secular Assad , so what does this say about Blinken's judgement?
"The lesson of these wars," said
Paul , is that 'regime change' doesn't work!"
Paul added:
Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again it's a
disaster.
You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger.
Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of
the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves
on the wrong end of a
noose or a
knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by
Washington.
Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of
interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by
Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ."
*
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.
"... Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism." ..."
ByGlenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global
Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed
it betrayed Washington's leadership position in the so-called "liberal international order."
Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden's administration applying a radical
ideological foreign policy?
A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia and a noted 'Russiagate' conspiracy theorist, indicates
what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul's article, 'How to Contain Putin's Russia', makes a case for a containment
policy.
Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?
To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment
policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan's advocacy for a "patient but firm and vigilant containment"
against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.
It would have made more sense to
quote Kennan when
he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: "there was no reason for this
whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves."
Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting "Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now
we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime."
Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully
blame Russia.
Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable
ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism,
atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders
with the adversary.
The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide.
However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul
cautions against Putin's nefarious conservative ideology committed to "Christian, traditional family values" that threatens
the liberal international order.
The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives
and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international
order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by
Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms
to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.
An American ideological project
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a threat to the liberal international order.
Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.
After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should
be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional
principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative
and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility
to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine.
Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed
to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give
hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails
to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other
peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to
recover their liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the
fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with "democracy promotion"
and "humanitarian interventionism" when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that
democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes
in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of
liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between
Putin and the Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly
does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance," which does not make much sense after
the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as
it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for
interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations"
that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US
government must counter this by establishing new "non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils
of their government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace.
Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed
defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be
bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance,
while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into
peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist,
believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
"... "Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad. He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and values", or, simply, chaos may follow! ..."
"... At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially in cyberspace." ..."
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking.
At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
@follyofwar
hat Trump did not, and for which Trump deserves credit: NOT attacking Iran; NOT starting a
war in the Donbass region of Ukraine; and NOT escalating the attack on Syria to the point
where Syria collapses and Al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists take over (which is what Israel has
openly said they would prefer to Assad!) And I am NOT a 'Trumper', think he was a disgusting
zionist boot-licker, and that he didn't do diddly squat of what he promised to do for the
average American, but sure kissed Wall Street's bottom. The problem is, Bidet may be worse,
if his past is any indication.
Regardless, the next four years are gonna be ugly, really ugly, foreign policy-wise, I'm
afraid ..
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking. At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken on
his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa:
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism," Sen.
Paul argued.
"Like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton you've been a supporter of military intervention in
the Middle East from the Iraq war to the Libyan war to the Syrian civil war..." he introduced
in his Tuesday questoning of Blinken.
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001 and his support for the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Kentucky
congressman said was a major disaster that paved the way for a stronger Iran.
The congressman argued that Blinken continued to push regime change in Syria, which he said
was a significant blunder, especially with the amount of money spent training "moderate rebel
forces" .
Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money.
He would go on to question why Blinken would support the Syrian opposition groups on the
ground, as he pointed out the most powerful fighters are those from the jihadist groups like
the Al-Nusra Front .
"Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again... it's a
disaster. The lesson of these wars is that regime change doesn't work!" Paul said.
"You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger," Paul added while
lambasting the US strategy of going after Iran while Iraq is still weakened by Bush's regime
change war there.
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
Blinken claimed in response that he wasn't supportive of a full-scale 'Iraq-style' regime
change war in Syria while vaguely claiming that he's done "deep thinking" and reflection on the
issue . Blinken never repudiated the policy of regime change in the Middle East, however.
Sen. Paul then shifted his attention to NATO, which he said Blinken was trying to strengthen
for the purpose of combatting Russia. The senator said Blinken's policy on NATO would lead to
war with Russia, which the latter responded would have the opposite effect.
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
The Luftwaffe 8 hours ago
We will see a new major war started by this administration within two years
Cloud9.5 7 hours ago
We have to do something to reduce the population.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
You mean in addition to the 103.5% effective covid vaccine?
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
On duckduckgo.com search > "Med
Cram".
On You Tube: Dr. Seheult's med school video lecture "Vitamin D and Covid 19: The Evidence for
Prevention and " (5.3m views)
Vitamin D3 is sold over the counter.
Karma is coming for Covid.
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Hopefully it's also coming for the thieving liars who pushed this cheap PsyOp (Pompeo is
one, Fauci is another).
bigjim 3 hours ago
I guess Bibi mis-spelled Rand's email address on the memo.
boattrash 2 hours ago
103.5%... that sounds like the voter turnout in all the blue cities.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
If one could take all the people in the world and cram them into a city as dense as Tokyo,
it would cover the area of Rhode Island.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
BS
Tokyo pop density=16121.8 /sq.mi.
Rhode Island = 1045 sq.mi.
At that density RI would hold 16.8 million people.
At the average annual population growth rate of the last century there will be 1 sq.m. of
land per person in only 750 years. That includes all mountains, frozen tundra, jungles and
deserts... now "get off my lawn".
bearwinkle 6 hours ago
Sure, that's why Xiden is allowing millions of immigrants to invade our borders.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
I thought it might be like today...
Hatterasjohn 7 hours ago
Anyone crazy enough to join ,or be in the military , is out of his friggin mind.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Or likes killing civilians. Don't overlook the psychopaths.
headslapper 7 hours ago
and that will be the end of the US.
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
How about the Regime Change just effected right HERE in the good old USA?
Im1ru12 4 hours ago
Exactly - "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul
continued
That's what they do - they just did it here
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
USAllDay 7 hours ago
I'd take Assad over Biden.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
Assad has more integrity in his shoe than Biden has accumulated in the past 50 years.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
If the deep state hates Assad, then I know he must be legitimately a good guy deep down.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
BINGO!
Brutlstrudl 6 hours ago
It seems that after each election, the USA becomes more of a contrarian indicator
SERReal1 7 hours ago
I agree. At least Assad puts his country first and gives the finger to the Deep State.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
Plus a secular government that respects the rights of all religious minorites. Sets a bad
example for all the intolerant apartheid states in the region.
Hopefully the "Assad Must Go" curse gets the entire Biden Administration sooner rather than
later.
aloha_snakbar 8 hours ago
Who cares...Uncle Scam lost the tiny bit of credibility he had on 01/20/2021. RIP
America....
eatapeach 7 hours ago
I care. Here's yet another Israel-first douchenozzle getting put in a very, very high
position. And acting like it'd be any different with Trump at the helm is severe folly.
(Pompeo)
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Sorry bro but anyone with eyes hasn't thought the US credible for more than a century.
4Celts 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Pardon , but the " cost " to the military shouldn't be the top/only argument. What happened
to morally/ ethically wrong ?
SwmngwShrks 7 hours ago
"All wars are Bankers' wars." -Smedley Butler
white horse 7 hours ago
Moral is dead long ago, replaced by new fake moral called humanitarianism.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago
You're an astute observer - few detect such "tells"
Feck Weed 5 hours ago
Consider the audience
FringeDweller 5 hours ago
Fair point.
Lord JT 5 hours ago
He mentioned that it creates more terrorism, and that the incoming regime may be even worse
than the previous.
Unknown User 8 hours ago
Biden will start a war, or two, or three...
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia, we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is
lazy and scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow
the poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Cho Bai Den fol peace!
wick7 5 hours ago
It's amazing how Democrats flipped overnight to being pro war once Obama started new wars.
They were mad when Trump was signing peace deals. Lol.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 8 hours ago
He's right. One disaster after another. Who has Assad attacked? If small countries want the
US to back off then they must develop nuclear weapons. When was the last time the US attacked a
country with nuclear capabilities?
JRobby 7 hours ago
Bust Blinken's balls until he quits like a little rat trying to naw through steel cables
gespiri 7 hours ago
The only way to stop these wars is to send the people (and their kids) who are pushing for
it in the first place to the front lines.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
Or make the state obsolete by transitioning to a private law society.
RedDog1 7 hours ago
Remember how Gaddafi surrendered his nukeprogram to Bush, a few years later Obama/HRC
invaded...resulting in Gaddafi being lynched?
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Iran and NK and Syria remember, for sure. Wish we all remembered the USS Liberty when
shaping foreign policy.
LooseLee 4 hours ago
Remember Libya has no central bank?
Pandelis 3 hours ago (Edited)
you really believe that bs ... it is much more than that ... at the end is about the land
and the people ... money can be printed out of thin air and there is nothing libya (or iraq,
iran etc.) central bank can do about it ...
bring on dr. fraucistein to explain it all to us ... maga!!
roach clipper 6 hours ago
Assad placed his country too close to Is ra hell
manofthenorth 8 hours ago
Sorry guys but we have been played like a second hand fiddle.
I assume Paul has figured out by now that being a murderous psychopath is a job requirement
in DC. It's the first question in the job interview. "Do you enjoy death and destruction for
profit and personal power?"
littlewing 7 hours ago
Remember when Trump bombed Syria and all of a sudden everyone in DC loved him for 15
minutes.
Talk about the big reveal.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
The same Rand Paul who was criticizing Trump in the eleventh hour? That one?? They are all
swamp creatures and seriously make me want to vomit...
pro·le·tar·i·at 7 hours ago
The apple rolled away from the tree.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
Paul, I like you, you seem to care a little bit. However, if they haven't cared in the last
forever, they are definitely not going to start now. They just regime changed ourselves with
almost no substantial resistance, you think they will care about Syria?
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
He puts on a show to care once in a while.
He didn't stand for the truth when it counted.
Goat of Steverino 7 hours ago
GREAT RAND, BUT WHERE WERE YOU ON BIG TECH CENSORSHIP AND ELECTION FRAUD?
Bank_sters 7 hours ago
He's cucked.
Ted Baker 6 hours ago
What is this obsession with Russia? Russia is a peaceful country who defends its people. How
difficult is that to understand?
ReadyForHillary 6 hours ago
Russia isn't down with the NWO.
Dinaric 7 hours ago
(((Blinkin))) is all you need to know.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Does anyone honestly believe that if Biden was honest and had any degree if integrity that
he would be president at this moment in U.S. history? That boy is a 50 year swamp critter A
thoroughly reliable member of the compromised fraternity. Same for Nancy.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Remember the video of younger Biden telling some voter that he graduated top of his class,
with honors????
None of which were true.
littlewing 7 hours ago
His degree is from University of Phoenix.
Now all colleges are that. haha
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Ironically, he wants to set up a comity for Integrity In Government.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Yeah. Thats hysterical!!
Saturday Night Live material - if they had any spine.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Which they don't. Come on, man!
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
Yep. They needed someone with zero integrity.
yeketerina velikaya 7 hours ago
You know who's been right all along?
Tulsi Gabbard.
Right on big tech
Right on Kamala
Right on pardoning Assange and Snowden
Right on the uniparty and false flags in Syria
Right on Queen of Warmongers Hillary and DNC
Right on the MSM
Right on securing the elections/ballot harvesting
She's the real deal and would have delivered on these things but never had a shot.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
She was wrong on gun control. Very wrong! And that's a non-negotiable.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Don't worry real gun control is coming and so much more you didn't ask for...
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
She should have been Trump's vp choice.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
You know....I think you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
I like Tulsi. She seems like a genuine person with integrity that really cares about the
country. BUT I disagree with her on quite a few issues. Maybe she'll come around.
littlewing 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
Greasy John Roberts wrecked America.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
True.
Vichy John Roberts went full Quisling and brought back Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court
endorsed election fraud, supported the coup d'etat, forced Trump from power, helped usher in a
new era for the banana republic of Jim Crow laws...
phillyla 7 hours ago
John Roberts is compromised 8 ways to Sunday. Trump should have had him impeached and
removed from the bench
El Chapo Read 7 hours ago
If you thought Trump was surrounded by Red Sea Pedestrians with an agenda, research the
ethno-religious background of Biden's cabinet picks.
Shalom!
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Every administration is. Trumps son in law and advisor is as well. Please see the entire
picture for a change.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
How about closing all military bases overseas and dismantling the MIC and oh **** it an old
demented neocon is playing president for a few months, scratch that.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
The crack up boom of the FRNs may force that one day
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I think it'll happen sooner rather than later, the chances are good based on the demented
old pedophile being selected president and his retards at the fed.
rastanarchocapitalist 4 hours ago
In the long run, that might be a good thing if we return to honest money but you can be sure
they'll try to kick the can for another 50 years with some form of new fiat or erasing a couple
of zeroes of our current notes.
Hopefully the masses will just say know but I wouldn't put much faith in that.
RedNemesis 6 hours ago
Parents, do not let your smart, winning kids into the armed services. The MIC will grind
them out with PTSD, brain injuries, and lost limbs. There is no 'patriotism' or allegience to
the Deep State.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with Russia,
we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is lazy and
scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow the
poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia..
Maybe we should instead just launch a sneak attack on Alpha Centauri instead. Skip the small
fry like Russia and China. In a few generations we shall know whether our Earthling space
torpedoes hit Alpha Centauri. This of course should be debated by the people and approved by a
plebiscite per ballot referendums. Then the space war bill sent to the Earthlings Politburo for
their approval. It'll take around a decade or more to design and build the space torpedoes...
then 100 years plus for travel time and the same to get the data back from the
mothership...
Plus we can have both a Cold War and a Hot War with Alpha Centauri... under the leadership
of an Earthling appointed or elected by the Earthlings Council and elevated to the rank of Don
Quixote with the accompany title of Primal inter Pares
We just need more right thinking smart people to join the cult and become enlightened to the
prospects of a new 100 years war with other planets...and maybe some small wars with
planetoids...asteroids and comets...
We can establish of house of OverLords composed of only the best Astrologers to help pick
out which planets to attack & destroy...based upon whether they have offended our star
charts or the zodiac calls for war... In addition we can establish a lower house of UnderLords
composed of mad scientists and Generalissimos and crazy Spy Chiefs... and maybe some nutty
press types from the official media and puppet press to lead us in the Two Minutes Hate against
the Alpha Centauri folks, the space peoples, and the flying saucer people...
Maghreb2 5 hours ago
CIA already had plans for all this under the Stargate Program. After Ike's treaty with
various alien species the MIC began its descent into madness and universal conquest.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
A war like that might "free" you, because the Russians will kick your ***.
balz 7 hours ago
Each time I see this "Office of the President Elect" picture thing, I get nauseous.
Fake office for a fake president who wasn't elected in the first place.
BLOTTO 8 hours ago
Like nothing happened back here at home.
Max21c 6 hours ago
Blinken may prove out to be more slick and savy than Dumbo Pompeo the flying cartoon
elephant but he's still a fawking neanderthal and a ******. Maybe an elite ****** but he's
still a ******. Blind, deaf, and dumb is still blind, deaf, and dumb even with all the powers
of the secret police at their disposal.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
Rand is sick too. He goes on about how these things are bad specifically because they
strengthened Iran? How about liberty crushing mass murder?
"Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money."
So your mad they steal money while creating terrorists? Or are you mad that they don't tell
you what they do with the rest? They abduct children from war zones to make them. Maybe the
indoctrination and rape children's homes are expensive. They have screwed the entire
planet.
There is something wrong with him too. He is another limited hangout
silverlinings00 7 hours ago
He's all bark no bite like Elizabeth Warren. Trotted out to show a feigning resistance.
Insert farm animal here 4 hours ago
Poor Rand is going to have a tough and lonely battle over the next few years. Let's wish him
well, he'll be going it alone for sure.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
It seems odd that no one has allied themselves with him in the same manner as McCain &
Graham.
Pareto 6 hours ago
Another life long bureaucrat talking about his resume. And fails to answer a simple
question. Woop there it is. That's why they hated Trump. Because somebody off the street had
better answers than 25 years of experience.
Rand Paul, one of the few good ones left. Good Luck with Biden and his war hawks!
NumbNuts 6 hours ago
These same people are attempting a regime change in the United States too. From Freedom to
Fascism.
Helg Saracen 6 hours ago
The Americans lost perspectives and actually real freedom when Woodrow Wilson sold US to
international banksters in 1913, now this scam just ends and a new scam begins. You haven't
figured it out yet. By the way, fascism is Italian National Socialism. No offense.
frank further 6 hours ago
Then what was German National Socialism, if not fascism?
/
/
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago (Edited)
They are not attempting. They have done it. They have perfected their craft over the last 70
years in other countries and they brought it home to keep their criminal organization
going.
urhotdogs 6 hours ago remove link
They didn't attempt, they did it! Took a little over 4 years but had to stoop to massive
election fraud and changing state laws on the fly. It was coordinated throughout all levels of
government down to states and courts and SCOTUS.
bunkers 5 hours ago
Communism
bunkers 5 hours ago
Maybe not.
WhiteHose 6 hours ago
Russia Russia Russia! They never stop! BTW, wheres scumbag Hunter?
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
rkb100100 7 hours ago
Yea we know the cabinet is full of heeb's.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
Is he in the boat with Winken and Nod?
GatorMcClusky 7 hours ago
Good one.
Mount Massive 7 hours ago (Edited)
There is a reason Russia has spent the last 2 months ramping up testing of its mil hardware
including hyper-vel ICBM's and SLBM's. - Xiden
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Rand will be the only Senator to give the Dems a hard time. Sad since it should be payback
for EVERY Republican Senator.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Cruz will be fun to watch too. They excel being outnumbered.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
If they wanted Rand out of that spot he would have been gone a long time ago.
Bob Lidd 5 hours ago
Does anyone think the US policy in the middle east will change with 10 of biden's
appointees being jewish .......??
The "greater israel" will continue no matter the cost to the American tax cattle.......
((((blinken))) ..........
ReadyForHillary 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Max21c 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Does not matter. They could not win before and they shall not win now. They're ineffective,
inept, and incompetent. They won't be able to fix the messes and disasters they've created for
themselves. At best they might be able to sick the secret police on a few people at home and
drop some bombs or missiles abroad. But for the most part it's some more of the same. Evil is
as evil does. They're not going to be able to work themselves out of the fix they've got
themselves into or figure it out. They're toast. They're bad people and they're toast.
Washingtonians may have absolute power but they've had absolute power all along...and they
still can't fix the disasters they've caused.
Northern Exposure 6 hours ago (Edited)
Oh thank God!
If we're not looking for a new pointless war to start or jumping into an existing one then
this isn't the America that I know and love!
</sarc>
karzai_luver 7 hours ago
Where is the BUFFALOBILL dude storming the Senate to drag this blinken criminal scum out and
do justice for his wanton murder of thousands?
Shut down this freak show.
I would rather have BUFFALOBILL and his idiots running the place than these feckless
people's representatives.
Tony , have you learned your lesson?
Senator - screw you and your people I will think it over.
Alexander 7 hours ago
Silence republicans! Yes we stole the election using widespread mail in ballots, yes your
state governments changed the rules to allow us to count these mail in ballots more quickly,
yes there were far more votes in this election than any other ever. ANDDDD... NO we will not
look into the validity of this election becuase muh capital rioting grandma threatened sweet
little socialist AOC.
Now give us your children to fight a war in syria.
artless 7 hours ago
Barack Obama. Neocon to the core. Biden is no different. Gonna do us some "liberating"
again. And from the left there will be silence as thousands of poor, short brown people are
killed as "collateral damage".
Welcome back America to what you do the best. Destroy lives. Any over/under on how many days
it takes Biden to start killing folks and hence become a war criminal like pretty much all his
predecessors? I might like a piece of that action.
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Republicans are neocons, democrats are neoliberal. You're basically right, just left out
half the problem.
pods 7 hours ago
Can't bitch about foreign actions in our elections when we pick other governments.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pick ???? Surely you jest !
pods 7 hours ago
We choose sides right?
We picked the CIA stooge in Venezuela.
Not sure about your question.
Maybe "kinetically pick" would be better?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Sorry, I didn't read your post properly. I didn't see "other" governments.
rwe2late 7 hours ago
you either forgot the sarc tag
or failed to notice such as V. Nuland hand-picking leadership in Ukraine,
or the Trump picking of Guiado for Venezuela.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Poor eye sight is my best and only excuse.
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Where is Hunter?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
The Big Guy made him the Advance Minister of Foreign Extortion.
headslapper 7 hours ago
The faces change but the song remains the same. What a waste of energy this government is.
Resources thrown down the toilet to make the Ruling class more wealthy. Why do we even pay
attention. We all need to have a look in the mirror. Myself included of course.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
So now that you've looked in the mirror, what are you going to do about it? Send a
strongly-worded letter? Or are you ready to actually step up. As morally wrong and demented as
the radical left is, at least you have to admire them in the sense they actually step up to the
plate to get sh!t done. It's immoral, but effective.
Canadian Dirtlump 7 hours ago
Lest we forget the same bearded butchers that Chris Stevens flew into ben gazi with (al
Quaeda inter alia aligned ) who were funded and trained by the West were the same ones who flew
from ben gazi to the incirlik nato base to try to do the same thing in syria.
The only reason it didn't work was because of the SAA, Hezbollah and of course the ultimate
backstop Russia. I'm thankful for this.
mikka 7 hours ago
Imagine Russian or Chinese parliament publicly debating regime change in USA.
Uncle_Cuddles 7 hours ago (Edited)
Debating? China has ALREADY done it here.
joew8989 7 hours ago
Rand will continue to fight the good fight, when you live a life based on principal, that's
what you do. We will always need more people like him. That's what built this country, not the
parasites at the helm now.
ItsTooHotForThis 6 hours ago
Paul voted to confirm the electors. His challenge to the new Sec. of State means
nothing.
Garciathinksso 5 hours ago
his argument was based on State's right issue, in case you care
bunkers 5 hours ago
It doesn't matter WHY, he voted with traitors, only, that he did.
SillyTheEnemy 6 hours ago (Edited)
This is literally the only guy we have in the senate who even remotely gives a ****. Yet the
amount of **** that is going to happen to us when biden heats up the war in Syria is
immeasurable. F*ck me
hardright 6 hours ago
Rand Paul is wasting his time.
If he wants to make a difference he should be lobbying Russia to send more troops into
Syria.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
And arranging imports of the Russian vaccine. Less likely to kill you and more effective
than the only 45% effective Pfizer ****.
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago
This guys eyes look exactly like the vampires in the movie 30 days of night. Am I in a
simulation? Why do these people actually look like fictional villains? I mean Whitmer, Newsom,
this new fat, unhealthy, mentally ill assistant "health secretary"? Did I do something really
wrong? Am I in hell and don't know it? No. I am here on earth and psychopaths are real and evil
is real.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
they're just a little scared and overwhelmed. You might be too
WhiteHose 7 hours ago
Look at this Blinken twit! F you pal! And....wheres HUnter??? Diddling his brothers minor
niece? Again? Still?
First Ron and now Rand. I think the club just lets them in as the token Don Quixote. They
have been the only voices of reason for the last 25 years or so, but they are only tilting at
windmills. Nothing is going to change until something forces them to change. The war mongering
and corruption will just roll right along while the MIC and congress get richer by the
minute.
The unrelenting droning of brown people in foreign lands that are ill-equipped to fight back
will commence in 3,2,1...
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Leaving the Republican Party would be the first best step.
ejmoosa 7 hours ago (Edited)
We put too much on one man and one man alone to change things.
Faced with judges and a House and A Senate against him the task before Trump was
Herculean.
Add to that 2/5ths of the states with governors also against Trump and it's even worse.
What you need to do is get involved in your local politics and take control back of your
Cities and County Commissions, as well as your state governments.
Had Trump held control of the House and the Senate and we had sitting on Courts people who
put the Constitution first FOR the people rather than using it against them, things would be a
lot different today.
The choice is yours.
Time to play 7 hours ago
It's good to see that Rand, is starting to think more like his father!
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So he's controlled opposition, too?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
Pretty early to be smoking crack isn't it?
otschelnik 7 hours ago
With Cookies Nuland as Blinken's deputy, you've got the neocon family business installed at
Foggy Bottom. Robert (Victoria's huband), Fredrick, and Kim each with their own pro-war think
tank, and a list of supporters which constitute the "A-list" of the USSA's merchants of death.
Northrup-Grumman, UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed....
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Winken, Blinken and Nod.
That's the administration we got now.
silverlinings00 8 hours ago
Careful Rand, we wouldn't want you to get another "visit" from a neighbor while you're
mowing the lawn.
Pdunne 3 hours ago (Edited)
Biden's biggest Cabinet mistake will ultimately be Blinken.
Like Obama picked H Clinton with disasterous consequences Biden picks Blinken.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Rand Paul says " Assad is a terrible person " !!!
Dr Assad is a HERO !!
Rand Paul is either completely misinformed or just another useless politician afraid to
speak the TRUTH !
A COWARD !
Hessler 4 hours ago
Assad may be a good person at heart but he is not qualified to run a state. He should be a
doctor or something.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
And Joe Biden is ??
OR Boris Johnstone ??
Helg Saracen 4 hours ago
It is up to the Syrians to decide, not you. You already paid for the genocide of the Syrian
Christians in the "fight against the tyrant Assad." I've seen all kinds of idiots and
hypocrites, but you are their king.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
Why did not Assad anticipated the Zionist invasion even though the Snowden document reveled
the CIA/Mossad works in the making in 2006 ??
If he did anticipated an invasion why he did not do anything to safeguard his nation and
it's people ?
Why every men, women and child capable to lift and shoot was not given and an ordinance and
proper training ?? Israel has that. Why can't Syria ?
Syria is a part of Greater Israel. They have been marked for genocide the day Israel was
created, what haste did Mr. Assad showed to safeguard his country against their genocidal
maniacs psychopaths ??
I will never forgive those who inflicted the terrible atrocities on the children and women
and Mr. Assad has a blame to share.
mark3383 3 hours ago
Assad risked his life and continues to do so every day, trump recently bragged he thought
about "taking him out". he's a true hero more than you or I will ever be
steve2241 5 hours ago
Rand Paul doesn't understand. Blinken follows the path that Israel tells him to. Middle East
instability benefits Israel. The fomenting of Sunni-Shia conflict kills Israels' enemies, the
muslims, without Israel having to lift a finger. Syria is no longer a threat to Israel. Mission
accomplished.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
You're wrong on two accounts. First, there's no ****te/Sunni conflict. What goes in Miiddle
East is entire different than what is portrayed here. The locals know but how many of them get
interviewed on live TV or get a airtime on a prime time desk ? Those are reserved for the
chosenites who spew BS about Arabs and Muslims 24/7.
****te/Sunni fiction as broadcasts in the west is nothing but a ploy to wash the hands of
the responsibility and pin the blame on the victims.
Second, Syria is now a bigger threat to Israel than it was in Pre War era. Battle Hardened
troops, better organization, training with Russian/Iranian Military, better equipment, talented
strategists and when you fight a war like that for that long you tend to grow a bigger set of
balls.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Syria wants the GOLAN back - I would say they are a threat to ISRAEL !!
Sick Monkey 5 hours ago
Speaking of war didn't Rand Paul vote to accept the illegitimate electors. I like Paul he
seems to have a level head but you voted to put the commies in power. Like you said in your
speech "there are repercussions". Those who took a stand against this coup must be kept in
power as they put skin in the game. That's a rare and precious gift to us the people. In the
year 2021 it's as good as gold.
Taffer 5 hours ago
Exactly, hence my previous comment below.
mark3383 3 hours ago
trump lost the election because he allowed million of fraud votes to be counted and never
said or did anything about it in the year leading up to it. he 's the one that lost it. no one
else
Sinophile 6 hours ago
"War Pigs"----Black Sabbath
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
oh lord yeah!
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
Circuses. Theatre for the plebes. Not one bit of foreign policy is decided or affected by
debates or hearings in the Legislative branch. They're all following a script, some of them act
like they aren't in on the joke.
Cloudcrusher 6 hours ago
Psychosis the denial of reality. The military industrial complex is make believe. It's
military industrial congress, Congress is in charge they alone are to blame know one else. The
sooner everyone starts living in reality the better off will be. You want to win the war of
words better start with reality. Or your going to get a another kind of war one where only the
strong survive.
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Watch: Rand Paul Challenges New Secretary Of State Over Regime-Change In Syria
Meaningless inside the beltway for the record drool-n-dribble... Rand Paul just wants to pad
his resume, bio, and gain some street cred claims...
TahoeBilly2012 6 hours ago
When do the new wars start? Dems can't wait. Blame them on Covid or something, they will buy
it.
vspam 7 hours ago
Biden will go to war with Iran and turned thr ME into a fireball. The mainstream media will
cheer him on under the banner of peace and unity
Max21c 7 hours ago
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
Max21c 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Too late. Washington is toast. It's just a question of when Washingtonians lose in Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, et cetera. They already made a mess of things and they do not
have the brains to fix it. Same with their inabilities as regards nonproliferation, North
Korea, et cetera. They don't have what it takes to figure it out and work it out and nobody is
going to fix it for them because they're assholes regardless of which cabal of Ivy League
assholes or ******* elites are in power.
ThomasEdmonds 7 hours ago
Paul isn't supposed to question a Zionist's motives..
aloha-snackbar 7 hours ago
if the youth said no to war and moms said not my child and burned down the recruitment/death
centers then war would end...
tunEphsh 7 hours ago
Thank goodness that Paul told the idiot Blicken to lay off regime change. Obama-Biden made a
mess of the middle east and caused a refugee crises which is still with us. Instead of being
named secretary of state, me thinks Blicken should be put in jail for acts in the Middle East
which killed hundreds of thousands of people.
moneybots 7 hours ago
The EU has become a mess because of regime change.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Of course he should. But that would require sanity.
yerfej 7 hours ago (Edited)
Simple way to stop all this insane venturism and nation building it to MANDATE that every
aysshole like Blinken have a spouse or child or sibling or relative ON THE GROUND fighting in
one of these shyyytholes. These elites love this crap because THEY never pay a personal price,
no they have farmed that out to the "commoners" who supply the bodies. The filthy elites are
good at leveraging everyone else to fulfill their fantasies while paying no price.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
You've seen the videos of Chelsea and Malia on tour in Kabul? Yeah?
yerfej 7 hours ago
More like Eeyore pontificating from her 20 million dollar penthouse about how she is so not
into money, or Maglia dancing around stoned like a "social justice warrior".
Flynt2142ahh 7 hours ago (Edited)
The senate needs more Rand Paul types - and they dont have to be in the Republican
party...This would force actual accountability of uniparty folks and these appointees. We need
less murkowski and collins
phillyla 7 hours ago
I am going to harp on this
in 2014 Matt Bevin challenged McConnell in a Senate Primary
He was gaining momentum
Then Rand endorsed McConnell
Bevin lost McConnell got re-elected
Bevin was later elected Governor of KY so he had the votes
Rand Paul Broke my heart
Leguran@premium PREMIUM 7 hours ago
We need use the Progressive's signage: He is not my President.
LostMyGunsInABoatingAccident 7 hours ago
You can't necessarily call it an "American" policy.
America lost control of it's policy long ago.....
Mount Massive 7 hours ago
Here comes another war, and this time, it will spiral out of control. In two years or less,
I expect the US to be in a major conflict and/or hit at home. Sigh....Leftist
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi just took Rand aside and said, wait and see what your neighbor on the other side of
you has to say about this.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Rand is in the senate. nancy runs the house. That would be Schumer's job.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi seems to be running the show and is the face of the party
WorkingClassMan 8 hours ago (Edited)
Rand Paul, the lone voice of sanity in a rubber-stamp corrupt government.
If you or someone you care about is either in or thinking about joining this nation's
military...please don't. Let these antiwhites fight their own wars. They hate you and don't
trust you because you're White and they hate you owning guns, but they'll put a gun in your
hand and point you at their and Isn'treal's enemies without hesitation.
fudge punch 8 hours ago
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
AVmaster 3 hours ago
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism,"
Uhhh, yea...
... Thats what they WANTED!
Duh!
Scipio Africanuz 3 hours ago
Thank you Senator Paul..
For your candor..
The challenge of US Foreign Policy, is akin to a heroin addiction. It's bad for the country,
but all attempts to cure the country of addiction to imperialism has failed, including our
energetic efforts over the years..
Too many people benefit from the ruination of the country as it engages in squandering
lives, honor, power, reputation, and treasure, in maintaining a facade of illusory power, at
the expense of the true power of the country..
Put simply Senator, at this point, we don't believe any entity on earth can cure the US of
the addiction to depravity save nature, which cure is more preferable to that of the Entity
whose decision is not subject to appeal..
Now Senator, you may not believe in God Almighty and thus, swat away the simple insight but
God does not require your belief to act..
Over His creation..
The only cure, if sense and rationality don't prevail, is exactly what we don't desire to
know and why?
Because we've seen it before, applied to different societies with similar mentality over the
course of human history and Senator, it's never palatable..
Anyhow, probation is till summer, to allow folks do intensive introspective contemplation,
enough to acquire prudent humility and if they don't, well..
Cheers...
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
I believe the Senator is a Christian.
Pdunne 4 hours ago
Blinken is a bald faced liar and is already working with Ms Nuland on more regime
changes.
Venezuela and Syria need to get ready for more robust attacks.
Dzerzhhinsky 2 hours ago
Control the oil, you control the world.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
Oil was the cause of every war for the past century.
Posa 4 hours ago
A ridiculous exchange. Sen Paul seems to take at face value the Liberal-NeoCon claim that
Regime Change is good-intentioned attempt to democratize the Middle East.
Hardly. Regime Change was always designed to a) install Israeli supremacy in the region
("Operation Clean Break"); and b) secure US Global Uni-polar dominance (the Wolfowitz Doctrine)
as part of the Brezezinski "Grand Chessboard". That's the intention... this exchange
demonstrates how out of it Rand Paul is; and what a nasty weasel Blinken is.
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
That's not what Sen. Paul said. He doesn't agree with regime change. That's what he
said.
PaulDF 5 hours ago
To which the Biden appointee replied, "You know, the thing!"
mark3383 3 hours ago
cmon man!
duckandcover 2 hours ago
do your job!
Taffer 5 hours ago
Rand Paul's opinion and $6 will get him a latte at Starbucks.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Foreign policy is never gonna change no matter who's in change because the way system is
setup.
The lifestyle (our way of life) pertaining to the western model of civilization (our values)
needs unlimited supply of money to be supported. The money that can't be made by legal means,
hence the continues war that needs to be maintained overseas while also starting new ones as
requirement arise.
And since this is a continues state, so accompanies it continues propaganda, lies, false
flags, deception and manipulation of facts and truth. LYING IS IN VERY GENES OF THE WHITE
CHRISTIAN WEST. They have been doing it for so long that they have almost mastered the "the art
of lying" the zenith of which is to project your own flaws and crimes on to the subjects you
carried it out on. One thing you can always be sure of, they will never admit their crimes
unless there's no other way. And that they will be accusing their opponents of the same things
they would be doing.
War underpins their society, nation and civilization.
steve2241 4 hours ago
The problem is that the U.S. is abusing its position as printer-in-chief of the Reserve
Currency of the world. With that fake money, it can intervene in the affairs of nations
throughout the world - a capability that no other country enjoys. Take away its reserve
currency and watch how quickly middle eastern strife ends - and the nation of Israel, too.
apparently 6 hours ago
will the left and their mindless supporters be comforted to know that their guy promotes
these "endless wars"? will they be happy to sacrifice their sons and daughters for desert
real-estate whose oil we don't want?
Paul was being way too polite. He should simply say: "I'm not voting to confirm this war
monger" then get up and leave the room.
Hessler 6 hours ago
If you think it's about the oil, you really don't understand the world you inhabit.
apparently 6 hours ago (Edited)
I don't think it's about oil but I'm struggling to name a single US interest in sand-wars.
maybe you can? yes, yes, military/industrial complex, blah, blah, but why the middle east?
please enlighten us.
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
It's to rebuild the world in the image of the west and Islam is the biggest hampering in the
way. Like other religions, it can't be altered or dominated so the only way is to completely
destroy it. This is why Israel was setup by the Anglos at a strategic location in the heart of
the Arab world to engage them into perpetual war and destroy them.
That's about it.
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 5 hours ago
no evidence that the arab spring was against islam. why aren't we doing regime change in
indonesia? why did joe just reverse the Muslim travel ban?
do you understand anything about the world you live in?
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
A lot actually. We are concentrating on the core of the Islamic civilization for when the
core collapses, the outer layers collapses with it. It's the core that holds the entire thing
together, hence we concentrate on Middle East and not on Indonesia.
Arab spring was to sow chaos and turmoil. By the way of deception.....Jewish moto
It is not that Israel establishes America's foreign policy. It is that the basic world view
produced by WASP culture is naturally aligned with Jewish thought in most ways, especially in
terms of Empire: ruling the world.
InflammatoryResponse 5 hours ago
it was not a muslim travel ban. it was a ban on places that didn't have adequate
infrastructure to verify who was travling.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
where is the last place, core or not core, that Islam religion and Muslim culture has been
eradicated by any means? Yugoslavia? India? Not seeing it. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Your argument does not hold.
starman99 5 hours ago
(((THEM)))
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
Hessler 5 hours ago
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 2 hours ago
by now, we should be weary (and wary) of "it's all a sideshow" arguments.
it simply asserts greater knowledge (never disclosed) and terminates the thread.
as for the grand anti-islam plan... how's that going in western europe?
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
It is ALWAYS about the OIL - thats why IRAN and VENEZUELA are being weakened by crippling
sanctions !!
THAT"S how the ZIO/US does it - SANCTIONS first - WAR 2nd !
Doesn't work anymore since RUSSIA stepped in !
nocturnal66 7 hours ago
Just ask if this 100 year plus war is to create "greater Israel" . It all documented. Enough
already with the lies. Just admit it.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
WWE- fake fights have begun again in earnest .....................
Paul Ryan could fake a punch as good as John Boehner ............
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
The Washington establishment imposed their chosen ruler Joe Schmo Biden to rule over
America.
jesus_loves_you 7 hours ago
H a n g t h e m a l l
Aquamaster 7 hours ago
Should we have a contest to see who can pick the first country Biden will send troops
to?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
DC !
SERReal1 7 hours ago
You win!
WTFUD 7 hours ago
Blinken Heck , don't worry ya'll, Nuland (Nudelman's) back to steady the ship with a fab new
chocolate chip cookie recipe that the terrorists will adore.
littlewing 7 hours ago
And they aren't even trying to hide it.
fzrkid 7 hours ago
Rand can say whatever he wants and it changes NOTHING
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
Who is still planning on filing taxes? At the very least, turn your back on the
system-right? Upvote for not filing, downvote for I just want to avoid conflict-I'm filing.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
But, we are getting a return.
No paying next year though.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Doesn't matter if it is a disaster for the peoples invaded and for domestic liberty in the
USA.
It's considered "worth it" by those in power
to protect the financial supremacy of the dollar,
promote the regional military supremacy of Israel,
and continue the war profiteering of the MIC.
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So what? Your cushy lifestyle and mine is a direct result of hegemony. Get over it.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Celebration of a "cushy lifestyle" gained by plunder and murder is not for everyone.
To revel in it, one requires a special insensibility.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago (Edited)
This fence-sitter did virtually NOTHING to stop the steal.
Now he's whining about having to lie in bed his cowardice helped make.
Many MORE thousands will soon be massacred by these war-mad psychopaths.
This POS is DEAD TO ME.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Rand is smart, he knew no matter what Xiden was going to be installed.
HominyTwin 7 hours ago
He's smart. A bunch of idiots, after a good breakfast at IHOP, were herded into the capital
by govt informants to break stuff for the cameras, and then herded right back out in time for a
hearty dinner at Golden Corral. They did sacrifice their lunch for exactly nothing, though.
Congrats. He stayed away from all that nonsense.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
That's about the size of it, in retrospect.
zulu127 7 hours ago
regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in long wars that are costly to
the military.
Wrong! "regime change needs to continue because it is involving the US in wars that are
profitable to the military.
ableman28 4 hours ago
Part of the problems is that neither the democrats or republicans are primarily in favor of
DEMOCRATIC governments in the middle east. When Egypt FREELY ELECTED the Muslin Brotherhood to
power in Egypt the US fell all over itself to help unseat them, using every technique we
can.....currency debasement, food aid manipulation, tacit encouragement to strongment
(military) that we feel are controllable, etc. etc.
The US was never in favor of one man one vote in South Africa during apartheid and explained
this convenient hypocrisy as an unfortunate necessity.
Supporting regime change is entirely, ENTIRELY, different than supporting democracy. The US
has a very very very long history of supporting the former and claiming it was the latter when
in fact it wasn't. Democracy means letting the chips fall where they may. In countries whose
ruling leadership is oppressive to its people and for which we have a long history of support
its very unlikely that any democratic election would bring us new friends. It would, in every
case, bring to power people who opposed the old government and by association US.
People playing to the stands here in the US are smart enough to know this. But maintaining
the correct political position for domestic consumption also trumps doing the right thing in
anywhere else.
International politics is a pure expression of national interest. Our national interest is
economic outside the US. That part of socialist or marxist theory is spot on.
Hessler 4 hours ago
Insightful, thanks!
LooseLee 4 hours ago
'Disaster' is the MO, Rand. Please, get real or get lost.
Musum 5 hours ago
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken
on his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa
Pointless and hopeless. The only way to end America's endless wars is to deal with the guys
in small hats.
Hessler 5 hours ago
Small hats were employed by the English speaking protestants for their ulterior motives,
world view, global ambitions which were in alignment with the chosenites.
You can't solve the Jewish problem without solving the problem of western civilization.
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The real problems are the 3 letter intelligence agencies, not religion.
Musum 4 hours ago
Are you naive or misdirecting? Offices are occupied by people.
train rider 6 hours ago
Deep thinking and reflection...what about our military personnel and contractors...why are
we putting them in danger with these interventionist kockamamie screw balls coming up with
these strategies...meanwhile innocent civilians keep getting maimed and killed.
We have no business over there, let the countries decide for themselves what they want etc.
we need energy idependence...greta can go fly a kite...keep reducing emissions with tech we
have.
It is very sad that paul's neighbor does not have a more lethal right hook.
TheZeitgeist 7 hours ago
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001
So...only off by a decade. I think ZeroHedge drops these snafus into the copy just to see if
anyone actually reads the stuff.
freakscene 7 hours ago (Edited)
Its skimming material at best. Reading all the way through went out the window when ZH
become a CNN sponsor.
:)
littlewing 7 hours ago
When Ron Paul was calling out Bernanke you would see they were alone in the room.
There is no debate, its all a fraud. Saw the vote on election theft and it was their aides
voting for them.
StanleyTheManly 7 hours ago
Give me a break, Rand Paul. YOU KNOWINGLY voted for this by not standing for our elected
President.
You're a traitor. Shut up and sit down.
TRON Paul 7 hours ago
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
wmbz 7 hours ago
War is a business, and "we" are big business. Matter no how many completely innocent people
get blown away. What matters are the spoils. We were warned over and over again about the MIC
yet here we are.
Profit always wins over peace, no money in it.
totally unwise 7 hours ago
Today, wars aren't meant to be won
they're meant to bring chaos
Chaos
Calling Maxwell Smart and agent 99
Where's that shoe phone ?
freakscene 7 hours ago
I guess, good for Rand? Thats about all he can do.
Dog Will Hunting 7 hours ago
Oh, that Rand Paul. I wondered where he was hiding this whole time peels back Trump's saggy
*** cheeks to find the good doctor
in_xanadu_did_kubla_khan 8 hours ago
Achoo: Hey, Blinkin
Blinkin: Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Achoo: No! I said, HEY, BLINKIN!
createnewaccount 8 hours ago
If we can't have Giant Meteor maybe a global helter skelter of 'regime change' will be a
good consolation prize.
Lt. Frank Drebin 8 hours ago
I voted for Giant Meteor, but the Dominion voting machines switched my vote to turd
sandwich.
Holding My Breath 7 hours ago
A big upvote for sarcasm (or is it utter stupidity?)
The Military/Industrial Complex needs endless foreign wars and imaginary enemies so that the
money won't be spent at home helping Americans. Such as infrastructure projects. The goal from
within is to destroy the American middle class and turn the United States into a third world
country. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all served the crooks.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Uh then why didn't Trump start wars?
Bear 11 minutes ago
Like father like son ... insight and wisdom
Arizona1234 26 minutes ago
China Joe and the mentally ill Marxist that run his crap show already started a multi
Trillion dollar endless war. The War on the weather they call Climate Crisis. It's the one
where we loose and wind up praying to find the small potato to make it through the day, and
then hope to find a few dry sticks for the fire to cook it. Where you will have to make the
small fire at night so that mentally ill #AOC carbon police can't easily see the smoke.
Maltheus 1 hour ago
It's taken less than 24 hours, after Biden's inauguration, for ISIS to magically make an
appearance again. They're not even pretending anymore.
Tom Angle 2 hours ago
I think I had heard all I want to hear from Rand Paul after.
boattrash 2 hours ago
Gawdamit Rand, we like you and everything, but the Coup you should be focused on is HERE,
even if it means you should spit in your hands, hoist the black flag and start slittin
throats.
Sincerely,
The American People
Dzerzhhinsky 3 hours ago
If the US can steal Syria, it means it will be able to build a pipeline, steal Iranian gas
and sell it to Europe.
The US needs something to give its financiers and controlling energy supplies to Europe would
go a long way to paying off the debt.
learnofjesuits 4 hours ago
vatican's wars
Hessler 3 hours ago
Puritans burred the Vatican so deep underground that if even the nuke detonates there, if
won't make a shockwave on the ground
TemporarySecurity 4 hours ago
Perfectly fine for anybody in the executive to lie through their teeth.
Say one thing in the hearing and do what they always do once confirmed. Our post
Constitutional government needs to fail.
tangent 4 hours ago
Ran Paul's ability to talk as if they are not simply being outright bribed for their
positions is impressive. I suppose the new CCP SoS will take the positions of the CCP, which is
the one paying him the most money for those positions.
richnhappy 4 hours ago
Just read confessions of an economic hit man, by john perkins, all you need to know. The
playbook sounds like what china is doing in the us now, distract the masses with the middle
east ****show.
Seditious 4 hours ago
We have had just one president so far this century that has not used American blood and
treasure to destroy a nation. He was a rogue billionaire that got taken out by every other
billionaire that wanted to stay in the club. The American people are going to have to figure
out that they will have better results solving this nations problems at the Bezos, Walton,
Zuckerberg and Dorsey homes than they will going to the Capitol in Washington DC.
The Child sacrifice murders committed by these people don't occur in some hidden room at a
pizza parlor. They occur on public roads under semitrailers marked Amazon Prime and Walmart
that wouldn't be allowed on the roads of nations that we used to call the third world.
I suppose the only big question is, who's child dies tomorrow?
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
You could look it at that way. I'd say he was a hairs breadth from starting world war III
with Iran and China and was removed by a stroke of bad luck from Wuhan and the old
establishment asserting their authority through corruption.
Trump might be remembered fondly for actually lowering the number of small conflicts but the
U.S war machine is bigger than any one president and his closeness to Israel show what camp he
was in. Only God or a few insiders can really judge what his ultimate aim was but he wasn't the
man who pulled the first shot of the first world war. Damn well loaded the gun and gave it to
the Israelis in my opinion.
Seditious 4 hours ago
During Obama's time in office we had a year in which the United States dropped bombs in more
nations than they did in any single year during WW2.
Bezos, Walton's and others spill our blood domestically. Biden will spill our blood overseas
to keep some other billionaires happy.
Based on your comment, I take it you REALLY like Blinken! Yes?
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The same thing happened in Egypt when Obama pushed for and got quick elections when the only
organization that could field candidates was the Muslim Brotherhood. The result was very
predictable.
The Brotherhood took over and the result was so bad that the people finally rebelled against
Morsi's government. This lead to Al Sisi who was better than Morsi. I question whether the
situation improved by letting the Muslim Brotherhood take control.
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
People? Thought that was the military?
WatchnSee 5 hours ago
"regime change doesn't work" "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle
East,".... nor in the USA. Time will tell.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Don't worry Mr. Paul, these white men in the suits are the leaders of the terrorists groups.
It's hardcoded in their genes, they don't know any other way of earning a living.
Mancolo 6 hours ago
Lessons? I don't need your stinking lessons. I've got friends to pay off.
Pvt Joker PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I like the US policy of Perma War and Regime change. The more troops over there , the less
troops over here.
Scornd 7 hours ago
I dont understand the complaints.
You voted for this.
MCDirtMigger 6 hours ago
By 'you', do you mean Dominion?
littlewing 7 hours ago
District of Criminals
that's all they are.
I am bailing out forever now.
Just looking at them and their actions is self harm.
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
District of Criminals
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
LorDampNuts 7 hours ago
Keep sending your donations to Stop the Steal, Trump has a plan and will be sworn in by
April when it warms up. Free Chumptard hat with every $100 donation.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
I'd donate a hunny for you to flush your head in a toilet ...............
foxenburg 7 hours ago
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Rammbock 7 hours ago
Republicans are great actors
Kotwica 44 7 hours ago
This guy speaks truth, but, no one gives a flying fu<k.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 7 hours ago
Attention Secret Police: We've got one for you!
freedommusic 7 hours ago (Edited)
Whatever these folks say is irrelevant. They are all sitting on foreign soil. The UNITED
STATES CORPORATION is a foreign Municipal entity owned by China claimed in the recent
bankruptcy settlement. POTUS said when he was leaving. Go ahead, take it. The buildings, the
chairs, statues, it's all yours . Anyone who steps outside of that foreign jurisdiction will be
entering American soil and subject to the Laws of the United States Constitutional Republic and
prosecuted for treason and sedition.
DC is now a Chinese embassy.
I wonder how much food they have stocked up in there? I would presume the military would
uphold a blockade and prevent the exchange of trade from occurring into a surrounded hostile
territory of the enemy.
YOU WANT IT
YOU GOT IT
HAVE A NICE DAY
SERReal1 7 hours ago
Where was Rand in calling out the election fraud?
Now he is acting all tough again on the deep state creatures.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
He wants to stay in office. No way is going to touch the third rail. None of them will.
rkb100100 7 hours ago
This is part of a Punch and Judy show put on for retards.
leodogma1 7 hours ago
And yet not one peep of this Quislings tie's to the Chinese Communist party of Evil !
Southern Discomfort 7 hours ago
I'm sure it will be blamed on an action taken by Trump and the only cure will be
intervention. Maybe Joetard can set up a new cabinet level position to seek out opportunities
for new wars.
More-Cowbell 8 hours ago
The show must go on. As if these asz clowns ( all of them ) matter.
north_hand_demon 8 hours ago
Whatever. Your cushy lifestyle, and mine, exists because we're the dominant imperial power
on the planet. Might makes right. Paul knows it too; this is just virtue signaling.
artless 7 hours ago (Edited)
And in your statement lies the real problem with the vast majority of people in this
country.
Yeah I edited the lame ad hom line after I read a few comments. But perhaps it is long due
that rather than simply accept things as the way they are and calling any opposition to it the
thoughts of a ten year old, it might be high time to actually try to make a change in how
people think and ultimately behave.
Too many people letting their wishful thinking override their wisdom, just like when Obama
was enthroned. I will admit that I was fooled back in 2008 as well, thinking "This time
things are finally different!" , though in my defense I will say that the "Reality
Distortion Field" built around BHO by the mass media was far more believable than the one
they have scraped together for Biden.
Biden being installed will thus buy the empire a "grace period" in which other
countries (EU mostly) will happily buy into America's next war effort. As with the
post-Bushlette era decorated with the Obama figurehead, the empire will take advantage of
this "grace period" to escalate its violence.
After all, that is why they want someone like Biden in the White House in the first place.
If the imperial establishment were at all interested in global de-escalation then they would
have gone forward with it when Trump demanded troops out instead of playing shell games to
keep the empire's wars on a low boil. Trump's belligerent noise-making made it impossible
for the empire to escalate its wars. The empire needs someone who is willing to put a nice
"progressive" spin on mass murder in order to get buy-in for a renewed round of
slaughter.
The empire will not waste this opportunity. They have been waiting four years for it.
There will be more war.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 21:14 utc | 77
Agree with most of this as well as your other post earlier in the thread.
Biden is an attempt to put the mask back on the monster so that the woke, "resistance"
crowd will continue to not care about the unabated slaughter abroad. I mean, when you really
look at it, they (and the corporate mainstream "liberal" media) rarely criticized Trump's
foreign policy and often cheered it, albeit without ever openly praising him, per se. We saw
the occasional article about the ethnic cleansing in Yemen that Trump greatly aided and
abetted, but everyone including the NYT was completely behind his war on Venezuela and
attempt to create war with Iran. The media got a bit up in arms when Kashoggi was murdered -
because of course he was then a journalist - but even that died down quite quickly while
Trump continued feting the Israelis and Saudis.
The coming hot wars will be fought with all of the record breaking arms that Trump sold in
the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
All of that having been said, I'll repeat a point I've made since we started talking about
the election: Trump didn't "start any new wars" because there wasn't much left to do after
Obama and Bush set the world on fire and the Iranians (and Venezuelans) showed restraint when
attacked - both physically and economically. Trump and his Zionist handlers would have loved
it if the USA had ended up in a war with either of those countries and I have no doubt that
if he was elected to a 2nd term, we'd have seen one or both transpire. With Biden, same thing
as the first thing about Trump - There isn't much left to destroy that the USA could actually
get away with and I suspect he will continue the existing wars for however long he (or
Kopmala) is in office.
It's an Empire with a revolving-door Emperor called a President or Prime Minister. The
facts are fixed around the policy. We're obviously headed back toward a more 'can't we all
get along' empire, after four years of a guy who thought he was an actual emperor, instead of
a bobble-head. The differences between the two monopoly parties in the USA are entirely
domestic and are nothing but the size of the crumbs given to the people who think they are
free.
bottom line kadath.. the usa will be an ongoing slavish servant to israel.. that much is
clear as day... which way it goes - syria or iran - none of the saber rattling will stop..
israel doesn't want it to stop! neither does the american duopoly! the people might, but
they don't get a say and generally are not interested in foreign policy..
IMO Biden will do as he is told. His white house chief of staff is a powerful and
skilled player and is quite experienced in working with Biden. Joe could well be diverted to
give solid focus on the home front while the rats he has appointed continue their global
piracy and belligerence. I figure that is why they ran the old fool.
On January 21, the president-elect will sign a number of executive actions to move
aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and
businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing,
protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards.
On January 22, the president-elect will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate
action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive
actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfill his promises to
strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America. He will
take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of color and other
underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related
to reforming our criminal justice system. The president-elect will sign additional
executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and
ensure that science guides the administration's decision making. President-elect Biden will
take first steps to expand access to health care – including for low-income women and
women of color. He will fulfill his promises to restore dignity to our immigration system
and our border policies, and start the difficult but critical work of reuniting families
separated at the border. And, President-elect Biden will demonstrate that America is back
and take action to restore America's place in the world.
As noted above, this list is not comprehensive. More items and more details will be
forthcoming in the days ahead.
Time will tell how the other appointees in the administration align with Klain and the
extent of the savage power struggle that is soon to manifest.
The USA is now the proverbial Whale in a Swimming Pool: it is big, powerful and impressive
- but can't hide its moves anymore and has little to none margin for any maneuver.
The American Center-wing is ossifying, or, in Cold Warrior terminology (Arthur
Schlesinger Jr.), is losing its "vitality". It is entering a stage where it must "burn the
village in order to save it".
... it seems the answer is that Germany plays the role in Europe that the US plays in the
world and both are satisfied with that role even though neo-liberalism, austerity and
war-mongering are leading us to inhumanity and disaster.
Like i said before elsewhere Biden would capitalize on what Trump has put forth and take
the infamy and blame for instead of moving in the opposite directions of whatever Trump
criticized for in foreign policy. That means be it trade war with China, renege on climate
deals, strong arming NATO and EU countries, or giving everything Israel wants nothing stop
Biden from maintaining what has been put in place.
At most they'll just make excuse on why they had to maintain the policies they themselves
criticized Trump for without changing direction.
He said Joe Biden's strong conviction was that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a "bad idea"
and that the administration would use "every persuasive tool" to convince partners,
including Germany, to discard the project.
That is pretty much a declaration of war against countries in Europe. Stay
away,
America's
disarray is its own woes, not other countries' opportunity The Financial Times lives in
a world where the USA doesn't have more than 2,000 operational nukes, doesn't control the
financial system (SWIFT), doesn't issue the universal fiat currency (Dollar Standard),
doesn't have a big fucking navy, doesn't enjoy absolute ideological hegemony etc. etc.
...Tronald's foreign policy has been a disaster, even if he has supposedly not sparked a
new war. Let's not talk about all the secret operations, multiplied drone attacks, state
terrorist assassinations, etc. And the new administration is now continuing this...
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
They just go through the motions. They know that they can't win-achieve their long held
objectives-but they can't stop repeating themselves, including their past errors. They are
not allowed to. The US ruling caste-servants of the ruling class- are only allowed to
operate within very narrow boundaries. They aren't allowed to take radical measures when
faced with new crises- they are confined within ever diminishing political circles. The
duopoly has become an obvious One Party system. And its politics are those of the Gilded
Age-150 years old and still going strong.
The only solution to America's problems is defeat so complete that it cannot be denied
even by the least perceptive. Anyone with money to spare should be buying popcorn
futures.
...Biden is an elderly figurehead. Trump's mistake was being openly bullying and vulgar
instead of underhanded. Already, the EU ( as cowardly vassals ) are falling into line on
Iran and Russia.
...Paul Craig Roberts is correct. There has not been a regime change, there has been a
revolution and treating policies of this "president" as if he is more than a figurehead
being run by oligarchs is foolish in the extreme.
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
One could say this about the American people who have been herded into two camps so that
the Center can rule. Here's an example: One of Biden's first executive actions is to
include undocumented residents in the Census. This will please the Left immensely and
outrage the Right. But the Census is conducted every 10 years and it was completed in 2020.
So Biden's action is actually meaningless. How many people will actual notice this? Very
few.
It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes.
Meet the Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make up Biden's New Foreign Policy Team
"I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic
by Alan Macleod November 13th, 2020
https://www.mintpressnews.com/filthy-rich-war-hawks-make-joe-biden-foreign-policy-team/273039/
Neera Tanden – Reduce US Deficits by Raiding the Economies of Countries We Have
Destroyed:
Neera Tanden, Biden's Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To 'Worry About Raising
Deficits and Debt'
by Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/11/30/neera-tanden-biden-omb-debt-deficit/
She once suggested that if Americans care about the deficit so much, maybe we should make
Libya pay for it.
| 11/30/2020
( Ariana Ruiz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom )
Trump ripped the mask off US foreign policy and exposed it for what it is - ugly Zionism
and outrageous Jewish supremacy. Trump did many foreign policy changes previous incumbents
and their handlers wanted to do but were constrained by the optics and international
opinion.
I agree the Biden administration will continue the same tired old foreign policy, only
with the mask back on. Of course the media won't notice the similarities, but the public
will. No matter how fervently the managers tinker with the edges it is events that drive
changes and change people.
I just listened to President Biden's speech. It was a good one, even a great one. Thinking
about what Plato means by the 'noble lie' it was a noble speech, and there wasn't much of a
lie about it.
b finished the posting with
"
While Trump had continued the wars the U.S. waged when he came into office he did not start
any new ones. Since Joe Biden first entered the Senate 47 years ago he has cheered on every
war the U.S. has since waged. It would be astonishing to find four years from now that he
did not start any new ones.
"
Prepare to be astonished. Biden isn't going to start any new wars for the same reason
that Trump didn't......MAD
Humanity has been in the MAD phase of the civilization war we are in since the Obama era
push back in Syria.
Biden's chest beating will not be as "impressive" as Trump's but the trajectory is the
same.
The new chief says to tighten the circle of wagons, but those accused of besieging the
Outlaw US Empire's wagon train stopped attacking and moved on long ago. Meanwhile,
supplying the wagon train continues to take resources away from dealing with very real
domestic problems. The upshot is China will continue to pull away and increase its lead
geoeconomically, and together with Russia will continue to solidify and strengthen the
Eurasian Bloc. Very soon, the EU is going to be faced with a very stark choice--to join the
Eurasian Bloc and thus stave-off economic atrophy or continue to allow its brand of
Neoliberal Parasites to eat and risk rupture, perhaps not in 2021 but before 2030.
The key is that the false narrative that was initiated in 1945 and bolstered in 1979
continues to be treated as gospel despite its path to certain ruin. I noted there were no
questions asked about the international call for a Bretton Woods 2.0 that would end dollar
hegemony and Petrodollar recycling, while removing the one source of coercion behind its
illegal sanctions.
The only possible target of opportunity I see is Venezuela as the frack-patch is about
to fold-up shop and fuel prices cause domestic inflation to soar -- Here in Oregon, gas
prices have gone up 50cents/gal since the first of the year--25%. The oil being the obvious
target now the the lower-48 has definitely peaked.
@ 32 juliania... you are the eternal optimist! there is something admirable about that!..
however you have to contend with a lot of cynical people who think like it's business as
well, as b's post notes..... you might not like to hear this, but nothing is going to
change under biden... big wheels set in motion and biden is not interested in the least in
changing any of it... neither was trump as some of his fanbots are coming to see too...
political speeches are just so much b.s... juliania - as the saying goes, talk is cheap, it
is actions that count.... watch peoples actions, not their talk... biden can talk a good
line, but that has nothing to do with his actions... top of the day to you!
@34 Invading Venezuela and 'taking the oil' won't be easy though there is a possibility
Colombia will help out. Which means the total disruption of South America. More economical
to just buy the stuff.
"It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 16:16 utc | 26
Tnx for expressing this in a much nicer and polite way then i would have written. And
yes, yes it is sad/amusing to watch NPC`s turn into pretzels to explain away their
cognitive dissonans ,utter foolishness and stupidity.
"... If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war – within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise). ..."
"... The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media (again with "Russian disinformation" playing a major role). ..."
"... I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support, given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the Reich. ..."
"... Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people. ..."
This particular inauguration is going to look a lot different from all the others –
the twin bogus narratives of coronavirus and the "attempted
coup" on January 6th have forced, FORCED, capitol city into an almost Martial Law-like
standing.
A heavy troop presence as your leader is sworn in is one of the hallmarks of legitimacy, you
understand. And not even slightly a sign of power being seized illegitimately.
That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves –
what kind of world are we in for?
Internationally it's likely to be business as usual. If you look at his cabinet choices,
from
Victoria Nuland to
Samantha power , we have a LOT of warmongers who bleat about America's "responsibility to
protect". While politicians and pundits are already rebuking Trump & Johnson for failing in
US/UK's
"moral leadership" of the world, or praising Biden for his plans to "counter Russian
disinformation".
If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war
– within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military
intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise).
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic
terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media
(again with "Russian
disinformation" playing a major role).
The big question is whether the inauguration will go off smoothly, or they'll try another
manufactured incident to sell that agenda.
How do you think President Creepy Uncle Joe is going to shape our world? How long before,
for whatever reason, Kamala Harris replaces him? Will the pandemic be "solved"? Will we have a
new war? Discuss below.
Jan 21, 2021 2:24 AM
Washington DC was empty except for the troops. Windblown streets. Jason Goodman did his
walkabout could not even get a distant view of the Capitol. It's as if no one voted for Biden: no supporters even tried to attend the inauguration. You would have expected someone a few diehards who hadn't heard about the military
occupation.
I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support,
given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of
reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the
Reich.
Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a
military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people.
An inauguration of the leader of a nation cannot be legitimate if the people play no part
.
Celebrities cheered with exaggerated leering grins and lockjaw, tongues lolling in a vain
caricature of support from the class of paid actors.
The term 'State Actor' has a new meaning today. The Corporatist Media could not recognise
its own banality. This was like the USSR Actors' Union huddling and fawning around Secretary
General Brezhnev as the Soviet Union teetered to collapse.
Social cretinism is the best one can say about this sorry debacle but I fear it is something
much, much worse.
Disillusioned Peasant , Jan 21, 2021 2:38 AM Reply to theobalt
Agreed, Trump was used as a puppet to shame anybody who questions the narrative or resists
the deep state. He was asked to be a cartoon, a ridiculous exaggeration of a "traditionalist"
or "nationalist" to forever tarnish that stance. He was basically the Alex Jones president
.the ultimate controlled opposition. A clown.
I'm so embarrassed I fell for it in 2016. Of COURSE he was phony. Jan 21, 2021 1:39 AM
The snake as a new head. It's still the same snake. It still crawls on it's belly and it
still spits the same lies on behalf of the masters who stand behind the curtain. We could
still hear Bush Sr when Clinton spoke ; We could still hear Bush Jr when Obama spoke. Red and
Blue are the same colour.
It was refreshing in parts to have an American president who didn't try to contrive a
narrative that would justify invading another country or contrive yet another cell of
'radicalised' terrorists. No explosions on home soil intended to be taken as an attack from
foreign soil. Nothing in four years.
It was all the more surprising as many believed that Trump was and is a great real estate
dealer and TV celebrity who has manufactured his charisma from arrogance and ignorance. He
has never been celebrated for much beyond his business acumen in the real estate area and TV.
This wasn't exactly an erudite man. Former presidents of different ages were and were capable
of putting it on paper in their memoirs. Trump was the sign of the times ; a Twitter
president. His reign was punctuated by the occasional flexing of Uncle Sam's muscles with
threats and a go -ahead-punk-make-our-day approach to public speaking. Yet still no
threats of war. This was an odd four years. That odd = peace says more about the US than
Trump though. So, what was his role ?
In 2001 we had the Twin Towers. The most dramatic mass murder and the destruction of the
laws of Physics and Logic all in one day. Soon after we had the destruction of personal
freedom and the creation of domestic terror. It had been suggested by Philip Zelikow three
years earlier that a 'searing event such as a terror attack' would be a useful and
effective tool in transforming the future by breaking away from the past in no uncertain
terms. It would be the event that nobody dare question, and that would be perfect for
creating a real fear within the people of the west that such a disaster could occur any time
without warning. All they needed was the right salesman to address us.
And so the Patriot Act was born. The surveillance of everyone in their streets, in other
towns and their homes was pushed through as a public health measure and a matter of
national security. If you protested you were a ' 9 /11 denier' and 'unpatriotic'. If
we went too long without evidence of this terror then somewhere would be bombed and the
bomber would be 'neutralised' before we would ever learn who was behind it. It took time to
become a 'new normal' but it became the 'new normal'. Complain- you were a 'dangerous'
conspiracy theorist; in some states it was considered grounds to label you under the mental
health act. Just for asking questions.This was how to protect democracy- by
tyranny.
So, two decades on we were ready and primed.
Gates and his cohort billionaire 'philanderers' had been beavering away for decades
creating more subtle forms of terror. No bangs; no smoke; no mess. These 'missiles'
were microbes and the control groups had been observed closely. From mice, to bats to black
people to gay people. Once the results /data became big enough numbers, the bomb factory went
to work behind the closed doors of 'Cancer Research ' facilities.
We all know now about the hypothetical exercises 'imagined' by the Gates 'Good
Club' ; nightmares of being unprepared etc. They penned in 2030 as target date for the
endgame. . A date that will have seen the human race enslaved or culled by their
terrorism.
Liability would have been taken off the table, giving them free reign. All involved sank
their pennies into the manufacturing of these little bombs. And all Academic Institutions,
MSM platforms, and pharmaceutical industries were funded by Gates and Co. Then
Monsanto and it's subsidiaries were purchased the same way, and the same immunity from
prosecution granted from the damaging synthetic /poison crops and food.
So, 2020, was Trump's last stand. He had his '9 /11'. He had domestic bio
terrorists. Then the rest of the world had it. We had the same threats to national
security and the same 'need' for a new version of a Dystopian Patriot Act.
This wasn't about ISIS or Al -Qaeda and their radicalised lunatics. Trump had found a new
group of Bogeymen. China. He would have sounded a bit paranoid if Russia was blamed for
something again. Besides, everyone knows that all SARS- type or flu-like viruses are made in
China quicker and cheaper. And the US should know that by looking in their many, many
stockpiles in their own Biological War labs they pretend are trying to cure
cancer.
Trump decided to refer to the Covid 19 virus as 'The Chinese disease '. Fang
Ling Fauci had told him to on behalf of Wong Sing Gates.
He went on to call himself a 'war time president' ( there you go- he got one).
He invoked the Defence Production Act, an old Cold War law which allows the Executive
Branch to control and redirect the production and distribution of scarce materials deemed
"essential to the national defense. " In an executive order dated March 18th,
2020.
To add another layer to the movie the troops were brought in and all medics were now
'heroes on the front line'.
The script went global. It began in the country that Gates had composed such a
hypothetical scenario- America. Hence the 'Chinese Disease'. It was the new war on terror
minus the James Bond bad guy Bin Laden.
So Trump ushered it in right on time. It didn't win the election( we were told). Instead,
it won it for Obama's man, Biden.
Biden and Obama were the most vehement advocates of Monsanto, Sterilisation, and Social
Technology ( eugenics ; social cleansing). Obama was made a very wealthy man for his
services to the Gates agenda, pharma and GM / Frankenfood. He was surprisingly racist
as well as elitist. Tom Vilsack was their frontman. Biden has already called him out of
retirement.
So, given the 'war-on-(bio)-terror ' that was born in the USA and sold worldwide,
there was no place for Trump. His job was to let the the 'enemy' in, warn us of the possible
'war ahead' and leave it to Gates. But Trump seemed to have spotted that and didn't
seem too keen on the narrative. So, come on down Barack O Biden. The timing's right.. Jan 20,
2021 11:40 PM Reply to Ben
Do not be bamboozled, in SHAM DEMOCRACY USA there is only one party, THE
REPUBLICRATS (the WAR RACKETEER CORPORATE FASCIST political racket so corrupt it needs two
aliases).
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral
and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of
tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
~ Frederick Douglas, 1857
Schmitz Katze , Jan 20, 2021 10:44 PM
„That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves
– what kind of world are we in for? –
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic.-
Will the pandemic be "solved"? „
It will only be solved when people have had enough of it. The deep state got rid of Trump
(for the timebeing-) under the guise of a pandemic. For them and their minions in MSM,
government and academia it´s a gift that keeps on giving, with never ending corona
mutation fearporn.
It´s totalitarianism, it´s dystopia under under the guise of –
domestic-safety.
This comes at a time when Americans are now
reporting that they trust corporations more than they trust their own government or media,
when pundits are gleefully proclaiming in The New
York Times that "CEOs have become the fourth branch of government" as they pressure the
entire political system to smoothly install Biden, when the leading contender for the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is an Obama holdover who went from the
administration to working for both Amazon and Google, and when Americans are being
paced into accepting an increasing amount of authoritarian changes for their own good.
And this manic celebration and increasing brazenness of corporate power are of course
overlaid atop an unceasing river of human blood as the globe-spanning empire continues to smash
any nation which disobeys it into compliance so as to ensure lasting uncontested planetary
hegemony.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
DH Fabian , January 18, 2021 at 12:03
Yes, nervous middle classers pray Joe Biden will be their salvation. The rest of us know
why "business as usual" will continue. The only real difference between Biden and Trump is
that Biden is more likely to start a catastrophic war (as his record clearly indicates).
Jeff Harrison , January 17, 2021 at 23:17
Good points. Since Americans don't see any consequence to their government's outrageous
behavior, everything's outstanding (there are real benefits to those two oceans)! And it will
remain outstanding until someone shoves our bad behavior in our faces (which could really
happen. The Russians and Chinese are arming themselves to defend themselves from the US.
That's a lot cheaper than having to support a major offensive capability) or our brokeness
blows our economy to hell. You might want to read up on what happened to Sparta ..
No, I am not excited for the inauguration of a man who: Wrote the crime and bankruptcy
bills, voted for the Iraq War, took more money from Wall Street than Trump, and told a room of
rich donors that "nothing will fundamentally change." Democrats are part of the problem
too.
If there must be a CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it.
William Burns in 2014 as U.S. deputy secretary of state. (State Department)
By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News
P resident-elect Joe Biden has finally named a new CIA director, one of the final
senior-level appointees for his new administration. Much to the surprise of many of us who
follow these things, he named senior diplomat Williams Burns to the position. Burns is one of
the most highly-respected senior U.S. diplomats of the past three decades. He has ably served
presidents of both parties and is known as both a reformer and as a supporter of human
rights.
Burns is currently the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an
important Washington-based international affairs think tank. He served as deputy secretary of
state under President Barack Obama and was ambassador to Russia under President George W. Bush
and ambassador to Jordan under President Bill Clinton. He was instrumental in the negotiations
that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal and spent much of his career focused on the Middle East Peace
Process. Burns joined the Foreign Service in 1982.
Please
Contribute to Consortium
News ' Winter Fund Drive
"Bill Burns is an exemplary diplomat with decades of experience on the word stage keeping
our people and our country safe and secure. He shares my profound belief that intelligence
must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation
deserve our gratitude and respect. The American people will sleep soundly with him as our
next CIA Director."
The message from Biden is clear: The CIA will not be led by a political hack like Mike
Pompeo, a CIA insider like John Brennan, or someone associated with the CIA's crimes of
torture, secret prisons, or international renditions like Gina Haspel. Instead, the
organization will be led by someone with experience engaging across a negotiating table with
America's enemies, someone experienced in solving problems, rather than creating new ones,
someone who has dedicated much of his career to promoting peace, rather than to creating
war.
Rank & File Response
The question, though, is what will be the response from the CIA's rank-and-file to Burns'
appointment? I can tell you from my 15 years of experience at the CIA that there will be two
reactions. At the working level, analysts, operators, and others will continue their same level
of work no matter who the director is. Most working level officers don't even care who the
director is. It doesn't matter to them. They never encounter the director and policies made at
that top level generally don't impact them on a day-to-day basis.
At the senior levels, the leadership levels, CIA officers will be of two minds. Some will
welcome Burns and his professionalism. They'll welcome a director who doesn't attract adverse
press because of a past history of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. (Even if
they supported those crimes when they were being committed, press attention is always
unwelcome.) They'll welcome a director who didn't head secret prisons overseas. They'll
welcome a director who wasn't in charge of Guantanamo. They'll welcome a director who
wasn't in charge of maintaining a secret "kill list."
Others will resent Burns, though, as they resented an earlier outsider, Admiral Stansfield
Turner. Turner had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter to "clean up" the CIA. Turner then
fired fully a third of the CIA's operations officers, some just months away from qualifying for
retirement. He was universally reviled after that, and he never regained the trust of agency
personnel.
That's not Burns' style. He's not a military officer who demands fealty. He's a diplomat, a
negotiator. The CIA has to be cleaned up. Its policies have to be reformed. If there must be a
CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it. At the very least, we should give him
enough time to at least get started.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
As a top-level State Department official through the administrations of Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton, Bush II and Obama, Burns is implicated in virtually every crime of US imperialism
over the past three decades, including the war in Iraq, the US-NATO attack on Libya, the
military coup that drowned the Egyptian Revolution in blood, and the US intervention in
Syria.
After such a career, as the saying goes, Burns knows where all the bodies are buried. Now
he is assigned to head an agency that is probably responsible for more killing, torture and
mass suffering than any other on the planet: the CIA.
A preview of what to expect from a Burns-led CIA was given during an interview with
National Public Radio's Mary Louise Kelly on "US Global Leadership" held June 19, 2019 at the
Truman Center for National Policy in Washington, DC. In the extended conversation, Burns
defended the US and NATO-led coup in Libya which ended with the grisly murder of Muammar
Gaddafi, followed by an ongoing civil war, the torture and killing of refugees and the return
of slave-markets.
"It was right to act in Libya in the way that we did," Burns said. While the US government
might have "got some assumptions wrong," he expressed no regrets, saying that he still
thought Obama's "decision to act was unavoidable."
Anne , January 12, 2021 at 14:15
I would agree with your estimation some one, anyone who can think, believe, say etc that
what we did in Iraq, Libya (I don't doubt Serbia), Syria is "rightful" has a heinously
distorted mind (pretty much everyone in DC, in the MICIMATT) And Biden has revealed himself
– again – as a subject of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist plutocratic ruling
elites (and one with his hand forever stuck out)
was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows
(including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter
@georgegalloway
19 Jan,
2021 18:23 It's hard not to wonder if Joe Biden will even last his first 100 days in office...
but those arguing his mind isn't sound enough shouldn't expect a swift exit, because since when
was that a disqualifier?
... ... ...
The madness of Donald Trump had nothing on his Republican predecessor and fellow-impeachee
Richard Nixon. So disturbing were the last days of Tricky Dicky, it came as a relief to America
and the world when he resigned – even though it was famously said his successor Gerald
Ford couldn't chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time. Bovine he may have been,
but a mad-cow he wasn't.
The Raging Bull Donald J Trump – grotesque, bizarre, unbelievable – had the
misfortune to go quite mad in the age of cable news and social media. His narcissistic
predilections always bordered on personality disorder. But his natural braggadocio stormed him
to victory in 2016 in a backlash against the super-smooth professorial presidency of Barack
Obama, with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton riding shotgun.
Under Obama, the Clintonite deindustrialisation of America became almost complete .
China was presented with America's lunch. And in no less than nine conflicts across the
globe Obama was 'nation-building' in other people's countries while his own country was falling
apart. But a dark storm was gathering
If only the Democrats had not started out by trying to steal Trump's election in a flurry of
pussy-hats and fake Russiagate hoaxes. If only they hadn't striven might and main to railroad
the Electoral College into betraying their mandate and – in the case of
Nancy Pelosi – make a thinly disguised call for "uprisings throughout the country."
If only they hadn't spent countless millions and two whole years of a four year-term with the
Mueller Inquiry and the cockamaney theorem that the man who confronted Russia from Ukraine and
the Baltics through the wrecked INF and Open Skies treaties to the killing fields of the Levant
was, in fact, an agent of Vladimir Putin. If only, if only
As it happened, the descent into madness of Trump was complete by the end. The coronavirus
he derided at first, before predicting it would disappear in the warm weather of spring, before
pondering whether bleach up the bahookie might not be an option as a cure. The Tammany Hall
skullduggery of election day, practiced over a century in places like New York, rolled out
across the country. The political suicide of only half-making a revolution on January 6 dug
his own grave. Nobody ever beat a candidate who polled over 75 million votes before. But
Sleepy Joe Biden did.
And he did it hardly ever leaving his basement home studio, where he painfully struggled to
read an autocue even with an earpiece shrieking the words to him. When he did speak, it was
often gibberish that would have made Ronald Reagan blush. He oftentimes plainly didn't know
where he was, what office he was running for, which woman was his sister and which was his
wife.
When Boris Yeltsin was rattling down, the world endlessly amused itself at the sight of
Russia on its back, legs akimbo with thieves picking its pocket. With Joe Biden, though, the
political class and its media echo-chamber merely look the other way.
Despite Democratic Party control of all levels of Federal power, it seems unlikely we are
about to witness an FDR or a JFK barnstorming 100 days. It seems fair to wonder if Sleepy
Joe will even see out a hundred days in office. It is, however, certain that if he is in office
he will not be in power. Because power has already passed to the cavernous uncertainty of Vice
President Kamala Harris.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Mark Conley 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Thanks for reminding the world that the president of the USA including his puppet elected
office bearers has absolutely no power whatsoever. Well said. Thus you have answered your own
observation at the end. The future is indeed dark and uncertain with the only certainty that
nothing good can be expected from any USA government. Thus the onus is on the peaceful
majority to do what is necessary.
Atilla863 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:15 PM
One thing is certain in the new leadership - the debt will go on growing, perhaps reaching
40+ T dollars before the next elections. While this trend continues - the Chinese will be
laughing all the way running to their banks as their economy records fortune after fortune
proportional only inversely to the rate at which America recedes into superpower sunset.
JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
I'm surprised at George Galloway's comments, as he is a former MP in British politics. Kamala
in charge? Don't make me laugh. The cabal is in charge, as they have been since Woodrow
Wilson. Before actually, as Garfield was assassinated for shedding light on the banker
machinations. Garfield knew that control of the nation's money was control of the nation. The
coup of America is complete. The POTUS is only the spokesman for the cabal, nothing else
Biden will be much easier to control and manipulate by the Jewish Banking Cartel, which
ultimately controls the US government and Wall Street. Trump was too unpredictable and would
have made it difficult for them to achieve their historical hope. "The Jews energetically
reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope
of World Empire." - Dr. Max Mandelstamm ***We should always listen to the doctors.
Not stolen.....50 states certified, 60 plus courts found nothing fraudulent, and the
electoral votes were confirmed by the House and Senate, with the Senate led by Pence. So, as
the world knows and anyone who knows election laws, the election was one of the most
legitimate ever held in the US.
KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel is ultimately in control of the US government and Wall Street.
They've been in control for decades. Now they've obviously teamed up with the Jewish Big Tech
companies like Facebook and Google in order to gain even more control. Controlling the money,
money system, and the minds of the masses has been their goal. Two Jewish controlled
companies control over $9Trillion of American's wealth. (BlackRock Inc. & Goldman Sachs)
They've finally achieved their goal. The cartel is now in control of a country that is
completely out of control. Karma!
Daffyduck011 KarlthePoet 38 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:18 PM
Ashkenasty banking cartel.
JJ_Rousseau KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:29 PM
It's not only the banking cabal, it's the media (which the same gang own, of course). This
cannot happen without a complicit media. This is a very old strategy
Blackace180 7 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:49 PM
He'll be impeached multiple times, along with his family. Removed and jailed. People need a
reminder of just how messed up Obama/Biden was and it is coming. The caravans are already on
the way and gas has jumped 55 cents a gallon since the election, for no reason other than it
is Biden. People will run the nutcracker right out of office, hopefully before the country
collapses from his nutcracker policies.
White Elk 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:45 PM
The press-elected.
Xilla White Elk 33 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
How did the press elect him?
Franc 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Xilla/Herrbifi, you're not welcome here. We all know what your goals are, and we all know
you're just here to make a pointless mess.
5th Eye 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
An Italian bureaucrat once said, "Everything is changed, so that it remains the same." It
will be exactly like that under Biden to legitimate his regime.
The_Chosenites 51 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
Since both Trump and Biden are proud zionists, the only thing I am certain of is Israel and
the Jewish community have won another election and we'll see many jewish politicians elevated
to positions of power in the Biden administration. Biden best do what's best for Israel if he
knows whats good for him and his health.
KarlthePoet The_Chosenites 16 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:40 PM
Maybe when Kamala becomes President she can get advice from her Jewish husband, who is a
lawyer. What a coincidence.
Enki14 9 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:48 PM
That Henry Kissinger, long time shadow government puppet endorsed demented biden is a clue as
to what might happen as they know in 2 years the masses will reinstate conservatives and in 4
years another trumpster. We may see sweeping changes, with some huge blowback.
The_Chosenites Enki14 4 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:53 PM
Kissinger has had a bed in the oval office for many a President, he must have been installed
by the Chosennites to stay in office forever. Presidents come and go, but Kissinger remains
to pull the strings. Goldman Sach's et al rule the roost.
Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:42 PM
Biden's 100 days are interesting. It's exactly 100 days from January 20 to May 1, which is
the communist May Day.
Skeptic076 Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Used to be the American May Day as well, you know? Interesting if you research why it is not
anymore.
Michael Knight 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:46 PM
Impossible to believe he'll be in charge????? That's probably because he won't be!
RCBreakenridge Mike Freeman 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Mike, seriously? What echo chamber are you living in? How can you look at Biden and not
understand that he's little more than a life-size cardboard cutout of the man that used to be
Obama's puppet? He'll be in office as long as they can continue to stand him up for photo ops
and he continues to do exactly what he is told. As soon as either of those conditions falter,
Nancy and friends will roll out the 25th amendment, show him the door and lead KH to the
presidents chair. But make no mistake, the only choices Sleepy Joe will be making are to do
as he is told.
"... "A month after the election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to fulfill his ..."
"... to donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet appointments ..."
"... What little organized left political infrastructure exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum deserve a loyal opposition. The ..."
"... being done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp creatures a free pass ..."
"... Despite Tanden's ..."
"... push for Social Security cuts ..."
"... , Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to defend Social Security ..."
"... . Despite Tanden having her organization ..."
"... rake in cash ..."
"... from Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and ( ..."
"... ) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer advocacy group ..."
"... CAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tanden ..."
"... a union at CAP, ..."
"... union leaders ..."
"... in Washington lauded her. ..."
"... American Prospect ..."
"... "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ..."
"... "a President Putin would be in the business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and other nations that are near the U.S. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Bernard Schwartz, ..."
"... a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin ..."
"... (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, ..."
"... "Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter" ..."
"... , and reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. ..."
That didn't take long. He's not even in office, and he has already surrounded himself, as
the incoming President, with individuals who derive their wealth from (and will be serving)
America's top defense contractors and Wall Street. The likelihood that these Government
officials will be biting the hands that feed them is approximately zero. Great investigative
journalists have already exposed how corrupt they are. For that to be the case so early (even
before taking office) is remarkable, and only a summary of those reports will be provided here,
with links to them, all of which reports are themselves linking to the incriminating evidence,
so that everything can easily be tracked back to the documentation by the reader here, even
before there are any 'Special Prosecutors' (as if those were serving anyone other than the
opposite Party's political campaigns, and, ultimately, the opposite Party's billionaires).
First up, is the independent investigative team of David Sirota and Andrew Perez. On
December 4th, they bannered "The Beltway
Left Is Normalizing Corruption And Corporatism" , and reported that "A month after the
election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to
fulfill hispromiseto donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit
admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in
Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet
appointments ."
Liberal (that's to say Democratic Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness of Democratic
politicians, and conservative (that's to say Republican Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness
of Republican politicians; and, so, the public today are getting corrupt leaders whichever side
they vote for. No mainstream 'news' media report what independent investigative journalists
such as Sirota and Perez report. Authentically good journalists use as sources -- and link to
in their articles -- neither Democratic nor Republican allegations, but instead are on the
margins, outside of the major media, and so rely on whistleblowers and other trustworthy
outsiders, not on people who are somebody's paid PR flacks, individuals who are being paid to
deceive. As Sirota and Perez state: " What little organized left political infrastructure
exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum
deserve a loyal opposition. Thegood workbeing done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is
getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp
creatures a free pass ." It's all some sort of mega-corporate propaganda -- 100%
billionaire-supported on the conservative side, 100% billionaire-supported also on the liberal
side, and 0% billionaire-supported for anything that is authentically progressive (not
dependent, at all, upon the aristocracy).
That independent reporting team focused on Biden's having chosen an economic team which will
start his Administration already offering to congressional Republicans an initial Democratic
Party negotiating position that accepts Republicans' basic proposals to cut middle class Social
Security and health care benefits in order for the Government to be able to continue expanding
the military budgets and purchases from the billionaire-controlled firms, such as Northrop
Grumman -- firms whose entire sales (or close to it) are to the U.S. Government and to the
governments (U.S. 'allies') that constitute these firms' secondary markets. (In other words:
those budget-cuts aren't going to be an issue between the two Parties and used by Biden's team
as a bargaining chip to moderate the Republicans' position that favors more for 'defense' and
less for the poor, but are actually accepted by both Parties, even before the new
Administration will take office.) Obviously, anything that both sides to a negotiation accept
at the very start of a negotiation will be included in the final product from that negotiation;
and this means that during a Biden Presidency there will be reductions in middle-class Social
security and health care benefits in order to continue, at the present level -- if not to
increase yet further -- Government spending on the products and services of such firms as
Lockheed Martin and the Rand Corporation (firms that control their market by controlling their
Government, which is their main or entire market).
Sirota and Perez focus especially upon one example: Neera Tanden, whom Biden chose on
November 30th to be the White House Budget Director, and who therefore will set the priorities
which determine how much federal money the President will be trying to get the Congress to
allocate to what recipients:
Despite Tanden'spush for Social Security cuts, Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to
defend Social Securitylauded
herthink
tank. Despite Tanden having her organizationrake in
cashfrom Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and (previously) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer
advocacy group
praisedCAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the
rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tandenbustinga union at CAP,twonationalunion
leadersin Washington lauded her.
Next up: One of the rare honest non-profits in the field of journalism is the Project on
Government Oversight, POGO, which refuses to accept donations from "anyone who stands to
benefit financially from our work," and which states in its unique "Donation Acceptance Policy" that,
"POGO reviews all contributions exceeding $100 in order to maintain this standard." In other
words: they refuse to be corrupt. Virtually all public-policy or think-tank nonprofits are
profoundly corrupt, but POGO is the most determined exception to that general
rule.
On 20 November 2020, POGO headlined "Should
Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense?" and their terrific investigative team of
Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey delivered a scorching portrayal of Flournoy as irredeemably
corrupt -- it ought to be read by everybody. It's essential reading throughout, and its links
to the evidence are to the very best sources. So, I won't summarize it, because all Americans
need to know what it reports, and to be able to verify, on their own (by clicking onto any link
in it that interests them), any allegation that the given reader has any question about.
However, I shall point out here the sheer hypocrisy of the following which that article quotes
Flournoy as asserting: "It will be imperative for the next secretary to appoint a team of
senior officials who meet the following criteria: deep expertise and competence in their areas
of responsibility; proven leadership in empowering teams, listening to diverse views, making
tough decisions, and delivering results." (Of course, that assertion presumes the
given 'expert' to be not only authentically expert but also honest and trustworthy,
authentically representing the public's interest and no special interests whatsoever -- not at
all corrupt -- which is certainly a false allegation in her own case.) She had urged the 2003
invasion of Iraq, and had participated in planning and overseeing both the war against Syria,
and the coup that destroyed Ukraine (and none of those countries had ever invaded, or even
threatened to invade, the United States); and, so, for her to brag about her
"delivering results" is not merely hypocritical, it is downright evil, because she is obviously
proud, there, of her vicious, outright voracious, record.
Her business-partner, Tony Blinken, has already received Biden's approval to become his
Secretary of State, and the first really good investigative journalist that American
Prospect magazine has had, Jonathan Guyer, headlined on November 23rd, "What You Need to Know About Tony Blinken" , and what Guyer
reports is just what any well informed reader would expect to see for a business
partner of Flournoy's.
Guyer's report closes by making passing reference to a CBS 'news' puff-piece for Blinken. In
that CBS
puff-piece , Blinken says, "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting
Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its
deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer
space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to
countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ." What would Americans think if
Russia were to have retained its Warsaw Pact, and "a President Putin would be in the
business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing
them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new
capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I.,
electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and
other nations that are near the U.S. "? Guyer pointedly noted that "The [CBS News] podcast
was sponsored by a major weapons maker. 'At Lockheed Martin, your mission is ours,' read an
announcer." Tony Blinken's mission is theirs. These people get the money both coming and going
-- on both sides of the "revolving door." Today's American Government is for sale to
the highest bidders, on any policy, domestic or foreign. 'Government service' is just a
sabbatical to boost their value to the firms that will be paying them the vast majority of
their lifetime 'earnings'. This is the reality that mainstream U.S.-and-allied 'news' media
refuse to publish (or, especially , to make clear). Only an electorate which
is ignorant of this reality can accept such a government.
Back on 26 January 2020, I had headlined "Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They
Come" and documented the reality of this, but America's mainstream media were hiding that
fact so as to decrease the likelihood that the only Democratic Party Presidential candidate whom no billionaire
supported , Bernie Sanders, might win the nomination. Perhaps now that it's too late, even
those 'news' organizations (such as CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times ,
Washington Post , PBS, and NPR) will start reporting the fact of Biden's corruptness.
Where billionaires control all of the mainstream media, there is no democracy -- it's not even
possible , in such a country
Bernard Schwartz,a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin(which is by far
the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's
allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th,"Biden
allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter", and
reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's
campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just
that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor
of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate.
Near the end of the Democratic Party's primaries, on 16 March 2020, CNBC headlined
"Megadonors pull plug on plan for anti-Sanders super PAC as Biden racks up wins" , and
reported that Bernard Schwartz had become persuaded by other billionaires that, by this time,
"Biden could handle Sanders on his own." They had done their job; they would therefore control
the U.S. Government regardless of which Party's nominee would head it.
Biden -- like Trump, and like Obama and Bush and Clinton before him -- doesn't represent the
American people. He represents his mega-donors. And he is staffing his Administration
accordingly. He repays favors: he delivers the services that they buy from him. This is today's
America. And that is the way it functions.
Below is a list of which House Republicans voted to impeach Trump on Wednesday.
Rep. John Katko
(N.Y.) : "To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without
consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot
sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President."
Rep. Liz
Cheney (Wyo.) : " There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United
States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the
President. "
Rep. Adam
Kinzinger (Ill.) : "There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United
States broke his oath of office and incited this insurrection I will vote in favor of
impeachment."
Rep. Fred Upton
(Mich.) : "Enough is enough. The Congress must hold President Trump to account and send
a clear message that our country cannot and will not tolerate any effort by any President
to impede the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next. Thus, I will vote
to impeach."
Rep. Dan Newhouse
(Wash.) : "A vote against this impeachment is a vote to validate the unacceptable
violence we witnessed in our nation's capital. ... I will vote yes on the articles of
impeachment."
Rep.
Peter Meijer (Mich.) : "With the facts at hand, I believe the article of impeachment to
be accurate. The President betrayed his oath of office by seeking to undermine our
constitutional process, and he bears responsibility for inciting the violent acts of
insurrection last week."
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez
(Ohio) : "When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including
the President's lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am
compelled to support impeachment."
Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.) : "I
have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and
voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable."
Rep. David Valadao
(Calif.) : "Based on the facts before me, I have to go with my gut and vote my
conscience. I voted to impeach President Trump. His inciting rhetoric was un-American,
abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense. It's time to put country over
politics."
"These leaders are trusted at home and respected around the world, and their nominations
signal that America is back and ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,"
Biden said on Saturday in a statement announcing his picks to fill top positions under his
nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken.
Like Blinken, the five latest State Department picks are veterans of the Obama-Biden
administration. Nuland , a
neoconservative who was named undersecretary for political affairs, goes all the way back to
former President Ronald Reagan's administration and was a foreign policy adviser to former Vice
President Dick Cheney.
Other new re-hires include: Wendy Sherman, deputy secretary of state, who led the
Obama-Biden administration's negotiating team on peace talks with Iran; Brian McKeon, deputy
secretary for management and resources, who was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden; Bonnie Jenkins, undersecretary for arms control and international security,
who previously coordinated nonproliferation programs; and Uzra Zeha, undersecretary for
civilian security, who formerly was charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Paris.
After four years of President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, including efforts to
wind down foreign interventions and broker peace deals, Biden's declaration of "America is
back" portends a sharp contrast in foreign policy. He said his latest nominees will "use
their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America's global and moral
leadership."
Nuland, who studied Russian literature at Brown University, wrote last summer in Foreign
Affairs of how "a confident America should deal
with Russia " with a more "activist" policy, including "speaking directly to
the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for
(President Vladimir) Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." She added, "Washington and
its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results
for many years after."
Nuland perhaps was using such "statecraft" when, as assistant secretary of state in
December 2013, she handed out cookies
to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti square who were demanding the resignation of
President Viktor Yanukovich. An audiotape leaked in February 2014 showed that
her involvement in the uprising went well beyond cookies, as she spoke with US Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt about plotting to replace Yanukovich with Washington's chosen opposition leader,
Arseny Yatseniuk, and about involving the UN to "f**k the EU" by pushing through a
US-preferred Ukraine policy.
Ironically, Nuland's appointment comes just as politicians in Washington fret over this
month's storming of the US Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, which some called a
coup attempt.
"I knew it wasn't a real coup because Victoria Nuland wasn't handing out cookies,"
Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow said of the Capitol assault. "She'll be back
overthrowing governments in the Biden administration, so it remains a valid standard."
In light of Nuland's hawkish history, 25
anti-war groups have jointly called for the Senate to
reject confirmation of her nomination as undersecretary for political affairs.
"Victoria Nuland is returning to the State Department," one commenter wrote on
Twitter. "The United States is returning to the former Soviet republics with great strides.
A fierce struggle with Russia begins."
"... , and author of several books, including ..."
"... Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran ..."
"... . @medeabenjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
"... . @NicolasJSDavies; and Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders,and is Coordinator of ..."
Yves here. Biden's nominees have skewed towards the awful, particularly on the foreign
policy front. But his plan to install Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland at State is a standout. For
those of you new to this site and not familiar with Nuland's sorry history, this post gives an
overview of her role in fomenting the coup in Ukraine and in putting relations with Russia on a
Cold War footing. The authors encourage readers to call their Senators and urge them to vote
against her nomination.
And before you get unduly excited by Biden nominating Gary Gensler to the SEC, I would much
rather have seem Gensler at Treasury. Gensler demonstrated at the CFTC that he's effective and
dedicated to combatting abuses by Big Finance. However, his best shot at making the SEC feared
and respected again is to appoint a tough head of enforcement, so keep an eye out for that
pick.
The problem that Gensler will have at the SEC is that it is the only Federal financial
services industry regulator that is subject to Congressional appropriations, rather that living
off its fees and fines (the SEC collects far more than Congress allows it). And Democrats, like
Joe Lieberman, then the Senator from Hedgistan, have been if anything more aggressive than
Republicans in threatening the SEC and in keeping it budget-starved.
I had said to Lambert that if Biden wanted to be Machiavellian, the way to pretend to reward
Elizabeth Warren while actually sandbagging her would be to make her SEC chair. Let's hope that
isn't his logic for appointing Gensler.
Photo Credit: thetruthseeker.co.uk Nuland and Pyatt planning regime change in Kiev
Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her because the U.S. corporate
media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that
President-elect Biden's pick for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs is stuck in
the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an
arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.
Nor do they know that from 2003-2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq,
Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush
administration.
You can bet, however, that the people of Ukraine have heard of neocon Nuland. Many have even
heard the leaked four-minute audio of her saying "Fuck the EU" during a 2014 phone call with
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian
President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European
Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of
U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The "Fuck the EU" call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the
call's authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the
phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty
mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine's elected government
and America's responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left
Ukraine the poorest
country in Europe.
In the process, Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, the co-founder of The Project for a New
American Century , and their neocon cronies succeeded in sending U.S.-Russian relations
into a dangerous downward spiral from which they have yet to recover.
Nuland accomplished this from a relatively junior position as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs. How much more trouble could she stir up as the #3 official
at Biden's State Department? We'll find out soon enough, if the Senate confirms her
nomination.
Joe Biden should have learned from Obama's mistakes that appointments like this matter.
In his first
term , Obama allowed his hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and military and CIA leaders held over from the Bush administration to
ensure that endless war trumped his message of hope and change.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ended up presiding over indefinite detentions without
charges or trials at Guantanamo Bay; an escalation of drone strikes that killed innocent
civilians; a deepening of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; a self-reinforcing
cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism; and disastrous new wars in
Libya and Syria
.
With Clinton out and new personnel in top spots in his second term, Obama began
to take charge of his own foreign policy. He started working directly with Russia's President
Putin to resolve crises in Syria and other hotspots. Putin helped avert an escalation of the
war in Syria in September 2013 by negotiating the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpiles, and helped Obama negotiate an interim agreement with Iran that led to the
JCPOA nuclear deal.
But the neocons were apoplectic that they failed to convince Obama to order a massive
bombing campaign and escalate his covert,
proxy war in Syria and at the receding prospect of a war with Iran. Fearing their control
of U.S. foreign policy was slipping, the neocons launched a
campaign to brand Obama as "weak" on foreign policy and remind him of their power.
With
editorial help from Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan penned a 2014 New Republic
article entitled "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire," proclaiming that "there is no democratic
superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters." Kagan
called for an even more aggressive foreign policy to exorcise American fears of a multipolar
world it can no longer dominate.
Obama invited Kagan to a private lunch at the White House, and the neocons' muscle-flexing
pressured him to scale back his diplomacy with Russia, even as he quietly pushed ahead on
Iran.
The neocons' coup de grace against Obama's better angels was Nuland's 2014 coup
in debt-ridden Ukraine, a valuable imperial possession for its wealth of natural gas and a
strategic candidate for NATO membership right on Russia's border.
When Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with
the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a
tantrum.
Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.
The EU trade
agreement was to open Ukraine's economy to imports from the EU, but without a reciprocal
opening of EU markets to Ukraine, it was a lopsided deal Yanukovich could not accept. The deal
was approved by the post-coup government, and has only added to Ukraine's economic woes.
The muscle for Nuland's $5 billion coup was Oleh
Tyahnybok's neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the shadowy new Right Sector militia. During her leaked
phone call, Nuland referred to Tyahnybok as one of the "big three" opposition leaders on the
outside who could help the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Yatsenyuk on the inside. This is the same
Tyanhnybok who once
delivered a speec h applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and "other scum" during World
War II.
After protests in Kiev's Euromaidan square turned into battles with police in February 2014,
Yanukovych and the Western-backed opposition
signed an agreement brokered by France, Germany and Poland to form a national unity
government and hold new elections by the end of the year.
But that was not good enough for the neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing forces the U.S. had
helped to unleash. A violent mob led by the Right Sector militia marched on and invaded the
parliament building , a scene no longer difficult for Americans to imagine. Yanukovych and
his members of parliament fled for their lives.
Facing the loss of its most vital strategic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, Russia
accepted the overwhelming result (a 97% majority, with an 83% turnout) of a referendum in which
Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which it had been a part of from 1783 to
1954.
The majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine
unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, triggering a bloody civil war between U.S.-
and Russian-backed forces that still rages in 2021.
U.S.-Russian relations have never recovered, even as U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals still
pose the greatest single
threat to our existence. Whatever Americans believe about the civil war in Ukraine and
allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, we must not allow the neocons
and the military-industrial complex they serve to deter Biden from conducting vital diplomacy
with Russia to steer us off our suicidal path toward nuclear war.
Nuland and the neocons, however, remain committed to an ever-more debilitating and dangerous
Cold War with Russia and China to justify a militarist foreign policy and record Pentagon
budgets. In a July 2020 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland
absurdly
claimed that Russia presents a greater threat to "the liberal world" than the U.S.S.R.
posed during the old Cold War.
Nuland's
narrative rests on an utterly mythical, ahistorical narrative of Russian aggression and
U.S. good intentions. She pretends that Russia's military budget, which is one-tenth of
America's, is evidence of "Russian confrontation and militarization" and calls
on the U.S. and its allies to counter Russia by "maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and deploying new conventional
missiles and missile defenses to protect against Russia's new weapons systems "
Nuland also wants to confront Russia with an aggressive NATO. Since her days as U.S.
Ambassador to NATO during President George W. Bush's second term, she has been a supporter of
NATO's expansion all the way up to Russia's border. She calls
for "permanent bases along NATO's eastern border." We have pored over a map of Europe, but
we can't find a country called NATO with any borders at all. Nuland sees Russia's commitment to
defending itself after successive 20th century Western invasions as an intolerable obstacle to
NATO's expansionist ambitions.
Nuland's militaristic worldview represents exactly the folly the U.S. has been pursuing
since the 1990s under the influence of the neocons and "liberal interventionists," which has
resulted in a systematic underinvestment in the American people while escalating tensions with
Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
As Obama learned too late, the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time can, with a
shove in the wrong direction, unleash years of intractable violence, chaos and international
discord. Victoria Nuland would be a ticking time-bomb in Biden's State Department, waiting to
sabotage his better angels much as she undermined Obama's second-term diplomacy.
So let's do Biden and the world a favor. Join World Beyond War , CODEPINK and dozens of other
organizations opposing neocon Nuland's confirmation as a threat to peace and diplomacy. Call
202-224-3121 and tell your Senator to oppose Nuland's installation at the State Department.
Nuland has also been declared persona non grata by Russia, so she would not be able to go
with Biden, were he to visit Moscow. Russian foreign minister Lavrov, actually refused to
shake her hand when she attended a US-Russia meeting with Kerry. She is poison to any attempt
to peaceful relationships.
Yes, I remember that meeting clearly. Can't cite the network, but it covered her closely
– body language only. I wonder where Biden stood on that act of diplomacy given his own
corruption, and also what John Kerry's thinking is about now. John Kerry's stepson was in
cahoots with Hunter Biden. It looked like Kerry brought her along for some rehabilitation and
Lavrov was having none of it. Instead he went directly to the delegation from Ukraine and
they stood in a circle all with their backs turned to Vicky who had no choice but to wander
over to the coffee table and pretend she wasn't totally uncomfortable. Totally excluded. How
can she recover from that?
If there is one thing that Russia hates it is fascists and that is because of the enormous
damage caused by them in WW2. We call those invaders Nazis but the Russians seem to call them
fascists. I sometimes wonder if it is part of their mother's milk this hatred. For people
like Nuland to help topple the government of a large, bordering country like the Ukraine and
install people that were literally fascists was too much for the Russians. These were fascist
of a very low order that had the old 1930s routines down pat, including the torchlight
parades. And there was Nuland, handing out cookies to the rioters, many of whom had been
trained in rioting tactics in Poland and were being paid about $100 a day by the US if I
recall correctly. Of course Nuland was not alone as there was also a Representative from the
EU also handing out cookies. The only equivalent that comes to mind is a violent revolution
in Canada using professional rioters and having diplomatic representatives from the Russian
Federation and China handing out donuts to the rioter. I wonder what Washington would say
about a stunt like that.
Nuland is a disgusting human being. Since she is a right winger, regardless of what party
may be listed on her voter ID, I don't think Bettridge's law applies here at all.
So glad all these 'woke' people put good old Uncle Joe back in office. Wonder how many
realized they were supporting people being burned alive by actual Nazis in doing so?
Thanks for this. Our "learned nothing/forgot nothing" Bourbon restoration will be led by
one of the dimmer Bourbons who couldn't even set up a good grift in Ukraine without boasting
about it and then angrily denying it. Should the press finally, improbably turn on him it
should make for some fun news conferences. But perhaps he'll merely be moving to the White
House basement from his Delaware basement.
CFTC's budgets are also set through congressional authorization and appropriations. Yes,
the CFPB is not subject to Congressional appropriations, but for good reasons. However, all
financial regulation can be overturned by the Congressional Review Act.
As for the article, citation needed. Sort of a laundry heap of questionable material. Make
no mistake, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a real war. Uniformed Russian armored infantry of
331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division dropped into Ukraine territory on 24
August 2014. From 25 to 27 August, Russian troops in civilian clothing, backed up by an
armored column [not in disguise] took Novoazovsk. This is about Russia not being able to
station 25,000 troops in Crimea as they had under Yanukovych. US troop levels in Europe have
been at their lowest for the last 20 years. The US would like to [nay, needs to] keep it that
way. However, the erosion of territorial integrity is a touchy subject in Europe given the
lasting peace of the post-war period in a place where the wars have a pre-fix like "Hundred
Years".
President Arseniy Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin so the claims of coordination with Nazi
sympathizers is dubious. Not even going to get the boycotted unconstitutional Crimean
referendum.
As for WW III, Obama's defense department made it a priority to recover all the MANPADS,
such as the Chinese-made FN-6 [via Qatar], Russian-made Strela-2's and Igla-S's [via Libya]
from the FSA without so much as a thank you from the Russian Air Force. [Turkey, on the other
hand, armed the FSA with Stinger's.] It should be noted that the Syrian conflict's death
toll, in just four years, surpassed the 19-year death toll in all the Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Iraq war theatres combined.
Think about this way: who needs NATO and the EU more to maintain his power structure, Joe
Biden or Vladimir Putin. Isn't it clear Americans don't care, and American business does not
look to compete in Russian anytime soon. The geography is wrong. But Putin must find a way to
engender ethnicities who do not like the Russian Empire, who had been cleansed by Stalin. One
way is to sell energy below cost to the republics and buy in back from political allies in
the form of electricity. Something upon which the EU frowns. [Personally, I did not care for
the way Putin early on systematically and indiscriminately starved Chechen civilians for
years. It was cruel on a level unseen outside of the Rwandan genocide. More importantly, it
was the Russian Federation abdicating its authority by not providing for its own citizens and
not letting NGO's fill the calorie gap. I'd like to think had Putin's admin not been so
wobbly the first few years, he might've let the Red Cross feed the children.]
Russia was never going to permit a US orchestrated coup in Ukraine without resistance. The
idea that Putin needs NATO more than Biden does seems unreasonable.
Talking about "citations", perhaps you could supply the readership of this site with some
credible citations and links for a few of the far fetched claims you're making here. Most of
this comment reads like pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
I heard about Gary Gensler, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland, and I immediately
thought, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Gensler surprised everyone when he was at the CFTC by doing his job, and doing it well,
and his running the SEC is a good thing.
Samantha Power is an aggressive war monger, and in her position at USAID, she will likely
have her fingers in regime change pie, since USAID is part of the deep state regime change
apparatus..
I've long suspected that NATO has existed since 1991 to allow the US/EU axis to control
Middle-Eastern and African resources. For example, the Rammstein military hospital is where
every Gulf War soldier was airlifted for major treatment and convalescence.
Also, there is a huge international trade in opium. It's grown in Afpak and shipped out in
every direction. I suspect that a fair amount of that flows through Ukraine and Crimea. If
you look at a topo map of Crimea, there's a lot of seashore that could be good "smuggler's
coves". Following this line of argument, Russia grabbing it from Ukraine was a gimme to
Russia's gangsters. This, as well as the "Pipeline Wars", gives Russia a strong reason to
encircle Ukraine.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
Few observations on Biden, Iran and the nuclear deal.
I don't know if US will or will not return to implement it's obligations under the UNSC 2231,
nor I know if US Jewish lobby will allow that. But for sure Iran will not renegotiate for new
terms or a new deal on nuclear program secondly under no circumstances Iran will negotiate
(with anyone) her conventional military capabilities or her policies and alliances toward her
allies in the region since these are real matter of national security for Iran. But also
there are signs from Biden that should be considered. Firstly almost all Biden's national
security team are diplomats with experience negotiating with Iran that could be a signal on
policy change, secondly I believe due to strategic failure of maximum pressure to subdue Iran
and more importantly due to US' own strategic necessity to keep China and Russia away from
ME, US and EU will want to decouple or even prevent Iran from a mutual strategic necessity or
alliance with China or and Russia for that reason IMO it might be possible US will adopt a
new posture toward Iran. I also believe Iran's foreign policy in ME is basically based on her
long term interests and security with her regional alliances, multipolarity, and stability in
her region, therefore any proposal by US or EU to agitate this policy will be rejected or not
adopted by Iran.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
A new JCPOA will obviously have to eliminate all sanctions. But that might not be
enough. Iran might want compensation for the economic damage done, compensation from the UK,
France, and Germany as well as the US. Moreover, Iran will want to keep its now much larger
stockpile of low-enriched uranium. It might want an even larger stockpile, and the right to
enrich to 20%, which it is now doing. A breeder reactor and a plutonium stockpile would be
nice, too.
But there are even other demands that might be made: reduction or removal of
US/NATO/Israeli forces in the Gulf; reduction or elimination of Israeli nuclear
weapons.
That train left the station.
In the past 5 years Iran re-configured it's economy into an autarcic fully industrialized,
food secure, and diversified economy. It now earns more from the sale of manufactures and
foods than from petroleum. It now manufactures AfraMax tankers, general cargo vessels, and
naval vessels. It manufactures cars and trucks, and railroad rolling stock. It built hydro
and irrigation schemes. It launches satellites into orbit.
Iran is now pressing ahead with the Arak heavy water reactor.
Khameni just banned import of NATO vaccines, and ordered the country to be vaccinated with
Iran's own vaccine.
Khameni and the hard liners will not permit Iran to rejoin or to negotiate any agreements
with the "Great Satan". Their line will be the US must show itself to be agreement capable by
rejoining the JCPOA and removing any and all sanctions while paying damages too.
Iran will increase the amount of assistance given the Houthis. Trump's declaration of the
Houthis as terrorists, benefits the resistance by solidifying their adherence to it. The
Houthis must now "go for broke" or surrender. They will not surrender.
The harsh reality is Biden/Harris will be occupied at home suppressing the MAGA crowd.
Since this group is 74 million strong, and mostly white, in a country trying to make them
second class citizens, will be quite a challenge that. The jury is still out on that one.
Then there is the not so small matter of US oil production dropping like a stone from 12
mmBbl/day to 7 by July with further drops in the following 12 months. This coupled with and
likely due to bankruptcies of a large number of producers going forward.
"... The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead. ..."
As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to me
that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil war or
a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a 50-50 toss
up.
There is abundant evidence of a police state. One feature of a police state is controlled
explanations and the suppression of dissent. We certainly have that in abundance.
Experts are not permitted forums in which to challenge the official position on Covid.
Teachers are suspended for giving offense by using gender pronouns.
Recording stars are dropped by their recording studios for attending the Trump rally.
Parents ratted on by their own children are fired from their jobs for attending the Trump
rally. https://www.rt.com/usa/512048-capitol-riot-employees-fired/
Antifa is free to riot, loot, intimidate and hassle, but Trump supporters are
insurrectionists.
White people are racists who use hateful words and concepts, but those who demonize whites
are righting wrongs.
Suppression of dissent and controlling behavior are police state characteristics. It might
be less clear to some why dictating permissible use of language is police state control. Think
about it this way. If your use of pronouns can be controlled, so can your use of all other
words. As concepts involve words, they also can be controlled. In this way inconvenient
thoughts and expressions along with accurate descriptions find their way into the Memory
Hole.
With the First Amendment gone, or restricted to the demonization of targeted persons, such
as "the Trump Deplorables," "white supremacists," "Southern racists," the Second Amendment
can't have much life left. As guns are associated with red states, that is, with Trump
supporters, outlawing guns is a way to criminalize the red half of the American population that
the Establishment considers "deplorable." Those who stand on their Constitutional right will be
imprisoned and become cheap prison labor for America's global corporations.
Could all this lead to a civil war or are Americans too beat down to effectively resist?
That we won't know until it is put to the test.
Are there clear frontlines? Identity Politics has divided the people across the entire
country. The red states are only majority red. It is tempting to see the frontiers as the red
center against the blue Northeast and West coasts, but that is misleading. Georgia is a red
state with a red governor and legislature, but there were enough Democrats in power locally to
steal the presidential and US senate elections.
Another problem for reds is that large cities -- the distribution centers -- such as
Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los
Angeles -- are in blue hands as are ports and international airports. Effectively, this cuts
reds off from outside resources.
What would the US military do? Clearly, the Joint Chiefs and the military/security complex
are establishment and not anti-establishment Trumpers. With the soldiers themselves now a
racial and gender mix, the soldiers would be as divided as the country. Those not with the
Establishment would lack upper level support.
Where are the youth and younger adults? They are in both camps depending on their education.
Many of the whites who went to university have been brainwashed against themselves, and regard
white Americans as "systemic racists" or "white supremacists" and feel guilt. Those who did not
go to university for the most part have experienced to their disadvantage the favoritism given
to people of color and have resentment.
What about weapons? How can the reds lose when guns are a household item and blues would
never dirty themselves by owning one? The answer is that unlike the War of Northern Aggression
in the 1860s, today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those
in the hands of the public. Unlike in the past, it is impossible for a citizens' militia to
stand against the weapons and body armor that the military has. So, unless the military splits,
the reds are outgunned. Never believe that the Establishment would not release chemical and
biological agents against red forces. Or for that matter nuclear weapons.
What about communications? We know for an absolute fact that the tech monopolies are aligned
with the Establishment against the people. So much so that President Trump, in the process of
being set-up for prosecution, has been cut off from communicating with his supporters both in
social media and email.
The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian
President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the Revolution
of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez, Maduro, and would
like to do to Putin.
Suppose an American civil war occurs. How is it likely to play out? Before investigating
this, first consider how the Establishment could prevent it by bringing the red states to its
defense. The Trump supporters are the only patriots in the American population. They tend to
wear the flag on their sleeve. In contrast, blue state denizens define patriotism as
acknowledging America's evils and taking retribution on those white racists/imperialists who
committed the evils. In blue states, riots against the "racist system" result in defunding the
police. If the Antifa and Black Lives Matter militias were sicced on the Biden regime, red
state patriots might see "their country" under attack. It is possible that the "Proud Boys"
would come to Biden's defense, not because they believe in Biden but because America is under
attack and he is "our president." Alternatively, an Antifa attack on the Biden regime could be
portrayed as an unpatriotic attack on America and be used to discourage red state opposition to
the police state, just as "Insurrection" has resulted in many Trump supporters declaring their
opposition to violence. In other words, it is entirely possible that the patriotism of the
"Trump Deplorables" would split the red state opposition and lead to defeat.
Assuming that the Establishment is too arrogant and sure of itself or too stupid to think of
this ploy, how would a civil war play out? The Establishment would do everything possible to
discredit the case of the "rebels." The true rebels, of course, would be the Establishment
which has overthrown the Constitutional order, but no media would make that point. Controlling
the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents, would portray the
"rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.
The "foreign threat" always captures the patriot's attention. We see it right now with Trump
supporters falling for the disinformation that Switzerland and Italy are behind the stolen
election. Previously, it was Dominion servers in Germany and Serbia that did the deed.
On whose head will the Establishment place the blame for "the War Against America"? There
are three candidates: Iran, China, and Russia. Which will the Establishment choose?
To give Iran credit conveys too much power to a relatively small country over America. To
blame Iran for our civil war would be belittling.
To blame China won't work, because Trump blamed China for economically undermining America
and Trump supporters are generally anti-China. So accusing the red opposition with being China
agents would not work.
The blame will be placed on Russia.
This is the easy one. Russia has been the black hat ever since Churchill's Iron Curtain
speech in 1946. Americans are accustomed to this enemy. The Cold War reigned from the end of
World War II until the Soviet Collapse in 1991. Many, including retired American generals,
maintain that the Soviet collapse was faked to put us off guard for conquest.
When the Establishment decided to frame President Trump, the Establishment chose Russia as
Trump's co-conspirator against American Democracy. Russiagate, orchestrated by the CIA and FBI,
ensured for three years that Trump was accused in the Western media of being in cahoots with
Russia. Despite the lack of any evidence, a large percentage of the American and world
population was convinced that Trump was put into office by Putin somehow manipulating the
vote.
The brainwashing was so successful that three years of Trump sanctions against Russia could
not shake the Western peoples back into factual reality.
With Russia as the historic and orchestrated enemy, whatever happens in the United States
that can be blamed elsewhere will be blamed on Russia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former US
Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes
have already associated "Trump's insurrection" with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/512071-capitol-violence-consequences-fear/
Suppose that an American civil war becomes intense. Suppose that the Establishment's
propaganda against Russia becomes the reigning belief as propaganda almost always becomes, how
can the Establishment not finish the insurrection threat by attacking the country responsible?
The Establishment would be trapped in its own propaganda. Emotions would run away. Russia would
hear threats that would have to be taken seriously.
You can bet that Biden's neocon government will be egging this on. American exceptionalism.
American hegemony. Russia's fifth column, the Atlanticist Integrationists, who wish absorption
into the degenerate and failing Western World, will echo the charges against Russia. This would
make the situation a serious international incident with Russia as the threatened villain.
What would the Kremlin do? Would Russia's leaders accept yet another humiliation and false
accusation? Or will the anger of the Russian people forever accused and never stood up for by
their own government force the Kremlin into awareness that Russia could be attacked at any
moment.
Even if the Kremlin is reluctant to acknowledge the threat of war, what if another of the
numerous false warnings of incoming ICBMs is received. Unlike the past, is it believed this
time?
The stolen election in America, the emerging American Police State, more vicious and better
armed than any in the past, could result in American chaos that could be a dire threat to the
Russian Federation.
What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that real
evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it needs for its
agendas. Consider how easy it was for the Capitol Police to remove barriers and allow some
Antifa mixed in with Trump supporters into the Capitol. This was all that was required to
create a "Trump led insurrection" that terminated the presentation of evidence of electoral
fraud and turned the massive rally of support for Trump into a liability. Trump now leaves the
presidency as an "insurrectionist" and is set up for continued harassment and prosecution.
As I previously wrote, the stolen election and its acceptance abroad signifies the failure
of Western democracy. The collapse of the Western world and its values will affect the entire
world.
No member of the State wants to be picked off one by one, be it military, cops, leadership
or functionaries.
What has been overlooked in the debate over the combat potential of violent extremists
is the diffusion of something much more rudimentary and potentially more lethal: basic
infantry skills. These include coordinated small-team tactical maneuvers supported by
elementary marksmanship. The diffusion of such tactics seems to be underway, and it may
generate serious concerns for U.S. security policy in the future if ignored.
Imagine if fuel pipe lines to urban areas were hit, railroad tracks hit, water processing
facilities hit; the vision of an easy victory over Red America would quickly come home to the
city dwellers.
Elections in the US are not about picking winners. They are about making voters complicit
in governance by their having voted. The most recent election failed to make the Red voters
"complict" because there was no transparency and everyone believes there was fraud. No
election with mail in voting in the US will every work because everyone will assume
fraud.
In a nation as large as the US with as much concentrated city living, logistics are a
nightmare. The next time the lights go out, you may wonder. When your grocery chain runs out
of meat, you may wonder. When sewers in your city keep breaking, you may wonder. Thus truly
scares me.
today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those in the
hands of the public
True enough. However, the weapons and the ammunition don't magically appear; they need to
be manufactured somewhere, and those places (and/or their suppliers) can be destroyed.
I must disagree. There will be no "civil war" in the United States. The establishment
controls the levers of power and all communications and all organized structures. There may
be a bunch of disaffected citizens, but they will remain a disorganized mob. Any apparent
emergent rival for power will be ruthlessly suppressed, deplatformed, villified, or co-opted.
The working class has been effectively divided and will waste its energy fighting itself over
crumbs ('diversity').
Disorganized mobs do not fight civil wars.
No, the fate of the United States will be the sort of chaotic autocracy we see in places
like Mexico and Brazil. Verging on being a failed state, the rich will nonetheless live lives
of great luxury secure in their walled estates. Meanwhile the average person will be crushed
into poverty, criminal gangs will flourish, and there will be a tension between the central
police and local gangs, but gangs are rarely organized enough to truly challenge centralized
states, and life will muddle on. There will be little social cohesion and no real trust of
central authorities, but that only matters if you want a strong and unified society. The rich
will do fine.
On the other hand, the overall national power will decline, and other powers like China
(which for all its flaws has not declared war on the working class, nor does it routinely
excuse or celebrate incompetence in leadership) will rise and take its place both on the
world stage and as the cutting edge of science and culture.
to me the biggest outcome of this faux coup/insurrection is the splintering of the
republican party. with this schism the trump "populists" have been cleanly pared off of the
party and thrown overboard and the remaining party will meekly do the bidding of the neocon
deep state that now totally controls both of these sock puppet parties. we will now see both
parties calling for a unification of our "indispensable nation". more than likely some false
flag will provide the necessary impetus to bury the hatchet and focus us all on our new/old
enemy. the only hope i see is an outside chance that so many republicans have been redpilled
that the party becomes the new whigs and fades into obscurity, leaving room for new parties
to rise from the ash. the dems are ripe for a schism themselves with aoc champing at the bit
to kick the boomers to the curb and the bernie bros finally realizing that three card monty
is a rigged game. i would love to see the destruction of both of these hopelessly corrupt
parties but the deep state cthulhu has its tentacles thoroughly wrapped around our poor
planet and anything emerging out of this toxic mess would most likely be even worse. the
situation reminds me of voltaire's candide and his sage advice to cultivate your garden.
I'd advise the young to develop a "plan B". Pick another country you find bearable amd
study it. Find out what jobs are in demand there. Develop those skills in your spare time
(computers, electricians, mechanics, etc.). Practice their language an hour or two per week
with online resources/dvd's/books. Research their immigration laws and perhaps contact their
embassy.
If it gets really awful for whites here, you may be able to take your family some place
more hospitable. Hopefully none of this will be neccessary and the rhetoric will tone down.
Trump personally really got under the left's skin. Don't umderestimate Hillary's supporters
influence here. They were ticked off. The Obama's too. Perhaps they will calm down a notch
now. Have a plan B though young whites.
Another insightful article by PCR. However, I must somewhat disagree on some points.
What would the US military do?
The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the
Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while
possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The
U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not
willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead.
Think of the Troubles in Ireland.
The Establishment absolutely can deliver a punch to an identifiable opponent, but it can't
take a punch. Low level violence directed at officers and politicians would bring them to
their knees.
Controlling the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents,
would portray the "rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.
I agree that they will try. However, I suspect that PCR is underestimating how little
faith many whites have in the media.
The Establishment will never be more powerful than it is today. They have inherited
institutions, the people to man those institutions and a generally functioning economy.
Basically, they stole the keys to car that they didn't create. But the Establishment run
those institutions and economy into ground. They will slowly start to show cracks.
Whites need to stay low, start forming small groups and begin preparing for the openings
that will come.
The racial right has been fantasizing about a civil war since forever, but I can't see it.
Too many people have too much to lose, there's no real desire for blood, and the people are
anyway too soft to initiate or withstand the violence real war would unleash upon them.
Further, and in stark contrast to the SJWs and antifa, the few racially conscious whites who
fantasize about this are mostly too old to make good soldiers. Also, just like the "God
emperor" himself, Trumpers are some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth, largely
down with their own enslavement, nauseatingly fond of "law and order", sporting "Blue Lives
Matter" badges, etc. Despite being preyed upon by blacks and browns for decades now, they
still refuse to become racist. Most of them are Bible thumpers who really believe that race
is just skin color, that all are equal before their imaginary friend called God, and that
Israel is America's greatest ally. Then too, vast numbers of whites work for the government
or its many offshoots such as education, law enforcement, the military, and the defense
industry. Civil war would mean they'd be revolting against themselves.
Will America become a police state? In case you haven't noticed, Americans already
live in a police state, and have for decades. PCR should know this as well as anyone, as he
was part of it during the Reagan years. America is an open-air prison Americans built
themselves, and they rat each other out and betray each other to keep themselves
ideologically in line. When someone white is doxxed and fired for having bad thoughts, who do
you think does the enforcing? For the most part, it's other white people. Fake president and
China asset Biden is just the new warden.
As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to
me that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil
war or a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a
50-50 toss up.
In a very meaningful sense we already have a "police state." Why do we have a police
state? Because our masters realize that they can't run the whole world from anything
resembling a constitutional republic (as the Founders and Framers envisioned it). It's the
agenda for complete world domination and control that's driving the domestic oppression. As
they continue to squander everything of value on the agenda and take more risks, etc., while
the corruption and rot continue to take a toll and the country crumbles, the boot will need
to come down ever harder on the neck.
And please stop kidding yourself about Trump. It wasn't for the benefit of Joe and Jill
Sixpack that he seized Syrian oilfields, tried to start a war with Iran, tried to overthrow
the Maduro government in Venezuela, tried to stop Nord Stream 2, started a trade war with
China, pulled out of all the nuclear treaties, etc. Trump wasn't just fully onboard with the
agenda, he pursued it enthusiastically.
If Trump's nuclear brinkmanship and aggressive foreign policies aren't promptly reversed,
the U.S. may end as a pile of nuclear ash. Comments coming out of Moscow recently seem to
suggest that Russia is finally losing its patience with interminable U.S. hostility and may
soon start responding more forcefully to U.S./NATO provocations (and Biden's tough talk on
Russia isn't helping matters any).
Neither Russia, China nor Iran are going to surrender to the USraeli empire and start
taking orders, so either the U.S. "government" must back off and accept a multipolar world or
WW3 is still on the table, even by accident.
From Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.
The Civil War in Corcyra
"So savage was the progress of this revolution, and it seemed all the more so because it
was one of the first which had broken out. Later, of course, practically the whole of the
Hellenic world was convulsed, with rival parties in every state – democratic leaders
trying to bring in the Athenians, and oligarchs trying to bring in the Spartans. In peacetime
there would have been no excuse and no desire for calling them in, but in time of war, when
each party could always count upon an alliance which would do harm to its opponents and at
the same time strengthen its own position, it became a natural thing for anyone who wanted a
change of government to call in help from outside.
So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred
late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new
extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing
power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words,
too, had to change their usual meanings . What used to be described as a thoughtless act
of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to
think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea
of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character ; ability to
understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.
Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back
was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be
trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of
intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to
provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out
of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first
against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of
doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership ,
since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These
parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of the established laws, but to acquire power
by overthrowing the existing regime ; and the members of these parties felt confidence in
each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were
partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from
giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical
effect.
As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character
throughout the Greek world . The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the
mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist.
Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps , and each side viewed
the other with suspicion. As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given
that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to
the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement and so, instead
of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against
being injured themselves."
Whether civil war as we may imagine it, or something equally unappealing to our every day
lives, something bad is about to happen.
I'm curious though, regarding what I do believe was unprecedented election fraud. How is
it possible, after watching the Georgia State Farm arena video, that the President of the
United States, with all the power that office should hold, could not force the woman
identified in that video, one Ruby Freeman, to answer questions about what we saw? Ruby
Freeman was never questioned as far as I can find. How is this possible? Nothing makes sense.
Before we begin killing one another, can we do two things; 1. Interrogate Ruby Freeman and 2.
Interrogate the killer of Ashli Babbit?
Little bit feverish article. And I do have to say no.
Civil war can happen only after hyperinflation accompanied with lawlessness.
And that will happen only if US looses its international position.
Everything depend now on Germany.
If Germany joins China Russia camp than US as a world leader will not mean anything
anymore.
China now is courting Europe intensively. Particularly is courting Germany.
Nothing is set yet.
So everybody can relax.
.
Biden is out of his mind. In his speech he said that he wants to increase minimum wage and
reestablish unions. That could be a little help also.
People living in the core areas of Ziocorporate globalism, like the US/EU, remain mostly
oblivious about the nature of their ruling regime than those living in the direct periphery
of globalist power. Take Colombia for an example, like Mexico's, all its presidents are
subservient to US Ziocorporate power. Last one, a Nobel peace prize winner under whose
pre-presidential stint as "Defense" minister oversaw the US-serving Colombian military's
systematic massacre of tens of thousands of lower class Colombian youths who were then
disguised as guerrillas to cash in rewards paid US Plan Colombia dollars, proceeded, now as
president, to negotiate the disarmament of the actual guerrillas under the Obama/Biden
regime's orders. Massmurder and massacres maintained an average level.
Then, in 2018, right after the Trumpet, a shamelessly pro-US regime, even for Colombian
standards, took over and massacres and massmurder picked right up again, to an average of 2
or 3 per week, with exploding cocaine production even for Colombia standards as well, and
extreme political polarisation, and all the while the Ziocorporate mother ship in Washington,
with its Qtard and MAGA bullshit, looked the other way except to accuse Venezuela of being
undemocratic and of human rights violations.
If Americans weren't so stupid and daydreaming like fucktards that they live in "muh
democracy/republic" instead of the Ziocorporate conglomerate regime that rules over them,
they could take a clue or two from their own regime's foreign policy, not only did Trumpet do
things like transferring $400 billion in weapons to ISIS/al-Qaeda royal Salafi patrons in
Ziodi Wahhabia, he doubled-down on the Obama/Biden policy of Venezuela "is a national
security threat to muh democracy and freedom"; to start pondering about the kind of
manipulation and radicalisation Ziocorporate agents Trump/Republicans and Biden/Democrats
have in store for them. Cointelpro certainly mutates far faster than Covid-1984.
What do Qtarts and the like need to realise this simple, evident facts? That the Trumpet
himself comes on national TV telling you all "I and the Democrats have been playing divide
and conquer with you dumbfucks for 4 years"?
The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian
President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the
Revolution of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez,
Maduro, and would like to do to Putin.
What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that
real evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it
needs for its agendas.
Their playbook "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul D.
Alinsky, makes it clear that it's necessary to play dirty. This covers all aspects of their
Regime Change projects and the current US project surely isn't any different.
It's a cocktail of lies, fabrications, subversion, threats, blackmail, false friendships
– in fact any means to advance themselves.
For example: From Alinsky – "Means and Ends" His take on morality:
Rule 10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
Rule 11) Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", "Of
the Common Welfare, "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace".
So yes, this is why the most unpatriotic Patriot Act is called the Patriot Act and they
operate from patriotic sounding places like the American Enterprise Institute.
If traditional America is going to get anywhere in the upcoming conflict they have to get
used to playing by the same rules – difficult for them – but they have to do it.
It's inevitably going to be a dirty war.
Point of order- Russia is not the historic enemy, but the orchestrated one, rather it was
the Soviet Union which is the historic enemy, as the sponsors of the destruction of Russia
are behind the destruction of America.
We are already in a police state and you can kiss goodbye to the 1st and 2nd amendment
soon as free speech becomes hate speech just like they did in Europe.
So this site and many others in the alt news universe will soon be gone.
There's not going to be a civil war as the current generation of young people are too weak
and distracted and have been brainwashed into hating themselves.
There's a big elephant in the room and wild card that's been missed too and that's the new
covid vaccines who's long term effects on health are unknown.
Vaccines need to be studied for about 10 years before their safety can be guaranteed.
If tens / hundreds of millions are willing to be injected with a new untested genetic
engineered substance that could make them disabled or kill them in 5 years to save them
against something with a 99% survival rate what does that tell you about the mental state of
the Population?
The US as you once knew it is finished it's just that many are still in denial or haven't
realized it yet.
I see no civil war in the USA. I see no organisation amongst the people in order to carry
it out. They have no leader, they have no Hannibal, Boadicea or Adolf to rally them together
for a major insurrection against The Beast Empire. Unless of course something is brewing
secretly.
A French style form of resistance, as previously mentioned in these comments, also takes a
lot of planning and organisational skills, and I see no inkling of that taking place amongst
American patriots.
I also believe many do not realise how serious the matter is, they still, being bogged
down in irrelevant party politics.
If however a large swathe of the police and US Military including officers were to desert
their corrupt masters, things would look very different and a civil war could happen.
The civil was has been on since Crossfire Hurricane, the usurpers of the constitution
simply kept it cold because they thought they could enforce their tyranny silently.
And if Trump surrenders then they would have been proven right, at least for the
leadership fight.
Biden will likely launch a war because he already has his bay of pigs with his graft, and
will need a moonshot for the misdirection.
I don't think they can fight half the nation (and the military will split), and Russia at
the same time, so the only question is on whom the war will be launched. I still think the
odds are higher that it will be a civil war, but the Russia option looms strong for sure.
The US military is the most "woke" diverse incompetent organization in America.
Remember- contractors do all the heavy lifting "in theater"- from cooking to plumbing to
firefighting to IT to combat.
This knowledge is hidden from view- kept on the down low.I only know because my brother
has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan for KBR for the past 15 years. I have seen him accumulate
well over Half a million in cash. What does he do? He makes sure the troops have water and
food. He is in logistics. For the past decade I have heard hundreds if not thousands of
stories of the jaw dropping incompetence, insouciance and laziness of the American
military.
Rank-and-file Americans, indeed no one, talks about this very real infrastructure that
props up every dumb, overweight enlisted. About 4 contractors to every enlisted.
Most of the contractors in theater are from Eastern Europe and sub Sahara Africa. If they
were given orders to release biological or chemical weapons on the American populace, as long
as the huge checks were hitting their account they would do it in a heartbeat
More than the military- fear the shadow military that knows the systems, does the work ..
And will do whatever it is asked as long as they are paid.
Their mother doesn't live here.
Everywhere we turn, diversity and hiring people from the "other" never works out.
*** Side note: My brother revealed that when blacks came back from their R&R after the
George Floyd insanity, most of them became more aggressive and entitled. Unable to do their
work because they could not stop going to report others for incidence of racism.
This includes the American black contractors and enlisted.
These are dumb young black men and women who are making $92,000 a year to move pallets
around. If they were asked to stop calling in sick every day, they would run to report their
supervisor for-
Racism.
Many whites have lost their lucrative positions or been subject to discipline for having
the audacity to ask blacks to come to work.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
Nuland will be nominated for the position of under secretary of state for political affairs,
the US media said on Tuesday with Politico being the first to
drop the scoop. It's the highest-ranking post in the department after the secretary and deputy
secretary. During the Obama administration, Nuland served as assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and was a key official in formulating and implementing his
Russia policies. She also served as US envoy to the UN under George W. Bush and advised Vice
President Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
The news that the vocal Russia hawk was returning to the White House was understandably met
with loud cheering by the fans of Pax American on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics were
dismayed and somewhat horrified, considering her record.
Arguably the most publicly known episode of Nuland's Obama tenure came in 2014, when a tape
of her conversation with then-ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. It happened
shortly after Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a wave
of street protests culminating in an armed coup, which happened with much encouragement from
Washington.
Nuland and Pyatt were discussing who among the coup leaders should be in the upcoming
Ukrainian government, which indicated that Washington played a much bigger role in the crisis
than it publicly admitted. The infamous " F**k the EU" remark came as Nuland expressed
frustration with European nations, who were reluctant to lend legitimacy to the benefactors of
the events, and said UN officials could be called in to help "glue this thing"
instead.
The EU's skepticism at the time could have been due to the fact that President Yanukovich
was expelled under a threat of violence just hours after Germany and Poland helped seal a power
sharing
agreement between him and the opposition leaders, serving as guarantors of the deal. Her
return as a senior diplomatic official is likely to get on a few people's nerves in Europe,
which is ironic considering how the Biden administration is supposed to rebuild alliances
damaged by the Trump presidency.
While flying private in the world of academia and think tanks during the Trump years, Nuland
maintained her confrontational attitude to anyone challenging US dominance. Her recipe for
dealing with Russia, as outlined
in Foreign Policy magazine last summer, is more sophisticated weapons, permanent NATO bases on
the Russian border (which will require abolishing a key Russia-NATO agreement) and deniable
cyber operations against Moscow.
Nuland also played a
peculiar part in US domestic affairs, possibly having a hand in the promotion of the
notorious Steele dossier. The collection of opposition research and rumors was used by the FBI
to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign and fueled the endless flood of claims that the
incumbent president was somehow a Russian stooge.
An FBI memo released last
year revealed that Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson "and others were talking to Victoria Nuland
at the US State Department" about the file. The firm looked into Donald Trump for the
Hillary Clinton campaign and retained retired British intelligence agent Christopher Steele for
the job.
In multiple interviews, Nuland insisted that her role with the dossier was very limited
because it dealt with domestic politics. "[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points
of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our
purview,'" she
told CBS News in 2018, adding that she advised him to go to the FBI. Some skeptics believe
her role in launching the Steele dossier may have been much more significant.
Nuland is one of many Obama-era officials tapped by Biden to serve again with him at the
helm. In addition to her, the latest reported batch includes Wendy Sherman, the former under
secretary of state for political affairs, Jon Finer, who had various roles under Obama, and
Amanda Sloat, ex-deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean
affairs.
Victoria Nuland, wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, is expected be nominated for under
secretary of state for political affairs
According to a report from
Politico , Joe Biden's transition team is expected to nominate Victoria Nuland to
be the under secretary of state for political affairs for the incoming administration's State
Department.
Nuland, who is married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is known for her role in
orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine while she was the assistant secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and then-US
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked and released on YouTube on February 4th,
2014 . In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of former
Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced to step down on February 22nd,
2014.
The US-backed coup sparked the war in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and led to the Russian
annexation of Crimea. Both regions have a majority ethnic-Russian population who rejected the
nationalist, anti-Russian post-coup government that even had
neo-Nazis in its midst .
In a
2020 column for Foreign Affairs titled, "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland said Russian
President Vladimir Putin "seized" on the 2014 coup and other "democratic struggles" to "fuel
the perception at home of Russian interests under siege by external enemies." She also cited
the war in the Donbas and annexation of Crimea as examples of Russian aggression, as most in
Washington do.
Nuland worked in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 as the US ambassador to NATO.
From 2011 to 2013, she served as the spokesperson for Barack Obama's State Department, and from
2013 to 2017, Nuland was the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs.
Politico also reported that the Biden administration is tapping Wendy Sherman to
work directly under Secretary of State-designee Anthony Blinken. Sherman worked in the Obama
administration's State Department and played
a crucial role in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Why the protégé of Cheney Nuland? Why now? Did Biden completely succumbs to
Alzheimer? Does Biden administration strive to be as dysfunctional, neocon-dominated and
destructive as Obama administration?
Politico reports Tuesday that President-elect Joe Biden is tapping former senior Obama
administration foreign affairs officials to serve in his cabinet.
Most notably among them is neocon Victoria Nuland, who has just been tapped as Biden's state
department undersecretary for political affairs.
Writes Politico :
"Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated for the role of under secretary
of State for political affairs, one of the people said. Nuland also previously served in the
Obama administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs."
Recall that in this capacity she ran point for Obama's regime change "democracy
promotion" efforts in Ukraine . In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep
embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts
using the ongoing "Maidan Revolution" to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
In that leaked
phone call Nuland told US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt "F*ck the EU" - for which
she was later forced to apologize. Here's some of the audio for a little trip down memory
lane.
She had also been instrumental in her prior postings at the State Department in Obama's
disastrous Libya intervention.
After the Obama administration she's been part of various think
tanks, including the hawkish Brookings Institution, where she's been a fierce critic of Trump's
supposed "appeasement" of Putin. She's also argued for deeper military intervention in Syria
.
Politico in its description of the incoming Obama-era officials underscores they are
hawks on
Russia :
Nuland and [Wendy] Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving
the Obama administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign
policy -- particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
On the National Security Council, former State Department official Jon Finer will be named
deputy national security adviser, the people said, reporting up to incoming national security
adviser Jake Sullivan. Finer, a former journalist, joined the Obama White House as a fellow
in 2009 and served in various roles throughout Obama's tenure, including as a foreign policy
speechwriter for Biden and a senior adviser to then-deputy national security adviser Blinken.
Finer had been working in political risk and public policy at the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus, which was co-founded by Blinken's father, since leaving government in 2017.
The key NSC role of senior director for European Affairs will go to Amanda Sloat, a
Brookings Institution fellow ...
... ... ...
As is the unfortunate norm in the Washington beltway, the Liberal hawks under Obama simply
went to who's who of neocon think tanks like Brookings, and have now been called back in
revolving door fashion for pretty much a return to Obama era foreign policy (and its
disasters ).
"Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders:
Exactly What Flynn Did" [ Glenn Greenwald ]. "Any
doubts about how customary it is for such calls to be made by transition officials were
unintentionally obliterated on Monday night by former Obama national security official Ben
Rhodes, who is almost certain to occupy a high-level national security position in a Biden
administration. Speaking on MSNBC -- of course -- Rhodes, while amicably chatting with former
Bush/Cheney Communications Director turned-beloved-by-liberals-MSNBC-host Nicolle Wallace,
admitted in passing that ' foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden
talking about the agenda they're going to pursue January 20 ,' all to ensure 'as seamless
a transition as possible,' adding: 'the center of political gravity in this country and the
world is shifting to Joe Biden.'" • Presumably the FBI should be interrogating Rhodes
about his guilty knowledge. Anyhoo, I'm so old I remember when IOKIYAR was current in the
blogosphere: "It's OK If You're A Republican." But now IOKIIOG: "It's OK If It's Our Guy."
>David Sirota – "That was enough to barely defeat Trump.."
I'm getting confused, was Trump officially defeated. If not why are all these folks making
these kinds of statements without any qualifications, none, zip. He could have said "most
likely" or some other qualifier. Am I missing something here? Let the legal process of
contesting the election play out for Pete's sake.
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of
the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of
the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too
seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity
Washington has little time for.
Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged
those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to
wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What
were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser
visibility doing in his administration?
I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed
these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent
state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget,
Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.
We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind,
poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned
with appearances.
Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's
nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.
Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a
new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan,
making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.
Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by
publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record
shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem
Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar –a –Lago, and presented
Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the
press pretended it was White House policy all along.
Now We Come to Iran
Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the
United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most
destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the
shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.
Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran
back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to
cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo
sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.
Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military
deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly
chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak
president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold
their tents.
Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is
not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of
this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.
Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a
revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly
likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it
afterward.
Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his
administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now
serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support
him will remain wide shut.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06
A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an
acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is
Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the
administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51
I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the
assassination of Soleimani.
Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42
Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at
making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's
thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around
the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the
Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the
millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person
in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember
one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not
negotiations, have become the norm
So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were
there at one time.
Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,
Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United
States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:
"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives,
– and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."
***
Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth
the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life
for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.
I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others
who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and
almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! --
Patrick.
Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02
I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration
by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've
had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on
several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than
likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he
wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no
fan of Trump).
Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the
forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of
Independence.
Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19
Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just
been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep
State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what
we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their
Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something
else.
You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His
"negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his
interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is
that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO
is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title.
He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at
war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is
a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a
commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the
question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie
Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?
Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19
One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor
experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family
business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of
employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business
largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.
Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a
bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do
do.
I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the
bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it
was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with
the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in
with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.
PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46
Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.
Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00
Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids
deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures
completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home
water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally,
but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we
are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would
seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .
Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background
– who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody
"liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left
of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does
to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of
"swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the
third go around?
The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real
morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late
F ormer acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who has disingenuously argued for years that he had
nothing to do with the agency's torture program, but who continued to defend it, has
taken himself out of the running to be President-elect Joe Biden's new CIA director.
The decision is a victory for the peace group Code Pink, which spearheaded the Stop Morell
movement, and it's a great thing for all Americans. Now, though, we have to turn our attention
to Biden's nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI), Avril Haines.
Haines is certainly qualified on paper to lead the Intelligence Community. A longtime Biden
aide, she has the president-elect's confidence. But that's not good enough. Haines is exactly
the kind of person who shouldn't be in a position of authority in intelligence. She is
the kind of neoliberal intelligence apologist whom so many of us have opposed for so many
years. Don't just take my word for it, though. Look at
her record .
Haines first began working for Biden when she served as deputy general counsel of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee when Biden was its chairman. When Biden became vice president in
2009, Haines moved to the State Department, where she was the assistant legal adviser for
treaty affairs. After only a year, she moved to the White House, where she became deputy
assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs,
the National Security Council's chief attorney.
That's quite a position. What it means was that her job was to legally justify President
Barack Obama's decisions on such intelligence issues as drone strikes and whether to release
the CIA Torture Report. She served there under CIA Director John Brennan. Obama apparently
liked the job she did for him because in 2013, he named Haines deputy director of the CIA
(DD/CIA).
Haines was the first woman to be named DD/CIA, and she served again under Brennan, who
proved time and again that he was no fan of
congressional oversight . Haines's attitude was similar to Brennan's: The CIA was going to
do what it was going to do, and she would make no apologies for it.
There were three controversial areas where Haines made a name for herself and for which she
should have to answer in a confirmation hearing: The CIA's refusal to release the Senate
Torture Report and the decision to hack into the Senate Intelligence Committee's computer
system; the CIA's decision to not punish those officers who carried out the hack and who killed
and tortured prisoners beyond even what the Justice Department said was permissible; and the
government's drone program, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians were killed.
Drone "pilots" launch an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for a raid in the Middle
East. (U.S. military)
Haines' Torture Cover-Up
You may recall that in December 2014, the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee released a
heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee's torture report, the
result of years of investigation using primary-source CIA documents. The executive summary was
about 525 pages long, just a fraction of the nearly 6,000-page complete report. And the release
of the 525 pages was the result of protracted negotiations between the committee and the
CIA.
In the end, the public heard a few details of what the CIA's prisoners underwent at secret
prisons around the world. But the full story was never made public. It likely never will be.
And that's thanks to Avril Haines.
Earlier that year, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein took to the
Senate floor in a very unusual display and accused CIA Director Brennan of spying on her
committee's staff members. Specifically, Feinstein said that CIA officers had hacked into the
Senate's computers to see what it was that committee investigators were focusing on.
The hacking was unprecedented, and Feinstein referred it to the Justice Department for
prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, chose not to pursue the case. Brennan took
responsibility for ordering the hacking and he made no apologies for it. But his top aide, his
assistant, his legal adviser through the episode was Avril Haines. She has never explained her
decisions in support of the hack.
Furthermore, it was Haines who
overruled the CIA's inspector general and who decided not to punish those CIA officers who
hacked into the committee's computers, or those CIA officers who had gone over and above what
the Justice Department had authorized in its "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" program,
killing and maiming prisoners.
In the end, not only were no CIA officers punished, but the leaders and most prominent
officers in the torture program were promoted, in some cases into some of the most sought-after
positions in the CIA. I know this to be true. I worked for them.
Haines and Drones
One area in which Haines has not received a great deal of media coverage has been her role
in the drone
program . When Haines was the National Security Council's top lawyer, Brennan was the
keeper of the so-called kill list. It was Haines who took phone calls in the middle of the
night asking her for legal authority -- permission -- to launch missile attacks from drones.
She has never answered for her actions.
Now is the time for Americans to put down their collective foot on Biden's national security
appointees. Morell was utterly inappropriate for a senior position in the Biden national
security apparatus. Haines is, too. She has, very simply, committed crimes against humanity.
I'm under no illusions that Biden is a progressive or that he will differ greatly from previous
Democratic presidents on national security.
But I do believe that wrong is wrong. Avril Haines is exactly the kind of person we
don't want running the Intelligence Community. This is the moment for opponents of her
nomination to lobby senators on the Intelligence Committee. There's still time to defeat
her.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Cadogan Parry , December 30, 2020 at 21:51
The Intercept (26-June-2020) reported Haines' consulting for controversial data-mining
firm Palantir. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is also an investor in Carbyne, co-owned by
the late Jeffery Epstein and members of the Israeli political and intelligence establishment.
Ties between Palantir and Carbyne were cemented when it opened a center in Israel in 2013.
Hamutal Meridor, Palantir Israel's current head, served as senior director of Verint, with
deep ties to Unit 8200. Verint was previously implicated in being one of two companies hired
by the NSA to put a backdoor into US telecommunication systems and popular applications,
ensuring it's immediate access.
I urge all who have read this article to watch "Silenced", a James Spione film about John
Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack -- whistleblowers who paid a very high price for
their honesty and integrity (hXXp://silencedfilm.com). Mr. Kiriakou gave up a lucrative job
and almost two years with his family for sharing the truth. His voice needs to be heard now .
Avril Haines' record of ignoring tremendous human rights violations makes it clear that she
should not hold a position of power in the intelligence community of the upcoming
administration.
Anonymot , December 29, 2020 at 19:31
Mr. Biden is a male clone of Mrs. Clinton who is a mouthpiece for the CIA/MIC/WallSt. She
is still the person who controls the Democrat National Committee (DNC) via Tom Perez and they
control and advise old Joe. Joe is merely the puppet at the end of the inner organization's
strings. They are all yes-men/women in the service of the shadow's mindset.
We will have another Obama puppet show.
After 4 years of the unique societal insanity ward that destroyed a maximum of the little
remaining democracy, including the directorship and key personnel of every Washington bureau,
there is little improvement to expect under the Biden Harris clone team. In the stupid
intelligence area that Trump damaged even more deeply than is publicly known, Brennan and
Clapper are back as Biden advisors.
Once again, the eagles have died, replaced by beagles sniffing out more war, more oil, and
more empire.
"... Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure -- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse. ..."
Exceptionalism, triumphalism, chauvinism. These characteristics define most empires, including, like it or not, these
United
States . The sequence matters. A people and national government that fancies itself exceptional -- an example for the rest of
the world -- is apt to assert itself militarily, economically, and culturally around the globe. If that self-righteous state happens
to possess prodigious power, as the U.S. has since the Second World War, then any perceived success will lead to a sense of triumphalism,
and thus put into motion a feedback loop whereby national "achievement" justifies and validates that conception of exceptionalism.
Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure
-- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again
until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power
displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse.
Such imperial hyper-powers, particularly in their late-stages, often employ foot soldiers across vast swathes of the planet, and
eventually either lose control of their actions or aren't concerned with their resultant atrocities in the first place. On that,
the jury is perhaps still out. Regardless, the discomfiting fact is that by nearly any measure, the United States today coheres,
to a remarkable degree, with each and every one of these tenets of empire evolution. This includes, despite the hysterical denials
of sitting political and Pentagon leaders, the troubling truth that American soldiers and intelligence agents have committed war
crimes across the Greater Middle East since 9/11 on a not so trivial number of occasions. These law of war violations also occurred
during the Cold War generation -- notably in Korea and Vietnam -- and the one consistent strain has been the almost complete inability
or unwillingness of the U.S. Government to hold perpetrators, and their enabling commanders, accountable.
Enter the International Criminal Court (ICC). First
proposed , conceptually, in 1919 (and again in 1937, 1948, and 1971), in response to massive war crimes and human rights violations
of the two world wars, the Hague-headquartered court finally opened for business in 2002. With more than 120 signatory member states
(though not, any longer, the U.S.) the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute international violations including "genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression." A compliment, rather than a replacement, to sovereign national justice
systems, the ICC is designed to be the "court of
last resort," obliged to exercise jurisdiction only when a nation's courts prove unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes.
All of which sounds both admirable and unthreatening (at least to reasonably well-behaved states with accountable, responsive
justice systems), but to the contemporary American imperial hyper-power, the very existence of the ICC is viewed as a mortal threat.
Matters demonstrably came to a head this past week when an ICC appeals court
reversed a lower-level decision and allowed its special prosecutor -- whose visa Washington has already revoked -- to simply
open an official investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by all three major parties to the conflict:
the Taliban, U.S., and U.S.-backed Kabul-based Afghan government. This decidedly mild decision, which only allows a multi-directional
inquiry , unleashed an immediate firestorm in Washington.
The reflexive reactions and responses of current and former Trump officials was both instructive and totally in line with decades
worth of bipartisan U.S. disavowal of the very notion of international norms and standards. Trump's recent hawkish national security
adviser, John Bolton -- now an MSNBC-DNC
darling for his apparent critique
of the president in a new memoir -- has spearheaded opposition to the ICC since its inception, has
asserted that the ICC is "illegitimate," and that the U.S. Government "will not sit quietly," if "the court comes after us."
After the most recent ruling, Secretary of State (and former director of the very CIA that is likely to be implicated in said war
crimes investigation) Mike Pompeo
declared the ruling a "truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body," adding,
threateningly, that "we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, unlawful, so-called court."
On that latter point, Pompeo is neither wrong, nor espousing a policy -- no matter how aggressive or rejectionist -- unique to
Donald Trump's administration. Here, a brief bit of all but forgotten history is in order. In 1998, the UN General Assembly
voted 120-7 to establish the
ICC. The United States, in good company with a gaggle of criminally compromised states -- China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Yemen, and
Qatar -- voted against the measure. Two years later, however, President Bill Clinton unenthusiastically
signed onto this foundational
Rome
Statute , but with some dubiousness and the requisite American exceptionalist caveat that he "will not, and do not recommend
that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This tragedy turned (for then ascendant neoconservatives)
opportunity for expanded U.S. military global
assertiveness, ensured that Clinton's successor -- one George W. Bush -- wouldn't even consider ICC treaty submission to the Senate.
Rather, in May 2002, Bush
sent a note to the UN Secretary General informing him that the most powerful and influential country in the world no longer intended
to ratify the Rome Statute or recognize any obligations to the ICC (which officially
opened for business only two months later
). Never simply a morality tale of Republican villainy, Bush's disavowal didn't explain the half of it.
Far more disturbingly, a stunningly euphemistic
American Service-members' Protection Act
of 2001 amendment, first introduced just 15 days after the
9/11 attacks, to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States,
was already under consideration in Congress. With broad bipartisan majorities, that legislation -- which authorized the U.S. president
to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned
by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" -- passed in the
House a couple weeks after Bush sent his note
to the UN, and the Senate just two weeks later.
President Bush then signed this authorization for, up to and including military, force into law on August 2, 2002. Much of the world
was appalled and international human rights organizations took to – quite appropriately – calling it the "
Hague Invasion Act ." It remains
in force today.
The timeline is instructive and itself tells a vital part of the story. Democrats and Republicans alike had chosen to "preempt"
-- an internationally prohibited precedent that Bush would
later invoke to invade Iraq -- the not yet in force ICC with this bill. They did so, I'd assert, because they knew a salient dirty
secret: the U.S. was about to unleash martial fury across the Greater Middle East. In the process, inevitably, American troopers
and intelligence spooks would push the limits of acceptable wartime behavior, and thus be vulnerable to international prosecution
by the soon effective ICC.
This was unacceptable for an exceptionalist, triumphalist nation, about to undertake chauvinist actions the world over. That unilateral,
world-order-be-damned national position held, and still holds, sway in the intervening 18 years. So, for all the Trump administration's
coarse obtuseness in response to the opening of the latest ICC Afghan investigation, this is, at root, not (as the mainstream media
will inevitably now claim) a Donald phenomenon.Three administrations, and multiple guard-changing Congresses, chose to not to touch
the infamous Hague Invasion Act or realign the U.S. with the ICC or the spirit (or even the pretense) of international law.
The cast of elite characters, many still politically influential, who voted for the Hague Invasion Act is nothing short of astounding.
The bill passed the House by a margin of 280-138, and counted
such "yea" votes as House Intelligence Committee Chair -- top Trump opponent and Russiagate investigator -- Democrat Adam Schiff.
Notably, especially in this ongoing electoral cycle, then Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders opposed the measure.In the
Senate , an even larger portion of Democrats joined current Speaker Mitch McConnell (and most of his Republican caucus), to vote
for the Act. These included such past and present notables as former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, current
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and, then Foreign Relations Committee Chair, and now Democratic presidential frontrunner, Joe Biden.
His vote, naturally, should come as scant surprise since even in early Senate committee
hearings four years
earlier, ranking minority member Biden was at best tepid, and at worst quite skeptical of the ICC – even finding unlikely points
of agreement with the later Hague Invasion Bill's sponsor, and longtime unilateralist hawk, Republican Senator Jesse Helms.
Still, the swift, frenetic response of senior Trump officials to ICC decision is telling. I suspect that Pompeo and Bolton know
the inconvenient truth – that U.S. national security forces have committed crimes in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) and that
the U.S. Government hasn't ever truly held these select perpetrators sufficiently accountable. Contra Pompeo, Bolton, and other Trump
officials' ardent public assertions, the U.S. military and intelligence community are, in fact – due to being demonstrably "unwilling
or unable to prosecute such [war] crimes" – the perfect candidates for ICC investigation, and if evidentiary appropriate,
prosecution. The U.S. has a historically abysmal
record either of
restraining or punishing wartime violations.
The rarely recounted
record is an extensive as it is appalling:
After U.S. Air Force pilots and U.S. Army soldiers strafed and gunned down some 400 Korean refugees (most women, children,
and old men) hiding under a bridge at No
Gun Ri over the course of four days in 1950, there was no criminal investigation when the military determined the killings
represented naught but an "unfortunate tragedy inherent to war."
When, after a two-year coverup, the journalist Seymour Hersh brought to light the blatant execution of at least 504 civilians
in the hamlet of My Lai , South Vietnam, just six
soldiers were charged, and only one – Lieutenant William Calley – convicted. Though countless victims were beheaded, scalped,
or had their throats slit in an orgy of violence, even Calley's original life sentence was repeatedly reduced by senior generals
until he was ultimately granted clemency by President Richard Nixon. Convicted by jury of military officer peers of personally
killing at least 22 civilians, Calley served only five months in detention and some three years under house arrest.
Later in the Vietnam War, when Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert
blew the whistle on
endemic torture among some U.S. troops, and a subsequent investigation uncovered 141 confirmed incidents of prisoner abuse, not
a single criminal charge was filed and only three soldiers were administratively fined or reduced in rank. The only significant
punishment meted out was leveled at Herbert -- recipient of four Silver Stars and three Bronze Stars, who was also shot 10 ten
times and bayonet thrice -- when his reputation and career were ruined in retaliation.
When allegations of systemic prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison were reported by Major General Antonio Taguba, and
simultaneously uncovered by the very same Seymour Hersh, not a single soldier above the rank of staff sergeant faced charges.
Taguba, incidentally, did suffer
-- his career unceremoniously curtailed in the wake of threats, intimidation, and harassment by the senior army commander
in Iraq (General John Abizaid) and the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to the current ICC investigatory backlash, after an American AC-130 gunship unloaded on
a civilian hospital (by definition, a war crime) repeatedly for 30-60 minutes and killed 42 doctors, patients, and staff members,
the top theater commander, General John Campbell, and then Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
changed
their stories four times in four days without ever fully explicating what exactly caused the massacre. An official military
probe – instructively, the generals always investigate themselves in these matters – found no criminal culpability, and, while
Campbell's nominal boss, General Joseph Votel, claimed to have administratively disciplined sixteen soldiers and officers, the
names of those personnel – and he details of their punishment – were never released.
Add to that the disconcerting fact that the U.S. crossed a rather macabre
tipping
point in 2019, whereby, for the first time, the American military and its Afghan allies killed more civilians than the Taliban,
and this brings us full circle to an alarming present reality. The very figures who championed and supported the wildly chauvinistic
"Hague Invasion" Act seem set to hold sway over, and in Biden's case serve as candidate for, the Democratic Party.In November, that
faction will likely, then face off against a Trump team that vehemently opposes even a basic investigation into alleged American
criminal misbehavior in the Afghan theater of its ongoing forever wars.
All of which demonstrates, once and for all, that human rights, and international law or norms were never of genuine interest
to the United States. None of this will play well on the "Arab," or even broader global, "Street," and will – just like U.S. abuses
at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – actually
increase worldwide "terrorism"
and anti-Americanism. None of which matters to, or greatly concerns, a Washington elite lacking even a modicum of self-awareness.
Because empires, like the United States, which peddle in exceptionalism, triumphalism, and chauvinism are, historically, the world's
true rogue states
.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and a contributing editor at antiwar.com
. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, 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 for
pre-order . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out
his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access
to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
Professor Mearsheimer discusses the foreign policy agenda of the President Biden administration.
He shares his insights on the likely continuities as well as differences between the Biden administration's policies and the
policies pursued by President Trump over the past four years.
About the Speaker: John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell
Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He
graduated from West Point (1970), has a PhD in political science from Cornell University (1981), and has written extensively
about security issues and international politics. Among his six books, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014) won
the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize; and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), made the New York
Times bestseller list.
His latest book is The Great Delusion: Liberal Ideals and International Realities (2018), which won the
2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow.
In 2020, he won the James Madison Award, which
is given once every three years by the American Political Science Association to "an American political scientist who has made
a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." Recorded on the 17th of November 2020
His predictions here are coming true right now. I would also add that the polarization of politics in the US will have
continued unpleasant domestic social ramifications. Do I want to stay and endure it ? Trump did try like hell to back the
US out of long standing losing wars in the middle east. Nobody appreciates this though.
Mearsheimer expects the Dems to give up on the mindless saber-rattling directed at Russia for the last four years. He may be
right, the D's were likely cynically providing "boob bait for the bubbas." Taking a tough line vs China is more unlikely given
that PRC is so closely tied to the Silicon Valley and Wall Street plutocrats who are the real base of the Democrat Party.
Before our national self-inquest on Donald Trump has run its course, we will be prompted
to remember again that the world exists. President-elect Joe Biden's appointments at the
departments of defense, state, and the national security council are likely to include some
combination of Michele Flournoy, Jake Sullivan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others of the
globalization group around Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These people believe in
the rightness of a world with the United States at its center, deploying commercial strength,
trade agreements, diplomatic suasion, and military alliances in a judicious synthesis. Armed
intervention, preferably multilateral, is held in reserve. They take on trust the global
politics of neoliberalism. For them, the Trump presidency, though unanticipated, was merely a
disagreeable hiatus. They have never stopped planning for their return.
SPONSORED CONTENT
How To Entirely Empty Your Bowels Each Morning (1 Min Routine) Your Gut Reboot
[Photos] The Most Dangerous Place Where You Should Never Swim Is Actually In New Jersey
Tie Breaker
[Photos] Marisa Tomei Gave The Crew A Little Extra Graduatez
They did not study the catastrophe of Vietnam, and they have not learned from it. As
Gareth Porter showed in Perils of Dominance , that war, whose atrocities the world
remembers more vividly than Americans do, was protracted not from morbid credulity regarding
the domino theory but rather a primitive fear of losing face. It was carried forward through
presidencies in both parties with a maximum of deception. The War in Afghanistan has
similarly extended over three presidencies; and yet, to the neoliberal establishment,
Afghanistan in 2020 is a good deal like Vietnam in 1971. It must not be "abandoned." A recent
New York Times story praised some generals for "tempering" the rashness of Donald
Trump's attempt to withdraw once and for all.
For reasons of personality that hardly bear looking into, Trump in foreign policy
represented a break from the militarized globalism the United States had adopted with the
fall of the Soviet Union and the coming of a unipolar world. The laboratory for this approach
was the Yugoslavia intervention commandeered by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The madness
under the idealism was revealed in the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
That seems a long generation ago, to the short memory of Americans. Even more thoroughly
forgotten has been the Libya War -- President Obama's disastrous bid to show support for the
Arab Spring -- with all the destruction it wrought: the civil war that followed, the swollen
mass migrations from North Africa to South Europe, the opening of slave markets in Libya
itself. After Libya came Syria, in which the United States supported an Al Qaeda offshoot in
another humanitarian cause. After Syria came the Obama-Trump support for the Saudi
obliteration of Yemen.
The United States has long faced the peculiar choice -- messianic on both sides -- of
serving the world as an exemplary nation or as an evangelical one. The former image was best
drawn by Abraham Lincoln when he said that the proposition "all men are created equal" was
meant as "a standard maxim for free society," which would be "constantly approximated" in the
United States itself, "constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the
happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." By contrast, the
evangelical image was epitomized by John Kennedy's eloquent and dangerous inaugural address:
"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Lincoln's standard
maxim meant the force of our example. Kennedy's bear any burden meant the force
of our weapons.
A new Cold War with Russia was dragged onto center stage in 2013–2014. The process
began at the Sochi Olympics and was locked in by the American reaction to the Russian
reaction to the coup in Ukraine. The neoliberal elite is deciding, at this moment, whether to
prefer Russia or China as the number-one U.S. enemy on the horizon. But must we have one?
"Faith in a fact can help create the fact," said William James. A named expectation of
trouble creates the conditions for that trouble. And yet, informed citizens today in the
United States, in China, and in Russia all know that such a return to the inveterate habits
of the old Great Powers would be supremely irresponsible. Our most dire confrontation now is
with the natural world, which, in the form of climate change, is taking its revenge on
humanity for a century of abuse.
SPONSORED CONTENT
[Photos] At 56, Laura Ingraham Has Never Been Married And Now We Know Why Graduatez
[Photos] Behind Her Fame, Milana Vayntrub Has Some Secret Now Out In The Open Penguin M.D.
[Photos] 35 People That Forgot to Check The Background Before Taking Photo Penguin
M.D.
If the fires and floods of the last many years, in Australia and California, in Prague and
Houston, have nothing to say to you, it is not clear what planet you are fit to live on. The
best thing the policy elite could do, for the United States and the world, would be to put
themselves out of business. Begin a series of international agreements to cooperate in
slowing the progress of climate change, and in anticipating and defending against the worst
of its effects. Practically speaking, as a matter of course, this will require a new ethic of
international cooperation. Not war, not even an enhanced trade war, and not with China and
Russia most of all.
David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. He is the author
of American Breakdown:
The ascendancy of neoliberal forces to the executive branch of the U.S. state represents a
development that potentially will be even a more dangerous period of aggression from the U.S.
white supremacist settler state and its white supremacist colonial European allies.
Why is this so? The primary agenda of the right-wing neoliberal forces represented by the
Biden Administration is to reassert U.S. global leadership by reconsolidating a common
U.S.-European capitalist program of domination that was disrupted with the "America first"
positions of the Trump Administration.
The Biden Administration is animated by the belief that the objective logic of overall
Western hegemony is tied to finding a way for more effective collaboration around a common
imperialist agenda. This belief is shared by Angela Merkel of Germany, and despite some
contrary public declarations from French President Macron on issue of European independence,
Macron sees an effective Western alliance as critical, even if it is under U.S. leadership
once again.
The racialist character if these appeals are obvious to those of us who operate from a
critical anti-colonialist frame that centers race and violence as the essential elements of
the rise of the Pan-European white supremacist colonial/capitalist patriarchal project. The
commitment to continued white colonial/capitalist global hegemonic dominance is clear.
Biden's objective to revive a U.S. hegemonic role over the Western project of collective
domination must be seen as a race project.
Trump's plan from the beginning of his administration was to complete the Obama pivot to
Asia, but those efforts were undermined by the domestic political obstacles he faced in just
trying to gain full control of the Executive Branch. And while Trump was eventually
successful in winning over elements of the U.S. and European ruling classes to a more
aggressive stance against China, his short-sighted, erratic "America first" policies and his
inability to consolidate effective power over the U.S. state were a destabilizing force for
the continued hegemony of the Western colonial/capitalist project.
The U.S.-EU unity project with its NATO military wing in the service of collective
imperialism and under U.S. leadership is the neoliberal corrective strategy to
Trump.
Biden's Intersectional Imperialism is Exposed
Obama represented the last stage of what Gramsci called a passive revolution where
oppressive state mitigates the influence of antagonistic groups through "gradual but
continuous absorption."
The U.S.-EU race and class project of unity adopted by the Biden Administration will face
serious political and economic challenges. The clumsy attempt to utilize Obama's soft power
ideological mystifications in the present circumstances of capitalist crisis together with a
deep legitimation crisis will result in abject failure by the Biden administration on both
the global and domestic levels.
First among the challenges facing the incoming administration is the competing economic
interests among Western capitalists. The abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPA) with Iran by the Trump Administration and the reimposition of sanctions that required
economic disengagement from Iran by many European firms, was a major fissure in the Atlanta
alliance.
The lost revenues by European firms as a result of economic disengagement with Iran and
the efforts to undermine the Russian NORD stream two pipeline that alienated significant
elements of German capital are just two of the issues that will weigh on the trust factor in
U.S. political leadership going forward.
Moreover, there are two interrelated contradictions of this unity strategy that the
Northern neoliberal capitalist class must confront but will be unable to resolve: first, the
impact of the capitalist crisis exacerbated by COVID that has unleashed forces disruptive to
the capitalist order from both the left and the right. And secondly, the attempt by the left
and social democratic movements and nations to develop, however tentatively, from the
obviously failed neoliberal capitalist model.
The U.S.-EU Unity Process Requires a Countervailing Peoples Unity Process
The strategic challenge for the left in Northern countries is countering these efforts
with a coherent anti-capitalist, internationalist, anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist
and pro-socialist popular movements and structures.
But in the U.S. and Europe, that is easier said than done. Along with the ideological and
organizational fragmentation of the left, one of the main issues that undermines the ability
for the left to cohere in the U.S. and Europe is the cultural and ideological influences of
white supremacist ideology.
The inability to reject the fiction of a "Europe" and its civilizational superiority has
thoroughly corrupted the worldviews and politics of Western leftism. In the face of the
U.S/EU/NATO attacks and subversion on Syria, Libya to Venezuela and Bolivia, instead of
anti-imperialist solidarity, the left engaged in torturous abstract "discussions" around the
merits and mistakes made by these various Southern nations, not recognizing the arrogant
white supremacist positionality of that approach.
Anti-imperialist marginalization is reflective of the shift in the consciousness not only
of the public in various Western nations but of the putative left as well. Even among Black
liberationist forces in the U.S., who have traditionally had internationalism and
anti-imperialism at the center of their worldviews and politics, a strange U.S.-centrism has
emerged. This tendency along with an ironic embryonic racial chauvinism that elevates a
distinctive "African American" construction of so-called global anti-blackness as an
intractable ontological phenomenon, has created serious ideological and political challenges
for anti-imperialist coalitional work.
Yet, those challenges must be met by African/Black left and left forces in general. It is
impossible for forces in the U.S. and Europe to avoid their unique responsibilities situated
at the center of the colonial empires, to the peoples of the world who have the knee of
collective imperialism on their necks.
Bringing this discussion closer to the territory referred to as the United States,
anti-imperialism, and the struggle against U.S. chauvinism among the left must be taken up as
an area of struggle. For African/Black revolutionaries, and indeed for the working and
laboring classes, our gaze must extend beyond our local and national realities. Not because
those realities are unimportant but because we are unable to understand local realities
without understanding the full constellation of class, race and material forces that shape
those structural realities nationally and locally.
Mobilizing our forces to confront and defeat the Pan-European project is not a call to
abstractionism. The organizational challenge is to answer the question of how does local
work, that is, building a real, concrete internationalism, look.
It is not enough to position ourselves in solidarity with the victims of U.S. imperialism.
The base-building work that we engage in must reflect that mutual connection with the
colonized.
That is why the Black internationalist stance is not some exotic addition to radical
organizing but must be seen as fundamental to our movement building work. Understanding that
we are immersed in a system of exploitation and oppression that is global, even though it has
local manifestations, is critical for us to effectively address that perennial task of
determining "what must be done" to advance our forces.
Confronting that question of what is to be done has become even more crucial today amid
the irreversible decline of the capitalist order. And while we commit to building a mass
movement of the exploited and oppressed, we must take account of some troubling developments
over the last four years.
The unveiling of the left patriots who were concerned with "our democracy" and who
enthusiastically propagated the talking points of neoliberalism while remaining silent on
U.S. imperialism, and entered the intra-bourgeois class struggle as junior partners to
neoliberal right, revealed once again that if the left is not prepared to defeat whiteness
and the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination, it will join as the tail to the neoliberal right in
the cross-class white supremacist fascist project led by neoliberals.
Our survival demands that we remain "woke" to that possibility and plan accordingly.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
The announcement drew praise from many professional climate activists and groups, perhaps
assuming that Kerry was taking his lead from Bernie Sanders, who has for years been saying
the same thing. Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash said his
statement was an "encouraging move," while 350.org's Bill McKibben, predicted Kerry would
be an excellent climate czar. Yet, as media critic Adam Johnson argued, Kerry's
proclamation should deeply concern progressive activists and will likely lead to expanding
the already bloated military budget.
Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project
(ASP), whose board is a who's who of retired generals, admirals and senators. The ASP also
hailed the appointment of their man, explaining, in a little-read report, exactly what
treating the climate as a national security threat entails. And it is nothing like what
Sanders advocates.
For the ASP, climate change constitutes an "accelerant of instability" and a "threat
multiplier" that will "affect the operating environment," and notes that Kerry will have
three priorities in his role as President Biden's right-hand man. What were those three
priorities? Making sure people in the Global South could eat and have access to safe
drinking water? Reparations? Disaster relief or response teams? Cutting back on fossil fuel
use? Indeed not. For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
"... Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of fact. ..."
"... If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim made by the infamous January 2017 "intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17 intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the time. ..."
"... Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations. After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized, this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous . ..."
Democrat Joe Biden, anointed by the US mainstream media and Silicon Valley as the next
president, "must call out Putin's secret war against the United States" when he assumes
office, the Post's editorial board argued this week.
But this "secret war" exists only in their feverish imagination. Each and every one
of the things they list as examples of it consists of assertions based on insinuation at best,
or has otherwise been debunked as outright fake news.
Exhibit A is the "mysterious attacks" that supposedly "targeted" US diplomats
and spies in Cuba, China, Australia and Taiwan. This 'Havana Syndrome' was blamed on Russia last
week in a coordinated media campaign, but the "scientific" paper it was based on
carefully avoids actual attribution, saying only that the vague symptoms were
"consistent" with a posited microwave weapon.
This is an evolution of the original story, which claimed that Russia had used "sonic
weapons," not microwave ones. Even the New York Times later admitted
that the headaches, sleep deprivation and other problems were more likely caused by the loud
chirping of Cuban crickets.
Exhibit B is another doozy, the infamous "Russian bounties" story. The New York Times
claimed in June that
some money captured from local mobsters in Afghanistan was somehow proof that Russia was paying
the Taliban to kill US soldiers – again, not on the basis of actual evidence, but on
conjecture that this was "consistent" with what the CIA and US military said were
Russian objectives.
Thing is, neither the US
intelligence community nor the Pentagon were
ever able to confirm the story, having investigated it for months. It just so happened that it
was brought up just as the DC establishment sought to torpedo President Donald Trump's plan to
pull out of Afghanistan and end the 20-year war that has long since forgotten its
purpose.
Exhibit C is the "looting of valuable hacking tools" from the cybersecurity firm
FireEye, announced earlier this
week. FireEye itself never named the culprit, with its CEO Kevin Mandia only saying it was
"consistent with a nation-state cyber-espionage effort."
That didn't stop the Post from claiming that "spies with Russia's foreign intelligence
service" are "believed" to have hacked FireEye, citing "people familiar with the
matter." Well there you go, anonymous and unverifiable sources asserted it, therefore it
must be true!
Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's
computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That
is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert
Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the
government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of
fact.Another nail
in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim
If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice
there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these
alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and
mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim
made by the infamous January 2017
"intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17
intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the
time.
Keep in mind that these are the same spies and media that never saw the demise of the Soviet
Union coming, and have been predicting Russia's impending collapse any day now – for the
past 20 years. So much for their actual knowledge of Russian goals or thinking.
Speaking of 'Russiagate,' the Post has been on the leading edge of that conspiracy theory
from the start. It won Pulitzers for pushing it on the
American public. It also played a key role in smearing Trump's first national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn, so he would be fired – and later cheered his railroading by Mueller.
At least they're consistent , so to speak.
Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's
Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a
mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations.
After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized,
this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous
.
That's because the Post is literally in bed with what Trump called the Washington
"swamp," the entrenched US political establishment. What they print is what that
establishment thinks and wants Americans to believe. With Joe Biden in the White House, the
objectives of that establishment and the official US government would be, to use their own
phrase, consistent .
Which is why the Post's "secret war" fantasy is, shall we say, highly likely
to become an actual shooting war with Moscow. As the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons
between themselves to destroy the world several times over, that can't possibly be good for
Amazon's bottom line. Someone ought to tell Bezos.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
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 statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways, will be an improvement is pretty optimistic. ..."
"... Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well several other flavors of "national security parasites".) ..."
"... Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less "in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin village again. that's all the difference. ..."
When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes anti-fascist,
then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that humanity is
facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society in this
manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I suppose
that is the point though.
This is pretty interesting thought, thank you very much. Kind of Orwellian ""War
is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," on a new, more sinister level as in
"this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present."
But is reality Henry Ford quote "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he
wants so long as it is black." is perfectly applicable to any US elections and political life
in general.
Some commentators here for some reason think that Biden (yes, this semi-senile Biden, a
marionette from the very beginning; senator from credit card companies; the worst enemy of
working class in Congress ) is somehow preferable to Trump (yes, this Trump, a marionette of
Zionists, the President who completely betrayed his electorate, best friend of billionaires
and Pentagon; kind of Bush III replicating both intellectual level of Bush II and his
policies, including a tax cut for the rich).
I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for
this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his
health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit
with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways,
will be an improvement is pretty optimistic.
Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters
mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well
several other flavors of "national security parasites".)
Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal
oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less
"in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And
that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed
what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin
village again. that's all the difference.
"When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes
anti-fascist, then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that
humanity is facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society
in this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I
suppose that is the point though."
Yes, that's what the gaslighing is all about, but the problem - as our self-designated
betters are finding out now - is that you cannot run a sucessful competitive modern society
that way, banana republics do not get to rule the world.
Even ... Henry Ford understood he had to take good care of his employees.
Biden is going to have his hands full without looking for any more trouble.
or Donald Trump, truth is a matter of convenience, with facts entirely optional and plenty
of space allowed for make-believe. Yet in American public life, our current president is far
from being the sole purveyor of fictions and falsehoods. The very institutions that citizens
count on to distinguish between fact and fable engage in their own forms of mythmaking. While
they may steer clear of telling outright lies, they dispense no small amount of drivel,
concealing actual truth behind a veil of illusion.
Allow me to offer an illustrative example in the form of a recent column by the
Washington Post's David Von Drehle, a seasoned journalist now installed in that paper's
stable of political commentators and called upon twice weekly to reflect on the fate of
humankind.
The title of Von Drehle's essay poses a question: "Joe Biden says America is back. Back to
what?" Von Drehle then proceeds to spell out his own answer to that what. Yet in doing
so, he packages his views in a specific historical context. It's that context that is
instructive.
Let us acknowledge that the Biden team is no more likely to take its cues from some
garden-variety pundit than from members of the outgoing administration. Van Drehle's policy
recommendations -- that Biden should "end the mollycoddling" of Saudi Arabia, insist that China
"play by the rules," and knit "the Americas into a hemisphere of happiness" -- carry about as
much weight with the incoming administration as do Mike Pompeo's opinions, i.e. next to none
whatsoever.
Yet this is not to say that Von Drehle's column is just so much hot air. From his perch at
the Post, he is a small, but not inconsequential player in a grand project to which
members of the foreign policy establishment swear fealty. The aim of that project is to salvage
and rejuvenate claims of American Exceptionalism that Donald Trump mangled and trashed nearly
beyond recognition.
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as exemplar
-- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence to direct
history itself. Pumping new life into this hoary old notion requires persuading Americans today
that before Trump screwed things up, the United States had history well in hand, with the world
taking its cues from Washington.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_738456037 Ad ends in
15s
Von Drehle purports to believe that such a world actually existed. Furthermore, he believes
that a sufficiently savvy U.S. president can restore that world -- all that's required is
assertive American leadership. Nor is he alone in entertaining the prospect of going "back" to
that triumphal time, before Trump appeared on the scene and messed everything up. Indeed, take
Biden's rhetoric at face value and our next president may well share in this fantasy.
So of considerably greater significance than Von Drehle's policy prescriptions is the
historical wrapping in which they arrive. It's history with a specific and carefully selected
time horizon. For Von Drehle (and probably for Biden), the history that matters begins with the
end of World War II, a moment that ostensibly inaugurated "seven decades of bipartisan [foreign
policy] consensus." Providing a foundation for that consensus was a "win-win view of America's
role in the world." Generations of postwar leaders, according to Von Drehle, understood that
"the long-term interests of Americans were best served by the gradual expansion of peace and
prosperity worldwide." The result was "an expansive, internationalist approach" to basic
policy. This, in sum, is the past that Von Drehle is selling as a roadmap to a happy
future.
Now such assertions may not qualify as bald-faced lies in a Trumpian sense, but taken
together they amount to a fairy tale. The postwar bipartisan consensus was never more than
partial and tentative at best. When put to the test -- with Vietnam as the most vivid example
-- it gave way. Nor did the Cold War and the accompanying nuclear arms race reflect a win-win
view of America's role in the world. The Cold War was a zero-sum game, pitting us against them
-- "better dead than Red," remember?
As for the United States promoting the gradual expansion of peace and prosperity worldwide,
that claim is difficult to square with Washington's marriages of convenience with sundry
dictators, involvement in numerous coups and assassination plots, and the U.S. penchant for
killing people in faraway places, unmatched by any other nation on the planet. Since 9/11 in
particular, war and disorder rather than peace and prosperity have been America's principal
exports. All of this predated Trump.
Von Drehle is eager for the United States to resume "its rightful place in the world order"
as "the friend of freedom and the scourge of tyrants." Forget just for a second that the United
States befriended a long list of tyrants: Batista, Somoza, Marcos, Noriega, the Shah of Iran,
Mubarak of Egypt, and, until 1990, Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Of greater relevance to the present
moment is this question: who or what assigns nations their rightful place in the world order?
This is not a matter upon which columnists in the employ of the Washington Post are
inclined to reflect, preferring to assume that history's decision is irreversible: we are
Numero Uno. Period. Full stop. Been that way forever.
Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence that
he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column, further
embellishing the nation's achievements as friend of freedom and scourge of tyrants, as will his
various counterparts at the Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal , and
other prestige outlets.
They will collaborate in minimizing the moral ambiguity that permeates America's past. They
will shrug off crimes or lock them away in a box labeled "Sorry. Didn't Mean To." They will
inhibit learning and bury truth.
And they will get away with it.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and TAC's
writer-at-large.
I'm not sure that "they" can continue to "get away with it." The US financial situation
is not good. The US government is dysfunctional, and US society as a whole, the combination
of capital and people, is no longer particularly competitive. No matter what Biden, et al,
think they are going to do with respect to leading the world, it's not clear that the world
will pay any attention, or that the the US can even afford it.
It's a tragic, in the classic sense, situation, as almost everything that has weakened the
US empire has been self inflicted.
All true. To see a better reflection of America, maybe one should read Serghei Lavrov's
interviews and press conferences:
https://thesaker.is/foreign...
or see how the Chinese are trolling Australia in the aftermath of the scandal of the
Aussie special forces killing (with intent) scores of civilians (probably far less than the
US troops) in Afghanistan - just as a fast track on how Americans are regarded outside
their border...
While Mr. Von Drehle sees and praises Dorian Gray, the world at large watches with
fascination another patch of horror coming up on his portrait...
I totally agree with Bacevich. There is really nothing that generates global more
resentment than this kind of American hubris, American arrogance:
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as
exemplar -- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence
to direct history itself.
"Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence
that he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column..."
As will Andrew J. And you can be sure Bacevich will use any topic at hand to slip in as
many backhands against President Trump as he can muster. Once a RINO, always a RINO. But
despite all the snide slurs against the President here & elsewhere, Bacevich's
preferred candidate, stately Joe Biden may soon dignify the Oval Office (maybe); & then
Andrew can spend the next four years defending him, just like Von Drehle.
America HAS NO memory, particularly regarding the heinous aspects of its past. Who
remembers the Indian removals, Chinese and Japanese exclusion acts, or the Philippine
insurrection?
As success and comfort displace esteem and integrity and corruption turns pervasive the
virtuous order of society is overturned: independent, principled, talented spirits are
typically encountered only well away of the mainstreams of media while middling
obsequiousness and venality rise above their betters in pubic view.
Tripe, deception and corrupton are what one can expect from corporate governance no
matter which wing s dominant. We haven't seen the
worst of it yet, though we are getting there faster than we thought.
I agree w/Bacevich. I love how R's and D's pretend they are different.
'The America First policy is gone' scream the Laura Ingraham's as she (and the other
Republican Hawks) lament a possible decrease in hostility with China and Iran. The
Democrats pronounce, 'America is back, now we are really going to get tough with Russia and
do regime change in Venezuela right!'
Here is the new boss, same as the new boss. We will continue to waste our treasure and
energy harming other countries and neglect ourselves until we are spent.
Editor's note : US President-elect Joe Biden nominated Neera Tanden, a close ally of
Hillary Clinton and president of neoliberal DC think tank the Center for American Progress, on
November 29 to serve as director of his administration's Office of Management and Budget.
Tanden is notorious on Twitter for her aggressive attacks on the left.
In response to the nomination, The Grayzone is reprinting this
June 20, 2016 report by Ben Norton.
"Unless we take the oil from Libya, I have no interest in Libya," Donald Trump declared in
an April 2011 interview on CNN's "Newsroom."
The U.S. government was considering military intervention in the oil-rich North African
nation at the time. Trump said he would only participate if Washington exploited Libya's
natural resources in return.
"Libya is only good as far I'm concerned for one thing -- this country takes the oil. If
we're not taking the oil, no interest," he added.
NATO claimed its U.S.-backed bombing campaign was meant to protect Libyans who were
protesting the regime of longtime dictator Muammar Qadhafi. Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO's own materials to show that this was false.
"In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start," Zenko
wrote in an exposé in Foreign Policy in March.
Trump was not the only figure to propose taking Libya's oil in return for bombing it,
however. Neera Tanden, the president of the pro-Clinton think tank the Center for American
Progress, proposed this same policy a few months after Trump.
"We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil," Tanden wrote in an October 2011
email
titled "Should Libya pay us back?"
"Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want
to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us
back doesn't seem crazy to me," she added in the message, which was obtained and first
published by The Intercept .
Liberal hawkishness
Tanden is a close ally of Hillary Clinton, and is frequently named as a likely
chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House. The Center for American Progress, which Tanden
leads, was founded by John Podesta, a key figure in the Clinton machine.
Podesta is the chairman of
Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign, and he previously served as chief of staff under
President Bill Clinton. With his brother Tony, John also co-founded the Podesta Group, a public
affairs firm that has
lobbied for Saudi Arabia , among other countries.
Tanden has expressed hawkish views, although in a statement to Salon she strongly opposed
being described as hawkish. The New York Times has described Hillary Clinton as
more hawkish than her Republican rivals , although it still endorsed her for president.
The Center for American Progress president
invited hard-line right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in
Washington, D.C. in November, after he had spent months aggressively trying to jeopardize the
Iran nuclear deal.
Tanden does not comment on international affairs much, but her tweets provide some insight
into her hawkish views, which do not reflect the official policy of the Center for American
Progress.
In September 2013, when the Obama administration was preparing to bomb Syria, she tweeted support,
writing, "On Syria, while I don't want to be the world's policeman, an unpoliced world is
dangerous. The US may be the only adult in the room left."
Just over a week later, the administration
backed off of its plans, in response to enormous backlash -- and in fear that it would end
up with another Libya on its hands.
During the lead-up to the war in Libya, Tanden expressed support for military intervention.
She suggested that Americans should
be "chanting" for Qadhafi's ouster.
Days after the NATO operation was launched, she wrote , "To liberal friends
worried re Libya, is there better reason 4 use of US power than 2 protect innocent civilians
from slaughter by a madman?"
Like many liberal figures who supported the NATO bombing of Libya, she
stopped talking about the country between 2011 and 2014, while it was roiled by violent
chaos and extremism.
These tweets came before the October email in which Tanden suggested taking Libya's oil in
return for bombing it. Trump made the same proposal several months before, in April.
After this article was published, Tanden stressed in a statement to Salon that her views do
not reflect those of the Center for American Progress, which did not take a position on
Libya.
She claimed being labeled "a hawk is a ridiculous caricature," adding, "I opposed the Iraq
war from the beginning." Tanden noted that the Center for American Progress "was among the
first think tanks to lay out concrete plans for ending the war in Iraq." She also said that she
does not support putting U.S. troops in Syria.
"CAP is a think tank," Tanden stressed, referring to the organization by its acronym. "We
have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage the
deliberation of ideas to spur conversation, push thinking and spark debate. We do this in
meetings, on phone calls and yes, over e-mail. One internal e-mail exchange among colleagues --
which was leaked to another organization -- or a few tweets does not constitute a published,
official policy position."
Salon never once stated that Tanden's views reflect the Center for American Progress'
official policy, but Tanden accused Salon of implying this.
Leftist critics have long lambasted the Democratic Party's militaristic foreign policy,
arguing it is not much different than the GOP's. This exploitative idea proposed by both Trump
and Tanden lends further credence to the argument that, when it comes to the U.S. empire, the
Democratic and Republican parties are much more similar than their adherents make them out to
be.
A strange mix
At the time of his April 2011 CNN interview, Trump was considering running as a Republican
in the 2012 election. His nationalistic rhetoric then was very consistent to that of today.
Trump lamented that the U.S. was "just not respected" and had become "a laughing stock
throughout the world." He hoped that he could reverse this supposed trend, just as he now
promises to "make America great again."
Trump's proposal on Libya was consistent with his views on Iraq. He
declared at the American Conservative Union's 40th Conservative Political Action
Conference, in 2013, that the U.S. should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of Iraq's oil to pay for
the illegal war.
In his presidential campaign today, Trump has made similar proposals. His foreign policy is
a strange mix of skeptical non-interventionism and hawkishness.
In the 2011 CNN interview, Trump expressed skepticism about the rebels in Libya. "They make
the rebels sound like they're from 'Gone With the Wind,' very glamorous," Trump said. "I hear
they're controlled by Iran. I hear they're controlled by al-Qaeda."
The rebels had very little to do with Iran. Iran did express support for the opposition to
Qadhafi's dictatorship, but it
staunchly opposed Western military intervention, which it warned was hypocritical,
neocolonial in nature and motivated by Libya's large oil reserves.
By no means were all of the rebels extremists, but there were al-Qaeda-linked elements in
the opposition to Qadhafi. Human rights groups documented atrocities committed by extremist
rebels, including
ethnic cleansing of black Libyans .
After the NATO war toppled Qadhafi, the country was thrown into chaos. Rivaled forces,
including extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia and eventually ISIS, seized control of
swaths of the country, and weapons from Qadhafi's enormous cache ended up in the hands of
extremist groups throughout the region. To this day, large parts of Libya are not under the
control of the internationally recognized government.
Disastrous Libya war
Hillary Clinton played the
leading role in rallying up U.S. support for the NATO war. Reports have since shown that
the Pentagon was skeptical of U.S. involvement at the time, but, under the leadership of
Secretary of State Clinton, the Obama administration portrayed it as a humanitarian
mission.
President Obama insisted at the beginning of the intervention, "Broadening our military
mission to include regime change would be a mistake." The State Department likewise said
"President Obama has been equally firm that our military operation has a narrowly defined
mission that does not include regime change."
Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates later told The New York Times, "I can't recall any
specific decision that said, 'Well, let's just take him out,'" referring to Qadhafi.
Micah Zenko, the Council on Foreign Relations scholar, showed this to be false. "This is
scarcely believable," Zenko rejoined in his detailed report
. "Given that decapitation strikes against Qaddafi were employed early and often, there almost
certainly was a decision by the civilian heads of government of the NATO coalition to 'take him
out' from the very beginning of the intervention."
"The threat posed by the Libyan regime's military and paramilitary forces to
civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within
the first 10 days," he explained. "Afterward, NATO began providing direct close-air support for
advancing rebel forces by attacking government troops that were actually in retreat and had
abandoned their vehicles." The military intervention continued for more than seven months.
Rebel forces went on to brutally murder Qadhafi, sodomizing him with a bayonet. When
then-Sec. Clinton heard that he had been killed, she rejoiced in front
of TV cameras, joking, "We came, we saw, he died!"
In April, Obama singled out U.S. support for the NATO war in Libya as the worst decision of his
presidency.
Zenko warned that the "intervention in Libya shows that the slippery slope of allegedly
limited interventions is most steep when there's a significant gap between what policymakers
say their objectives are and the orders they issue for the battlefield."
"Unfortunately, duplicity of this sort is a common practice in the U.S. military," he
added.
Interestingly, Trump himself cautioned in an interview on Fox News' "Fox
& Friends" in March 2011 that U.S. intervention in Syria would be a "slippery slope."
"It is a slippery slope and more and more, you realize that we're over there fighting wars
to open up these governments and they would have opened up themselves," Trump said, expressing
skepticism about U.S. military involvement very early on in the war.
Clinton called for the exact opposite in Syria. She would go on to oppose diplomacy and
insist the U.S. should support the "hard men with the guns."
DNC hack
Trump's unusual mix of anti-interventionist and exploitative foreign policy views are
highlighted in the Democratic National Committee's alleged opposition research.
A hacker broke into the computer network of the DNC and leaked its opposition research on
Trump. A 210-page
document that appears to be this report highlights Trump's past remarks on Libya, Syria,
Iraq and more.
Also revealed in the report is that Trump bragged that he "screwed" Muammar Qadhafi with an
unfair business deal.
U.S. media outlets immediately blamed the DNC hack on the Russian government. Soon after,
however, they quietly backed away from the hasty conclusions they made based on what
progressive media watchdog Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting pointed out
was incredibly flimsy evidence.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
P resident-elect Joe Biden's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget has a history
of defending British ex-spy Christopher Steele's
discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Years of controversial claims about the Trump-Russia controversy, particularly about the
dossier funded in part by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, presents one of several obstacles
for Neera Tanden, a longtime Democratic operative, to achieve Senate confirmation next
year.
A significant question that remains is how the two Senate runoff races in Georgia shake out
in January, with control of the upper chamber hanging in the balance. Tanden is sure to meet
stiff opposition from Republicans, who will be led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Tanden
derisively tweeted in August 2019,
"Stacey Abrams just called McConnell 'Moscow Mitch.' Love it."
In selecting Tanden on
Monday, Biden described the president
of the left-wing Center for American Progress as "a leading architect and advocate of policies
designed to support working families." Tanden worked on Bill Clinton's successful run in 1992
and Barack Obama's successful presidential run in 2008. She was also an adviser on Hillary
Clinton's successful Democratic primary effort in 2016 and the failed general election run that
November.
Not mentioned in her Biden transition team biography was the role Tanden played in promoting
unsubstantiated claims throughout the Trump-Russia controversy.
Tanden launched the
"Moscow Project" in 2017, and after Buzzfeed published Steele's dossier in January 2017,
Tanden's think tank released a
statement saying, "The intelligence dossier presents profoundly disturbing allegations;
ones that should shake every American to the core." Tanden went on to defend the Steele dossier
repeatedly on Twitter, attacking those who critiqued the FBI for relying on its claims to
obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority against former Trump campaign associate
Carter Page and implying that critics of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were doing
Russia's bidding.
"Make Chris Steele the next James Bond," Tanden tweeted in January
2017.
In a tweet about Rep. Devin Nunes's FISA memo in February 2018, which criticized the FBI's
surveillance of Page and its use of the dossier, the Washington Examiner's Byron York
noted that "no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele
dossier information." Tanden responded by saying, "Even
if this is true, hasn't the dossier been mostly proven to be true? It's amazing how comfortable
the likes of Byron York are happy to run interference for Russians intervening in our
elections." Tanden followed up with another tweet claiming that the
"dossier has been mostly established as right."
Tanden's "Moscow Project" also
released a flawed critique of the Republican FISA memo, with Tanden defending the FBI's
surveillance. In addition, Tanden tweeted in April 2018 that
the dossier was "started with funding by a GOP megadonor."
Although the conservative Free Beacon had hired the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, it said in October 2017 that it "had no knowledge of or
connection to the Steele dossier." It later emerged that Steele was not commissioned by Fusion
GPS (and did not begin compiling his dossier) until Clinton campaign lawyer
Marc Elias hired Fusion.
"What parts of the dossier have been disproven?" Tanden tweeted in January 2019.
"I will wait."
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December 2019 report and subsequent
declassifications undermined Steele's claims in the dossier. Horowitz said the Trump-Russia
investigation concealed exculpatory information from the FISA court, and he
criticized the Justice Department and FBI for at least 17 "significant errors and
omissions"
related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele.
Declassified footnotes show the FBI knew Steele's dossier may have been compromised by
Russian disinformation . Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele's main source, U.S.-based
and Russian-trained lawyer Igor Danchenko, "raised significant questions about the reliability
of the Steele election reporting."
FBI Director Christopher Wray called the FISA findings "utterly unacceptable" this
year and concurred with the DOJ's conclusions that at least two of the four FISA warrants
against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
Nearly all the FISA signatories -- Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates , Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein , fired FBI Director
James Comey , and fired FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe -- indicated under oath they wouldn't have signed off on the surveillance if
they knew then what they know now, and a declassified FBI spreadsheet showed the
lack of corroboration for Steele's claims.
Other Russia-related claims Tanden has made could present sticking points during her
confirmation process.
She tweeted on Oct. 31, 2016,
that President Trump was a Russian "puppet" in part because there was a "Trump server connected
to Russian bank" and tweeted again in December
2016 that Trump may have gotten "talking points from the server at Trump Tower connected to
Russia."
The
claim that a Russian Alfa Bank server was secretly communicating with a server at Trump
Tower, also pushed by Steele, emerged in 2016, but Horowitz noted the FBI "concluded by early
February 2017 that there were no such links," and the Senate Intelligence Committee's August
report
did not find "covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel." Jake
Sullivan, Biden's pick for national security adviser, also pushed the refuted Alfa
Bank claim in 2016.
The week after Trump's victory, following reports that Russian cyberactors had targeted a
number of state election systems, Tanden mused, "Why would hackers hack in unless they could
change results?" The next day, she pushed back against
criticism she received, tweeting, "Funny, I don't remember saying Russian hackers stole
Hillary's victory." There is
no evidence that Russian hackers changed any votes in 2016.
"Mueller found Russian interference in the election. He also found Trump coordinated with
Russia. These are facts," Tanden tweeted in October.
Although Mueller's investigation concluded in 2019 that the Russian government
interfered in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," the report "did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities."
After the report's release, Tanden tweeted that
"Mueller has failed the country" and "Adam Schiff > Robert Mueller." Earlier this year,
Schiff released dozens of House Intelligence Committee witness interviews that showed Obama's
top national security officials
testified they hadn't seen direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Self-proclaimed President-elect Joe Biden has chosen a budget director, Neera Tanden, who
once argued the US should ease funding shortages for left-wing social programs by making
countries like Libya pay for being bombed. Biden's transition team on Monday announced its
nominations for the six people selected to fill key economic roles in the incoming
administration, led by former Federal Reserve Bank Chair Janet Yellen as treasury secretary.
Tanden, a Hillary Clinton loyalist who currently heads the Center for American Progress, will
be director of the Office of Management and Budget if Biden's media-declared election victory
withstands legal challenges from President Donald Trump.
This crisis-tested team will help lift America out of our current economic downturn and
build back better -- creating an economy that gives every single American a fair shot and an
equal chance to get ahead. https://t.co/F6JMBHUgVx
-- Biden-Harris Presidential
Transition (@Transition46) November
30, 2020
However, critics have already recalled an example of her unusual budgeting philosophy. In a
2011 email that was made public by WikiLeaks, Tanden said Libya should be made to pay for the
bombing campaign that helped to topple Muammar Gaddafi's government, which would help balance
the US domestic budget.
"We have a giant deficit, they have a lot of oil," Tanden said. "Most Americans
would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit."
If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil-rich countries
partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me.
With President Donald Trump all but conceding to the transition team that will take over
after January next year, interest now shifts to President-elect Joe Biden's choices for
cabinet. On the national security front, the imperial-military lobby will have reasons to be
satisfied. If Trump promised to rein in, if not put the brakes on the US imperium, Biden
promises a cocktail of energising stimulants.
While campaigning for the Democratic nomination, Biden tried to give a different impression.
Biden the militarist was gone. "It time to end the Forever Wars, which have cost us untold
blood and treasure," he stated
in July 2019. Pinching a leaf or two out of Trump's own playbook, he insisted on bringing "the
vast majority of our troops home – from the wars on Afghanistan and the Middle East".
Missions would be more narrowly focused on Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Support would also be withdrawn
from the unpardonable Saudi-led war in Yemen. "So I will make it my mission – to restore
American leadership – and elevate diplomacy as our principal tool of foreign policy."
This was an unconvincing display of the leopard desperately trying to change its striking
spots. During the Obama administration, the Vice-President found war sweet, despite subsequent
attempts to distance himself from collective cabinet responsibility. These included the current
war in Yemen, the assault on Libya that crippled the country and turned it into a terrorist
wonderland, and that "forever war" in Afghanistan. In 2016, Biden claimed to be the sage in the
administration, warning President Barack Obama against the Libyan intervention. An impression
of combative wisdom was offered. He had "argued strongly" in the White House "against going to
Libya," a position at odds with the hawkish Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who insisted
on something a bit more than going to Libya. After the demise of Muammar Gaddafi, what then?
"Doesn't the country disintegrate? What happens then? Doesn't it become a place where it
becomes a – petri dish for the growth of extremism?" So many questions, so few
answers.
The Iraq War is another stubborn stain on Biden's garments. His approval of the invasion of
Iraq has been feebly justified as benign ignorance. As he explained
to NPR in September last year, he had received "a commitment from President [George W.] Bush he
was not going to go to war in Iraq." Bush looked him "in the eye at the Oval Office; he said he
needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam
Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program." Then came the invasion: "we had a shock
and awe". For Iraqis, it was a bit more than shock and awe.
With the warring efforts of the US in Iraq turning sour, Biden entertained
a proposal reminiscent of Europe's old imperial planners: the establishment of "three
largely autonomous regions" for each of Iraq's ethnic and confessional groups, governed by
Baghdad in the execrable policy of "unity through autonomy". Not exactly an enlightened
suggestion but consistent with previous conventions of dismemberment that have marked Middle
Eastern politics.
In considering Biden's record on Iraq, Spencer Ackerman of The Daily Beast was
clear in describing an erratic, bumbling and egregious performance. "Reviewing Biden's
record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that
arrayed people at the bloody intersection."
Now, we forward ourselves to November 2020. The
Trump administration has given a good cover to the incoming Democratic administration.
Considered putatively wicked, all that follows the orange ogre will be good. In introducing
some of his key appointments, Biden's crusted choices stood to attention like storm
troopers-elect, an effect helped by face masks, solemn lighting and their sense of wonder.
"America is back,"
declared Biden. A collective global shudder could be felt. The Beltway establishment,
mocked by Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as "the Blob," had returned.
In the cast are such figures from the past as former Deputy Secretary of State and former
Deputy National Security Adviser, Tony Blinken. He will serve as Secretary of State. National
Security adviser: former Hillary Clinton aide and senior adviser Jake Sullivan. Director of
National Intelligence: Avril Haines ("a reliable expert leading our intelligence community,"
remarked CNN's unflinching militarist Samantha Vinograd of CNN, herself another former
Obama stable hand from the National Security Council). Secretary of Defence: most probably
Michèle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defence for Policy.
Blinken, it should be remembered, was the one who encouraged Biden to embrace the
antediluvian, near criminal project of partitioning Iraq. This does not worry The Guardian,
which praises his "urbane bilingual charm" which will be indispensable in "soothing the
frayed nerves of western allies, reassuring them that the US is back as a conventional team
player." He is a "born internationalist" who likes soccer and played a weekly game with US
officials, diplomats and journalists before joining the Obama administration.
Johannes Lang, writing
in the Harvard Political Review, is a touch sharper, noting that Blinken "is a committed
internationalist with a penchant for interventionism." The two often go together. As Blinken
recently told
The New York Times (members of the UN General Assembly, take note), "Whether we like it or not,
the world simply does not organize itself."
Flournoy and Blinken have been spending time during the Trump years drawing sustenance
through their co-founded outfit WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm promising to bring "the
Situation Room to the Board Room." Revolving door rhetoric is used unabashedly: We knew power;
we can show you how to exploit it. Having served in a presidential administration, these
individuals are keen to use "scenario
development and table-top exercises to test ideas or enhance preparedness for a future
contingency". The consultants are willing to give their clients "higher confidence in their
business decisions," as Flournoy puts it, in times of "historic levels of turmoil and
uncertainty around the world".
The Flournoy set have also been the beneficiaries of the US defence funding complex,
fronting think tanks that have received generous largesse. In a
report for the Center for International Policy, Ben Freeman notes that, "Think tanks very
considerably in terms of their objectives and organization, but many think tanks in Washington
D.C. share a common trait: they receive substantial financial support from the US government
and private businesses that work for the US government, most notably defense contractors."
Flournoy's own Center for a New American Security now
ranks second to the RAND Corporation in the cash it gets from defence contractors and US
government sources.
Biden's Department of Defense agency review team, tasked with informing what is hoped will
be a "smooth transfer of power," has its fair complement of those from entities either part of
the weapons industry or beneficiaries of it. According to
In These Times , they make up at least eight of the 23 people in that team. Think tanks
with Biden advisory personnel include the militarily minded Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which boasts funding from Raytheon, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Lockheed Martin Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation.
America – at least a version of it – is back, well and truly. The stench of wars
continuous, and interventions compulsive, is upon us.
t is an undeniable fact that the republic has entered one of the most dangerous crises of
its short existence. This is not only due to the disputed election results of November 3
rd , but also to a multitude of other factors beyond American borders, including the
global financial crisis which a certain pandemic has unleashed upon the world, and slide
towards a major world war between great powers that has accelerated chaotically in recent
years.
As unpopular as it might be to state in polite society, as of this writing it is still
impossible to state with 100% certainty that Joe Biden will in fact be inaugurated on January
20, 2021. The simple reason for this is that verifiable evidence of vast partisan vote fraud
tied to the highest echelons of British Intelligence have mounted with every passing day with
Dominion voting systems most recently accused of
erasing 2.7 million Trump votes across the nation , and giving 220 000 pro-Trump votes to
Biden in Pennsylvania (along with hundreds of other vote counting anomalies and technology
glitches across all major swing states).
These and other major signs of mass vote fraud have giving rise to reasonable questions of
the validity of the official results which will be taken to the courts as Gen. Michael Flynn's
Attorney Sidney Powell eloquently laid out recently.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SFCXPw1t17o?feature=oembed TRUMP, BIDEN AND THE ONCOMING
MELTDOWN
By now most people reading this are aware (or should be aware) that the trans Atlantic
financial system has been set to melt down under a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives time bomb being
held together by a mix of wishful thinking, hyperinflationary money printing and vast unpayable
securitized debts waiting to default. It should also come as no surprise that the Great Reset
Agenda designed to coordinate the "post-COVID world order" has nothing to do with any actual
pandemic, and everything to do with imposing a new bankers' dictatorship onto the nations of
the earth.
Both Trump and Biden profess to support American leadership to the world going into this
storm, but both men operate on very much opposing paradigms of what this means, and what
foreign policy tradition should be activated.
Where Biden has championed the idea that "America should lead the world" in opposition to
the dangerous rise in "authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism" giving the reigns of
foreign policy over to a team packed with hawkish representatives of the Military
Industrial Complex, Trump has done something different.
On November 9 the incumbent president fired Mark Esper
(possibly to subvert a planned coup) and instated General Christopher Miller to the position of
Defense Secretary who has called for a total end to the 19 year Afghan war
stating :
we are not a people of perpetual war. It is the antithesis of everything for which we
stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end."
Having vocalized his desires to return the USA to its traditional protectionist,
non-interventionist agenda repeatedly over four years, Trump famously characterized the battle
at hand as one of "patriots against the globalists."
And yet, despite these facts, many apparently intelligent people have celebrated that the
"bad orange man" has finally been ousted and normality may once again occur.
Hogwash.
In an
April 2020 Foreign Policy article , Joe Biden called for the re-assertion of American
leadership of the world order stating that "for over 70 years, the United States under
democratic and republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules" of the
world order. Predicting the two possible scenarios that will befall the world should the USA
continue to "abdicate our leadership" as Trump has done, Biden says that either: 1)
Someone else takes America's place as global hegemon that doesn't "advance our interests and
values or 2) "No one will and chaos will ensue".
But wait a minute!
Shouldn't there be a third option in Biden's crystal ball? What about the option of a world
defined by sovereign nations working in win-win cooperation and mutual self interest? Sadly,
from a zero-sum mind that can only think in "balance of power" terms, this third scenario
cannot exist.
The paradox for such little minds, however, is that the very essence of America's emerging
from WWII in a leading position that Biden praises is entirely premised on the understanding
that the world is more than a zero-sum system.
THE FORGOTTEN MULTI-POLAR TRADITIONS OF
THE USA
From the drafting of the UN Charter in 1941, the formulation of the Bretton Woods system in
1944, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no doubt that there is very
little that America has not directly influenced.
While this leadership is undeniable and often objectively destructive as sin, it is too
easily forgotten that the UN Charter, as outlined by Franklin Roosevelt was premised on the
belief that America must never become an empire but merely help those in need by providing the
means of industrial development. This was essentially understood as the internationalization of
the New Deal which included social safety nets, bank regulation, productive work guarantees and
infrastructure projects to all other nations aspiring independence across Africa, Asia and the
Americas or struggling the heal from the destructive effects of the war.
FDR's vision for the IMF/World Bank mandates were never to reconquer poor nations under a
new system of debt slavery and conditionalities, but to extend productive credit for long term
megaprojects that were in the common aims of mankind and which
angered Churchill immensely.
Most importantly, this vision was premised on the need for a trust-based U.S.-Russia-China
alliance that never would have permitted the emergence of a bipolar Cold War.
Working alongside such anti-imperial co-thinkers as Republican leader Wendell Willkie, Vice
President Henry Wallace, economist Harry Dexter White, confidante Harry Hopkins, Asst.
Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Attorney General Robert Jackson (to name a few), this
small but powerful group of patriots representing both parties, worked vigorously to ensure not
only that the Wall Street/City of London Frankenstein Monster of Nazism would be put down but
that Churchill's vision of a restored British Imperial system would not succeed.
THE TRUE
SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world (and scaring the hell out of the thing that controls Joe Biden).
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.
These principles were expanded even further to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on
December 10, 1948 which re-iterated the founding principles of America's Declaration of
Independence- extending those unalienable rights to all mankind as FDR envisioned stating in its
preamble :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between
nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as
a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
These were the ideas that were meant to give life to the "Four Freedoms" first enunciated by President
Roosvelt in 1941 and re-asserted by his anti-imperial Vice President Henry Wallace in
1942.
Now admittedly this positive American foreign policy outlook which launched the post-war age
is a far cry from anything the world has come to recognize in the USA since the emergence of
the Cold War and especially since the murder of John F Kennedy who had done much to resist
America's full takeover by this newly revised British Empire (which some have chosen in recent
years to label "the deep state").
Much like the US Constitution itself, these principles largely remained ink on parchment as
a new age of Cold Warriors, Rhodes Scholars and Fabians directed from
British Intelligence created NATO , divided the world among the lighter skinned haves and
darker skinned have nots while unleashing a system of endless wars onto the earth under a new
Pax Americana.
Today a small window is still open for a renewal of the forgotten traditions of the American
republican traditions that were upheld by such leaders as John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Grant,
Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR and JFK. President Trump has clearly taken a stand in
opposition to the reconquest of the republic by the deep state and it remains to be seen if the
American people have the fortitude to do everything in their power to organize themselves in
defense of the republic and civilization more generally.
"OR"
There are also middle ways: my ideal would be a real United Nations without dominant bullies,
capable of reigning in globalist MNCs, governments or religions.
Population numbers will have to weight in much more for voting power and no SC privileges for
amassing nuclear bombs.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:08 PM
This essay includes McKinley as a defender of "Republican traditions," and of course it's
hard to argue against that position, seeing as how McKinley was a tool of the Big City
corrupt political system. That he fraudulently used the sinking of the "Maine" to declare war
on Spain, and then put down an insurgent revolt by natives of the Philippines by allowing
U.S.soldiers to garott them, is simply in the tradition of Republicans. We agree.
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 1:02 AM Reply to
Doctortrinate
Excellent scripting in the court scene. I remember seeing this film when it was first
released. Made goose bumps
The public has been drummed down to the point where they refuse to question what props up the
fake wigs on the court jesters
yes, It was an eclectic time examination post experimentation perhaps .and there was room
for it, uncrowded by the weight of obligation – keeping it at distance was comfortable
even held the sense that the destructive order was being outrun, until..the reconditioning
ascent of a harpy and it's handbag,
The cess-pit beneath our seeming foundation, is become a source for self-righteous
vengeance – coming into our very private chambers after we seemed to 'save face' or
raise it over and against the hateful in conquest.
The presumption to be free of the evil that one has set ones face against is the
generating of the 'cess-pit' as something to be eradicated, lidded over, cancelled, such as
to preserve the 'order' that runs above its denial.
Self-revulsion as a concept, can be opined about, but human self-hatred is a hell indeed
if not a final fact.
The revealing of us to ourselves can be the dis-illusioning of what we thought to be and
truly believed but was never true – even though lived.
or the tarrying in such illusion as the exploiting of its underlying themes of 'getting' for
a self set apart from the life it represents.
richard , Nov 22, 2020 9:02 PM
"THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world "
Oh really? hear are some U.N. quotes:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their
individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
– Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it
disapproves of their activities." – Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order
[referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial"
invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the
World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship
Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial
and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit
and power.
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers,
triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market
.The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control
of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by
Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret
committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on
Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the
[State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all
the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial
Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to
bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They
want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase
business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship
and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an
all-powerful one-world government." Harpers, July l958
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 12:47 AM Reply to
richard
Hello richard: Excellent listing of verifiable quotes. Thanks!
The establishment of the United Nations has done more to dis-unite the world than any
other singular effort. Yet civilians are still looking for some daddy authority to straighten
out the sticky fuzz they found in their navels
I don't know, I think the US going around the world for the last 100+ years bombing anyone
who threatened their capitalist hegemony can pick up a pretty good share of the blame for an
unstable world
paul , Nov 22, 2020 6:02 PM
Neither will win. As always, the only real winners will be a certain Levantine minority.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
The great mock battle to choose Israel Puppet 46 will play out over the next few weeks as
pure theatre, with Creepy Joe picking up Trumpo's somewhat tarnished crown in due course. For
all the difference it makes. Creepy Joe will be marginally even more of a puppet than
Trumpo.
The court challenges are going nowhere. Some have already been dropped or dismissed, and the
rest soon will be, irrespective of vote rigging and ballot stuffing on an epic scale.
Likewise, there will be no attempt to reverse the current outcome at the electoral college
next month. Nothing's going to happen. Nada. Zilch. It's all pure kabuki.
Clowns and court jesters like Alex Jones or Giuliani will caper about making an exhibition of
themselves, peddling their vitamin supplements and lining their pockets.
Trump will squeeze whatever cash he can from his gullible base to pay off his campaign debts.
But none of this is serious. Trumpo has gone AWOL. He is not holding any public events. The
lawsuits have been dropped. He is not putting any of his own money into them. The electoral
college delegates will not go rogue to keep him in power. Georgia is gone. He is not going to
flip Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Trumpo deserved to lose, whether he actually did or not. He abandoned his base the minute he
was elected, and served out his time as a Zio Shill.
He built a grand total of 4 miles of his Big Beautiful Wall. Some of it has already fallen
down. That only leaves 1,996 miles for the Beaner Illegal Immigrant Hordes to walk through.
Obomber deported far more illegal immigrants than Trumpo, 1.1 million v. 800,000. His idea of
draining The Swamp was to appoint Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, Haspel, and half of Goldman Sachs
to all the senior posts in his administration. The same goes for Bringing The Troops Home.
None will actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan, despite the latest announcement. Like
Rebuilding The Infrastructure.
Trumpo is a con man, a Bunko Artist. He achieved nothing. Because he never intended to. He
never even tried. He was just another Mitt Romney.
Trumpism will just provide him with a meal ticket for some time to come. He needs to find
another $400 million from somewhere to pay off his debts. The GOP will go full on Zionism,
Globalism, Faggots, Trannies, Globo Homo, Open Borders, Amnesties.
One of Trumpo's last of many favours for Israel is to pardon the traitor and Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. He will soon be on his way home to a hero's welcome in Kosherstan.
Biden's new administration will be virtually 100% kosher, apart from a few token black/ gay/
trannie/ vagina/ shabbos goys.
Chief of staff, Attorney General, Treasury, all Chosen Folk.
Trumpo was never more than a Zionist puppet, just like Wilders, Orban, Salvini, AFD, Duterte.
All 100% Faux Right Controlled Opposition created by the Chosen Folk.
Thanks Paul, for that excellent description of Trump and what we can expect from Biden
until he leaves/dies and we have Kamala. The policies will remain virtually unchanged as the
President is irrelevant.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 5:58 PM
Bankers have been running the world for centuries, not empires, not presidents, not
parties, not nations.
They provide nation states with two (or more) parties with seemingly oppositional values,
but who are controlled behind the scenes by the same banking cabal. Trump is working with the
cabal, just as closely as his predecessors, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc., to create the illusion
of opposition, the illusion of difference, the illusion of choice and the illusion of
hope.
Just as the election was obviously stolen, so too it was planned to create internal
conflict and violence. Both parties play the game of electioneering to obfuscate the theft of
civil rights and assets from the populace without opposition. The media enhances the process
of obfuscation. The voters are too busy fighting amongst themselves to see the outright theft
of their real assets.
There are no individuals or groups who attain positions of power in any government or
nation who oppose the banking cartel that rules the world, owns and controls all the largest
corporations, security state apparatus, the militaries and defense sectors of all
nations.
There are no heroes coming to anyone's rescue. No white hats, no black hats. They are all
agents of the cryptocracy, because the goal has always been the enslavement of humanity, and
that goal was attained long ago and has never wavered.
The New World Order was achieved with the formation of the United Nations as a front for
the cryptocracy (banking cartel) to further its objectives through the cooperation of
governments individuality and collectively controlling their populations.
Whether our enslavement was achieved using a kindler, gentler slavery called "capitalism",
based on the consumption of poorly made goods exploiting cheap labor by corporate entities
majority owned and controlled by the cryptocracy, in faux democracies, using the fake two
party system, or whether slavery was achieved by force through communism where an appearance
of state ownership obfuscated cryptocracy ownership and control, so wages could be lowered
and people more tightly controlled, both political systems were a sham. Both systems were
always controlled by the same cryptocracy; the banking cartel.
The cryptocracy ruled the capitalist West and the communist Eastern bloc with ease.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:06 PM Reply to
Researcher
Just as all political parties are false enemies who work together behind the scenes, so
too is the enmity between nation states and the supposedly opposed political and nation state
blocs and alliances.
Opposition is created as a facade and pretext to facilitate immensely profitable
skirmishes, occupations, hot wars, cold wars and civil conflicts. These methods of
manufactured conflict accomplish control and ownership for the cryptocracy of large tracts of
land with rare earth minerals and energy reserves as well as the labor and industry of large
and small populations plus access to the taxes and wealth of all nation states.
These faux oppositional forces whether they be internal or external, create an illusion of
a divided, hostile and fractured world for the unknowing and distracted public, who have had
their history altered and rewritten, indoctrinated with propaganda in a Prussian model of
education as 'learning by rote' instead of learning through exploration, reason, logic,
invention and experimentation. As such, 'educated' populations have become another tool of
the controllers where they are largely ignorant of the inextricable links between politics,
energy, economies, the monetary system, wars, governments, crime, industry and human
enslavement.
The false appearance of separation of these issues into compartmentalized subjects,
compartmentalized thinking, are further enhanced and driven through sound bites using the
cryptocracy owned corporate media.
Binary choices, compartmentalized issues, and supposed random events are sold to humanity
to corral thinking, coerce conformity, limit options and choices within illusory paradigms
where full spectrum dominance is fulfilled. Subsequently, all resources on earth including
populations can be easily exploited for the purpose of profiteering, while simultaneously
inflicting unnecessary misery and suffering through the leverage of usury and forced taxes
within the monetary system.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:10 PM Reply to
Researcher
The banking cartel (BIS, IMF, World Bank) own the major energy corporations, green and
carbon based and that is why there has been a decades long push for carbon control and
capture, using climate change pseudo science and propaganda as a way to control and limit our
individual, national and collective energy consumption and output.
Since energy is the real currency that runs the world, and energy is also the way which we
as humans and living creatures survive, innovate, create and function – as electrical
and energetic beings – the cryptocracy believe that all energy, including our physical
and neuronal bodily functions be wholly controlled by them, and them only. The cryptocracy
already control our external energy and power systems and grids, and all oil, coal, gas,
wind, hydro, nuclear, solar and hydrogen, which fuel human and economic activity.
The cryptocracy are not content to let us decide our own fates, occupations, business
dealings, economies, health or lives using our inherent freedom as thinking, sentient and
independent beings who are born free. They seek to further enslave our every thought,
function and action through the technocracy and the biometric control and data grid they have
built around us for the last century.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the banking cartel through their control of the
chemical industry, extended their model of human slavery to include profiteering from
destroying people's health, by controlling genetic and epigenetic expression through
increased toxic exposure to external radiation, a poisoned and altered food chain, deficient
soil, a poisoned fluoridated water supply, increased exposure to carcinogens, endocrine
disruptive chemicals and unnecessary vaccines that wrought irreversible, long term negative
effects.
The medical industrial complex and vaccine industry sought to claim credit for the
eradication of diseases that had already been quelled through proper sanitation, plumbing,
better nutrition and improved living conditions.
The control grid of populations through the economic system, military industrial complex,
monetary system, faux governments, and the medical industrial complex has merged into a
totalitarian model of complete control of all human behavior, health and bodily functions
using faux pandemics, where governments coordinate terror operations against the
citizenry.
The bankers are transitioning away from the current monetary, economic Ponzi scheme using
the US petro dollar fractional reserve banking system, which could only function for a
limited time, in a debt expansionary environment, underpinned by constant economic expansion
and population growth.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:13 PM Reply to
Researcher
A number of factors including increased standards of living, women entering the workforce,
contraception and immunocontraception and cultural changes have inhibited population growth
in developed nations, so that expansionary model has reached its 'limits of growth'.
Governments have been hiding the lack of population growth using immigration. They've been
hiding the contracting economic activity in developed nations by creating fake financial
products and accounting frauds, banking fraud, rigged market indices and markets. The
cryptocracy knowing this economic model would eventually collapse at their discretion,
created unseen enemies to unite us against, be it a fictional virus, or fictional global
warming, the result being a coordinated, top-down authoritarian monitoring, control of
populations, economies and individuals.
The bankers, governments and industrialists are forcing humanity to transition to a
technocracy controlled economy based on humans as capital, the collection, collation and
control of all organic and non organic resources on earth including our biometric data and
behavioral obedience, while they simultaneously enforce a liquidation of assets phase.
We are their assets and we are being liquidated.
At the end of every transitory economic cycle or created currency or financial crisis, the
banking cartel and their minions facilitate a global catastrophe, whether that's a planned
war between nations, civil unrest or a manufactured terror event. This serves as a cover for
the harm that their planned economic transition (and failure) creates. These planned failures
of economic systems created by the cryptocracy provide additional profits for the banking
cartel where real assets are stripped from citizens in the form of savings, land, property,
assets, businesses and redistributed by force, upwards to the oligarchs and cryptocracy.
That is the purpose of the lockdown and the faux pandemic. A continued and further
redistribution of the global wealth of the majority of citizens to the 0.01% so that bankers,
industrialists and governments who already control our food and energy supply, can force the
majority into compliance with the vaccine program. The vaccine program creates a legal and
cost efficient liquidation of the majority of humanity and the biometric enslavement of the
remaining youth who manage to survive, while transitioning to the new economic model of a
global digital currency based on physical human enslavement, human data management, with
central command control using Artificial Intelligence.
Jean Wilson , Nov 22, 2020 8:07 PM Reply to
Researcher
Thank you Researcher. Brilliant writing!
Lost in a dark wood , Nov 22, 2020 4:41 PM
No wonder the CIA hates Trump!
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/361227-us-begins-bombing-taliban-opium-plants-in-afghanistan
US begins bombing Taliban CIA opium plants in Afghanistan
11/20/17
The U.S. military has begun bombing opium production plants in Afghanistan as part of a new
strategy targeting Taliban revenue, a top general said Monday. "Last night, we conducted
strikes in northern Helmand [Province] to hit the Taliban where it hurts, in their narcotics
financing," said Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support in
the country.
--
What has happened to people? If the U.S. says it is bombing an opium production plant,
that means they're lying. First thing I think of is who did the U.S./CIA/Trump want killed
and why? But you interpret it as Trump trying to stop the opium business of the CIA?
And then you follow it with Trump, after four years of bombing Afghanistan, is somehow
being pressured by Germany to continue bombing Afghanistan?
Frankly, I don't think we have any idea what the CIA thinks of Trump.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 7:32 PM Reply to
wardropper
They must think he's the greatest actor on earth, since apparently some who understand the
bankers are in league with and controlling governments, the UN, WHO and the WEF against
humanity, yet they also believe that Trump is standing up for the Constitution against the
banking cartel, the military and the vaccine industry.
Except he isn't and hasn't.
By declaring a fake emergency and continuing that emergency, while creating OPERATION WARP
SPEED, he handed the country over to the military, PhRMA and FEMA.
He has no intention of handing it back to the citizens and he's had every means and every
opportunity.
I think a great majority of people are simply in denial on the left and the right because
they don't want to believe they've spent their entire lives being conned by bankers,
politicians and oligarchs using cheap tricks, third rate acting, fake science and obvious
monetary fraud and gangster governments.
The veil of their human enslavement has been lifted off their faces and they still refuse
to see the obvious truth.
Instead they hide behind masks, false enemies and the lies they tell themselves. It'd be
sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
wardropper , Nov 22, 2020 7:58 PM Reply to
Researcher
I agree with all that, but the CIA is not renowned for advertising what it 'thinks'
Moneycircus , Nov 22, 2020 11:08 PM Reply to
wardropper
The CIA does not 'think'. It was set up by Wall Street and the bankers as the muscle of
Wall Street and the bankers
Trumpo deserves to be put on trial and executed after a suitably fair trial if only for
his actions in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine and elsewhere. For the murder of General
Soleimani and 30 others, for all the children who have died in those countries as a result of
US economic terrorism and actual terrorism on his watch. It doesn't matter if he failed to
control others who were allowed to pursue their own agenda. A commander who loses control of
his troops is fully liable when they run amok.
Their is very little to be said in his favour. We have come very close to war on a colossal
scale on several occasions over the past two years as a result of his actions. The fact that
this did not come to pass and disaster was avoided in no way goes to his credit. This should
be attributed to the Grace of God or my lucky rabbit's foot. And the fact that Russia, China,
and even Iran and North Korea have incomparably better and more responsible leadership than
we do.
Western leadership, Obama, Clinton, Trump, Sarkozy, Macron, Merkel, May, Cameron, Johnson, is
the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional and
ideologically driven.
So can anything positive at all about Trump's legacy?
Biden may be even worse.
Clinton, rabid and deranged, and even more dishonest, certainly would have been.
But we deserve something better than the choice between a dogshit sandwich or a catshit
sandwich.
Trump has at least exposed the MSM for what it is, and forced the deep state to take off the
mask of sham democracy and reveal its true ugly face.
But it's not much of a legacy for four years.
John Goss , Nov 22, 2020 1:08 PM
The Second World War was the turning point here in the UK and in the US, When the war
finished there was a Labour Party which was actually a Labour Party. For some years before
that the US Democratic Party had been and was a Democratic Party, When paper ballots
mitigated against fraud Franklin D, Roosevelt was elected for an amazing 4 terms. He died
days before the end of the war having introduced welfare reforms that endeared him to
people.
It has been pretty much downhill since then, ending up with Keir Starmer at the head of
the Labour Party and Joe Biden at the head of the Democratic Party. Need I write more?
el Gallinazo , Nov 22, 2020 3:19 PM Reply to
John Goss
Problem>reaction>solution. The Great Depression in the USA was triggered by
the banksters being instructed to create a vast credit bubble in the 20's with their
fractional reserve system (being able to lend 9 fake dollars for every one they actually
owned) and then instructed to withdraw credit very rapidly, creating a cascade of defaults..
That is a historical fact easily researched.
This article's view of recent history is among the most superficial I have ever read. I do
not believe in democracy being an Agorist, because democracy is a trick of the predator
class. When I see a government which does not enforce its rules through the barrel of a gun
and cages, I may be tempted to re-evalute my views. Still waiting however. That said, the one
thing that I agree with in this article is that Trump won the election handily based on legal
and valid votes and the apparent Biden win was based on huge fraud. One should never
underestimate Sydney Powell, even with her sweet Georgia Plantation accent. She may be the
first competent snd trustworthy hire Trump has ever made in the last four years, and one may
ask why this is. On one level, the fraud was designed to put Biden in the White House. On a
deeper level, it was designed to rip the country apart. I would recommend that the American
people rushing to the giant box stores (which are permitted to stay open while the various
governors' blatantly illegal EO's have shut down their mom and pop competitors) to buy toilet
paper for the coming Darkest Winter of the fake scamdemic, would be wise to load up also on
beer and popcorn so they can watch this shitshow on their giant plasma TV's from the
sofa.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:34 PM Reply to
el Gallinazo
The notion of "fraud" in the election is a charade. Research the Dominion voting system
and you will discover that Ms. Powell, despite the high regard she has attained, is blowing
smoke. Her entire case against Dominion from Chavez to German vote counting is a fat joke. On
her, and on us. Why is she doing this? We will find out in due time.
hroughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy,
claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called to make America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American Empire
Great Again.
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will task ending them to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic party and ideologues of permanent war.
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war going back to the Clinton
administration.
In the Trump era, they've cashed in, founding Westexec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for secretary of defense and Blinken is expected to be
national security advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate foreign relations committee chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS).
CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech
giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon.
She was keenly aware that the public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review, she crafted a new concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state
while giving the appearance of a drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program.
This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called for the U.S. to be able to
simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare, clandestine weapons
transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all buttressed with propaganda
campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and corporate news
media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban.
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future.
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal.
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an extensive propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
All of this was based on a report from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by
the Qatari monarchy that was arming extremist militias to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war.
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine,
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted.
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fuelled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift
called the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S.
used to maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia, seeking to ensure that the U.S. could win a war against China in
Asia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities, development of
futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones, hypersonic weapons,
cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence making unimaginably
complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind. All of this would
be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley giants that it
birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation.
In June, Flournoy published a lengthy commentary laying out her strategy called "Sharpening
the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration".
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia.
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea. Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia, a position Flournoy shares.
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast.
The end of forever
wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the
public doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support, but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
His Venezuela policy will be almost identical to Trump's – sanctions and regime
change.
In Central America, Biden has proposed a 4 billion dollar package to support corrupt
right-wing governments and neoliberal privatization projects that create even more
destabilization and send vulnerable masses fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy, escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
Feature photo | Graphic by Antonio Cabrera for MintPress News
Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports
and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and
tweets at @ DanCohen3000
.
This is nothing new, the war machine keeps going and going. I actually found an individual
that has the same outlook on stopping the behavior of the United States as I do.
International lawyer Christopher Black in this interview had the following to say.
Question: What in your view needs to change in order to make U.S. foreign conduct abide by
international law and therefore enhance the prospects for world peace?
Christopher Black: It will require a revolution in the United States to do that, an
overthrow of the economic powers that control the machinery of the state, but there is no
prospect of that happening. There is really no effective opposition to these policies in
the U.S. The peace movement is weak and fragmented, dominated by the "cruise missile
liberals". The voices of reason have no power, no real influence among the masses of the
people which are dominated by a sophisticated propaganda machine known as the "media".
Censorship is increasing and the few critical voices that exist are being silenced.
It will take, in my view, a military defeat of the United States in order to bring
about the conditions necessary for the required changes. And, perhaps that will happen,
as China has stated time and again, that if Washington decides to take direct control of
their island of Taiwan and the Americans interfere or if they are attacked in the South
China Sea, they will defeat the U.S. But such a war would have world consequences and would
cause realignments of power not only in the USA, if we all survive it.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home
after their colonial expeditions extinguished it at home, hastening the rise of America's own
Saddam in Trump. Biden's own instincts may be decisive, however, and he was against war in
Libya while also in favor of splitting Iraq. The dementia rumors are nonsense; Biden is a
canny and often mendacious operator, and while I think Trump is a fascist and quite possibly
a Russian mafia sub-boss, Biden may well be the restoration of more homegrown, American mafia
rule. An argument that Giuliani has made in so many words, standing as he does on the Russian
side and yelling into the shifting parapolitical winds.
It's not really that complicated for China. They have no interest in or need to strike the
American mainland. That would only be necessary if they were seeking global hegemony like the
US, which they are not. Their strategic nuclear capabilities are strictly deterrence. All
China has to do is survive the coming conflict arising from the Thucydides Trap that the US
and China are caught in with minimal damage to their industrial capacity, infrastructure, and
population.
That I specified "survive" and not "win" is not a mistake. The default
outcome if nothing is done is that China ascends to uncontested sole global economic
superpower status. That is not necessarily their intention but rather the natural outcome of
China continuing the development of their domestic human capital and quality of life for 1.4
billion people. China doesn't have to take the fight to the US to end up on top, and the US
has no choice but to somehow turn back the economic clock in China to keep its position as
global imperial hegemon. Color revolution attempts, trade war, and bioweapon attacks have all
failed the empire miserably, so all the US has left is to go kinetic.
The "US aircraft carrier force projection model" is effectively nullified by China,
but those assets are still protected by America's delusional reality exclusion zone:
"Destroying our carriers is unthinkable! No one would ever dare do that!" . That
defense will prove inadequate against China's variety of "carrier killer"
missiles.
As for America's stealth aircraft, China's defenses will likely be a surprise to many in
the American empire. Furthermore, America's only stealth aircraft with sufficient range to
reach China's mainland on anything other than a one way suicide mission would be the B-2
bomber, of which America only has 21. Those 21 will not last long in a kinetic conflict.
Quite a few will likely simply be destroyed on the runway in Diego Garcia while the survivors
will get to find out how well China's nifty new quantum radar works. The F-22 and F-35 would
require refueling to get from carrier stand-off distance to the mainland and refueling again
to get back, with America's aerial tankers needing to loiter within range of China's air
defenses... not a good battle plan for the empire. Those stealth aircraft will not shift the
advantage in the empire's favor, and attrition will be much higher than expected among
them.
It must be repeated that China doesn't need to destroy the United States. They are not
playing the board game "Risk" after all. China just needs to defeat the American
empire's military force projection capabilities in their own neighborhood, and China already
has that capacity right now. Every day that elapses shifts the advantage further into China's
favor, so the empire needs to act while they still have the ability to do so. Trump's
unwillingness to do more than bark loudly and his resistance to going kinetic is why the
imperial elites had to fraud the elections so openly to get a more compliant figurehead into
office ASAP. That the empire couldn't wait another four years means that we will see
"interesting times" (yeah, even more interesting than the preceding twelve months!)
real soon now.
"A cornered dog will bite, even if it is obvious that it cannot win."
So will I, so what?
"It was never China's nor Iran's intention to "corner" the empire. That is simply the
situation that America finds itself in now that its economy is in "late capitalism" decline.
It is really not even anyone's fault, not even Trump or Reagan or any of the other usual
suspects."
I agree, but again, so what? I'm not concerned with who is morally correct, I'm mainly
concerned with whether there is going to be a big war and what happens if there is, that's
not a moral question. I've been waiting around 40 years to watch our collapse, and I still
think there is enough that is/was good here to be worth hoping for a soft landing. That's
probably better for the rest of the planet too, but it's arguable.
Neither Iran of China is cornered, they are well-prepared, well-supported by "partners",
and on their home turf. WE are not ready. We are vunerable. But we are not cornered either,
nobody is going to come over here and interfere while we fight among ourselves.
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 13:10 utc | 109
What scares me about Blinken and Sullivan is the career trajectory. Both had completely
unearned and unreasonable success every step of their lives. There is never any explanation
for this manner of success but family connections. Neither has done anything of note other
than to occupy positions of power.
Sullivan is all of 43 years old, has been a mover and shaker since his twenties. Any who
have never read Halberstam's Best and Brightest might look at that now. We are in for a shit
show. Biden is not going to do anything but take his meds and take a lot of naps. Already he
is not to be seen. The crew named so far will steamroller Kamala, she is no more than a
figurehead.
Likely she won't even stay in the room when it gets serious. Best possible outcome is that
kids who have never done anything but suck up won't know what to do when they are left in
charge with no adult supervision. Or there will be shadowy figures in background who steady
the rudder.
Yes, it is not a moral question, it is an economic one. Wars have never been about
morality.
That said, China has for a number of years now been preparing for a minimally damaging
escape from the Thucydides Trap, and by "minimally damaging" I mean for the US as
well. As I said above the Chinese are not at all interested in hurting the US.
The plan is to "spring" the Thucydides Trap in the South China Sea and hopefully
confine most of the damage to that area. If successful then the empire gets its soft landing
(albeit with significant amounts of military materiel and personnel sacrificed) and humanity
moves beyond the Trap.
@ PB 75
visible costs of vassaldom . . costs of American presence....decreasing the national
security. . .participating in sanctions
Yes, plus a primary reason . . .Cost of buying US military junk like F-35. Foreign military
sales is a mainstay of the US economy.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 3:43 utc | 83
When you add the numbers, "military junk" has notable prestige -- with matching prices,
but the total loot of American companies is probably many times larger. For example, Trump
waged a series of trade wars to perpetuate negligible taxation of "technology giants" like
Google or Amazon. "Intellectual property" was a stumbling block in the trade war with China,
with dire consequences for soy growing farmers in USA (and a boon to their colleagues in
South America). Then there is pharma. It seems that the really big companies are comfortable
being in relative shadow behind arms makers, and discourse on security threats and needs
--because Russian use trolls to interfere with elections, we (all countries that cherish what
is good and precious) need new generations of nukes, planes, ships and toilet seats. However
illogical, it is more noble sounding than preventing the likes of Apple from more than
nominal taxation.
"... Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for the way it creates tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy. ..."
"... Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful. ..."
"... It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop letting the sociopaths manipulate you. ..."
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
This complete schism from reality, where you've got an incoming administration stacked with
Beltway insiders who want to attack Chinese interests running alongside an alternate imaginary
universe in which Biden is a subservient CCP lackey, is only made possible with the existence
of media echo chambers. It's the same exact dynamic that made it possible for liberals to spend
four years shrieking conspiracy theories about the executive branch of the US government being
run by a literal Russian agent even as Trump advanced mountains of world-threatening cold war
escalations against Moscow in the real world.
You see this dynamic at work in conventional media, where
plutocrat-controlled outlets like Breitbart are still frantically
pushing the Russiagate sequel narrative that Hunter Biden's activities in China mean that
his father is a CCP asset. You also see it in social media, where, as explained by journalist
Jonathan Cook in an article about the
documentary The Social Dilemma , "as we get herded into our echo chambers of
self-reinforcing information, we lose more and more sense of the real world and of each
other."
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants," writes Cook.
Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates
their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for
the way it creates
tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information
which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built
on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres
from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy.
Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've
discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively
seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and
there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting
the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate
with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent,
ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful.
You should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What you should worry
about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing a multifront new cold war conducted
simultaneously against two nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history.
There are far, far too many small moving parts in such a cold war for things to happen in a
safely predictable manner, which means there are far, far too many
chances for something to go very, very wrong.
Whenever someone tells you that a US president is going to be "soft" on a nation the
US government has marked as an enemy, you are being played. Always, always, always, always.
It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get
out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop
letting the sociopaths manipulate you.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
USA-MA BIN LADEN / NOVEMBER 25, 2020
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
Deep down, Americans know that – and that is why they so readily engage in these
spittle-flecked campaigns.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of America where the same American Empire that bombs,
invades, sanctions, regime changes, encircles, or colonizes multiple nations around the world
whines like a triggered little snowflake that poor innocent war criminal America is being
"threatened"!
Truly pathetic.
CHRISTIAN J. CHUBA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
There are many good websites (in addition to this one of course). I'd always tell someone,
just look to see what speaks to you my list some are 'out there' I'll summarize.
https://www.antiwar.com/ –
Kind of like a drudgereport for decent people on world events. They go through the effort of
summarizing AP and other official news outlet stories rather than mindlessly link to them.
Just hearing the same stories minus the slavish propaganda will deprogram many people.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ – M.E., Yemen, if
your friend is very sensitive to anything that insinuates that Israel is not the celestial
city he might be offended.
https://southfront.org/ – Ah
.. on our State Dept list of Russian disinfo. Discuss military conflicts, sympathetic to the
countries at the receiving end of our attention.
http://thesaker.is/ – Saker was an
intel guy from the 'other side' during the Cold War, values decency, Orthodox Christian, only
site that regularly publishes speeches from Nasrallah, does military analysis, arrogant but I
always feel like I learned something.
http://www.moonofalabama.org
– anonymous analyst, German Intel guy, writes very well. I put him last because he has
been on a pro-Trump binge lately. I think they are secret lovers. Given what he normally
writes about I have no idea what he sees in him.
Vicky left fake democracy promotion was always about expanding and sustaining controlled
from Washinton global neoliberal empire. It is a part and parcel of Full Spectrum Dominance
doctrine implementation. So it will lean to further drop of the standard of living on the
majority of US people.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces are in retreat and determined to bring democracy building
home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and
mobilizing ideology. For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and
mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two
Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
You can't find better smarter neocons to pursue the Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine to the
total decimation of the standard of living of ordinary Americans ;-)
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
... During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President
Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction"
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
... In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
Joe Biden's national security adviser pick defended the anti-Trump dossier in 2018 as
"perfectly appropriate."
Many news outlets have declared Biden the president-elect. Newsmax has yet to project a
winner, citing legal challenges in several key battleground states.
Jake Sullivan, who worked for Biden when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration and as a senior foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton during her
presidential race in 2016,
made the comments on a podcast interview with David Axelrod, the chief strategist for
Obama's presidential campaigns.
"I mean, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate and responsible if we get wind, or if
people associated with the campaign get wind, that there may be real questions about the
connections between Donald Trump, his organization, his campaign and Russia that that be
explored fully," he said at the time, The Daily
Caller reported.
Sullivan worked for Clinton when a law firm representing her campaign hired an opposition
research firm to investigate Trump's possible ties to Russia. The firm hired Christopher
Steele, the author behind the dossier alleging a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation
between the Trump campaign and Russian government."
Special counsel Robert Mueller later found those claims to be unfounded during his probe
into Russian interference in the election, writing in his
report "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
ELECTION 2020: What President Biden Won't Touch November 24, 2020 Save
Considering the think-tank imperialists in the bunch Biden is naming to direct U.S. foreign
policy, Danny Sjursen expects little to change in the essence of the war-state.
Military aircraft streaming red, white and blue during the welcoming ceremony for President
Donald Trump, May 2017, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House,
Andrea Hanks)
I n this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up
either as "Ding dong! The witch is dead!" or "We got robbed!" Both are problematic, not because
the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because
each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump's demise would
provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such
a belief -- race relations, climate change, and the courts
come to mind -- in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was
that more true than with America's expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of
this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.
For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would
mean everything, that Nov. 3 would be democracy's ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when
it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, " Decision 2020 " proves barely
meaningful?
After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump's sweeping war-peace rhetoric
and Joe Biden's hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered
to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America's uniquely intrusive global role.
Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America's posture and policy "over there,"
nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.
U.S. presidential debate, Sept. 29, 2020.
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge: Uncle Sam's
right and duty to forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet; garrison the globe; carry out aerial
assassinations; and unilaterally implement starvation
sanctions . Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such
rogue-state behavior are never questioned, especially the existence of a sprawling
military-industrial complex that has infiltrated
every aspect of public life, while stealing money that might have improved America's
infrastructure or wellbeing. It has engorged
itself at the taxpayer's expense, while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd
foreign adventures and autocratic allies, even as it corrupted nearly every prominent public
paymaster and policymaker.
This election season, neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components
justifying the great game, which is evidence of one thing: empires come home, folks, even if
the troops never seem to.
The Company He Keeps
As the election neared, it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism's coal
mine or risk raising Biden's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and
peace. After all, his opponent was a monster, so noting the holes in Biden's block of Swiss
cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to
Trump's reelection. Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find
yourself permanently uninvited to the
coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such "intellectual cowardice" more than 70 years ago
in a
proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm . "At any given moment," he wrote,
"there is an orthodoxy that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not
exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it Anyone who
challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
And that's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago
after his man, Sen. Bernie Sanders -- briefly, the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a
dead candidate walking. "Vote for Biden, but don't lie about who he really is," the stalwart
scholar suggested .
It seems just enough Americans did the former (phew!), but mainstream media makers and
consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment.
Cornel West speaking at a house party for Sen. Bernie Sanders in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 15,
2020. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not
yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness (and the policing that goes with it)
will fade away, ushering in a renaissance of Fourth Estate oppositional truth-telling. In that
way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe
Biden down dovish alternative avenues, perhaps even landing some appointments in an executive
branch that now
drives foreign policy (though, if I'm honest, I'm hardly hopeful on either count).
One look at Uncle Joe's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop's fabled moral: "You are judged by the company you
keep."
Think-Tank Imperialists
One thing is already far too clear: Biden's shadow national security team will be a
distinctly status-quo squad. To know where future policymakers might head, it always helps to
know where they came from. And when it comes to Biden's foreign policy crew ,
including a striking number of
women and a fair number of Obama administration and
Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were
mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and
hawkish think tanking.
In fact, the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro (or
sis ) would go something like this: she (he) sprang from an Ivy League school, became a
congressional staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security
council, consulted for WestExec
Advisors (an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking
tech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American Security
(CNAS), had some defense contractor ties , and
married someone
who's also
in the game .
It helps as well to follow the money. In other words, how did the Biden
bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years? None of
this is a secret: their two most common think-tank homes -- CNAS and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients, respectively,
of U.S. government and defense-contractor
funding . The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and the Department of
Defense. Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and
Raytheon.
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed. To take just
one example, in 2016, Michèle Flournoy, CNAS co-founder, ex-Pentagon official, and "
odds-on favorite " to become Biden's secretary of defense,
exchanged emails with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ambassador in Washington. She pitched
a project whereby CNAS analysts would, well, analyze whether Washington should maintain
drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral " missile technology control "
agreement. The UAE's autocratic government then paid CNAS $250,000 to draft a report
that (you won't be surprised to learn) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country
to purchase American-manufactured drones.
Michèle Flournoy, at right, on front of WestExec Advisors homepage.
Which is just what Flournoy and company's supposed nemeses in the Trump administration then
did this very July past. Again, no surprise. American drones seem to have a way of ending
up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent
human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians
.
If it's too much to claim that a future Defense Secretary Flournoy would be the UAE's
(wo)man in Washington, you at least have to wonder. Worse still, with those think-tank,
security-consulting, and defense-industry ties of hers, she's anything but alone among Biden's
top
prospects and nominees. Just consider a few other abridged resumes:
Tony Blinken, on left, with President Barack Obama, on WestExec Advisors homepage.
Tony Blinken , [named
secretary of state on Monday] a longtime foreign policy adviser, to serve as secretary of
State; frontrunner for national security adviser: CSIS; WestExec (which he co-founded with
Flournoy); and CNN analyst. Jake Sullivan , [named
national security adviser on Monday]: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
("peace," in this case, being
funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors) and Macro Advisory Partners, a
strategic consultancy
run by former British spy chiefs. Avril Haines [named
director of national intelligence on Monday]: CNAS-the Brookings Institution; WestExec; and
Palantir
Technologies , a controversial, CIA-seeded, NSA-linked data-mining firm. Kathleen Hicks , probable deputy
secretary of defense: CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation , a
federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues.
An extra note about Hicks: she's the
head of Biden's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at
CSIS. There, she hosts that think tank's "Defense 2020" podcast. In case anyone's still
wondering where CSIS's bread is buttered, here's how Hicks
opens each episode:
"This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and the Thales Group."
In other words, given what we already know about Joe Biden's previous
gut-driven policies that pass for "middle of the road" in this anything but middling
country of ours, the experiences and affiliations of his "
A-Team " don't bode well for systemic-change seekers. Remember, this is a president-elect
who
assured rich donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he were elected. Should he
indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd,
consider America's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved.
Biden's outfit is headed for office, it seems, to right the Titanic, not rock the boat.
Off the Table: A Paradigm Shift
President Barack Obama meeting with his national security team, April 25, 2011.
Michèle Flournoy, as under secretary of defense for policy. is on the president's right,
seated against wall. (White House, Flickr, Pete Souza)
In this context, join me in thinking about what won't be on the next presidential menu when
it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy.
Don't expect major changes when it comes to:
One-sided support for Israel that enables
permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East. Tony
Blinken
put it this way: as president, Joe Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to
things like annexation [of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank] or other decisions
by the Israeli government with which we might disagree." Unapologetic support for various Gulf
State autocracies and theocracies that, as they cynically
collude with Israel, will only continue to heighten tensions with Iran and facilitate yet
more grim war crimes in Yemen. Beyond Michèle Flournoy's professional
connections with the UAE, Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many
Biden prospects have populated. Saudi Arabia, for example, offers annual donations to
Brookings and the Rand Corporation; the UAE, $1 million for a new CSIS office building ; and Qatar,
$14.8 million to Brookings. America's historically unprecedented and provocative
expeditionary military posture globally, including at least
800 bases in 80 countries , seems likely to be altered only in marginal ways. As Jake
Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview : "I'm
not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East. There is a military posture
dimension to this as a reduced footprint."
Above all, it's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down, no less halt, the "
revolving door " that
connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in
the defense industry. The same goes for the think tanks that the arms producers amply
fund to justify the whole circus.
In such a context, count on this: the militarization of American society and the
"thank-you-for-your-service" fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive,
exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech
with "May God protect our troops."
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man's coming administration.
Still, consider it a version of truth in advertising. Joe and company are likely to continue to
be who they've always been and who they continue to say they are. After all, transformational
presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically
rare phenomena. Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees
disappointment.
Obama Encore or Worse?
Tony Blinken, at right, as deputy national security advisor, with President Barack Obama,
Sept. 19, 2014. (White House, Pete Souza)
Don't misunderstand me: a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the
margins of national security strategy. Think nuclear
treaties with the Russians (which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing
up) and the possible thawing of at least some of the
tensions with Tehran.
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the significance of having a
president who actually accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to
alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Noam Chomsky's
bold assertion that the human species couldn't endure a second Trump term, thanks to the
environmental catastrophe, nuclear brinksmanship, and pandemic negligence he represents, was
anything but hyperbole. Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need
"for an organized public" to demand change and "impose pressures" on the new administration the
moment the new president is inaugurated.
Yet, in the coming Biden years, there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an
imperial presidency (when it comes to foreign policy) will actually escalate a
two-front New Cold War with China and Russia. And there's always the worry that the ascension
of a more genteel
emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers, including
the vets of this country's forever wars who are increasingly
dressing in antiwar clothing.
What seems certain is that, as ever, salvation won't spring from the top. Don't count on
Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national
security team to topple the golden calves of American empire. In fact, the defense industry
seems bullish on Biden. As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it ,
"Obviously, there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden
administration, but frankly I think that's ridiculous." Or consider retired Marine Corps major
general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said
of Biden's coming tenure, "I think the industry will have, when it comes to national security,
a very positive view."
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years, perhaps it's
time to take that advice from Cornel West, absorb the truth
about Biden's future national security squad, and act accordingly. There's no top-down
salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders. Pressure and change
will flow from the grassroots or it won't come at all.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times ,
The Nation , Huff Post , T he Hill , Salon , Truthdig ,
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 latest book is
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter
at @SkepticalVet . Check out his
professional website for contact info,
scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
The choices the incoming president Joe Biden has made so far are not great at all. The
people he so far selected are staunch interventionists who will want to continue the wars
they have started during their previous time in office.
Tony Blinken will become Secretary of State. (It was probably thought to be too hard to
get Senate confirmation for the similar bad
Susan Rice.) In 2013 the Washington Post
described his high flying pedigree :
Blinken is deputy national security adviser to President Obama, who has also invoked the
Holocaust as his administration wrestles, often painfully, with how to respond to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. One of the government's key
players in drafting Syria policy, the 51-year-old Blinken has Clinton administration
credentials and deep ties to Vice President Biden and the foreign policy and national
security establishment in Washington. He has drawn attention in Situation Room photos,
including the iconic one during the May 2011 raid of Osama bin Laden's compound, for his
stylishly wavy salt-and-pepper hair. But what sets him apart from the other intellectual
powerhouses in the inner sanctum is a life story that reads like a Jewish high-society
screenplay that the onetime aspiring film producer may have once dreamed of making. There's
his father, a giant in venture capital; his mother, the arts patron; and his stepfather,
who survived the Holocaust to become of one of the most influential lawyers on the global
stage. It is a bildungsroman for young Blinken -- playing in a Parisian jazz band, debating
politics with statesmen -- with a supporting cast of characters that includes, among
others, Leonard Bernstein, John Lennon, Mark Rothko, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Abel
Ferrara and Christo.
The man is a war mongering psycho:
Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military
action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in
Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than
Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is
now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with
Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that
global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against
atrocities.
He has since shown
no remorse about those foreign policy failures:
Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not
employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the
invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan
intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S.
support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the
biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of
an interventionist than both of them.
If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton,
starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff
and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's
secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once
again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her
national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.
Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign
policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively
oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American
"exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic,
"What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that
he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a
new American exceptionalism".
Sullivan
send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that
Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion
allegations.
It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the
most named option but there is
some opposition to her nomination :
[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to
head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection,
with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as
America's "forever wars."
I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other
hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.
Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet
Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on
progressive priorities.
As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and
engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from
the levers of power.
In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.
Posted by b on November 24, 2020 at 16:32 UTC | Permalink
There are so many creatures that the swamp holds. Don't be surprised by what comes
next.
The entire project for Democrats in this election cycle was to get rid of Trump. There was
never any vision for the future or a presentation of policy to gain voters. It was all "Trump
is an existential threat and the only priority is to defeat him at the polls." Bernie Sanders
made this all quite clear as he again led his legion of lemmings off a cliff and into an
ocean of Neoliberal/neoconservative Forever Empire.
But hey, it's all worth it to get rid of The Man With The Golden Toilet.
Meanwhile, yeah, it's back to future with more of the same as far as the eye can see.
Which, with an economy in shambles, and a populace with a death wish, might not be as long as
one thinks.
At the very least "gravitas" will have been restored to its venerable and "sacred"
institution. And a good portion of the american population can heave a huge sigh of relief,
and go about their business of profound ritualistic conformity.
Gravitas restored by an aging old man, potentially on the verge of dementia, which is a
sad condition by any measure. A collection of Human beings about as bereft of solutions of
philosophy of spiritual comprehension as possible, at this point in human history. We all
have an enormous amount to look forward to!
It's a veritable who's who of the same criminals who instigated and executed the covert (and
sometimes overt) military and economic aggressions across several regions of the globe, to
include North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
"US multinationals aim to clear away a stumbling block, the Trump administration's
protectionism and anti-globalism, to push forward their international plans, in particular
their exploration of the Chinese market, experts said. They made the comments in response to
news that New York business leaders signed a letter urging the Trump administration to start
the power transition to the incoming Biden administration.
"They also predicted that many of the prejudicial and disruptive policies launched by the
Trump administration against China, like sanctions on Huawei and tariff hikes, will be
corrected once Biden becomes the new US president.
"More than 160 top US executives have signed a letter pressing the Trump administration to
acknowledge Joe Biden as the president-elect and begin the transition to the new
administration, according to a report by The New York Times. Most of the executives come from
US multinationals including Mastercard, Visa, Condé Nast, WeWork and American
International Group.
"Many top executives from US financial companies have signed the letter, including David
Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs and Jon Gray, Blackstone's president."
Such an attitude might sway Biden away from a confrontation first policy with China since
the overall balance of power has changed greatly since he was Vice-President. Perhaps the
Neocons will finally learn Peace is more profitable than war.
@ karlof 73 Trump's draconian trade restrictions will soon be lifted
wiki: The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and
China. In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial
difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of
economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. Many American
companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war
would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'. In other countries the trade war has also
caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to
fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have
taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.//
As on war, and many other issues, the corrupt US Congress has allowed "executive
privilege" to enact measures and programs that would never be allowed in a real "democratic"
country, governed by citizens with availability to a free press.
Edward Abbey: "Democracy--rule by the people--sounds like a fine thing; we should try it
sometime in America."
The incoming Biden administration's cabinet carries a strong whiff of deja vu, and that's no
accident – the uninspiring president-elect is staking everything on evoking a lost utopia
that never existed under ex-president Obama.
The Biden campaign's rule of thumb for his cabinet appointments seems to be to channel the
Obama administration – with an extra helping of wokeness where possible. This has seen
him float Pentagon veteran and dyed-in-the-wool megahawk Michele Flournoy as the first-ever
female Secretary of Defense and former DACA czar Alejandro Mayorkas as the first Latino-Jewish
head of the Department of Homeland Security.
There's also the rumor he's planning to pick Obama's former Fed chair
Janet Yellen as the first-ever female Treasury Secretary – but even if she's not the
lucky lady, fellow former Clinton adviser Lael Brainard could get the nod, or one of two black
candidates – one of whom happens to be gay. Whoever he picks, they'll be a "first"
– and, given their institutional history as reliable servants of the ruling class under
Obama, a dependable source of more-of-the-same fiscal policies.
Lest all this wokeness turn off the Republicans who defected to Biden out of distaste for
President Donald Trump's determination to upset the military-industrial applecart, the presumed
president has also brought back ex-Secretary of State John Kerry, who'll be returning to
Washington to serve as a 'climate czar' on the National Security Council. While Kerry would be
the first person to hold such a position, which will allow him to skip a Senate confirmation
that could be unfriendly given the chamber's Republican control, Kerry's time at the head of
the State Department saw the Obama administration continue digging the US deeper into its
portfolio of ill-advised wars. And Kerry was the man who signed the Paris Climate Accords on
behalf of Washington in 2016, a treaty President Donald Trump wasted no time removing the US
from. He should go down plenty smooth indeed.
Most of the Biden picks were second-stringers during the Obama years and thus haven't quite
become household names yet. This is likely to be a point in their favor – if the history
of would-be Secretary of State Antony Blinken is any indication, Biden has good reason for
picking relative unknowns. A report from the American Prospect revealed Blinken had spent the
post-Obama years getting rich quick at consulting firm WestExec – which coincidentally
(or not) was co-founded by
would-be Pentagon chief Flournoy after her most recent stint at the Pentagon. The firm focuses
on "helping new companies navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon
contracts" – suggesting a Biden presidency won't just deliver a fatter Pentagon
budget, but new wars to go with it.
It's no surprise, then, that Washington-watchers are sinking into deja vu. Biden was elected
as the "anti-Trump," a return to some vague fantasy of "normalcy" . Except the
nostalgia for the Obama era that helped shoehorn Biden into office earlier this month was based
on a wholly synthetic reimagining of the eight years in which the career politician served as
vice president.
Obama may have inherited George W. Bush's financial crisis in 2008, born of rapacious
investment banks that mistook people's life savings for free chips from a casino, but the "
recovery " he claimed as his own never bothered to lift up
most working- and
middle-class Americans . Many of these lost their homes, and if they didn't, their children
"failed to launch," in no position to strike out on their own. The younger generation
were either mired in student debt or merely unable to afford even the cheapest 'starter homes'
due to an absence of living-wage jobs open to young adults entering the
workplace.
Biden made it clear repeatedly in the run-up to this month's election that he had no
interest in feeling these people's pain. "I have no empathy for it – give me a
break," he said,
complaining that millennials had been given everything by his own generation, the Baby
Boomers. In reality, those "whiners" so loathed by the president-to-be made 20 percent
less than Biden's generation at the same age at best – assuming they were lucky enough to
have a job at all. Back when it was still considered acceptable to trash Biden, most
establishment outlets raked him over the coals for such tone-deaf comments. But such negativity
was memory-holed when the Democrats crowned Biden their pick to run against Trump –
speaking ill of the anointed one got progressives labeled Trump supporters or Nazis or
worse.
Those whose rose-colored glasses let them see Biden as the second coming of Obama forget
that "Bush in a black-man suit" turned two wars into seven, allowed Citibank – one
of the worst offenders of the 2008 financial crisis – to shape his cabinet, and passed a
mockery of "universal healthcare" that forced the lower-middle-class to purchase health
insurance they couldn't afford or shoulder a tax penalty they also couldn't afford. Biden has
promised to reignite the war in Syria, veto the actual universal healthcare policy that is
Medicare for All, and ensure nothing will fundamentally change for his fat-cat Wall Street
donors – and those
donors seem to be picking
his cabinet just like they did his boss' in 2008.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
82
Robin Olsen 13 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 10:23 PM
Restarting the war in Syria will take a major false flag that is bullet proof in order to get
Russia to withdraw...not one false flag chemical attack staged by Obama and Biden actually
worked in the past. Trump's failed too. The world is onto America's false flag strategy...To
get Americans behind another 20 years of forever wars is also gonna take significant false
flag. Americans will fall for it, they always do...but no one else will...not this time.
Without international support he cannot restart anything, the British are not enough to
counter Russian interference and I don't think Bojo will survive the next election anyways.
HypoxiaMasks 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:17 PM
With any luck he will bless us with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, the corpse of McCain and as an
added bonus Lil Bush and both Obamas
DukeLeo HypoxiaMasks 9 hours ago 24 Nov, 2020 02:50 AM
Biden has not officially been pronounced winner in the elections, and he already has picked a
neocon team. What a big surprise. Makes you wonder how many people who voted for him really
knew what they were doing.
Ibmekon 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:34 PM
When Trump got into power he soon overtook Obama record of 26171 bombs in 2016. Trump since
2015 has dropped over 133,000 bombs . Trump tried to get troops out - the MIC just sent them
back in. Joey Biden and new secretary of state are committed to keep the troops out occupying
countries around the world - which requires the bombs to keep falling, one every 12 mins.
Because nobody actually wants the USA military in their country (apart from a few well bribed
military/religious dictators) We have no number for those murdered - the USA refuses to keep
any count.
And that coming from Trump who put APARTHEID Israel first
and did more for that racist country than he did for America.
whether underground , 5 hours ago
Exactly. And biden will for sure, 110% COMPLETELY END any idea of putting Americans first
in anything other than shackles. F all of them.
Mr Poopra , 5 hours ago
People still think Biden will actually assume office? If Trump won't win in the courts,
he's going to burn the entire thing down on his way out. Full Declass coming. Swamp creatures
tremble!
SurfingUSA , 4 hours ago
Problem is the agencies are openly defying him on declass (and have been). Would have to
send in U.S. marshals.
CJgipper , 4 hours ago
trump will do nothing. he should have already done the declassifications.
FingerInTheDarkness , 4 hours ago
Dropping the Biden laptop after most of the mail in ballots were already in the mail is
all you really need to know. Biden was installed. The only question is what to do next? He
will come for the guns and he will force the poison shots. Options are few.
cankles' server , 4 hours ago
He's already tried the declass route regarding Russia hoax and was thwarted by swamp
creatures.
"Means and methods" will be the mantra for obstructionists.
FingerInTheDarkness , 4 hours ago
Just like he declassified the JFK stuff, err wait a damn minute. We been had!!!
eatapeach , 3 hours ago
Even if it's released, you can bet Israel's complicity in the murder/coup will be omitted,
despite the fact that Jack Ruby (Rubinstein) was a Mossad asset and AIPAC got the massive
benefit of NOT having to register as a foreign agent.
Dragonlord , 5 hours ago
I am more amazed that the left love wars more than Trump and thats after the former
accused the latter of starting WWIII
Herodotus , 5 hours ago
They made sure that Goldwater was defeated so that they could build up the war there and
insure that 58,000 Americans would die in Vietnam.
Fizzy Head , 4 hours ago
...Once they had JFK out of their way.
BarnacleBill , 4 hours ago
For as long as Americans honour the 58,000 invaders more than the 2,000,000 victims of the
invaders' activities, there is no hope for the USA. And no respect, either. Sorry! I wrote
this post (link below, "The war against women") eight years ago, and it's still sadly
relevant.
You really have to wonder about an American generals loyalties when they do not like or
recommend an America first policy. Who exactly is the guy Gen. Mattis working for?
Rich Stoehner , 5 hours ago
Mattis is working for a globalized cartel of ho-mos.
"America First" was a con. What we got is a 'J3w5 First' foreign & domestic
policy.
Biden's isn't hiding his ''J3w5 First' foreign & domestic policy.
The only difference between the two are stylistic, the goal is the same.
Haboob , 3 hours ago
The difference is how they operate.
Trump wants peace through business and Mattis wants peace through war?
frontierland , 3 hours ago
Peace has nothing to do with it.
Trump conned White America with his pro-White dog-whistles, a tactic developed by his
mentor Arthur Finkelstein. The establishment doesn't like this approach as it woke the
sleeping giant, White America, while delivering no pro-White policies... Which made White
America self-aware, with expectations raised, awake and pissed off with Trumps failure to
deliver.
The "Left" arm of the neoLiberal establishment prefers an honest, open anti-White
approach... The long, slow-boil of White America.
Seal Team 6 , 4 hours ago
Mattis also threw in a dig at Trump's coronavirus response, noting "The pandemic should
serve as a reminder of what grief ensues when we wait for problems to come to us."
Really now? It seems to me that the US did exactly what Mattis says by the Obama
administration helping to fund the level 5 Wuhan lab, along with the French and the
neo-marxist government in Canada.
Does anyone in the MSM ever ask any of these turds questions that are actually relevant,
or do they give them an open mike to fabricate history however they like?
Max21c , 4 hours ago
Mattis is a product of the Deep State and an agent of the Deep State. He's been
brainwashed by the Deep State and his loyalties are to the Pentagon Gestapo and CIA and Deep
State. His loyalties are not to the American nation, American citizenry, Constitution and
Bill of Rights. He works for and sides with the secret police and state security
apparatus.
d_7878 , 4 hours ago
Ron Paul: "Trump Does The Bidding of the Deep State".
"... U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war, hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved. ..."
"... Medea Benjamin is ..."
"... of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection . Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as America's next president! People all over
this pandemic-infested, war-torn and poverty-stricken world were shocked by the brutality and
racism of the Trump administration, and are anxiously wondering whether Biden's presidency will
open the door to the kind of international cooperation that we need to confront the serious
problems facing humanity in this century.
For progressives everywhere, the knowledge that "another world is possible" has sustained us
through decades of greed, extreme inequality and war, as U.S.-led neoliberalism has repackaged and force-fed
19th century laissez-faire capitalism to the people of the 21st century. The Trump
experience has revealed, in stark relief, where these policies can lead.
Joe Biden has certainly paid his dues to and reaped rewards from the same corrupt political
and economic system as Trump, as the latter delightedly trumpeted in every stump speech. But
Biden must understand that the
young voters who turned out in unprecedented numbers to put him in the White House have
lived their whole lives under this neoliberal system, and did not vote for "more of the same."
Nor do they naively think that deeply-rooted problems of American society like racism,
militarism and corrupt corporate politics began with Trump.
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain
unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Background: Burns, a career diplomat who has served as ambassador to Russia and as
deputy secretary of state, gets particularly high marks for cognitive empathy -- understanding
the perspectives and motivations of international actors.
Few if any contenders for foreign policy positions in the Biden administration surpass Burns
when it comes to appreciating one tenet of progressive realism: military interventions have a
way of leading to bad things. In a ten-page memo Burns wrote to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, then his boss, during the runup to the Iraq War, he laid out a
cornucopia of possible unintended consequences, including some that became all too real. (Like:
Iran feels threatened and acts accordingly.)
Even highly surgical uses of violence, Burns recognizes, can have blowback. Last year he
wrote
that, during the Obama administration, as "drone strikes and special operations grew
exponentially," they were "often highly successful in narrow military terms" but at the cost of
"complicating political relationships and inadvertently causing civilian casualties and fueling
terrorist recruitment."
So it's not surprising that Burns has often pushed for non-military solutions to foreign
policy problems. Still, he has supported dubious interventions -- such as America's joining
allies in arming Syrian rebels, a policy hatched while Burns was deputy secretary of state in
the Obama administration.
In retrospect, it's not shocking that this policy only succeeded in amplifying the killing
and chaos, given the conflicting agendas of our allies and the divergent aims of the various
rebel groups -- not to mention the aforementioned inherent unpredictability of military action.
Yet, even with years of hindsight, Burns confined his criticism of this proxy intervention to
matters of timing and execution. In his 2019 book The Back Channel , he said we should
have given more aid to the rebels earlier. But Burns does, at least, get credit for considering
Obama's public demand for regime change ("Assad must go") unwise, and for having initially
hoped for more open-ended negotiations than that demand permitted.
Cognitive empathy (A)
Burns is adept at seeing the perspectives of international actors, as demonstrated in
particular by his views on Russia. He has a history of dealing effectively with the country,
and he takes Moscow's interests seriously. Unlike many in the foreign policy establishment,
Burns doubts the wisdom of NATO expansion -- including its early phases but especially its
later ones. When the US "pushed open the door for formal NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia," he has
said , "I think that fed Putin's narrative that the United States was out to keep Russia
down, to undermine Russia and what he saw to be its entitlement, its sphere of influence."
Burns believes that, though Putin
clearly sees the US as an adversary, he doesn't see the US-Russia relationship in purely
zero-sum terms; Putin is capable of seeing "those few areas where we might be able to work
together. He is capable of juggling apparent contradictions."
Burns is very aware -- as many US officials over the years have not been -- that hectoring
foreign countries about how they should behave can be counterproductive. "I've always felt we
get a lot further in the world with the power of our example than we do with the power of our
preaching," he
said in a New Yorker interview. "Americans can sometimes... be awfully patronizing
overseas."
Respect for international law (B)
Burns is generally a strong advocate of international law. And in the course of his career
he has often had occasion to invoke it -- as when, in 2014, he
said disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be resolved via adjudicatory
mechanisms outlined in the Law of the Sea Convention. (Had he not been speaking for the US
government, he might have added that, regrettably, America itself has not ratified that
convention.)
Unfortunately, Burns seems to have adopted the habit, widespread in the foreign policy
establishment, of being more fastidious in applying international law to adversaries than to
the US. In The Back Channel he offers some practical criticisms of America's 2011
intervention in Libya, but he doesn't note that when the mission shifted from defending
imperiled civilian populations to overthrowing the regime, it arguably
violated the letter of the authorizing UN resolution and certainly violated its spirit.
Similarly, his discussion in that book of Obama's arming of Syrian rebels evinces no concern
about the fact that this intervention, according to common
legal reckoning , violated the UN Charter.
Support for international governance (A)
Burns certainly supports international governance of a progressive sort -- agreements and
institutions that address climate change and arms control, for example, and the inclusion of
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And he has been deeply involved in
multilateral problem solving, such as the Iran nuclear deal.
But what sets Burns apart from your typical progressive supporter of international
governance is his understanding of the need to expand it beyond these traditional areas. He
recognizes, for example, that if work in artificial intelligence and genetic engineering
proceeds without restraint in a context of intense international competition, bad things could
happen. So he wants to
"create workable international rules of the road" in these areas, and he wants the US State
Department to "take the lead -- just as it did during the nuclear age -- building legal and
normative frameworks."
Universal engagement (A-)
As a quintessential diplomat, Burns believes that the U.S. should be open to relations with
any country willing to talk. He is especially emphatic about the importance of maintaining
diplomatic and economic engagement with China; he
criticizes those who "assume too much about the feasibility of decoupling and containment
-- and about the inevitability of confrontation. Our tendency, as it was during the height of
the Cold War, is to overhype the threat, over-prove our hawkish bona fides, over-militarize our
approach, and reduce the political and diplomatic space required to manage great-power
competition." And Burns recognizes one of the biggest payoffs of engagement with China: to
"preserve space for cooperation on global challenges."
Burns eschews a Cold War not just with China but with authoritarian states more broadly. He
is refreshingly
skeptical of proposals -- fashionable in neoconservative and some liberal circles -- to
form a "league" or "concert" of democracies that would fight "techno-authoritarianism."
Burns doesn't seem to have expressed the degree of skepticism about America's promiscuous
use of economic sanctions that a progressive realist might like. But he gets points for at
least recognizing the inconsistency of their application. "We focus our criticism on Maduro, in
Venezuela, who richly deserves it, and then pull punches with Mohammed bin Salman, in Saudi
Arabia," he
said in a New Yorker interview.
Burns also recognizes that the foreign policy establishment's obsession with Iran is, well,
obsessive. Tehran has "an outsized hold on our imagination," he
says . Yes, he believes, Iran poses threats to American friends and interests, but those
threats are manageable, in part because, contrary to a common American view, Iran is "not 10
feet tall."
Miscellaneous
(1) After leaving the government, Burns became president of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. That's a highly and rightly respected position. But it should be noted --
since any good progressive realist wants to root out the influence of the military industrial
complex -- that Carnegie has taken money from Northrup Grumman
( as well as
from such foreign countries as Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates and from NATO).
(2) Burns deserves credit for seeing that the foreign policy establishment, confronted by
Trump's jarringly disruptive policies, is in danger of mindlessly retreating to pre-Trump
policies that in fact need sharp revision. Recounting (and embracing) the bipartisan opposition
to Trump's abrupt withdrawal of military support for Kurds in Syria, he
adds , "If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of
self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy We have to come to grips with the deeper and
more consequential betrayal of common sense -- the notion that the only antidote to Trump's
fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical
thinking that has animated so much of America's moment in the Middle East since the end of the
Cold War." This magical thinking, he continues, involves "the persistent tendency to assume too
much about our influence and too little about the obstacles in our path and the agency of other
actors."
Full spectrum dominance theorists are dusted off and put in key positions in new
administration. Instead of punishment and jail terms Russiagaters got promotion.
Biden signals US return to full-on globalism and foreign meddling by picking interventionist
Anthony Blinken as secretary of state
Joe Biden has named Anthony Blinken – an
advocate for isolating Russia, cozying up to China and intervening in Syria – as
secretary of state, cementing a foreign policy built on military forays and multi-national
motivations.
Biden, the nominal president-elect, announced his selection of
Blinken along with other members of his foreign-policy and national-security team, which is
filled with such veteran Washington insiders as John Kerry, the new climate czar and formerly
secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration.
Blinken, a long-time adviser to Biden and deputy secretary of state under President Barack
Obama, has been hailed by fellow Democrats and globalists, such as retired General Barry
McCaffrey, as an experienced bureaucrat with "global contacts and respect." Enrico
Letta, dean of the Paris School of International Affairs, called Biden's choice the "right
step to relaunch transatlantic ties."
He was even praised for a 2016 appearance on the Sesame Street children's television
program, where he explained to the show's 'Grover' character the benefits of accepting
refugees.
While some critics focused on how Blinken " got rich working for corporate
clients " during President Donald Trump's term in office, the new foreign-affairs chief's
neoconservative policy recommendations might be cause for greater concern. He advocated for the
Iraq War and the bombings of such countries as Libya and Yemen.
Blinken is still arguing for a resurgence in Washington's
military intervention in Syria. He lamented in a May interview that the Obama-Biden
administration hadn't done enough to prevent a "horrific situation" in Syria, and he faulted
Trump for squandering what remaining leverage the US had on the Bashar Assad regime by pulling
troops out of the country.
"Our leverage is vastly even less than it was, but I think we do have points of leverage to
try to effectuate some more positive developments," Blinken said. For instance, US special
forces in northeast Syria are located near Syrian oil fields. "The Syrian government would
love to have dominion over those resources. We should not give that up for free."
Blinken also sees Biden strengthening NATO, isolating Russia politically and " confronting
Mr. [President Vladimir] Putin for his aggressions."
As for China, Blinken has said Washington needs to look for ways to cooperate with Beijing.
Reinvesting in international alliances that were weakened by Trump will help the Biden
administration deal with China "from a position of strength" as it pushes back against
the Chinese Communist Party's human-rights abuses, he said.
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
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 Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is reportedly set to announce this week that Tony Blinken,
who supported the idea of "Russia collusion," would be his Secretary of State.
President-elect Joe Biden intends to name his longtime adviser Antony Blinken as secretary
of State, according to three people familiar with the matter, setting out to assemble his
cabinet even before Donald Trump concedes defeat.
In addition, Jake Sullivan, formerly one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, is likely to
be named Biden's national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the matter.
An announcement is expected Tuesday, the people said.
Blinken, who served as deputy secretary of state and deputy national security advisor under
President Barack Obama, has also been a New York Times
opinion writer and a "global affairs analyst" for CNN. In that capacity, he supported the
"Russia collusion" hoax.
As Breitbart News reported in 2017, Blinken
told CNN: "The president's ongoing collusion with Russia's plans is really striking,
intentional or not." He said that Russia had sown doubt about American elections and
institutions.
(Subsequently, an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of any
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.)
Blinken also
apologized earlier this year to left-wing anti-Israel radical Linda Sarsour, regarded by
many critics (
even on the left) as an antisemite, after the Biden campaign tried to distance itself from
her views.
He is also married to Evan Ryan, a former aide to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Ryan
worked for Clinton at a time when Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, acknowledged
accepting a campaign donation from entrepreneur Johnny Chien Chuen Chung.
Chung said that the donation was meant to help Clinton pay for Christmas receptions for the
Democratic National Committee at the White House, in exchange for "VIP treatment for a
delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen," according to the
Los Angeles Times .
Biden is expected to name several potential Cabinet nominees in the coming days.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart
News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7
p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The
Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump's Presidency . His recent
book,RED
NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a
conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship.
Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
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 21 Nov, 2020 13:52 Joe
Biden thinks he can save America and the world from four years of Donald Trump. Instead, Biden
will find himself in a foreign policy trap where his tough guy rhetoric compels him to finish
what Trump started.
If one listens to Joe Biden and his closest national security advisors, all it will take to
undo four years of Trump-era foreign policy is a few dozen strokes of the pen. According to the
plan, the presumptive president-elect will sign off on a series of executive orders which
reverse the course charted by Trump, returning America back to the path of greatness derived
from undisputed global leadership that had been the trademark of the Obama years, when Biden
reigned as vice president and Barack's right-hand man.
Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear agreement and the World Health
Organization are all actions Biden can take as soon as he takes office. Reversing Trump's troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan and halting the redeployment of US forces from Germany are also
high on Biden's 'to do' list. However, simply reversing a decision made over the course of the
past four years does not reset the clock; for example, the world has moved on regarding climate
change, with nations like China taking the lead in promulgating plans for reaching a "carbon
zero" posture by 2060. Biden claims he can do this by 2050, but American domestic political
reality, shaped by an economy fine-tuned by Trump and inherently resistant to the kind of
economic change that would need to occur to make the Biden climate change plan viable, may have
something to say about that timetable.
The Iran deal
The Iran nuclear deal finds Biden trapped by his own hardline rhetoric, setting conditions
that are as unrealistic as they are unobtainable (for instance, requiring Iran to renegotiate
key aspects of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as a pre-condition for
the US rejoining that pact). Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, recognizing the bad
position Biden's mouth has placed its owner in, has wisely noted that Iran can return to its
JCPOA commitments simply by Biden signing an executive order cancelling the Trump sanctions.
This is one executive order Biden likely will not sign, because it requires him to certify the
JCPOA as being good as written, something he has already articulated against.
One of the first decisions Biden will be compelled to make upon assuming the presidency is
how to proceed on the issue of US troops in Afghanistan. If the Trump reductions are completed
as planned by January 15 (a big 'if', given the proclivity of the US military to
lie to Trump about actual troop deployments), Biden will be pressured by the Pentagon to
immediately redeploy up to 5,000 troops in order to create the force structure the Pentagon
believes necessary to ensure stability while Afghanistan transitions to peace. This, of course,
would kill the peace plan the US has in place with the Taliban, setting the stage for even more
'forever war'.
Regime change and more war
Other regional issues jump out – the ongoing effort to oust Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela, and the ongoing Saudi-led war in Yemen, to name two. Biden's anti-Maduro rhetoric is
every bit as strong as Trump's, meaning there is little chance of a policy re-direct on this
front. Likewise, if Trump fulfils threats to name the Houthi rebels in Yemen as a terrorist
organization, it will be difficult for Biden politically to reverse that decision, or else be
doing the bidding of Iran. Yemen will become another example of a 'forever war' living up to
its name.
Awkward in Europe
Another issue Biden will be called upon to deal with is the ongoing American redeployment of
troops out of Germany. Trump has committed to sending thousands of these redeployed troops to
Poland, a move Biden will have difficulty reversing. In the end, Biden will be pressured to not
only halt the withdrawal of US forces from Germany, but also find fresh troops to replace those
headed for Poland. But such a commitment must be measured in relation to the ongoing
controversy over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia with Europe. Trump has put in
place sanctions designed to halt the pipeline from being completed; Biden is likewise opposed
to the pipeline reaching fruition. Getting Germany to commit to taking in US troops while
blatantly interfering with German economic sovereignty is a balancing act Biden may not be up
to carrying out.
Arms control deadlock
Likewise, Biden has indicated that he would be inclined to sign an extension to the
soon-to-expire New START Treaty. Russia has long insisted that future arms control agreements
must consider missile defense issues. The Trump administration has just tested a missile
interceptor integral to the Aegis Ashore anti-missile system deployed in Romania and Poland in
an anti-intercontinental ballistic missile configuration. The likelihood of Russia agreeing to
any new arms control measures without a commitment on the part of a Biden administration to
reduce and/or eliminate European-based missile defense systems is zero. So, too, is are the
odds of a Biden administration doing away with missile defense in Europe. The result is an
expensive arms race at a time when the US can afford it least.
Finally, Biden inherits a policy posture toward both Russia and China which is as hostile a
relationship as has existed since the Cold War. Russia's force posture in Europe is such that
NATO would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to be in a realistic position to take
on the Russian military in any conventional ground war in Europe. Moreover, it is unlikely
Europe will agree to either the formal endorsement of such an objective, or the economic
commitment needed to underwrite it. Complicating matters further is that China and Russia have
reacted to the aggressive policies of the US, which pre-dated the Trump era, by considering the
possibility of a formal alliance against what they term "western hegemony." Such an alliance
would complicate any effort on the part of a Biden administration to back up the
president-elect's pusillanimous rhetoric with actual muscle, since any conflict in Europe would
automatically trigger a Pacific response, and vice versa.
China's dominance
Regardless of anything else, perhaps the biggest challenge facing a Biden administration
will be in dealing with the consequences of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Obama-era
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an abortive free trade agreement designed to keep China out
while promoting American economic leadership. China, together with 14 other Asia-Pacific
nations, recently signed what amounts to the world's largest free trade agreement. The
signatories to this agreement, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
include the 10 countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), along
with China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia, and together account for around 30
percent of global GDP. The RCEP cements China's status as the dominant economic power in the
Asia-Pacific regions, and represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the US, whose
precipitous withdrawal from the TPP in 2017 paved the way for China's stunning diplomatic
coup.
The collapse of the TPP, when combined with the economic crisis brought on by the Covid-19
pandemic, made the RCEP attractive to nations who looked to trade with China as the only viable
means of rebuilding their stricken economies. The RCEP helps solidify the regional geopolitical
objectives of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative by opening the economies of the Asia-Pacific
region to Chinese-funded development projects. The diplomatic victory of China in bringing the
RCEP to fruition represents a stunning defeat for the US, which had been seeking regional
support in its ongoing trade war with China. Moreover, given the linkage between economic and
security issues, the fact that major regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand
and Australia have so decisively joined their economies to China's undermines ongoing US
efforts to build a regional coalition designed to contain and eventually roll-back China's
presence in the South China Sea. While President-elect Joe Biden has reached out to Japan and
South Korea in an effort to reassure them of his administration's commitment to their security,
a future Biden administration is ill-positioned to counter the economic influence China has
locked itself into through the RCEP. From an economic perspective, the US 'pivot to Asia' has
been effectively halted, with the Asia-Pacific nations now firmly in China's court.
From Europe, to South America, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and on to the Pacific,
President Joe Biden will be inheriting a world transformed by four years of Trump policies.
While Biden has indicated that he is inclined to reverse many, if not all, of the Trump foreign
policy "disasters" as soon as practical after assuming office, the reality is that he
will find his hands tied by the combined impact of his own aggressive rhetoric, which in many
instances paralleled the policies undertaken by Trump, or the fact that the geopolitical
situation that exists today does not permit a return to the foreign policy of yore.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
An eye-popping array of corporate consultants, war profiteers, and national security hawks
have been appointed by President-elect Joe Biden to agency review teams that will set the
agenda for his administration. A substantial percentage of them worked in the United States
government when Barack Obama was president.
The appointments should
provide a rude awakening to anyone who believed a Biden administration could be pressured to
move in a progressive direction, especially on foreign policy.
If the agency teams are any indication, Biden will be firmly insulated from any pressure to
depart from the neoliberal status quo, which the former vice president has pledged to restore.
Instead, he is likely to be pushed in an opposite direction, towards an interventionist foreign
policy dictated by elite Beltway interests and consumed by Cold War fever.
Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for the Obama administration, paused for a
moment and said "I don't know" in an interview Sunday when asked if he thinks former VP Joe
Biden would be a good president.
CBS's "Face The Nation" host Margaret Brennan asked Gates if he stood by a statement from
his memoir that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national
security issue over the past four decades." Recommended
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was rereading your memoir before we sat down to talk and you said in your
memoir, Joe Biden is impossible not to like.
Quote: "He's a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of
those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis. Still, I think
he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the
past four decades."
Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?
ROBERT GATES: I-- I don't know. I don't know. I-- I think I stand by that statement. He
and I agreed on some key issues in the Obama administration. We disagreed significantly on
Afghanistan and some other issues. I think that the vice president had some issues with the
military. So how he would get along with the senior military, and what that relationship
would be, I just-- I think, it-- it would depend on the personalities at the time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He's a peer of yours. Does that mean you're older?
ROBERT GATES: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think he's right for this moment?
ROBERT GATES: I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think-- I think having a
President who is somebody our age or older, in the case of Senator Sanders, is- I think it's
problematic. I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be
President. I think-- I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in
your sixties. So, I mean it's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those
responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.
American libs are just as fundamentally imperialist as the right, and their obsession with
IdenPol garbage is just a smokescreen to pretend that they aren't.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about
the banality of evil , and there's never been a more banal bunch than the foreign policy
and security state crew Barak Obama surrounded himself with for eight years beside the possible
exception of
Bush's own Neocons .
Now after three years screaming about
"Russian collusion" it appears the Evil Empire is about to regain its lost ground,
championing new wars and more interventionist expansionism with a much greater role for the US
military in the world.
Let's name names.
Pentagon
For the defense chief post, the Washington Post has portrayed the banal face of Michele
Flournoy as the pick to
'restore stability' to the Pentagon , an entirely false assertion. Recall that Fluornoy
promotes unilateral global US military intervention, and advocated the destruction of Libya in
2011. By the
military-industrial revolving door , Flournoy enabled many Corporate weaponry contracts
amounting to tens of millions. Likewise Fluornoy is on the Booz-Hamilton board, where the swamp
cannot get any deeper. As if this wretched example of an agent-provocateur for war and
destruction were not bad enough, Biden is reportedly considering Lockheed-Martin banal kingpin
Jeh Johnson for the DoD position, too.
Lockheed director Johnson was employed by Rob Reiner and Atlantic editor arch-Neocon
David Frum to run
the Committee to Investigate
Russia which mysteriously blew up as soon as the Mueller Report was released. Jeh Johnson
has continued to warn of "Russian interference" in the US presidential election until now.
Biden's anointing as president-elect has ended that. As Homeland Security head, Johnson
authorized cages for holding immigrant children. He also supported the assassination of General
Suleimani, and has voiced support for US wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
State
From Libya to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and beyond, the banality of evil is perhaps best
personified by Susan Rice – apparently Biden's premiere pick for Secretary. Rice was an
abject failure at the United Nations, but all seems forgiven, probably at the behest of Biden's
donors. After her failure at the UN, Obama kicked Rice upstairs to be his National Security
Advisor, a position that does not require Senate approval.
An obvious war hawk in the mold of the Democrat's donor class, a Rice appointment could
reinforce the liberal mantra that women can be just as good at interventionism as men, and
ensure full re-establishment of the Neoliberal agenda in Washington. John Kerry has been
flagged as a potential for State (again) too, but at age 77 and subsequent to the failure
of the
JCPOA Kerry is an unlikely pick.
Another potential pick among the banal Daughters of Darkness is Victoria Kagan-Nuland ,
architect of the 2014 debacle in Ukraine (among other things). Outed at State in an
embarrassing act of what she called impressive statecraft and other
embarrassing incidents, Nuland seems an unlikely choice. But Kagan-Nuland is as banal as banal
can be, and Biden may somehow wish to reinforce his solidarity with the JTF and his donor class, on
Israel.
National Security Advisor
Banality is certainly the mark of the beast here, in the form of Tony Blinken. Well in with
Michele Flournoy (above) Blinken typifies
the type of banality the Deep State engages in to promote its evil, with Blinken as successful
as any other Deep State actor. A major hawk on Russia and war hawk in general, Blinken is an
apologist for Israel . Blinken is a war hawk on Afghanistan and Syria too, and Blinken was
directly
involved in CIA operation Timber Sycamore . Oh, the banality.
Another model of banality is Leon CIA Panetta who so far claims that cruising the Monterey
peninsula is more fun that being in Washington. But we know that's false and Panetta would be a
logical pick. Besides being a hawk on everything, and laughing about the fact he has no idea
how many wars Obama's America was fighting – because he lost count – Panetta is
simply another sycophant for evil like Hannah Arendt portrayed in her study of Adolf
Eichmann.
CIA
Banal of the banal is of course Mike Morell. This incredibly vacuous excuse for a human
being has been hate-mongering for years. Beside his
blatant pandering support for another banal and brutal warmonger – Hillary Clinton
– Mike Morell is one Neoliberal who still maintains that Saddam Hussein actively
aided and abetted al Qaeda with regard to the 911 attacks. But Morell simply and ultimately
represents the banality of evil, just as Arendt depicted Adolf Eichmann, but in Morell's case
succinctly summarized here by
Ray McGovern .
United Nations
Outing the banality of the banal would be incomplete without mentioning Jen Psaki . Although a potential pick for
White House Communications Director, why not promote an accomplished liar to a venue where
accomplished lying really matters?
Conclusion
There is no indication that the United States as an entrenched warfare state will ever
change its course until forced to. Mr Trump was incapable of enforcing that change. Sidelined
by
Russiagate psychosis , as a Beltway Neophyte and his own worst enemy at times, that sank
Trump's agenda. The actions of Mr Trump now – to end the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Yemen -- should have been undertaken in earnest and without compromise years ago. Point
being that Mr Trump's new appointments to the Pentagon – and let's hope CIA – will
hopefully blunt the efficacy of Biden's bad actors going forward.
Regardless, characters the same or similar to the ones listed above will definitely infest
Washington's infernal Beltway cesspool once again via Joe
Biden make no mistake. And they will be meaner and nastier than ever before!
Guaranteed.
Creative_Destruct , 2 hours ago
And the same old swamp slime (Morell, et al) waits eagerly to burst back in through the
doors of power. New boss, same as the old(er) boss(es). Uuuuuuggh.
EndofTimes , 5 hours ago
Obama's 3rd Term. Swamp will grow like a tumor. These demons are shaking with excitement
to get into office and fulfill the desires of the founders of the UN. Kill off America and
establish a global government
truth or go home , 4 hours ago
Biden is 100% deep state puppet. He will say and do whatever they tell him to.
Dominion = Scytl = CIA = Deep State = Swamp
CIA threw the election. Trump team caught them.
Trump has already cut the CIA off at the knees. Getting ready to fill up Guantanamo
again...
Giant war going on inside the gov right now - Biden enjoying the limelight before he is
retired to his rocking chair.
CatInTheHat , 5 hours ago
NICE JOB Biden voters!!
You MORONS electing Obama 2.0 on STEROIDS is WHY we got a Trump in the first place
To Hell In A Handbasket , 4 hours ago
The USSA electorate are idiots, and divided idiots at that. You got Trump because the
electorate was desperate, and you got Biden because the other half was desperate. That adds
up to a desperate population. Your enemy is not voters from the other side of the Uniparty.
Please get off the GOP vs DEMOCRAT horse$h1t.
Bay of Pigs , 3 hours ago
Quite an impressive list of Neoliberal globalist ****bags.
SabOObas , 3 hours ago
The establishment demonizes Trump for 4 years.
The sheeple voted to put the guy with 40 years of corruption under his belt in office,
because the establishment said its good for you.
Jgault , 2 hours ago
It is always the small man, the inept man, the insecure man who has a need to demonstrate
to the world his bravado with reckless and senseless gestures.
Biden and his brothel of advisors he surrounds himself with have perhaps the worst track
record of international policy since Jimmy Carter, absolute proven failures and disasters in
Ukraine, Syria, Lybia, and Egypt. This is the group that laid the intellectual groundwork for
what would become the largest refugee crisis and humanitarian disaster in nearly 50
years.
Laughably, now the MSM is doing a complete 180 in their editorial view of troops in
Afghanistan and Syria...what a shock!
Lacking foresight, insecure, lacking ethical standards and being given the ability to
order troops, how could this possibly go wrong?
Trump was the first President in 30 years not to provoke any new millitary interventions,
yet the world criticized him for his style. Let's see how long it takes for the world to
start looking back to a more stable past.
ReadyForHillary , 3 hours ago
The Democrat party is the WAR party.
RumbleGuts , 4 hours ago
Another article that doesn't realize red and blue are the same team. Make no mistake, big
baby bonespurs is in deep with the deep state. Think epstein. ;-)
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Mike Morell, the most evil man to ever draw a breath, as CIA Director?
A Biden Presidency can never be allowed to happen.
flawse , 2 hours ago
There will not be a Biden presidency. There is obviously some other plan.
DebbieDowner , 3 hours ago
This author's last paragraph fails to acknowledge that the CIA and FBI has not obeyed
Trump's (or any President's) orders in quite some time. Now is the time for someone to
finally make a change and it took such a massive plan to expose them all to drain the
swamp.
How 'Western' Media Select Their Foreign Correspondentsgottlieb , Nov 20 2020
19:21 utc |
1
Did you ever wonder why 'western' mainstream media get stories about Russia and other
foreign countries so wrong?
It is simple. They hire the most brainwashed, biased and cynic writers they can get for
the job. Those who are corrupt enough to tell any lie required to support the world view of
their editors and media owners.
They are quite upfront about it.
Here is evidence in form of a New York Times
job description for a foreign correspondent position in Moscow:
Russia Correspondent
Job Description
Vladimir Putin's Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world.
It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the
West to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It
has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its
influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president
hides out in his villa.
If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an
opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe
Bureau Chief early next year.
To be allowed to write for the Times one must see the Russian Federation as a
country that is ruled by just one man.
One must be a fervent believer in MI6 produced Novichok hogwash. One must also believe in
Russiagate and in the multiple idiocies it produced even after all of them have been
debunked.
One must know that vote counts in Russia are always wrong while U.S. vote counting is the
most reliable ever. Russian private military contractors (which one must know to be evil men)
are 'secretly deployed' to wherever the editors claim them to be. Russia's hospitals are of
cause always much worse than ours.
Even when it is easy to check that Vladimir Putin (the most evil man ever) is at work in the
Kremlin the job will require one to claim that he is hiding in a villa.
Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above nonsense.
But the description is not for a position that requires one to weight and report the facts.
It is for a job that requires one to lie. That the Times lists all the recent
nonsense about Russia right at the top of the job description makes it clear that only people
who support those past lies will be considered adequate to tell future lies about Russia.
No honest unbiased person will want such a job. But as it comes with social prestige, a
good paycheck and a probably nice flat in Moscow the New York Times will surely find
a number of people who are willing to sell their souls to take it.
Interestingly the job advertisement does not list Russian language capabilities as a
requirement. It only says that 'Fluency in Russian is preferred'.
'Western' mainstream media are filled with such biased, cynic and self-censoring
correspondents who have little if any knowledge of the country they are reporting from. It is
therefore not astonishing that 'western' populations as well as their politicians have often
no knowledge of what is really happening in the world.
Hilarious. Don't need no stinking
Operation Mockingbird anymore. Just put out a want-ad and plenty of brainwashed folks will
come flocking. Propaganda works.
This is such an odd job description with very few specific requirements and none detailing
how much experience or what level of knowledge or skill is required (in the form of X number
of years worked in some area requiring Russian language skills or university qualifications
obtained) that I almost wonder if this advertisement is for real.
One notices also that "Vladimir Putin's Russia" is presented as a story. Everything else
that follows in the second paragraph of the advertisement is also a story. Indeed everything
in the news media industry is a "story" as if instead of employing investigative reporters on
the beat grimly searching for hard facts like old pulp fiction detectives, the media now only
wants Hollywood script writers or graduates straight out of creative writing courses.
But then I suppose whoever gets the job at the NYT can hardly do worse than what the hack
Luke Harding did as The Fraudian's Moscow correspondent nearly 15 years ago, so much so that
the Russian govt must have suspected that he was more than just a bad paranoid plagiarist ...
he must have been a spy as well, that it would initially refuse to renew his visa. One would
like to see the job specifications for the position of The Fraudian's Moscow reporter that
Harding held for a number of years.
Incredible. What the acronym 'SMH' (shake my head) was invented for.
It's no wonder I switched off CBC radio, our national broadcaster here in Canada. Their
music programs were okay, but every hour they had a news update, and those were
stomach-turning. Superficial, biased, Empire-friendly nonsense...
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem fifteen years ago in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
. . .from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media critic, and author
Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key "perception
management" techniques that have played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in
recent decades.
p.116
. . .The attitudes of reporters covering U.S. foreign policy officials are generally
similar to the attitudes of those officials. "Most journalists who get plum foreign
assignments already accept the assumptions of empire," according to longtime foreign
correspondent Reese Erlick. He added, "I didn't meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who
disagreed with the notion that the U.S. and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraq
government by force. They disagreed only about timing, whether the action should be
unilateral, and whether a long-term occupation is practical." After decades of freelancing
for major U.S. news organizations, Erlich offered this blunt conclusion: "Money, prestige,
career options, ideological predilections--combined with the down sides of filing stories
unpopular with the government--all cast their influence on foreign correspondents. You
don't win a Pulitzer prize for challenging the basic assumptions of empire."
> social prestige, a good paycheck and a probably nice flat
The term that Paul Craig Roberts often uses, " presstitute ", comes to mind.
Echoing JimmyG. @4 and spudski @7, in Canada, our taxpayer-funded state news agency's
flagship program "The National" gives us regular Two Minutes Hate pieces currently
being churned out every two weeks or so by Moscow correspondent Chris Brown who fits this
article's description to a T.
I've lost count of how many times he and CBC The National's editors have singled out
Russia's handling of COVID-19 for criticism, when so many other countries have far worse per
capita fatality numbers than Russia.
While decrying Russia's COVID-19 deaths, they, of course, never mention the fact that
Canada has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than Russia ...
It's absolutely pathetic.
5 years ago the truly great journalist Robert Fisk made the following observations during an
interview with the journal.ie amongst others.
Back's up everything you have pointed out about the sheer disappearance of any impartial
reportage from the NYT and printed media in general.
"Most newspapers that have lost circulation, particularly in the States, it's not because
of the internet, it's because those newspapers were simply no good. When I go to San
Francisco the coverage of the Middle East in its papers is frightened, cowardly, pathetic,
there's no serious foreign coverage at all."
"Newspapers themselves are to blame for the deterioration in their readership. I read the
New York Times when its free, period, it doesn't deserve to be paid for. It's not worth
it.
It doesn't matter whether it's online or not. If a paper's not worth buying you'll read for
free online regardless"
"Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above
nonsense."
Our host is much too charitable to the presstitutes. Those in the "Mockingbird"
mass media eat their own effluent like a sort of group ouroboric scatophagia. To maintain
their perverse form of "mental hygiene" they studiously avoid information sources
outside of their own circular reprocessing of yesterday's delusions into fresh steaming piles
for today's consumption. They have become so accustomed to feeding off their own delusions
that if a hint of reality were to intrude into their looped intellectual food chain their
minds would reject it like poison. They would likely exhibit physical symptoms, which
doubtless would be attributed to evil Soviet mind rays from Havana.
Stengel stated clearly that a "news cartel" of mainstream corporate media outlets had
long dominated US society, but he bemoaned that those "cartels don't have hegemony like they
used to."
Stengel made it clear that his mission is to counter the alternative perspectives given
a voice by foreign media platforms that challenge the US-dominated media landscape.
"The bad actors use journalistic objectivity against us."
Wow ...
I clicked on the New York Times job link, and journalistic objectivity and integrity are
nowhere to be found in the job descripton. But I did notice these lines that add to the ones
that b brought to our attention:
We are looking for someone who will embrace the prospect of traversing 11 time zones to
track a populace that is growing increasingly frustrated with an economy dragged down by
corruption, cronyism and excessive reliance on natural resources. This posting offers the
chance to chronicle the continuing reign of one of the world's most charismatic leaders,
President Vladimir V. Putin.
Not to mention, Putin ushered in changes to the constitution, so he will likely stay in
power for many years to come.
And, of course, we are on the cusp of a new, less Putin-friendly president in the US,
which should only raise the temperature between Washington and Moscow.
It's not Russia it's "Vladimir Putin's Russia," so that's one mandatory term checked off,
i.e. personalizing the appointed enemy. But then we read "It sends out hit squads. . ."
instead of the usual obligatory: 'The regime' . . . . .but the Times can't get everything
right.
The amount of hourly propaganda directed at and leveled at American people is
unprecedented, I had not seen it this intense in past years it reminds me of my High school
days in Shah's Iran. This kind and this intense of control on news can only be due to
instability of the regime. IMO in coming Biden Adminstration regime will impose new rules for
control of internet and access to foreign news. Currently using my Mobil cellular I can't
access any Iranian news site.
Was Trump an isolationist? Not really, though it's easy to see how he got this reputation,
at first glance of his foreign policy.
He had an aggressive posture
against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, with his illegal sanctions policy against these countries.
He demonstrated total fealty to the Israeli project to
annihilate Palestine. His "trade war" against China is sold as a way to rebuild the U.S.
economy, but it is also about maintaining U.S. power; for what other purpose could instruments
such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and América Crece be used when they have
been
designed to advantage U.S. companies around the world?
Trump certainly attacked the Western military alliance system, trying to force NATO members
to spend more on their military. But at the same time, Trump developed other military
alliances: one of these, first developed by George W. Bush in 2007, is the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue, or Quad, which draws Australia, India, and Japan into a military alliance
against China. At the same time, Trump drove an agenda in Latin America -- through the
Lima Group (established in 2017) -- to create an alliance against Venezuela.
Why Biden Is Not a Multilateralist
The liberal media portrays Biden as a multilateralist -- but the evidence for this
speculation on the president-elect's foreign policy is problematic, to say the least.
Biden wants to rebuild the Western military alliance system that Trump has eroded. An
indication of Biden's enthusiasm was an early phone
call to French President Emmanuel Macron, to suggest that the United States is back as a
player in Europe. This is not an advance toward a multilateral world order, but rather a return
to the old alliance system where the United States (with its Canadian and European allies)
attempts to dominate the world system by the use of its military, diplomatic, and economic
power.
Further evidence offered for Biden's multilateralism is his commitment to return the United
States to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or the Iran deal) and the 2016 Paris
Agreement.
Why does Biden wish to return the United States to its commitments toward Iran? Obama
entered this deal because the Europeans were desperate for a source of energy after the United
States and France destroyed access to Libyan oil in NATO's 2011 war and hurt access to
Russian natural gas because of the Ukraine conflict in
2014. Obama agreed to the Iran deal because the Europeans were desperate, not to line up with
the demands of international law; Biden will give the Europeans this gift, welcomed by the
Iranian people, in order to cement the Western alliance system. Meanwhile, Biden continues to
talk
about suffocating the Iranian people.
On climate, during the negotiations that resulted in the Paris deal during Obama's
presidency, the United States
watered down the text of the agreement, preventing a truly multilateral deal that would
have accepted Western responsibility for a century of fossil fuel use. Again, there is no major
commitment to save the planet in Biden's pledge to return to the Paris Agreement; the main
agenda is to strengthen and subordinate the European countries to the U.S.-led alliance
system.
Primacy Remains the U.S. Goal
The U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff wrote in the early years of the
Cold War, "To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power
must be the object of U.S. policy." This desire for primacy remains the explicit U.S. policy.
Trump, in his four years as president, did not depart from this policy. Nor has Biden in his
five decades in public office. They might differ in their tone or in their strategy, but not in
the pursuit of this goal. Biden's adviser Charles Kupchan has written a new book called
Isolationism , which offers a clichéd view of U.S. foreign policy, and then
concludes, "[T]he United States must reclaim its exceptionalist mantle"; this means that the
United States must continue to seek primacy.
This goal of primacy has made it difficult for the U.S. elites to come to terms with the
fact of the slow attrition of U.S. power since the illegal war on Iraq (2003) and the credit
crisis (2007). Failure to acknowledge that the world will no longer tolerate one single
superpower has led the United States to impose a warlike situation against China. This
begins with Obama's "pivot" to Asia in 2015, and intensifies with Trump's "trade war."
Cold War on China Looms
Since 2015, not one U.S. Silicon Valley CEO has made a robust statement for comity between
the United States and China. Apple's Tim Cook held a
meeting with Trump in August 2019 merely to allow Apple to better compete with Samsung,
which was not hit by the U.S. tariffs. There was no broad statement about Trump's "trade war,"
with which Cook seemed quite pleased.
Silicon Valley firms know that on certain technological developments -- such as 5G,
robotics, GPS, and soon microchips -- Chinese firms have clearly produced next-generation
technologies, and in many cases have leapfrogged over their U.S. counterparts. Silicon Valley
companies are quite happy for the U.S. government to put the entire weight of the state against
Chinese firms. This includes using the security apparatus to accuse Huawei of being involved in
Chinese government espionage. It is a curiosity that none of the Silicon Valley firms worry
about privacy per se, because -- according to the Edward Snowden revelations -- the
National Security Agency uses the PRISM program to collect data freely from Silicon Valley
internet firms; but the U.S. uses the privacy and espionage arguments to try to hurt Chinese
tech firms and protect the intellectual property and market advantages of Silicon Valley. Since
this is the real cause of the trade war, there is every likelihood -- and Biden has said so --
that a Biden administration would continue to prosecute the trade war.
In 2013, the Chinese government set up the One Belt, One Road (now Belt and Road Initiative,
or BRI) to extend its commercial links across the world. The Obama administration responded in
2015 with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a platform to break China's commercial ties
along the Pacific Rim. Trump jettisoned the TPP and went for a more direct trade war. To
counter the trillions of dollars that China will mobilize for the BRI, the United States used
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (set up in 2004) and América Crece (2019) to funnel
billions of dollars to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. All of this is a desperate
attempt to undermine China and maintain U.S. primacy.
The United States is not yet prepared to acknowledge the changed world situation. This will
take time. Short of that, it is important for people to speak up against an escalation of hostilities.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Vijay Prashad's most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New
Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).
The US military establishment will breathe a sigh of relief at Joe Biden's victory in the
presidential election. Nearly 800 former high-ranking military and security
officials penned an open letter in support of the Democratic candidate during the campaign.
A who's who of former generals, ambassadors, admirals and senior national security advisers --
from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to four-star admiral and Bush-era Deputy
Homeland Security Advisor Steve Abbot -- backed Biden as the best bet to revive US power. A
month earlier, 70 national security officials who served in Republican administrations threw
their weight behind Biden (the list soon grew to 130), arguing that, on foreign policy, Trump
"has
failed our country" .
Why was Biden the war criminals' candidate of choice? The foreign policy chaos and
controversy of the Trump years were a symptom of a global superpower in relative decline, with
no real strategy out of the quagmire.
The US empire is at a turning point. It is the world's undisputed superpower; its reach is
global, both militarily and economically . The US has been the world's largest economy since
1871, and its military has close to 800 installations in 80 countries around the world. But
today, it is facing a growing economic rival in China, and several lesser powers challenging
its ability to call the shots in every corner of the globe, most notably Iran and Russia.
The War on Terror, launched by the administration of George W. Bush , resulted in the
invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It killed more than a million people and
cost upwards of US$2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For the people
of the Middle East, it was a massacre. For US empire, it was a disaster. The destabilisation of
Iraq led to the expansion of Iranian influence across the region, rather than the regime change
in Tehran the Pentagon dreamed of. The intervention in Iraq was meant to secure US dominance.
It instead exposed the weaknesses and limits of US power right at the moment when China's
dramatic economic expansion was beginning.
Tensions between the US and China have been increasing for years. Since its accession to the
World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built its economic power, its diplomatic power and
its military power, while the US became bogged down in endless wars and suffered economic
crisis and depression with the 2008 financial crisis.
Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia", with its plan to increase US naval forces in the
Asia-Pacific, was a signal that the US ruling class wanted to contain and encircle China.
Obama's then classified Air-Sea Battle doctrine was an effort to create an operational plan for
a possible military confrontation. Leaked cables made public by WikiLeaks reveal that Australia
was in lockstep with US imperial strategy. In conversation with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd confirmed Australia's willingness to "deploy force
if everything goes wrong". But Obama's strategy was too little too late for containment. China
became more aggressive in pressing claims in the South China Sea while beginning to close the
enormous gap in military capabilities with the United States, engaging in the most rapid
peacetime arms build-up in history.
Under Trump, these tensions further increased. Trump's confrontational rhetoric and trade
war were a sharp break from the decades-long US strategy of integrating China into the
international liberal order. Since the Republican administration of Richard Nixon -- who in
1972 became the first US president to visit Beijing -- the US ruling class thought it could
ensure global supremacy by incorporating China into the world system. For a while, it appeared
to work. China became the world's sweatshop and a key site of investment for US companies such
as Apple and General Motors. But the strategy could be mutually enriching for only so long.
Today, China is leveraging its meteoric growth to challenge the United States' leadership in
the Asia-Pacific.
Obama's signature containment strategy was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP
would have been the largest free trade deal in history, lowering tariffs and other non-tariff
barriers to trade between eleven Pacific countries and the US. Its goal was to lock out China
and further integrate Pacific countries with the US economy. Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter said that the TPP was "as important as another aircraft carrier".
But just a few years later, Donald Trump tore up the TPP. The move was at odds with the
consensus among the US economic and military elite, but the new president had his own ideas
about how to contain China. Trump railed against the US trade deficit, accused Beijing of
currency manipulation and, as Obama did, of stealing technology from US companies. In the 2019
State of the Union address he said, "We are now making it clear to China that after years of
targeting our industries and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and
wealth has come to an end".
By August this year, Trump had slapped tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese goods, with a
targeted campaign against tech giant Huawei, which had been tipped to overtake Apple in global
phone sales. While Republican and Democratic politicians have backed a hardline approach to
China, Trump's erratic protectionist approach to trade has alienated large sections of the
capitalist class otherwise happy with domestic tax cuts and deregulation. A Bloomberg Economics
report, released before the pandemic gripped the country, estimated that the escalating tariffs
on China would cost the US economy $316 billion by the end of this year.
More worryingly for the US establishment, Trump adopted a dismissive attitude towards US
allies, particularly the European Union. Trump prided himself on his ability to cut deals with
other nations that favoured the US. He signalled that the multilateral approach to trade was
over when he tore up the TPP, and followed that by applying tariffs on German cars, Canadian
steel and French luxury goods. For much of the US elite, these moves have simply created a void
that Beijing is attempting to fill with its own free trade deals and the $1 trillion Belt and
Road initiative, which aims to incorporate more than 138 countries into trade routes and
production chains centred on China.
The International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the UN and other
international institutions project US dominance by drawing allied nations behind US leadership.
Trump's presidency delegitimised or sidelined those institutions as he focused on an "America
first" posture. The military establishment believes that this has threatened, rather than
strengthened, US power -- although there is now an acknowledgement that those institutions
failed to keep China in check, something a Biden presidency will also grapple with.
The war criminals hope that Biden will restore political legitimacy to the office by
rehabilitating the liberal ideology that manufactures consent for American imperialism,
pitching US aggression as necessary to "make the world safe for democracy" and defending the
"rules-based liberal world order". Above all, the US establishment hopes that Biden will
restore relationships with US allies and construct a coalition of nations to confront China,
after a disastrous four years that called into question US global leadership. As the National
Security Leaders for Biden open letter bemoaned: "Our allies no longer trust or respect us, and
our enemies no longer fear us".
Biden has a proven record as a hawkish proponent of US empire. For decades, he served on the
Senate foreign relations committee. He was an early proponent of the expansion of NATO to
project US influence into the former eastern bloc after the fall of the USSR. He backed US
intervention in the Balkan war, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, voted for the
war on Iraq in 2003 and, as vice president, backed the US intervention in Libya.
There is consensus within the US ruling class over the need to "get tough" with China. The
military establishment expects Biden to turn the screws. On the campaign trail, he accused
Trump of "getting played" by Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he called a "thug". This is
consistent with Democratic Party practice in the Congress, which is to criticise Trump for not
being tough enough. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, for example, accused Trump of
"selling out" by cutting a trade deal with China. Schumer also spearheaded legislation to
implement bans on Huawei when Trump appeared to back down.
Since his first days in Congress, Biden has also made a name for himself as a staunch
supporter of the apartheid state of Israel. According to Israeli publication Haaretz ,
Biden is said to have a "real friendship" with Israel's far-right president, Benjamin
Netanyahu. He was vice president when the US signed a $38 billion military aid deal with
Netanyahu, which the State Department called the "single largest pledge of bilateral military
assistance in US history". So while Trump pushed pro-Israeli rhetoric far to the right,
abandoning any pretence of support for Palestinian statehood, Biden put his money where his
mouth is when it came to propping up Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
On Afghanistan, Biden may prove to be to the right of Trump. As vice president, he supported
an enduring US military presence in the country. Trump, by contrast, shocked the US military
when he announced on Twitter that he wants all troops out by Christmas. In contrast, Biden in
an interview with Stars and Stripes , a military newspaper, said he would maintain a
troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anti-imperialists need to judge Biden by his blood-soaked record in Congress and by the
company he keeps. The bulk of the US military establishment has backed Biden precisely because
they think his multilateral approach will restore credibility to US interventions. It's for
this reason that Forbes magazine senior contributor Loren Thompson predicted last month:
"A Biden presidency would be more likely to use US military forces overseas than President
Trump has been".
Global capitalism is facing a profound crisis that is reshaping international relations and
putting pressure on the fault lines of existing conflicts. Open imperialist rivalry will be a
feature of the coming period, along with wars over regional disputes. There is no length to
which the US ruling class won't go to safeguard its position as global superpower. And Joe
Biden is the commander-in-chief. He is now the most dangerous man in the world.
*
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.
While probably "less aggressively nasty" than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is still a
"conventional politician," but it won't be easy for him to dismiss his party's progressive
wing, Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground.
Brother to US Senator Bernie Sanders and the Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Social
Care (England & Wales), Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi that
while Biden was not his "choice" for president, he prefers him over the current
incumbent, President Donald Trump.
... ... ...
As a fixture of the establishment, Biden will follow the interests of corporate money and
the military-industrial complex rather than anybody else's, Sanders noted.
"Biden is a conventional politician, he is beholden to big money, he is beholden to
defense industries,
joe_go 13 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 07:03 AM
If no one in America went to vote the country would still look the way it looks today. The
big money and military industry would run the country the way it runs it when people vote and
think it matters.
Spirgily_Klump 20 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 12:46 AM
Do you know after Biden was out of the VP office the Chinese communist party had donated $70
million to one of his foundations at the University of Pennsylvania from which Joe drew a
salary of over $900,000 per year? With his benefiting from the hundreds of millions his
family took in from foreign powers and persons how can he gain the security clearance
necessary for the presidency? The president needs the highest clearance. Even an applicant to
the CIA get polygraphed.
shadow1369 Spirgily_Klump 9 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 11:00 AM
Just one of many skeletons jangling in Bidet's closet, they will be used by his controllers
to keep him on track.
Iwanasay 19 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 01:22 AM
It doesn't matter who is in power, America's destiny has been chosen by other behind the
scene faces
RedDragon 15 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 05:27 AM
All USA presidents are beholden to big money entities, inclusive incoming Biden presidency.
Trump is beholden to the Jewish money powers etc..
Beware savvy, sophisticate liberals bearing gifts of evasive and ethically empty prose.
Having, for my sins, spent a few weeks reading just about everything on offer from what
unrepentant neocon zealot – and born-again Washington Post columnist – Max
Boot
dubbed Joe Biden's foreign policy "A-Team," I can vouch for the new transition team's
vapidity and verisimilitude. Put another way, Boot's favored Biden Posse – the Iran
nuke channeling , P4
(Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Jake Sullivan, and Nicholas Burns) +1 (Michèle Flournoy)
– have a rare gift for typing tons but saying little.
Worse still, what they do let slip drips with subtext of status quo-hawkishness
– Biden's shadow team of five ground hogs spotting their shadows and predicting four
more years of warfare winter. Moreover, these aren't just any Washington lowland creatures
– they're being groomed
, respectively, for national security adviser, director of national intelligence, a
senior
diplomatic role,
possible secretary of state, and probable secretary of defense.
Only you're not supposed to look under the lid of Biden's national security transition
team, because, well uh, Trump was worse, and there's, like, lots of ladies in the lineup. No
really, "serious" people are saying that . With straight faces. And clear consciences.
With no consequences. What a world!
This column's immediate genesis, though, was Glenn Greenwald 's vicious and vital
responsive -evisceration of
MSNBC contributor – and self-described "thriver on chaos"
– Mieke Eoyang's recent nonsense Newspeak tweet . Here's her attempt
to silence through shaming – and signaling by buzzword:
If the Chinese decide to really mess with the Biden administration, I'd imagine they would
do something like build a road or even a pipeline in Afghanistan, even though it is
completely unnecessary, simply to force the US to stay longer. Doesn't seem like their style,
though.
In regards to Russia, same as most of the last 100 years, really. If anything big happens
at all, it would be Putin retiring. In that case, CNN will have wild fantasies about Boris
Yeltsin 2.0, while in reality Russian oligarchs may have some kind of trial moment to figure
out whether his successor can continue to enforce a balance or not, which is a big question.
Team Biden brings nothing to the table in that situation other than talking sh#t and creating
confusion. The EU on the other hand could, but it's looking less and less likely. Especially
as they will likely be immersed in a post covid political crisis and renewed challenge from
right wing parties.
Last but not least, look for Biden to be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize before lunch on
his first day in.
here will be much pressure from the liberal hawks to finish the war they had launched
against Syria by again intensifying it. Trump had ended the CIA's Jihadi supply program.
The Biden team may well reintroduce such a scheme.
Susan Rice has criticized Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban. Under a Biden
administration U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are therefore likely to again increase.
One possible change may come in the U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The
Democrats dislike Mohammad bin Salman and may try to use the Yemen issue to push him out of
his Crown Prince position.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
After four years of Russiagate nonsense, which Susan Rice had helped to launch, it is
impossible to again 'reset' the relations with Russia. Biden could immediately agree to
renew the New START treaty which limits strategic nuclear weapons but it is more likely
that he will want to add, like with Iran's nuclear deal, certain 'amendments' which will be
hard to negotiate. Under Biden the Ukraine may be pushed into another war against its
eastern citizens. Belarus will remain on the 'regime change' target list.
China would heave a big sigh of relief if Biden picks Rice as his secretary of state.
Beijing knows her well, as she had a hands-on role in remoulding the relationship from
engagement to selective competition, which could well be the post-Trump China policies.
For the Indian audience, which is obsessive about Biden's China policy, I would
recommend the following YouTube on Rice's oral history where she narrates her experience
as NSA on how the US and China could effectively coordinate despite their strategic
rivalry and how China actually helped America battle Ebola.
Interestingly, the recording was made in April this year amidst the "Wuhan virus"
pandemic in the US and Trump's trade and tech war with China. Simply put, Rice
highlighted a productive relationship with Beijing while probably sharing the more
Sino-skeptic sentiment of many of America's foreign policy experts and lawmakers.
All together the Biden/Harris regime will be a continuation of the Obama regime. It's
foreign policies will have awful consequences for a lot of people on this planet.
Domestically Biden/Harris will revive all the bad feelings that led to the election of
Donald Trump. The demographics of the election
show no sign of a permanent majority for Democrats.
It is therefore highly probable that Trump, or a more competent and thereby more
dangerous populist republican, will again win in
2024 .
Obama-Biden 3.0 as Pepe Escobar put it with an added twist
I do not agree with the assumption that the new administration (either Biden or Trump)
will start more wars, as you call them. I posit that Trump would have had his war if it
were possible but we are in a MAD phase of a civilization war and Biden will be just as
neutered as Trump.
We are not going back to Obama 3.0. That ship sank when Russia stymied Obama empire in
Syria. We are in a brave new world that is unfolding before our eyes....the future is all
around us but just not evenly distributed.
The Atlantic council this morning ("The way forward for transatlantic sanctions") is
already discussing new sanctions the Biden Administration will bring in against Russia over
the failed revolution in Belarus and the Navalny fraud. I'm amazed at how
self-congratulating these fools are, they truly are blind both to the problems the US is
facing and how the US is creating new international crisis that will destroy the
nation.
I can not understand why you insist here that Trump ended jihadist´s support in
Syria, when it was these past days that we knew by US envoy there, Jeffries, that the
troops not only were not decreased, by augmented.
Anyway, I guess we can conclude that if not directly, jihadists support continues
through Turkey, as we have witnessed in the past conflict in the Caucasus.
An article in Foreign Policy from a Bush era neo-con tells you what to expect:
Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of
the West, Russia's neighbors, and his own people. Biden seems to understand that, not least
because he has been the target of Russian interference in the 2020 election, including a
disinformation campaign tied to Russia that was designed to smear him and his son Hunter.
Earlier this year, Biden wrote, "To counter Russian aggression, we must keep [NATO's]
military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to take on nontraditional
threats, such as weaponized corruption, disinformation, and cybertheft." He continued: "We
must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with
Russian civil society, which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir
Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system." In an interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes
before the election, Biden said he considered Russia "the biggest threat to America right
now in terms of breaking up our security and our alliances."
These instincts are sound, and Biden likely will appoint officials who think the same
way he does when it comes to Putin's Russia.
The more articles and postings that I see that bemoan the Deep State restoration (horror!)
and return of business-as-usual (horror!), the more I think that we are being set up for an
eventual Trump win.
Recent history tells us that Republican Presidents do BIG WARS (invoking Republican's
claim to patriotism and a strong military) and Democratic Presidents do small, covert
wars.
Why else would Trump fight an EMPIRE-FIRST establishment that he largely agrees with (as
demonstrated by his actions while President)?
Mr Wabbit - as I've written before (here and elsewhere): there is NO really existing
difference between the which colored face(s) hang out in the WH (or in Congress) because they
all belong to the same political stratum and, essentially, hold exactly the same positions,
worldviews, attitudes, perspectives. All (aside from a tiny handful on occasion) support the
MICIMATT, are intrinsically part and parcel of it. All get to fatten their bank accounts, get
to revolve twixt this post and that in the MIC/TT/MA. At base most if not all (Blue/Red, it
matters not at all) work for/along with/are part of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist
plutocratic ruling elite.
Thus the warmaking will NOT stop without serious and continuous effort on the part of a
large part of this country's population - and that isn't likely to happen: lots of folks earn
their nice livelihoods in the MICIMATT industry; and most - overwhelmingly most - of the US
population do not give a fuck what this country does to any other around the world, so long
as a) doesn't affect them; b) their pension plans benefit; c) they can go back to sleep. How
many even know where Syria, Libya, Iran, Ukraine ARE????
And they do not care - except when there is the occasional blowback - which is viewed as
(what else?) terrorism, not simply retaliation. The real terrorism being projected, inflicted
by guess which nations?
Kevin Gosztole on Grayzone; Patrick Lawrence on Consortium News; Danny Sjursen on Anti-war
- all pieces give one despair, sheer and utter despair at the so-called electoral "choices"
we had and the reality of the continuation of the imperial war machine, run by the utterly,
completely grotesque, barbaric usuals (whatever their bloody sex, skin hue).
While lecturing the world over "international norms", the deliberate obliviousness over
the astonishing rolling humanitarian disasters initiated by the USA is beyond disturbing.
Watch out for Eliot A Cohen and what Phil Geraldi coined as "Kaganate of Nulandia" ilks in
that FP Team. In Obama's first year we had Dennis Ross at the WH and Jeffrey Feltman at
Turtle Bay whilst the R2P women were at Foggy Bottom : we got the Arab Spring followed by the
demise of Ghaddafi and the havoc in Syria.
Who will Susan Rice put in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to give the middle finger to
Abu Mazen?
While The Dem party is strongly anti-Russia, connected at it is to the Atlantic Council
and NATO, the probable next SecDef Flourney is throwing down the gauntlet on China.
...from TaiwanNews:
Flourney assessed that China is starting to believe it can achieve a quick strike that
would disable all U.S. defenses in the region, paving the way for an invasion of Taiwan.
"China's theory of victory increasingly relies on 'system destruction warfare' -- crippling
an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare,
counterspace, and cyber-capabilities," wrote Flourney.
To boost deterrence capabilities, Flourney asserts that the U.S. must modernize and
strengthen its forces in the region to raise the cost of "Beijing's calculus." Such is the
buildup that Flourney is advocating, that it would enable the U.S. military to "credibly
threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the
South China Sea within 72 hours" . . here
This is quite a change from the current administration, which has followed the Taiwan
Relations Act in stressing that the break-away province is responsible for its own defense,
with no mention of US support. In fact the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with this
Chinese province. Normally these treaties only include countries of course, and while Taiwan
claims to be a country of course it isn't.
On the question of war, it's no secret that Biden is likely to prove more hawkish than
Trump, though Biden himself is a diplomatic man. However the world has changed since the days
of Obama. The Middle East has ground to a stalemate, and there are no objectives to achieve
by putting in more troops or air-strikes. Trump just tried and failed to bomb Iran. The
military advice to Biden won't be different.
With regard to the "pivot to Asia", I doubt that the Chinese are much afraid of a US
attack.
...Abstracting the factor of a new party naturally being inclined to reinitialize all the
wars abandoned or paralyzed by the previous party at a first glance...
1) Venezuela: I would bet Biden should have learned from Trump's mistake, but fact on the
field is the Southern Caribbean nation is a too appetizing target for him to to revisit it
and do a real invasion with Colombia through the land as an auxiliary;
2) South China Sea/Taiwan: Susan Rice's little story is touching, but the Western-backed
Asian MSM (SCMP, Asia Times etc.) is already preparing the psychological/ideological field
for a hot war between China and the USA there, which means they were already briefed by
Biden's team it will happen;
3) Afghanistan: at the heart of Central Asia (Heartland) + CIA opium = a matchstick will
rule over the Cocytus before the USA abandon its occupation of that country;
4) Yemen: the war pays for itself as the Saudis are recycling USDs into American weapons,
so I think inertia will prevail. When the Saudis say it's over, it's over;
5) Syria: game's over for the Americans there. The Russians imposed a no-fly zone to
NATO/USA. Most they can do is to prop up Turkey (which they don't like right now) to fund
terrorists in Idlib to try to drain the Russian coffers a little bit more but the Kremlin can
push the nuclear button anytime if it really comes to that point (if ever);
6) Belarus: it was more a German affair than an American affair. Doesn't apply;
7) Ukraine: unfinished business will probably lead to another ramping up over the Dnieper,
but the Donbassians have the geographical advantage and will never lose their territory as
long as they have full-fledged support from Russia;
8) Russia: the problem here is the USA is in a position it has to choose - Russia or the
European Peninsula? Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has already stated Germany's unconditional
loyalty to the USA is directly linked to the continuation of NATO. If NATO's gone, then the
European Peninsula may become a second Southeast Asia.
If ... Tom Cotton is the Republican nominee, a Dem Presidential victory in 2024 will make
Biden's 2020 landslide look like the small mound of sand sliding into the bottom half of an
hourglass.
Citibank's foreign policy Team would be much more accurate wouldn't it ?
That's like saying Obomber or Bush had their own foreign and economic policy.
The only reason DC puts on this shit show is to protect the owners from
accountability.
No matter who the "president" is there will be more war, sanctions, and coup attempts
because that's what the money/power cult needs to obtain more power and control.
These assholes successfully perpetrated a coup of the US government, why would they worry
about which flunky gets (s)elected ??
"Hillary Clinton at the UN? Whether or not Biden appoints her, things are getting very
brazen and very bitter, very fast."
Lawrence opines:
"Let us now send this conscienceless liar to the UN to make sure the world knows we're all
for international cooperation so long as all others submit to our dictates and don't get in
our way when we invade other countries, foment coups or otherwise breach international
law.
"I confess to longstanding animosity toward the odious Clinton. In truth she is merely the
apotheosis of what we've known for some time about the incoming regime's character.
"Biden's army of foreign-policy transition advisers -- 2,000 in number -- is chock-a-block
with warmongers, Russophobes, Sinophobes, Iranophobes, exceptionalists, puppets of apartheid
Israel, humanitarian interventionists, and others promising nothing but trouble. We've known
this for some time."
Lawrence did some great digging to complement the work done by other investigators. The
following is excellent:
"The Democratic 2020 platform published on the eve of Biden's nomination last summer,
intended to bring Bernie Sanders' supporters on board, included these commitments on the
foreign-policy side:
•"Bringing our forever wars to a responsible end."
•"Rationalizing the defense budget."
•Ending covert "regime change" operations in favor of "more effective and less costly
diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement tools."
•"Right-sizing our counterterrorism footprint."
•Scaling back U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in favor of "a durable and inclusive
political settlement" with a residual role for special operations forces.
"Didn't President Donald Trump attempt to achieve various of these objectives? Didn't
hawks in his administration and at the Pentagon vigorously and illegally subvert these
attempts? Didn't the mainstream press cheer on these subversions while lambasting Trump daily
for jeopardizing "national security" as he tried (however inconsistently) to bring troops
home, settle up in Afghanistan, negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and other
such things?...
"Those who expected the Biden regime to give Americans a thoughtful, informed,
post-exceptionalist foreign policy -- and I am not among these people -- are in for too many
disappointments to list over the next four years. Let us consider a few of the more
consequential."
Lawrence goes on to detail why there'll be no peace in Eurasia and no reduction in the
Imperial Budget. I agree 100% with his summation:
"One principle will guide the Biden regime's foreign policies. Biden is a man of empire
and those around him empire's lieutenants. This will determine all of what is to come."
Realistically that means the Outlaw US Empire will continue to drown as it spins around
and slowly descends down the toilet bowl. Nowhere in anyone's analysis of this issue is there
any mention of the fact that great domestic strength and vitality are a prerequisite for any
attempt at Imperial Dominance, and nowhere in Bidenland is there any policy proposal to
rehabilitate that fact. Sure, all sorts of hawks will populate the Pentagon and continue at
the State Dept, but they might as well be doves since the Empire's industrial base can no
longer support an aggressive Imperial Policy. Then there's the Human Capital that's in just
as dire a condition as the Industrial Plant. Biden in many respects faces the same set of
problems Trump was confronted with and allowed to fester/worsen. Plus, half the nation is
dead-set against him and his regime, perhaps even more so than with Trump since there'll be
no constant BigLie Media smearing.
The gap between the Outlaw US Empire and those nations it's chosen to demonize as
competitors and worse continues to grow daily. The RCEP is only one manifestation. A second
is the continuance of BRICS, which just held a Summit. If Biden launches an attack against
Iran, he'll suffer a massive defeat for the same reasons as Trump. Same with North Korea.
Same as with the South China Sea. Same as with Taiwan. Same as with Syria. And I'd say the
last bullet within the Color Revolution gun available for use in Eurasia was recently fired
to no effect. Latin America is rebounding again. In almost every respect, the Outlaw US
Empire is weaker now than in 2017 when Trump took over. IMO, Biden's #1, most important and
difficult job will be domestic since his donors will insist they be allowed to continue to
eat away at the vitals that are the fundamental basis of support for the Empire--Following in
the footsteps of Rome.
Russia will be the main target of the new US regime, expect to see the russian underbelly
in flames in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and of course in Ukraine and Syria.
The russian regimen change project will be at full speed, economically, politically,
domestic and external insurgencies, all in order to bleed to death the Bear that they see as
a cultural, military, industrial and natural resources rival that has to be fully destroyed
and reduced to smithereens, divided in corrupt satrapies much smaller and easy dominate
"à la ukrainien" or georgian, to extract, on the cheap, all their natural resources
with nice fees for the Biden family or many others american plutocrats. Win-win
situation.
One of the pieces to "bleed the beast" project was the Pashinyan sororite hiper-corrupt
regime, who sell large amounts of weapons to the jihadis in Syria to kill russians and
syrians soldiers, this was the last straw for the russkies with them:
So the DoD just announced that Trump is drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to
2500 for each by January 15th 2020, and there are about 5,000 private military contractors in
each which will probably increase to compensate. Easy call for Trump.
Yes, I saw McConnel plead to be able to stay and "finish" Afghanistan. Such a tired show
now. The same ol' tune, spoken a thousand times on that senate floor.
But to your point, not all Republicans are non-interventionists. There are many, many
RINOs amongst them who actually loathed the idea of Trump as POTUS in 2015, so much so that
it took the groundswell of support for DJT that these RINOs relented and hopped aboard the
Trump-train.
Now that he has lost, they want to revert back to their prior and favored position as
controlled opposition to the Dem establishment. It will at first be subtle, with feigned
support for outgoing POTUS, but gradually, they will cease mentioning him at all.
It remains to be seen whether the constituents in these RINOs' districts will not see
through the subterfuge.
As I have mentioned before, I think they will come for the RINOs if they disembark the
Trump-train. They are sowing wind.
As we move forward resistance to American hegemony becomes stronger, more broad and a more
viable counterbalance to the western hegemony on world affairs. This is while US and her
allies have and are becoming weaker and therefore more unbalanced. Political and economic
unbalance as seen during the pandemic is much more difficult and costly for developed
nations as would be for the third world.
As has been seen in past few years this shifting power balance will naturally make the losing
power, more reactionary and more violent to preserve and restore her power, both domestically
and externally.
As this giant corpse start decaying her parasites start chowing more and demanding more to
save themselves, which makes this dying giant even more unpredictable, and perhaps more
reactionary and violent regardless who's the president and in power, Trump or Biden has not
and will not make any change difference for the Deep state policies.
Fortunately this is, and has been, the trajectory we are on for some time now, and IMO this
is unstoppable, no matter who and how much propaganda is leveled inside and outside of
west.
Biden has said that he will re-instate the nuclear agreement with Iran but with
'amendments'.
Wishful thinking by Biden and his faction, if he get into white house at all. The greatest
obstacle for any US president to get back to JCPOA is the general disqualification of US
governments to be part of any international agreement.
Obama signed, Trump teared in pieces, Biden signing again (are we in a Kindergarten?), who is
going to guarantee that the next republican president (in 4 years?) doesn't tear it in pieces
again or even the to-be president Kemala Harris (in 2 years?) doesn't trigger the snap back
as a friendly pay back gesture to the Zionist Apartheid regime for getting the job as
president?
Although Rouhani government has sent strong signals that they are ready for a new round of
negotiation, with less then 9 months to the next elections in Iran, almost no chance that the
next winner come from technocrat camp, theocracy not ready to support technocratic efforts
for new negotiations and finally wide popular resistance to continue the JCPOA even in the
current format. It would be more then a wounder to encounter JCPOA 2.0
What occupies the fantasies of the populace does matter to the oligarchs who run the show.
If it didn't matter to the elites they would not spend so much time and energy trying to
shape those fantasies...
The elites are going to support the politicians that are most accomplished and adept at
bolstering the fantasy of the two party system and American democrazy. There is no doubt that
Donald Trump is the salesman of the year for the smoke the elites are blowing up your ass.
There is no other politician that could get 150 million americans sucked into the
fantasy.
And what that means is they will do whatever they can to make sure trump gets another four
more years.
Can't say I disagree with much of this when taken at face value, but I'd appreciate some
backing to this assertion, for which it's quite uncharacteristic of b not to provide right up
front.....if true.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
I should note, and most MoA readers will agree, that it's nearly impossible to find any
Western media organization - including erstwhile progressive outlets - who don't agree with
the alleged status quo that Maduro is a "dictator" and "has to go."
So what WOULD a Biden administration do differently? All's I can find of substance is that
they'd use sanctions in a more precise manner, not the blunt force instrument that Trump has
applied - and - that they would grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans wishing to
flee (I'd bet there's a good mix of the Mestizo and Moreno poor, as well as the trust fund
descendants of the colonial elite) to the United States whereas Trump refused or dragged his
feet to the point that it didn't matter.
I think, then, that the decisions made will be less to do with Biden being a bad man
(which, like Trump, he is), but instead all grounded in the accepted "reality" that "Maduro
must go" and there must be a "peaceful democratic transition" (back to right-wing colonialist
descendants from whom (some of) their stolen land and oil leases were stolen back under
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. This falsehood has been cemented as truth and reality
across both sides of the U.S. political spectrum as well as that of the UK, Canada and
France: Maduro = Commie Dictator and Brutal Humanitarian Abuser. There is absolutely ZERO way
that Joe Biden would go against it in any meaningful way. He'll just do it a little less
roughly and mean spiritedly as Trump and Bush before him had done (no coups and fewer
sanctions under Obama).
This is a good article on the
intricacies of the politics of food (and resources - a good history lesson all the way
around and recommended - written in June of 2018 and looking back not only on the Chavez
years, but the colonial history that preceded him. I think it's required reading for anyone
who wants to get into a debate or discussion (here or elsewhere) about Chavez and Maduro.
Trump is war monger lite compared to Biden that is war monger/criminal heavy. Greater
chaos is coming inside and outside the US while liberals go back to sleep comfortable that
another Obama like admin is in charge.
My prediction: in the next four years it will be near impossible to paper over the
objective collapse of the US Empire of Insanity.
Biden's campaign said he "was among the first Democratic foreign policy voices to
recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader and to call for Maduro to
resign."
Even socialist Sanders, who refused to call Maduro a "dictator", is anti-Maduro:
Sanders called Maduro a "vicicious tyrant" and said there should be "international and
regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can
make -- can create their own future."
there's plenty of countries in the world where the US will continue and/or try to regime
change legitimate governments.
some of these were already started by Mr. Hope and Change, and will continue or be ramped
up by Mr. Sleepy/Rice/Flournoy - like Ukraine, a perfect pretext to irritate Russia with. And
poor Venezuela, which both current and past administrations have attempted to strangle to
death
Some of these came to fruition under Pompeo/Haspel/Trump like Armenia (2018); and some
like Belarus have survived, so far.
some where successfully changed under Trump, like Brazil.
some were temporarily regime changed, like Bolivia (2019), but are now back in the hands
of the real Socialists and indigenous peoples.
some were successfully carried out under Obama, like in Honduras and Paraguay.
The chinese finally learned and took action in Hong Kong which is now essentially out of
the regime change column. Iran will never be regime changed either, nor Syria.
And some like Lebanon are still in play.
I expect economic sanctions/warfare to be increasingly used by this incoming democratic
administration as much as the outgoing republican.
The way for all this nefarious and despicable activity by the US and the West to end
is....??
Trump just didn't have the same amount of low hanging fruit that Obama did . . .like
Ukraine and Syria
low hanging fruit: a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little
effort.
Let's be clear that Obama's "fruit" turned out to be rotten apples (losses in Ukraine*
& Syria**), plus Mr Hope & Change foolishly sent 70,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
destroyed one of the leading countries in Africa (Libya) for no reason, threatened Iran every
fortnight with his "all options on the table" BS then did an 'agreement' with Iran that was
easily overturned,. .the list goes on.
*NATO wanted Russia's only warm-water port in Crimea, and didn't get it.
**Russia stepped in to prevent US-supported regime change
All of the linear and conventional predictions about the next administration's foreign
policy will be proven wrong, because they neglect the near-fatal deterioration of the US
economy and its social fabric in the last 4 years. In short, any return to the pre-Trump
status quo is simply impossible. That ship sailed forever.
What is pretty much guaranteed, however, is significant and irreversible ratcheting up of
economic tension between America and the rest of the world. The approach may undergo some
finessing, but substance will not only remain but acquire additional urgency. The US is in
desperate need of reducing its current account deficit, and that can't be accomplished
without more threats, more brinkmanship, and more unilateral impositions. You can say goodbye
to any prospect of international harmony, it won't happen. Sure, Democrats may attempt
softening of rhetoric at first, but it will be proven counterproductive and abandoned rather
quickly.
The only reason the Deep State brought Biden back to political life, is because he is one of
the few remaining old Cold Warriors capable of achieving normalization of relations with
Russia. It's of overarching importance at this point, as without it nothing really works for
America and all possible geopolitical equations simply fall apart right away. It's also
pretty clear that because Biden's mental and physical condition is in rapid decline, such
normalization will be proceeding at breakneck speed. Expect Biden-Putin summit in first 6
months of the inauguration, ostensibly to sign new Start Treaty or prolong the old one. After
that, "the dialogue" will kick into overdrive.
All in all, modeling next 4 years of US foreign policy based on op-ed articles in American
MSM is just silly. These are written not to enlighten but to obfuscate. Expect secret
entreaties to Moscow literally within hours of January 20, 2021.
There may be some small cookies thrown Russia's way, but that country as a serious threat
must remain. The 500,000 person US ground force, modernly equipped, depends upon it. There is
no other justification, only a "dangerous" Russia.
Look at Zionist-imperialist bitch Susan Rice berating the UN General Assembly for its
overwhelming vote in 2012 on according Palestine non-member observer status:
Just as the US must have enemies, because there's so much money in it, it must also (for
the same reason) continue to have Israel calling the signals in the Middle East.
By "low hanging fruit" (or poisoned apples), what I meant was from the PR angle.
Situations in those places - by the CIA's making or not - were being reported in the West in
such a manner so that they were more easily than usual sold as "humanitarian interventions"
to "help democracy flourish" and the like. Whereas Bush had his 9/11 and fake WMD threats
from Saddam, Obama had the "organic" "grassroots" uprisings in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Tunisia
and other places which would be used as excuses to go in and steal gold, wreck nations who
were a threat to the Franco or American post-colonial control structures, and otherwise
instill chaos, which is one major goal of EVERY U.S. intervention - especially in the ME.
But yeah, what was done to Libya, Syria and the Ukraine is unforgiveable. I'm just saying
that TPTB when Trump was in office didn't have the easy, made-for-humanitarian intervention
news stories to excuse the next round of destruction. That's one reason they had to try so
hard with Iran - going as far as designating their military and its leaders as terrorists and
all that shit so they could bomb Soleimani while he was on a diplomatic mission. Can't have
an outbreak of peace, now, can we? That is, unless it's a carefully scripted PR version of
"peace" such as what we saw recently with the gulf monarchies and Israel.
Gonna have to say target numero uno has got to be Syria. Finishing off Syria, and chasing
the Russians home will be the lynchpin to the rest of Biden's Middle East Policy. Once Syria
is collapsed into chaos and ethnic cleansing, Lebanon/Hezbollah become much easier to deal
with. Iran becomes further isolated and it's ability to project power seriously reduced. The
whole point of JCPOA IMO was a delaying tactic, keeping Iran on the back burner while Iranian
Proxies and Regional Influence are mopped up.
I expect the Mighty Media Wurlitzer of Pro-War Propaganda will soon begin spinning up and
focusing on the brutality inflicted on the moderate head-choppers by the Assad
Regime...another chemical weapons attack anyone?
The Russian presence in Syria is actually quite precarious, despite their military gains
they don't project power very efficiently beyond their borders. The Biden Regime will
therefore turn up the heat, possibly with a No-Fly Zone over both Idlib and Southern Syria/Al
Tanf in conjunction with a well armed proxy offensive backed by air-support. DNC Dems/Deep
State/NeoCon believe Russia to be bluffing and will either back down or be rolled over in
short order.
Strange IMO.
Most everyone here is talking like it will be business as usual on foreign policy.
I am not so sure. I think that Covid19 has pricked the phony bubble created after the 08/09
collapse. I know the stock market is right back and everything looks fine but I think there
is deep rot beneath.
Couple that with a lot of draws in their latest endeavours and I doubt that the machine can
keep operating with such confidence/arrogance.
Do you also remember how the 2000 presidential campaign played out? Gore was characterized
by the MSM, straight up, as an "interventionist" while Bush - eager to distance his own
foreign policy from the Balkan wars and Clinton/Gore tried to walk a fine line between
isolationism (of which he was accused) and non-interventionism.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush announced that he would pursue a
"distinctly American internationalism" in foreign policy (Bush i999a), largely in contrast
to the liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration. He initially sought to have
a foreign policy that placed greater emphasis on American national interests than on global
interests.
(look up George W. Bush and "classical realism")
So what do Trump and Bush II have in common? How about Trump and Obama? I'll tell you: The
preceding administration of the opposite political party had a history of military
interventions that were quite unpopular with the public, which was looking for a change. And
guess what Obama said when he first stepped into office. That's right - he'd pursue a
retrenchment based foreign policy dedicated to fighting existing terror threats in places and
places near where the previous administration had already placed American troops - AND to
wrap up the already existing wars. From the Atlantic's retrospective:
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Although Obama never presented himself as a pacifist
candidate, his 2007-2008 presidential campaign was predicated in part on the promise to end
the war in Iraq and properly prosecute the war in Afghanistan. In March 2008, he declared
of Iraq, "When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this
war." Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as
"ending the war in Iraq responsibly" and "finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the
Taliban." The president also promised a foreign policy that relied more on diplomacy and
less on military might in his first inaugural address, telling his audience that "our power
grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the
force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Well before the
tumult of the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Obama famously offered to extend a hand to
those willing to unclench their fist. (there are links embedded there)
Here's what Brookings has to say:
I do not mean to overstate. Obama's presidency will not go down as a hugely positive
watershed period in American foreign policy. He ran for election in 2007 and 2008 promising
to mend the West's breach with the Islamic world, repair the nation's image abroad, reset
relations with Russia, move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, avoid "stupid wars"
while winning the "right war," combat climate change, and do all of this with a
post-partisan style of leadership that brought Americans themselves together in the
process.[1] He ran for reelection in 2012 with the additional pledges of ending the
nation's wars and completing the decimation of al Qaeda. Six years into his presidency,
almost none of these lofty aspirations has been achieved.[2] There has not been, and likely
will not be, any durable Obama doctrine of particular positive note. The recent progress
toward a nuclear deal with Iran, while preferable to any alternative if it actually
happens, is probably too limited in duration and overall effect to count as a historic
breakthrough (even if Obama shares a second Nobel Prize as a result).
And before you start to think that Trump said much different, here's a blurb from your own
article:
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with," Trump said. "Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism
and destroying ISIS, and we will."
Hence, there hasn't been a President for the last 50 years that has campaigned on, or
entered office with a PUBLIC plan to engage in foreign regime change activities. But nearly
every one of them, especially since Ronald Reagan, have had "excuses" crop up for
"humanitarian interventions" and that includes Bush II and Obama. The so-called Arab Spring
began in earnest in mid- to late 2010 and Syria and Libya were in mid to late 2011 during
their peak, at which point the U.S. and France got involved under the auspices of
"humanitarian intervention."
So more than 3 years into his first term, Obama still hadn't "started any new wars." Three
years is an incredibly short period of time when looking at history, even the history of the
United States. Trump's only been in office for about 3 years and 9 months. Nothing like the
Arab Spring has happened so far while he's been there. That is indisputable. What is also
indisputable is that Trump DID try to spark a war by assassinating General Soleimani. Whether
there was any plan AT THE TIME to end up invading Iran (a total fool's errand as you know
well), I doubt, but the goal of that assassination was to prevent an organic, non-U.S.
brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which at the very least was a threat to Trump's
precious arms sales, but also very much in line with his Zionist friendly Israel policy. At
worst, who knows, but you can't make an unchallenged assumption that Trump and his advisors
had fully thought through all possible Iranian retaliation options and concluded that there
was no way the assassination would cause Iran to do something so bad that a new war was
justified regardless of the cost. Sorry, but you just can't.
Yeah, yeah, Trump hasn't started any "new wars" but his rhetoric and public facing stated
foreign policy goals were virtually the same as Obama's. Trump just didn't get any 9/11s,
Eastern European or Middle East uprisings that would have been sufficient for him or ANY
previous president to attempt to justify "humanitarian interventions" abroad. As I've said
for a while, if he had a second term, there would have been a new war - even if it was the
"deep state" and CIA who created the astroturf casus belli.
...Trump has also unleashed a mass proto fascist movement, which is based amongst the
lowest scum of the working class, various billionaire factions, and the white suburban middle
class and small business owners.
These genies will not go back into their bottles. Neoliberal hegemony is shattered.
All of this is the result of the 1% sucking the blood of the working class for the past
four decades. 2008 was the spark. Covid was the explosion.
I see this every damn day in the US, even in a wealthy liberal city. The social fabric has
largely fallen apart. Living in the US is daily suffering, dashed hopes, sadness, and rage.
It is awful.
Biden won't have any room for major wars abroad. He might try to rebuild liberal alliances
but he won't have any capacity to overthrow Asad or Maduro or to reverse the objective trends
of global capitalism. How can he reboot US primacy if China and Asia account for 90 percent
of world economic growth?
Covid has revealed the US as a paper tiger with little institutional capacity to manage
itself or the world. It is in fact a threat to the world.
Biden and his neoliberal coterie will act like arrogant pricks. They are arrogant pricks.
But we can laugh at them. They have a limited shelf life.
Well of course it will be awful. There has never been an administration in American
history that hasn't been awful on foreign policy. We've always been an empire.
Biden will find a world different than the one he remembers from four years ago. The
blustering incompetence of the Trump administration was the world's cue to move on. And the
empire now has a lot of issues in the home territory that need immediate and drastic
attention.
Few empires survive long after being forced to turn inward after a long period of
expansion. We're beyond things that can papered better with a glorious little war.
Biden likely takes power with a collapsed health care sector and a real economy of misery
for most. He'll have a federal government riddled wholly unqualified ideologues in a country
that went ahead and delegitimized it's own elections for one man's vanity. Where half the
country doesn't believe in the virus that crushed the health care system and wrecked the
economy. It will all be terrible because the US has reached the historical point where
terrible describes all the options.
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises
some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power
in America is for real and it is something that some Jews
are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it
functions. If you're an American (
or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and
nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election
when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on.
If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your
understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the
interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S.
Congress or White House.
And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you
must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You
behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully,
if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.
It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted
and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul
Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and
voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia
Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to
stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights
and a critic of Israeli brutality.
He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the
military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared
to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is
opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the
movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel
and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues
being promoted by the Zionist lobby.
There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior
Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor
famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their
support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just
how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating
insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the
Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside
the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will
no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate
and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a
recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is
entitled
The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to
limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example,
how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for
Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it
impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."
Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by
Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several
occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama
just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for
Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of
the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly
confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist
to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing
views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the
Obama presidency."
And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running
full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it
operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions
to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported
the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way
for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."
Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of
the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming
Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be
possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign
country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States
does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called
"special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any
other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include
funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening
Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.
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] .
Threat inflation is like Apple pie among Washington swamp national security parasites
Notable quotes:
"... The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist. ..."
"... Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . . ..."
Applying any logic to the "threats" against the US "national security" AKA world hegemony
becomes much simpler with recognizing two simple facts:
1. The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no
diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist.
2. Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of
"threat-size" . . .
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, & African
"terrorists" -- did I miss anyone?
US president-elect Joe Biden's approach to diplomacy is diametrically opposed to that of the outgoing Donald Trump, known as he
was to levy undiplomatic salvos at foreign leaders via social media. But one shouldn't expect a wholesale revamp in substance
when the veteran Democrat takes office in January. FRANCE 24 takes a closer look at Biden's foreign policy agenda.
ADVERTISING
The former
US
vice
president brings a wealth of foreign policy experience, expertise and, not insignificantly, genuine interest in global affairs
to the White House. The Democrat served as chair of the
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
, readily making
trips
to Iraq and Afghanistan
to gather the facts on the ground, prior to spending eight years as President
Barack
Obama
's right-hand man from 2009 to early 2017.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday reflected fondly on her regular meetings with VP
Biden
under
Obama. "He knows Germany and Europe well. I remember good encounters and conversations with him," Merkel said as she
underlined Biden's "decades of experience in foreign policy" and "very warmly" congratulated him on his election win.
The transatlantic conversation is indeed likely to mellow amid a promised early flurry of multilateral moves on Biden's part
that dovetail with key European priorities and reverse the sorts of
Trump
manoeuvres
that boggled European capitals.
Biden
has
said
his foreign agenda would "place the United States back at the head of the table, in a position to work with its
allies and partners to mobilise collective action on global threats". The operative word there may be "table" -- Biden recognises
there should be one. After four years of "America First", with the erratic Trump toppling proverbial roundtables with an
iconoclastic flourish, Biden will be conspicuous about putting the pieces back together.
"For 70 years, the United States, under Democratic and Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules,
forging the agreements, and animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security and
prosperity -- until Trump," Biden wrote in a Foreign Affairs piece last spring that
reads
like a foreign policy manifesto
. "If we continue his abdication of that responsibility, then one of two things will
happen: either someone else will take the United States' place, but not in a way that advances our interests and values, or no
one will, and chaos will ensue. Either way, that's not good for America."
Biden says he will rejoin the
Paris
Climate Agreement
"on day one" and, "in his first 100 days in office", he will convene a global summit on climate to press
the world's top carbon-emitters to join the US in making national pledges more ambitious than the ones they made in the French
capital back in 2015.
On the campaign trail, the president-elect also pledged to rejoin the
World
Health Organization
on his first day in office -- after Trump eschewed and quit the Geneva-based institution in the midst of
the
Covid-19
global
public health crisis. "Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health," Biden reasons.
During his first year in office, the president-elect has also pledged to host "a global Summit for Democracy to renew the
spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the Free World". The gathering's stated aim is to obtain commitments toward
fighting corruption, countering authoritarianism, notably through election security, and advancing human rights globally.
Biden has also pledged to rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council.
As a presidential candidate, Biden stumped for renewing America's support
NATO
,
calling his country's commitment to the 70-year-old political and military alliance "sacred, not transactional", in contrast
to his predecessor's vision of the body as a protection club with dues.
"NATO is at the very heart of the United States' national security, and it is the bulwark of the liberal democratic ideal -- an
alliance of values, which makes it far more durable, reliable, and powerful than partnerships built by coercion or cash," the
lifelong transatlanticist wrote. Cue the sigh of relief in Baltic capitals.
Countering 'Russian aggression'
Naturally, part of Biden's argument for bolstering NATO is the message it will send
Moscow
.
"To counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance's military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to
take on nontraditional threats, such as weaponised corruption, disinformation, and cyber-theft," Biden explained in Foreign
Affairs.
He was vice president in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, sinking ties between Moscow and Washington to a
post-Cold War low.
Observers note that Washington has not been complacent with Moscow in the intervening years, imposing sanctions on Russia
during Trump's term in office even as the man behind the desk in the Oval Office seemed keen to look the other way. But under
Biden, the mixed message of friendliness to Vladimir Putin conveyed by Trump -- who declined to address such affronts as the
bounties Moscow allegedly put on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan -- will likely be a thing of the past.
"We must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with Russian civil society, which has
bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system," Biden has pledged.
Despite his wariness of Moscow, Biden has promised to pursue an extension of the New START Treaty, which his campaign called
"an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia" and use that nuclear arms reduction agreement as a
foundation for future arms control arrangements.
Coalescing allies to confront China
Biden sees
China
,
meanwhile, as the most pertinent threat to US interests long-term, a stance that enjoys rare relative bipartisan agreement in
Washington, meaning the shift on relations with Beijing will primarily be one of tone and method.
Biden has slammed China for stealing US firms' technology and intellectual property and for giving its state-owned firms an
unfair advantage with subsidies.
Instead of addressing US concerns unilaterally as Trump has, Biden has proposed building a coalition of allies to confront
China where the nations disagree (unfair commercial practices, human rights abuses) and to engage in cooperation where it is
needed (climate issues, global public health, nonproliferation, not least vis-à-vis North Korea).
"On its own, the United States represents about a quarter of global GDP. When we join together with fellow democracies, our
strength more than doubles. China can't afford to ignore more than half the global economy," wrote Biden in Foreign Affairs.
"That gives us substantial leverage to shape the rules of the road on everything from the environment to labour, trade,
technology, and transparency, so they continue to reflect democratic interests and values," he reasoned.
The Delaware Democrat has blasted Trump's propensity for designating imports from the European Union and Canada, America's
"closest allies", as national security threats, damaging long-entrenched relationships with "reckless tariffs".
"By cutting us off from the economic clout of our partners, Trump has kneecapped our country's capacity to take on the real
economic threat," he wrote, pointing to China.
No more 'forever wars' in the Middle East
Biden has pledged to "re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal, "negotiated by the Obama-Biden administration alongside our allies and
other world powers" -- namely France, Germany, the UK, the EU, China and Russia. He credits the accord with having blocked
Iran
from
obtaining a nuclear weapon and blames Trump's decision to cast it aside for prompting Iran to rekindle its nuclear ambitions
and adopt a more provocative stance. Biden has pledged to rejoin the agreement "if Tehran returns to compliance" and use
"hard-nosed diplomacy and support from our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against
Iran's other destabilising activities".
Meanwhile, the former vice-president has also said he would "end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen".
Although he has said Trump's unilateral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made the two-state solution for
Israel that Biden backs more difficult, he has said he
would
keep the embassy
Trump moved to Jerusalem in 2018 where it is. Biden has welcomed the normalising of relations the Trump
administration helped negotiate
between
Israel and Gulf states
in recent months.
The Democrat has pledged to sustain "an ironclad commitment to Israel's security". He has also cautioned the country over its
treatment of the Palestinian territories,
saying
earlier this year
, "Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off
any hope of peace."
In terms of US military commitments in the region, Biden has advocated bringing home the vast majority of American troops in
the Middle East and Afghanistan, in favour of narrowing the focus to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group. He wants to end the
"forever wars" the US has waged in the region.
Daily newsletter
Receive essential international news every morning
"We must maintain our focus on counter-terrorism, around the world and at home, but staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts
drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other
instruments of American power," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.
No hard-border Brexit
It would be a misnomer to count
Brexit
as
among Biden's hot-button policy issues. Indeed, while Trump ally Boris Johnson and his Conservative leadership in London once
looked forward to negotiating an "ambitious" post-Brexit trade deal with the US, neither Biden's campaign website's outline of
his foreign policy priorities nor the former vice president's quasi-manifesto in Foreign Affairs makes any mention of the
United Kingdom per se or its divorce proceedings from the EU. What is clear is that Biden is not poised to cater to the
so-called "Special Relationship" at any cost.
"We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit," the
president-elect, a noted Irish-American,
tweeted
in September
. "Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the
return of a hard border. Period."
Not quite Twitter diplomacy as Trump might conduct it, but the president-elect's sentiment won't have escaped Downing Street's
attention as it turns the page on Europe.
Independent commentator Caitlin Johnstone is raining on the parade of Liberals and
Progressives who are hailing "barriers being broken" merely because Joe Biden is expected to
pick a woman for the top Pentagon post in a historic first, blasting
the spectacle as "Imperialism in Pumps" given presumed top choice Michele Flournoy hails
from deep within the heart of the hawkish military-industrial complex .
"President-elect Joe Biden is expected to take a historic step and select a woman to head
the Pentagon for the first time, shattering one of the few remaining barriers to women in the
department and the presidential Cabinet," the
Associated Press reported gushingly this weekend.
Seen as a steady hand who favors strong military cooperation abroad , Flournoy, 59, has
served multiple times in the Pentagon, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the
undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012. She serves on the board of Booz Allen
Hamilton , a defense contractor...
This word "moderate" which the AP news agency keeps bleating is of course complete
nonsense. Standing in the middle ground between two corporatist warmongering parties does not
make you a moderate, it makes you a corporatist warmonger. Flournoy is no more "moderate"
than the "moderate rebels" in Syria which mass media outlets like AP praised for years until
it became undeniable that they were largely Al Qaeda affiliates ; the
only reason such a position can be portrayed as mainstream and moderate is because vast
fortunes have been poured into making it that way.
She highlights the nauseating spectacle of MSNBC and others attempting to frame it as a
great achievement for feminism:
"White progressives training their fire on women and women of color who are under
consideration to lead the nat sec departments makes me deeply uncomfortable about their
allyship for those communities," tweeted MSNBC contributor
Mieke Eoyang. "Especially when the nat sec community is dominated by white men."
It's only going to get dumber from here, folks.
Let's clear this up before the girl power parade starts: the first woman to head the US
war machine will not be a groundbreaking pioneer of feminist achievement. She will be a mass
murderer who wears Spanx. Her appointment will not be an advancement for women, it will be
imperialism in pumps.
Glenn Greenwald also pointed out the obvious in terms of what's really going on here,
deriding "the neoliberal scam of exploiting identity politics" .
Greenwald came under attack for so much as daring to question Flournoy's potential
appointment on the mere basis that one supposedly can't possibly question the choice when
"barriers are being broken" (and nevermind that a woman, Gina Haspel, currently runs the most
powerful spy agency in the world).
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Greenwald wrote of this tactic: "It belongs as a Hall of Fame exhibit showing why Democratic
Party neoliberals and militarists are indescribably deceitful and repulsive."
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all of Obama's more aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors
to profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop artificial intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec Advisors.
Nicholas Burns
was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2008, he
has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director and
Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
Samantha Power
served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National Security Council.
She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S.'s "crippling sanctions" on Iran and
North Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, the climate crisis, mass extinction, and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5 percent of their budget), trying to
clean up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism, and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the No. 2 position at the State
Department, and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As
Under Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a
prescient and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the No. 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome, and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea, and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs (or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine, or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats).
But this will be a long two years if we let Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on
critical appointments, policies, and legislation. Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be
an early test of whether Biden will be the consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight
for real solutions to our country's most serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas.
If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still
believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign
policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be
undermined by four more years of war, hostility, and international tensions -- and our most
serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More
War: How the West Violates International Law by Using "Humanitarian" Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests. You might have noticed something curious following
Biden's apparent election win – liberal politicians and media are sounding the alarm that
Trump may use his remaining months in office to draw down our troops from Afghanistan.
For example, the New York Times ran a piece on
November 12 claiming that " both in Kabul and Washington, officials with knowledge of
security briefings said there was fear that President Trump might try to accelerate an all-out
troop withdrawal in his final days in office " before the more "responsible" Biden can take
over and try to stop or at least slow this. It is clear now that it is the liberal
establishment, and the Democratic Party, which is more wedded to war than their counterparts
across the aisle, and that should be disturbing to people hoping for progressive change with
the incoming Administration.
First of all, we must start with this discussion with the undisputed fact that our leaders
do not know, and have not known for some time, what the US' goals and strategy in Afghanistan
even are. One would be forgiven for not knowing, or for forgetting this fact because the
incontrovertible evidence of it – the so-called "
Afghanistan Papers " – received scant and only momentary attention when they were
exposed last year by the Washington Post.
As these documents, consisting of interviews with hundreds of insiders responsible for
prosecuting the war show, the American public was intentionally lied to about the alleged "
progress " of this war, even as our leaders were unsure what " progress "
meant.
As the Washington Post noted, the US government never even decided who it was really
fighting there: " Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an
adversary? What about Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone
the warlords on the CIA's payroll? According to the documents, the US government never settled
on an answer ." Almost to a person, everyone involved in this morass agreed that the
billions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, have been in vain. It has all been a
colossal waste.
Now, however, we are being told to panic that Trump may end this disastrous conflict. For
example, the quite liberal and almost blatantly pro-Biden news outlet, National Public Radio
(NPR) ran segments all last week about
female soccer teams in Afghanistan. The message of these segments was clear – these
soccer teams are (allegedly) proof of women's advances in Afghanistan as a result of the US'
intervention since 2001, and these advances are in jeopardy if Trump ends this
intervention.
Such manipulative stories of course obscure the real fact that the US has been undermining
women's rights in Afghanistan since it began intervening there in 1979, and Afghanistan
still
ranks at the very bottom of all countries for women's rights. But there is no doubt that
such stories will warm the hearts of many Biden supporters to continue war there.
Meanwhile, it is not only Afghanistan which is the focus of the liberal enthusiasm for war.
Thus, as the Grayzone
has reported , Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressionally-appointed Syria
Study Group, recently outlined the plans for even deeper US intervention in Syria – an
intervention which Trump has at least paid lip service to ending.
Specifically, Stroul emphasized that " one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US
military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces, " that this territory
happened to be the richest in Syria in terms of oil and agriculture, and that the US would
intensify its intervention in and against Syria to keep its control of this territory and its
resources. Of course, taking over other nations' resources is a violation of international law,
including the Geneva Conventions prohibition against "plunder," but that seems to be of no
concern.
The liberal media is also elated by the prospect of a Biden White House being more
aggressive in its foreign policy towards both Russia and China.
As CNBC explains
, " Now there is likely to be a change in the air when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations. At
the very least, analysts told CNBC before the result that they expected a Biden win to increase
tensions between Washington and Moscow, and to raise the probability of new sanctions on
Russia...Experts from risk consultancy Teneo Intelligence said they expected more cooperation
between Biden and Europe on global issues such as 'countering China, Russia' ."
While one might think that increased tensions with two major nuclear powers would not be a
welcome development, years of the false Russiagate narrative have groomed liberals for such
tensions.
Incredibly, Trump has been portrayed as being soft on Russia, even as he backed out of a
major
anti-proliferation treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which had been
signed with the Kremlin back in 1987, and even as he
sent the largest contingent of US troops (20,000) in a quarter of a century to train with
European soldiers on the Russian border. I must note here that the converse – Russia's
sending tens of thousands of troops to the border with the US – is simply inconceivable
and would indeed be seen in Washington as an occasion for war. I, for one, am quite alarmed to
think of what a Biden policy of "getting tougher" with Russia would look like, and what kind of
catastrophe it could bring about.
Regretfully, I now live in a country in which liberals outflanking conservatives in terms of
their tolerance and even eagerness for aggression and war, especially when that aggression and
war is being led by officials who, as I'm sure we will see in the new Biden Administration,
happen to be women or people of color. For the first time recently, I have seen the concept of
"intersectional imperialism" being used to describe this situation, and I believe this to be a
very real phenomenon; to be but another means of making war that much easier to swallow for
broad swaths of the American public.
The irony, of course, is that the bombs dropped by the US in war, no matter who happens to
be in charge of the US government at the time, disproportionately fall upon women and children
of a darker skin hue, and they maim and kill just as much as those dropped by old white male
Republicans. Sadly, few seem to understand or care about this.
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.
benalls 31 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:27 AM
It's not the "left" or "right", republicans or democrats, but a new American movement,,,,
CBM,,, wich usually means 'silent but deadly' but in this case it stands for "CEO's Bonus
Matters" . The movement congressional members from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing vowed to
support. Its time for us to grab our shields, helmets, and frozen water bottles and travel to
a new neighborhood to loot and burn. Israel has given Harris and JOJO their instructions.
razzims 49 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:10 AM
same ol empire of chaos and their eternal war. no matter which party wins election
HypoxiaMasks 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 09:42 AM
Other than the Bush and lil Bush, every war from the beginning of the 20th century was
started with a Democrat president. Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of war
MarkG1964 5 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:54 AM
The democrats and republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War is a documentary short
reviewing the role of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in leading the United States into the most
devastating foreign policy blunder of the last twenty years.
Produced and directed by Mark
Weisbrot and narrated by Danny
Glover , the film features archival footage, as well as policy experts who provide insight
and testimony with regard to Joe Biden's role as the Chair of the United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002.
Lawrence Wilkerson
, Former Chief of Staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell; Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary;
U.S. Army Colonel, Retired
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vhcuei8_UJM
*
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 possibility of eased sanctions with Iran, while extremely important, is not guaranteed
and will be offset by Biden's own commitment to imperialist plunder in the region. One cannot
forget that Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars
from two to seven. In eight years, Biden assisted in the
coup of Honduras , the overthrow of Libya , and
the ongoing proxy
war in Syria . Biden's commitment to the WHO should not negate his firm opposition to any
single-payer model of healthcare and the large sums of
money he receives from the very healthcare industry which has ensured the U.S. is without a
public health system all together.
"Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars from two to seven."
Biden and the Democratic Party are joint partners with the GOP in the facilitation of the
ongoing Race to the Bottom for the working class. Wall Street
donated heavily to Biden with full knowledge that his administration will continue to
support the right of corporations to drive down wages, increase productivity (exploitation),
and concentrate capital in fewer and fewer hands. Boeing's CEO stated clearly clear that his
business prospects would be served
regardless of who won the election . Prison stocks rose after Biden announced Kamala Harris
as his
vice president . On November 4th, Reuters announced that the lords of capital were
quite pleased that
no major policy changes were likely under the new political regime elected to Congress and
the Oval Office.
Biden will inevitably rule as a rightwing neoconservative in all areas of policy. His big
tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as large as Hillary
Clinton's in 2016. Over 100 former GOP war hawks of the national security state endorsed
Biden in the closing weeks of the election. Larry Summers, a chief architect of the
2007-2008 economic crisis,
advised his campaign . Susan Rice and Michele Flournoy are likely to join Biden's
foreign policy team -- a key indication that trillions will continue to be spent on
murderous wars abroad.
The question remains whether Biden can effectively govern like prior Democratic Party
administrations. American exceptionalism is the Democratic Party's ideological base, but this
ideology is entangled in the general crisis of legitimacy afflicting the U.S. state. Biden's
ability to forward a project of "decency" that restores the "soul of the nation" is hampered by
his attitude that "nothing will fundamentally change" for the rich. Biden also lacks charisma
and talent. While millions were ready to vote for anyone and anything not named Donald Trump,
four years of austerity and war under a president with obvious signs of cognitive decline is
guaranteed to sharpen the contradictions of the rule of the rich and open the potential for
further unrest on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.
"Biden's big tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as
large as Hillary Clinton's in 2016."
To maintain social peace, Biden will use the Oval Office to consolidate its corporate forces
to suffocate left wing forces inside and outside of the Democratic Party. The graveyard of
social movements will expand to occupy the largest plot of political territory as possible. A
"moderate" revolution will be declared for the forces of progress in the ruling class. Perhaps
the best that can be summoned from a Biden administration is the advancement of consciousness
that the Democratic Party is just as opposed to social democracy and the interests of the
working classes as Republicans. Plenty of opportunities exist to challenge the intransigence of
the Democrats but just as many obstacles will be thrown in the way of any true exercise of
people's power.
The 2020 election is yet another reminder that social movements must become the focus of
politics, not the electoral process. This is where an internationalist vision of politics is
especially important. Social movements in Bolivia returned their socialist party to power after
a year living under a U.S.-backed coup. Massive grassroots mobilizations in Cuba, Vietnam, and
China contained the COVID-19 pandemic in a matter of months. Ethiopia and Eritrea have agreed
to forge peace rather than wage war. The winds of progress have been blowing toward the Global
South for more than a century. The most progressive changes that have ever occurred in the U.S.
have been a combined product of the mass organization of the U.S.' so-called internal colonies
such as Black America and the external pressures placed on the U.S. empire by movements for
self-determination abroad.
The 2020 election has come and gone. What we know is that Biden is a repudiation of
revolutionary change. Humanity will suffer many losses even if more of the oppressed and
working masses become aware of Biden and the DNC's hostile class interests. Trump was rejected
by a corporate-owned electoral process just as Clinton was rejected in 2016. Politics in the
U.S. remain confined to the narrow ideological possibilities offered by neoliberalism and
imperial decay. Oppressed people must create and embrace a politics that take aim at the forces
of reaction currently pushing humanity to the brink of total destruction. The only way this can
happen is if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party become the primary target of the
people's fight for a new world.
*
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.
Danny Haiphong is co-coordinator of the Black Alliance for Peace Supporter Network and
organizer with No Cold War. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American
Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News–From the
Revolutionary War to the War on Terror (Skyhorse Publishing). His articles are re-published
widely as well as on Patreon at patreon.com/dannyhaiphong. He is also the co-host with BAR
Editor Margaret Kimberley of the Youtube show BAR Presents: The Left Lens and can be reached on
Twitter @spiritofho, and email at [email protected].
Elephants in the Room: Why Do America and Britain Commit War Crimes? Neoliberalism and
Predatory CapitalismPart II By Rod Driver Global Research, November 15,
2020 Region: Europe ,
USA Theme: History ,
US NATO War
Agenda
"I spent 33 years being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American Sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."(1) (Major-General Smedley D. Butler,
1931 , US Marine Corps)
Once people understand the extent of the crimes of the US and British governments, the next
question they ask themselves is 'Why?'
The quote above shows clearly that US war and economic exploitation are two sides of the
same coin. Military aggression by rich nations often supports the economic interests of a small
number of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations. Decisions about
wars and decisions about how the world's trading system is structured are each made by a small
number of powerful people.
This includes not only politicians, but also senior executives in industry, particularly
banking, oil, mining, food and weapons. Most of these people live in the world's advanced
nations, particularly the US. I shall use the phrase 'Western elites' to refer to these people.
Some of these elites have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to make sure that their position
of power and wealth in the world is maintained. In 1948 the US had only 6% of the world's
population but 50% of the world's wealth. A US official stated at the time that their aim was
"to maintain this position of disparity"(2). As will become clear throughout these posts, the
views of US planners have changed little in the last 70 years.
Control of Resources and Trade
What is important in the minds of Western elites can be summed up by the phrase 'control of
resources and trade'. This is a shorthand way of summarising a number of connected ideas.
Resources include things like land, oil, minerals, crops and human labor. Rich countries want
poor countries to allow global corporations to extract and process these resources, and to take
them overseas, without too much interference from national governments, whatever the downsides
for local people. Rich countries also want poor countries to have economic systems that will
allow global corporations to dominate trade, buying and selling in order to make substantial
profits, without being too restricted by local laws. Again, this applies even where there are
downsides for local people.
Western elites therefore want leaders in other countries who will implement the 'right'
economic system. This means a particularly exploitative version of capitalism, sometimes called
neoliberalism or predatory capitalism, including widespread privatisation, weaker regulations
for big companies, and decreases in government expenditure, known as austerity. (These economic
policies will be discussed in more detail in later posts). The global financial and trade
system is manipulated deliberately and systematically to create this outcome. This might sound
like a conspiracy, but it does not really work that way. Provided everyone just plays their
part (corporate executives and bankers pursue profit, politicians make laws that favor
corporations, and trade negotiators from rich countries try to create trading agreements that
benefit their corporations), the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Blocking Independent Development
If leaders in other countries want to determine their own economic systems, this is known as
independent development. This does not mean that a country cuts itself off from the rest of the
world, or does not engage in trade. It simply means that the leaders of a country refuse to
implement neoliberal economic policies that allow corporations from rich countries to dominate
their economies, to plunder their resources, or to exploit their people. Western elites have
tried very hard to block independent development, because it limits their control. Leaders who
object to being exploited by rich nations can be overthrown and replaced, often causing
devastating consequences for their people, particularly the poor. The new leaders are often
referred to as US clients. They usually cooperate with the US because this helps them gain
power and wealth in their own country. Getting these rulers into power can be quite tricky.
Techniques range from manipulating elections right up to full-scale military invasion.
US Dominance
The US in particular has two other key goals. It wants to maintain a global financial system
based around the US dollar, and it would like to ensure that no other country becomes strong
enough, either militarily or economically, to be a rival. In 2018 the US announced that its
main focus was no longer on the 'war on terror', but would focus on "inter-state strategic
competition"(3), meaning Russia and China.
Whenever the reasons for a war are discussed in the mainstream, there is a tendency to look
for a single explanatory factor. In practice there tend to be a cluster of factors, often
connected to each other, that all push in the same direction. As well as the reasons discussed
above, there are plenty of big corporations that frequently benefit from war. This includes the
weapons industry, financial companies, private military contractors (mercenaries), oil and
minerals companies, and more recently many companies that win contracts to participate in the
reconstruction process in war zones.(4)
The Importance of Oil
Oil in the Middle East has been described as
"a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world
history."(5)
Without oil, most advanced economies would grind to a halt. Of all the resources that
American leaders want to control, by far the most important is oil. Their control of oil is not
so much about wanting it all for themselves. It is more about being able to deny it to
others.(6) Anything that a country cannot produce for itself, but needs badly, can be used as a
means of control. A shortage of oil for a country such as China would make life very difficult
for them. This is the main reason that the major wars of the 21 st century have been
in oil rich regions. Specific motives relating to recent wars will be discussed in later
posts.
How Do We Know The Real Reasons For British and US Wars
Until 2006 it was difficult to know what politicians and government decision-makers were
really saying to each other about their reasons for wars and other activities. The government
kept many files secret in order to hide their crimes. In the UK we had to wait for 30 years
(this has now been reduced to 20 years) until some of these files became declassified. During
that period, we had to rely on the word of politicians and journalists for information. The
declassified files show that politicians often lie, particularly about their reasons for war,
and that mainstream media are not sufficiently questioning.(7) Time and again, the mainstream
media would show clips of Prime Ministers and Presidents saying 'We want peace', while those
same individuals were responsible for major wars. The files also show that Politicians use
concepts like 'national security' or 'official secrets' to cover up their crimes.
In 2006 a man named Julian Assange set up a new organisation called Wikileaks. This enabled
whistleblowers (people who witness criminal or unethical activity, usually by their employers)
to make information available to the public without their identity becoming known. Millions of
documents were given to Wikileaks exposing widespread war crimes by the British and US
governments, and widespread criminal activity by other governments and big companies. All of
these documents are available online and can be examined by anyone.(8)
Key Points
US and British wars are about control of trade and resources in other countries.
Of all the resources that the US wants to control, oil is the most important.
*
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.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking
modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the second in a series entitled Elephants In The
Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what's really going on in
relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream
media.
A pair of progressive House Democrats is urging President-elect Joe Biden not to nominate a Pentagon chief who has
previously worked for a defense contractor.
"Respectfully, and in full agreement with your past statements, we write to request that the
next secretary of Defense have no prior employment history with a defense contractor," Reps.
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
wrote in a letter to Biden released Thursday.
Pocan is the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Lee is the caucus's
chairwoman emeritus.
Flournoy's career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the
Pentagon and consulting firms that help businesses procure Pentagon contracts. In 2018, she
joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, an IT company that played an important role in Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2015 drive to consolidate power. Booz Allen employs dozens of
retired American military personnel to train the Saudi Navy and provide logistics for the
Saudi Army. They deny helping the Saudi war in Yemen, and if you believe that
It's true – we probably won't like anyone appointed to Secretary of Defense.
But we must firmly oppose the fundamental conflict of interest that occurs when the official
selected to oversee the Defense Department is beholden to the same companies that stand to
gain enormous profit under their tenure. We oppose Michele Flournoy and any candidate for
Secretary of Defense with ties to revolving doors of the Pentagon because when the military
contractors calls the shots, we get:
The sale of even more weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, further fueling those
repressive regimes and their war on Yemen
More money wasted on the Pentagon – despite the country being in dire need of
resources to combat the pandemic, stop climate change, and guarantee universal
healthcare
An escalation of the US's reckless cold war with China – which could turn into a
hot war, endangering millions of people around the globe
More drones, more money for weapons contractors, more violence and more death, at home
and abroad.
With this new administration and new progressive voices in Congress – Cori Bush and
Jamaal Bowman, for example – we have a real chance to prioritize peace over war. We
already have efforts in the works to finally end U.S. support for the war on Yemen, slash the
Pentagon budget, de-escalate the growing conflict with China, and advocate for a New Good
Neighbor Policy in Latin America. But these campaigns for peace, especially the work to end
the war in Yemen, could be in serious trouble if Michele Flournoy, or anyone who shuffles
between the revolving doors of the Pentagon and military contractors, is appointed to lead
the Department of Defense. Tell
Congress: Americans don't want someone who has supported the war in Yemen running the US
military! Don't support Michele Flournoy or any candidate with ties to military companies as
Secretary of Defense!
We knew we'd have to hit the ground running with a Biden presidency, and it looks like our
first urgent call to action is here. Contact your
Senators now!
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it "the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might just
benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
Many of the president-elect's potential picks for foreign policy positions -- including
Susan Rice and Michele Flourney -- have onlookers worried. "With a Biden administration, we can
expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria.
Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks,
that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists
in Washington," Dave
DeCamp , assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress . "His administration will
likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and
coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China."
Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under
Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40
million . After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid
$366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company's
stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron
(whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She
was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher
sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the
Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After "serving the
country," she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her
own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000
annually.
"Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is
concerning," Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told
MintPress .
This isn't just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that's
alarming -- can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their
government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business
conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private
sector career?"
"Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It's
highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the
voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen
conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks
volumes," said Mariamne
Everett of the Institute for Public
Accuracy . Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq
War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.
Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was "a major liberal
interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also
publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global
dominance," something which would be a "disaster for containing climate
catastrophe."
The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new
administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the
way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting , "When I'm speaking to
foreign leaders, I'm telling them: America is going to be back. We're going to be back in the
game." To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will
likely not comfort them . DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy
between Trump and Biden administrations:
Despite Trump being painted as an 'isolationist,' his administration has actually
expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and
significantly increased Washington's military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue
this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China's
claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate."
Flournoy meets with Afghan Army personnel during a tour of the Kabul Military Training
Center Aug. 7, 2010. Photo | DVIDS
Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice
advising him, the Biden administration would "expand" on what Trump had done in Palestine as
well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends
to revive the so-called "anti-corruption drives" of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew
an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair
Bolsonaro.
Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and
organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and
the Paris Climate Agreement.
I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela,
ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict
continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say,
co-operation and stopping climate change," he added.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden
will have "the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled." If
representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life
will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden's wealthy picks, it
appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class
Americans.
"What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal," Jeffrey said.
" ... even as he praises the president's support of what he describes as a successful
"realpolitik" approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior
leaders about troop levels in Syria.
"We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we
had there," Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is "a
lot more than" the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
Defense One
-------------
"We?" Who are "We?"
State Department people? Well, certainly some of those were involved.
But ... IMO it would not have been possible to deceive or mislead the WH and specifically
the Commander in Chief without the active cooperation of CENTCOM, the JCS and OSD.
If they had not been participating in the lying, it would have been obvious in any number of
interactions with President Trump that the president's understanding of troop numbers in Syria
was not correct and that he was being deceived by "we." (whoever that was). That revelation
evidently did not happen. The NSC staff should have detected the lack of truth in reported
numbers. That it did not tells me that at least some of the NSC staff were disloyal to Trump.
Obvious? Yes, but that is worth re-stating.
James Jeffrey is quite proud of his achievement in maintaining a "realpolik" stalemate in
Syria, one that stymies both Russia and the Syrian government.
IMO opinion he is revealed by his own words as a treacherous back stabber. "Un hombre
sin honor." pl
This is exactly the result of Trump's lack of interest in fulfilling his original promise
of ending the "forever wars" in the middle east. This is exactly the result of putting
opelny-Democrat Jared Kushner (a lifelong member of Chabad-Lubavich network) and his ilk in
charge of the middle east geopolitics.
It also clearly proves that the State Dep. is a monsterous autonomous entity with its own
permanent objectives and agendas, independent of the WH. No matter what Trump wanted to
achieve in the ME, the so-called Blob (or as Col. Lang here has coined as the "BORG") do what
they will. You have to also remember that back in '17, career diplomats and high-ranking
State Dep. officials sounded the alarm that Rex Tillerson was down-sizing the Department so
much and that it was contrary to American interests abroad etc...fast forward to today, it
would not have mattered how much down-sizing Tillerson actually managed to do, they (people
like Jeffries) were still able to pursue their own agenda and undermine Trump's original
promise of ending the forever wars in the middle east.
The liberal elites managed to 'allegedly' manipulate the election against a sitting
president in favor of an highly unappealing candidate in Joe Biden. In all honesty, does
anyone think the Blob/Borg would NOT undermine the president's agenda and follow their own
permanent objectives aboard?
Trump should be furious about this. He should be firing everyone involved in the
deception. Those involved don't belong in ANY administration. Was convincing Trump that he
was getting the Syrian oil part of this despicable con? As you mentioned last night, this
deception is probably also going on in Afghanistan. This is a clear sign of a totally
dysfunctional nation security apparatus... Trump's national security apparatus. Could Trump
find no one he could trust to carry out his orders? Or did he just not even care? He
certainly wasn't up to the task.
However, our troop level in Syria has been widely and openly reported to be above the 200
level since Trump's initial announcement of a total pull out in December 2018. I thought it
was odd when shortly after that it was announced that more troops were being sent in to
facilitate the withdrawal of the 2,000 plus troops already there. We did reduce the level
somewhat, but then we brought in mech infantry with their Bradleys to secure the oil fields
and later more to counter the Russian patrols in northeast Syria. And isn't counting whatever
we have in Tanf.
"He should be firing everyone involved in the deception"
He just fired Esper. "Trump's national security apparatus." You mean America's natonal
security apparatus, the one that gave us LTC Vindman and that crew of Ambassadors, and the
'whistlebolower' Chief Justice Robert's wouldn't let any senator name nor ask questions about
during the impeachment. You remember all that don't you? I'm sure the same cast of characters
Biden would bring back if he succeeds in the rigged election would never do that to him.
COL(R) Mark Mitchell stated the following recently, regarding the duties and
responsibilities of the SECDEF in response to POTUS directives. The comments were in regard
to Acting SECDEF Miller (a longtime friend and colleague of Mitchell), but apply to any
Cabinet or sub-Cabinet post:
"He [POTUS] may make decisions that other people disagree with. They have two options:
they can do what he directs them to do, or after they've offered their advice, if they find
it illegal, immoral, unethical, unadvisable, they can step down," retired Col. Mark Mitchell,
who most recently served in the Pentagon as the principal deputy assistant defense secretary
for special operations/low-intensity conflict.
Mitchell added that he resented the implication at the defense secretary should be
expected to stand up to the president, or in his way, as the duly elected commander in
chief.
"You either carry out your lawful orders or you resign," he said. "We don't get the option
to 'stand up to him.' "(End of quote)
Unfortunately, President Trump made many poor personnel decisions, and selected people who
believed they had the duty and right to work against the President from within the
Administration. This has driven me nuts for the last four years, as I have watched senior
civilian and uniformed leaders actively undermining the Commander-in-Chief. They weren't
subtle about it. For whatever reason, they mostly got away with it.
To be clear, I am not writing this as a Trump supporter. As a career military
professional, I have a duty to support the Commander-in-Chief, and obey lawful orders from
the Commander-in-Chief.
It is very easy to play shell games with the BOG caps in the war zones.
Looking forward to a reprise of Trump's former starring role in The Apprentice, and
finally uttering yet again his immortal words: You're Fired!
The final days of Trump's first term are going to be awesome. Banish the Borg. BAMN. Put
Biden's fingerprints on any re-hiring.
Typically a new CEO will ask for everyone's resignation, and select and cull according to
new needs and new directions. Something Trump should have done, but he too was the apprentice
in this office when his term began.
Nothing to stop Trump from doing this now in reverse, and finally cleaning out the dross
that was dedicated to his administration's destruction. Better late than never. Our country
deserves nothing less. These insider traitors deserve to have their termination for cause
permanently be part in their career resumes.
It appears that POTUS Trump once his re-election is affirmed, urgently needs to fire a
large percentage of top-level ranks at the Pentagon, fire the CENTCOM CC and his staff, fire
the JCS, close down the NSC until it's thoroughly bleached, and charge all of them under the
UCMJ. Bust them down to slick-sleeves and show them the door. How many back-stabbing Vindman
types remain within the NSC? They need to be fired and prosecuted under the UCMJ as well.
As a citizen I am having great difficulty not concluding that the US is showing all the
signs of decline like the late Roman Republic.
James Jeffrey along with the rest of the herd that have run one agitprop disinformation
scheme after another since the 2016 election are like the roman senators that had the intent
to save the Republic but fatally weakened it by killing Caesar at its very center, in the
Senate.
Biden's people are openly calling for even more internet censorship and continuing to rush
out inherently dangerous mRNA vaccines without proper testing - and may force us to take it.
Groups are starting to create a database of Trump supporters to enable censoring them where
they work and live - what is this other than terrorism against half the voting population? If
just five percent of the 70M that voted for Trump moves together in resistance then the new
regime herd will be holding a tiger by is tail and with the election showing the people are
split right down the middle I fail to see how we can avoid even much worse chaos the next
four years. The American Republic is disintegrating while the herd is having a romp and
thinks it is winning while they are its assassins.
I am sick at heart of this and fear for the future of my children whose standard of living
opportunities are in free-fall.
We are shocked, SHOCKED! that military bureaucrats are acting in the same ways that they
always have. Come on now. The job of president is to get all these people to work in concert
to an extent adequate for getting things to come out mostly in our favor. None of this is
unique to Trump. Nearly every president in my lifetime has had to learn to deal with these
aspects of the military. Jimmy Carter trusted them to plan a rescue mission. They used navy
pilots for a mission over the desert! With no extra to enable adaptation to events! Ronald
Reagan sent a battleship to Lebanon and then found out the brass wouldn't take the risk of
actually using it for anything. Not to mention the superbly uncoordinated near simultaneous
invasion of Grenada. John Kennedy accepted a duplicitous projection of events for the bay of
pigs. Bill Clinton got caught in Somalia. George W. got sucked into a strategically unplanned
invasion of Iraq. Obama was told that an 18-month escalation would resolve Afghanistan. He
believed it! Boy were they shocked when he actually enforced the deadline. This is not a
criticism of any of those presidents. It is normal, however bizarre that may sound. My point
is that they mostly get bit once and learn not to trust the military's own estimates of what
they can or should do. Then they begin to do the job more adequately. They learn to pay
attention to goals and to manage their resources. Trump does not seem capable of this kind of
learning. The last months of an administration are not the time to suddenly discover the
nature of the organizations you are leading. And in any case, there is no time left for
learning how to get actual results.
JFK never should have unionized the government workforce.
Pits existential self-interests against patriotic national interest, should these
interests become in conflict. FDR warned against doing this. More attention needs to be paid
to this fundamental national turning point.
What ills were cured by this act (EO) and has the cure become worse than the perceived
disease. Must like term limits in California - the cure was 100 times worse than the original
disease.
Entrenched political personalities come and go; entrenched and corrupted political systems
are forever, because in the process they learned to self-perpetuate.
Name your favorite EO to strike down with an counter-mand EO, before a sitting president
leaves office:
1. Anchor baby citizenship triggering chain migration
2. Unionized government workforce
1. Use Democrat's standard politics of personal destruction to attack and harass any Trump
appointments; make working for the Trump administration so undesirable none dare even ask for
consideration.
2. Tie up the President's time with endless personal attacks, lies and investigations, so
Trump has no time as elected Chief Executive to oversee and clean up valid government
operations;
3. Take advantage of Trump's exclusively private sector experience to lull Trump into
thinking entrenched government BORGs are loyal government employees, who serve only to help
Trump carry out his Executive Office duties;
4. Leak like crazy; make things up if necessary that ensure the Trump administration
narrative appears chaotic and dysfunctional. Claim anonymous sources that undermine positive
functioning within Trump administration. Make everyone suspicious of everyone else.
5. Obliterate any recognition for the remarkable Trump administration accomplishments that
occurred, regardless of all of the above.
6. Pout relentlessly because regardless of the above, the President and the GOP Senate
appointed over 200 new federal judge and 3 new SCOTUS members.
7. In full public view, tear up the SOTU address listing remarkable administration
accomplishments mouthing - these are all lies -- laying down the gauntlet for all out
war.
8. Gin up pandemic hysteria to fill in any and all loopholes not yet covered by all of the
above.
Democrat skullduggery may have effectively destroyed an temporal administration, but Trump
Judiciary appointments are the equivalent of a very welcomed forever.
President Trump, you are missed already. But I suspect in short order it is you, who will
not miss the office. You are enshrined forever - #45 as President of the United States of
America. History will treat you far kinder than your current fellow citizens.
You broke up the Democrat plantation. You exposed the dark underbelly of the body politic.
Mission accomplished. There is no going back.
this sounds like the definition of a traitor to me - jeffery.... on the other hand one
could say he is working for wall st and the mil complex and has done a good job... which is
it??
I don't understand this. Trump is the Commander in Chief, at any time he could have asked
a straight-up question: How. Many. Troops. Do. We. Still. Have. In. Syria?
I find it astonishing that the military leadership would tell a lie to their Commander in
Chief when the question itself leaves no wriggle-room.
Heck, Trump could has asked for a list of every single one of those brave 200 boys, and
even if it included Name, Rank, and Serial Number that would still fit on a single
letter-sized printout.
I can't understand how Jeffrey's and his band of "we's" could get away with this unless
Trump wasn't paying any attention at all.
To those watching the drama unfolding in Washington, DC around the stalled efforts on the
part of nominal President-elect Joe Biden in forming a transition team, the parallels are
eerily familiar: a bitterly contested election between an establishment political figure and a
brash DC 'outsider', a controversial outcome delaying the implementation of the transition
between administrations, and an openly condescending atmosphere where the incoming team
postured as comprising a return to 'adult' leadership.
That time was December 2000, when a Republican team led by President-elect George W. Bush
stood ready to install a cabinet composed of veteran spies, diplomats, and national security
managers who had cut their policy teeth during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush. With Colin Powell as secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense,
George Tenet as director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice as national security
advisor, the foreign policy and national security team that Dubya surrounded himself with upon
assuming the presidency was as experienced a team as one could imagine.
And yet, within two years of assuming their responsibilities, this team of 'adults' had
presided over the worst terrorist attack in American history, and the initiation of two wars
(in Afghanistan and Iraq) that would forever change both the geopolitical map of the world and
America's role as world leader.
Twenty years later, the roles have reversed, with an experienced team of veteran 'adults'
hailing from the eight-year tenure of President Barack Obama preparing to transition the US
away from four tumultuous years of the presidency of Donald J. Trump. While Biden has not
finalized his foreign policy and national security team, there is a consensus among experienced
political observers about who the top contenders might be for the 'big four' foreign and
national security policy positions in his administration.
While there is no doubting the experience and professional credentials of these potential
nominees, they all have one thing in common: a proclivity for military intervention on the part
of the US. For anyone who hoped that a Biden administration might complete the task begun by
President Trump of leading America out of the 'forever wars' initiated by the 'adults' of the
administration of George W. Bush, these choices represent a wake-up call that this will not be
the likely outcome.
Moreover, a potential Biden cabinet would more than likely complement the existing
predilection on the part of the president-elect for military intervention, pointing to a
foreign and national security policy which not only sustains the existing conflicts in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, but increases the likelihood of additional military
misadventures. The Biden team will almost certainly seek to shoehorn the president-elect's
aggressive "America is back" philosophy into a geopolitical reality that is not inclined to
accept such a role sitting down.
So who's likely to fill what role?
Secretary of State
The hands-on favorite here is Susan Rice, who served as both national security advisor and
US ambassador to the United Nations under Barack Obama. Biden knows her very well, and they
have a great working relationship. With a history of promoting US intervention in Syria and
Libya, Rice would more than likely support any policy suggestions concerning a re-engagement by
the US in Syria in an effort to contain and/or overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and would be reticent
to withdraw US forces from either Afghanistan or Iraq.
She would also most likely seek hardline 'confrontational' policies designed to 'roll-back'
Russian influence in Europe and the Middle East, as well as China's claims regarding the South
China Sea. Rice would seek to strengthen the military aspects of NATO to better position that
organization against Russia in Europe, and China in the Pacific.
A Rice nomination could run afoul of a Republican-controlled Senate, where a source close to
the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has noted that a "
Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees " but would oppose "radical
progressives" or ones who are controversial among conservatives.
While Rice is not a "radical progressive," the Republicans continue to condemn her actions
while serving as the US ambassador to the UN in response to the 2012 terrorist attack on the US
Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans – including the US ambassador to
Libya – dead. This controversy prevented her from becoming secretary of state during
Obama's second term, and one can expect a very contentious Senate hearing if she is nominated,
with no guarantee that she would pass.
An equally qualified, but far less controversial, woman is the likely nominee for this
position. Michele Flournoy, if nominated and confirmed, would become the first female secretary
of defense in the history of the US. Given her extensive resume, which includes several
previous appointments in senior policy positions in the Department of Defense during both the
Clinton and Obama administrations, she would provide an experienced hand in the management of
the Pentagon.
Flournoy once famously told the New York Times that "
warfare may come in a lot of different flavors in the future. " In her previous postings
in the Pentagon, she took a hardline stance against both Russia and China, encouraged military
intervention in Libya and Syria, and sustained military operations in Afghanistan. Her
proclivity to seek military solutions to challenging foreign policy issues would reinforce the
similar inclinations of Biden. With Flournoy at the helm of the Pentagon, America can expect to
experience a full menu of war "flavoring."
While the above two positions represent the ostensible heads of US foreign and defense
policy, the reality is that the US has become increasingly reliant upon the covert action
capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency when it comes to influencing diplomatic and
military outcomes. While news reports have on occasion lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding
covert CIA activities, allowing Americans and the world a small measure of insight into their
scope, scale and effectiveness, the reality is that the vast majority of the work of the CIA
remains classified, revealed only decades after the fact, if at all.
As the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and later as vice
president, Biden is intimately familiar with these covert activities, and of the potential of
the CIA to impact American foreign and national security policy. One of the names being bandied
about for the role of director is Michael Morell. He is a retired career CIA officer, having
worked his way up the ranks over the course of a 33-year career, finishing in 2013 having twice
served as the acting director under President Obama.
Morell would no doubt manage the agency in a professional manner. He is a CIA man, seeped in
the dark arts. Insight into how this experience might manifest itself in a Biden administration
was provided through comments Morell made about Syria
while appearing on PBS in 2016. " What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians
pay a little price ," he said. " When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons
to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay
a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a
price ."
By "paying a price," Morell meant "killing." Russians and Iranians, he said, should be
killed " covertly, so you don't tell the world about it, you don't stand up at the Pentagon
and say 'we did this.' But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran ."
If state, defense and the CIA are the three principal tools available to Biden in the
conduct of foreign and national security policy, the person responsible for making these three
players – along with a host of other departments and agencies – come together as a
single team falls to the national security advisor. Here, Biden seems to be leaning toward
another experienced hand, Antony Blinken.
Blinken's resume includes stints at the State Department and National Security Council
during the Obama administration. Like the other potential nominees, Blinken possesses the kind
of experience necessary to hit the ground running. As someone who knows and is well known by
all the major policy players that could populate a Biden administration, including the
president-elect himself, Blinken would be able to coordinate policy formulation and
implementation in a seamless fashion.
Therein, however, lies the rub – Blinken would serve as a facilitator of
interventionist policy positions that he is inherently inclined to agree with. Like Biden's
other potential nominees, Blinken supported the Obama interventions in Syria and Libya, two
events that serve as a litmus test for ascertaining potential interventionist scenarios in the
future.
Whereas a national security advisor should insulate the presidency from the more focused,
hardline policy proposals put forward by state and defense, and provide balance when it comes
to considering covert action proposals from the CIA, Blinken would function more as a
superhighway of interventionist policy options between these entities and a president whose own
background can be defined as never having seen an opportunity for US intervention that he
didn't like.
As things stand today, one cannot predict the composition of a Biden cabinet with absolute
certainty; it is likely that one or more of the potential candidates listed here will fall by
the wayside, their path blocked by the unpredictability of a Senate confirmation at the hands
of a hostile Republican Party.
But the predilection for military intervention and covert action will define any Biden-led
cabinet, regardless of exactly who ends up seated there. In the end, the likelihood that this
iteration of 'adult' leadership ends up getting America embroiled in excessive interventions
that further disrupt the global geopolitical balance in the US's disfavor while costing its
people precious blood and treasure is high.
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.
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it"the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might
just benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
"... It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... The transition has also been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016. ..."
"... The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. ..."
"... That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, 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. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget, but she is perhaps 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. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head. ..."
"... Obama's deep state lied, people died: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ ..."
"... I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world. ..."
"... The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other. ..."
"... "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." ..."
"... Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state. ..."
Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump
banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and
Asia. Those individuals are generally described as neoconservatives but the label is itself somewhat misleading and they might more
properly be described as liberal warmongers as they are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on most social issues and are
now warming up even more as the new Joe Biden Administration prepares to take office.
To be sure, some neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed
Trump but is now the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran. Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized
that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran as exemplified by the ending of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. John Bolton was also a neocon in the
White House fold, though he is now a frenemy having been fired by the president and written a book.
Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they have been maintaining relevancy by
slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator
from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson. A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is
now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini.
The transition has also
been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed
for the party’s failure in 2016. Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets
have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to U.S. national security
policy. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum are favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at
the New York Times prior to Weiss’s recent resignation.
Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight
talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly
on MSNBC.
The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and
everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia
serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication The Weekly Standard
virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions
of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 trillion. The Israel connection has also resulted
in neocon support for an aggressive policy against Russia due to its involvement in Syria and has led to repeated calls for the U.S.
to attack Iran and destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively sought “democracy promotion,”
which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective.
The neocons are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), that are funded by Jewish billionaires. FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction
coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute,
which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.
The neocon opposition has been sniping against Trump over the past four years but has been biding its time and building new alliances,
waiting for what it has perceived to be an inevitable regime change in Washington.
That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy
agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create
in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland.
Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president
and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by
Trump. His wife Victoria Nuland is perhaps better known. She was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. 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.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, 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. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget,
but she is perhaps 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. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And, to be sure, beyond regime change in places like Ukraine, President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to starting actual
shooting wars in places like Libya and Syria while also killing people, including American citizens, using drones. Biden appears
poised to inherit many former Obama White House senior officials, who would consider the eager-to-please neoconservatives a comfortable
fit as fellow foot soldiers in the new administration. Foreign policy hawks expected to have senior positions in the Biden Administration
include Antony Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power and, most important of all the hawkish Michele
Flournoy, who has been cited as a possible secretary of defense. And don’t count Hillary Clinton out. Biden is reportedly getting
his briefings on the Middle East from Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who now lives in the Jewish state and is reportedly
working for an Israeli government supported think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nowhere in Biden’s possible foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism
in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to a new cold war with major competitor powers like Russia and
China. In fact, Biden himself appears to embrace an extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with both Moscow and Beijing
“claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language is unrelenting, so much so that it is Donald Trump who
could plausibly be described as the peace candidate in the recently completed election, having said at the Republican National Convention
in August “Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing their dreams and the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs,
opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars, wars that never ended.”
It should be noted that the return of "neocons" does not mean the return of people like Wolfowitz, Ladeen, Feith, Kristol who
are more "straussian" than "liberal/internationalist", but those like Nuland, Rice, Sam Powell, Petraeus, Flournoy, heck even
Hilary Clinton as UN Ambassador who are CFR-type liberal interventionist than pure military hawks such as Bolton or Mike Flynn.
These liberal internationalists, as opposed to straussian neocons, will intervene in collaboration with EU/NATO/QUAD (i.e. multilaterally)
in the name upholding human rights and toppling authoritarianism, rather than for oil, WMDs, or similar concrete objectives. In
very simple terms, the new Biden administration's foreign policy will be none other than the return to "endless wars" for nation-building
purposes first and last.
The name Kagan is the Russianized version of the name Cohen. He was going to be McCain's NSA had he been elected. They pulled
a stunt with the Bush admin to make Obama look weak by pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008. Sakaasvili, the president
of Georgia, was literally eating his own tie:
A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy
goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors
feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head.
I don't think they have that much influence. They pushed a lot of nonsense in the late 70/early 80s about how the Taliban were
George Washingtons and here we are today, they're worst than the Comanche. The last time I saw Richard Perle make a TV appearance,
he was crying like a baby. Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, was a Ron Paul supporter. The only ones really kicking around
are Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, but Kristol was almost alone when he was talking about putting 50,000 boots on the ground
in Syria. Rubin is a harpie who only got crazier and crazier. Kagan had his foot in the door with Hillary only because of his
wife. Those two might get back in with Biden on Ukraine, but Biden would do well to keep them at a distance.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present
in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist
foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world.
It seems now that there is a new breed of neocons, unified by opposition to Trump's messaging, but not much else. Odd to find
people like Samantha Power, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Paul Wolfowitz marching together in perfect step.
A good perspective by Philip Weiss on the same subject. Eliot A Cohen must be communicating a lot with the Kagan brothers ,
Dennis Ross and Perle to see who can be parachuted either to the WH or Foggy Bottom.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology
The revolutionary spirit (see E. Michael Jones' work). From communism to neoconservatism it's ultimately an attack on the Beatitudes
and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. "The works of mercy are the opposite of the works of war" -- Servant of God Dorothy Day
I hold the Cold Warriors like Scoop a species distinct from those of the post-USSR era. The current version started at the
end of the cold war. We felt like kings of the world after Gulf War 1 and the shoe seemed to fit.
The HW Bush administration pondered how best to use this power for good. I've read some things which report there was a debate
within the administration on whether to clean up Yugoslavia or Somalia first. They got Ron to "do the honors" for the invasion
of Somalia at Oxford: About 20 minutes in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/arising-ashes-world-order
That was played as part of the pep-talk on the Juneau off the coast of Somalia. Stirring stuff.
In some small way I never stopped sipping that Kool Aid. It's hard to stand by and watch unspeakable evil go down when you
have the power to stop it...or think you do. Time will tell if the Neocons are capable of perceiving the limits of force. Certainly
had some hard lessons in the last few decades.
Hogs lining up for a spot at the trough? The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other.
I think its generally shocking that Trump or the republicans didn't make a bigger issue of Biden's history of supporting disastrous
intervention, especially his Iraq War vote. Maybe they felt like its not a winning issue, that they would lose as many votes as
they gain by appearing more isolationist. But overall, Trump favoring diplomacy over cruise missiles should have been a bigger point in his favor in the election.
It is distressing to read that we will have people in the government who are looking for a fight. That is especially true in
view of China's aggression in recent years and the responses we will have to make to that. I think we will have more than enough
to do to handle China. What do the neocons want to do about China?
Here is an article about China that really startled me and made me realize how much of a threat is was becoming. The Air Force
chief of staff talks about the challenges of countries trying to compete militarily with us in ways that have not occurred for
awhile. Here are two quotes that really got me:
"Tomorrow's Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat
attrition rates and risks to the nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environments to which
we have since become accustomed," Brown writes."
And
"Wargames and modeling have repeatedly shown that if the Air Force fails to adapt, there will be mission failure, Brown warns.
Rules-based international order may "disintegrate and our national interests will be significantly challenged," according to the
memo."
The article doesn't say we will have another arms race but that is an obvious response to China's competition with us. I thought
all that was done and gone. I do not want to resume it. I don't want another period of foreign entanglements, period. We still
haven't paid for the War Against Terrorism. I look into the future and all I see is us racking up bills that we have no ability
to pay. And then there is the human cost of all this, I don't want to even think about that.
Snouts in the trough accounts for a certain amount of neocons, I'm sure. There is, however, a unifying vision beyond that which
puzzles me, given the very different political orientations of various neocons. Neocons are found in academia and the media as
well. Those types are less dependent on taxpayer dollars in exchange for their views (they'll get whatever tax money gets pushed
their way in grants, etc regardless).
I find Polish Janitor's "straussian" and "liberal/internationalist" flavors of neocon intriguing, as I hadn't considered that
before.
COL Lang's quote from Plato reminds me of another (from Cormac McCarthy): "It makes no difference what men think of war, said
the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The
ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All
that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state.
I concur with your thoughts about standing by as evil occurs. We just have a habit of jumping into complex situations we don't
understand, and making things worse. I suspect you feel the same way.
The military misadventures during my career (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria) were marked by our own black and white
thinking. The more successful adventures (Colombia, Nepal) were marked by our appreciation (to a certain extent) of the complex
nature of the environments we were getting involved in...and the fact that we weren't involved in nation-building in the latter
two locales. There were viable governments in place, and we weren't trying to replace them.
Here is another Biden clip that should have been exploited too - way back when - when the media was a little more trusted,
but no less pompous. However, Biden The Plagerizer had it coming.
Though I am warming more and more to Trump Media becoming the real soul of America. Plus someone, in time. will need to pick
up Rush Limbaugh's empire. America needs a counter-weight to fake news more than it needs the keys to the White House, with all
its entangling webs, palace intrigues, chains and pitfalls.
Godspeed President Trump. If someone with as few talents s Biden can rise like Lazarus, just think what you can do with your
little finger. No wonder the Democrats want Trump destroyed; not just defeated in a re-election. We have your back, Mr President.
Are the people of America up for another arms race and a more or less cold war with China? I think the Chinese will give us
a lot more trouble than the Soviets ever did.
And yet we allow their students to come here and learn all we know and their elites to bring their dirty money here and we
give them green cards and citizenship and protect the money they took from the Chinese people. Not so smart on our part.
What is the next theater of war that Biden's new friends will involve us in? I noticed lots of Cold War era conflicts are heating
up lately, Ethiopia Morocco Armenia being recent examples. IS in Syria/Iraq is still castrated due to the continued mass internment
of their population base in the dozens of camps, but they have established thriving franchises in Africa and their other provinces
continue to smolder.
During a July 19, 2020 appearance on Operation Freedom, General Mclnerney, referring to his
original March 19, 2017 interview about TFIE HAMMER, stated:
What we didn't know 011 that date in March 2017 was that's what was presented to President
Obama on the 5th of January [2017] just before he left office when they opened the
investigation and he directed the FBI to look into and the reason why the FBI sent two people
over to interview General Flynn. Aid that information 011 the Kislvak memo came from HAMMER. It
wasn't a normal NSA document.
Aid that's why Sally Yates wasn't aware of it until the president mentioned it and said put
the appropriate people. That's a dog whistle to put our special team on. Aid so, Biden was
sitting in that meeting. Biden. Biden has got Russian collusion all over him along with
President Obama.
This could not have happened unless Obama was letting it happen. So that's why we've got to
get John Durham's grand juries going and going on in a hurry, so the Anerican people know how
corrupt the entire Democratic party is, but also the media...
...The Obama Administration cabal waged a criminal campaign against General Flynn, including
attempting to frame General Flynn with Logan Act violations when General Flynn had done no such
thing. Peter Strzok's hand-written notes suggest that it was Vice President Joe Biden who came
up with the idea of prosecuting General Flynn for Logan Act violations. General Flynn, the
incoming National Security Adviser, had cut no deals or suggested any deals to Russian
Ambassador Kislvak, as they well knew.
Director Comey's announcement that the FBI was investigating whether President Trump had
connections to the Kremlin, issued less than 24 hours after the conclusion of General
Mclnerney's radio interview, proved that Admiral Lyons and General Mclnerney, with information
from Fanning and Jones of The Anerican Report, were right 011 target -- THE HAMMER is the key
to the coup.
A the FBI used to say, "There are no coincidences."
They had stolen the keys to the kingdom, and they wanted to keep their weapon.
Strzok and Page were aware of, and texting about, Dennis Montgomery. Both Strzok and Page
were intimately involved with the Russian Collusion Hoax. Both Strzok and Page were key
participants in the coup d etat -- a coup d etat against a duly-elected United States
president. This act of treason had never been seen before in America.
Regardless of whether Strzok and Page had Iranian family members or grew up in Iran, their
oath as public servants was to the United States Constitution. The actions of Strzok and Page
were the actions of an enemy.
"... Now I'm posing this as a serious question. What does the Duopoly gain from Biden
that it can't get from Trump?"
Surely the money pump that was dispensing largesse to the post-Maidan regime in Ukraine
via the contacts that regime has with the DNC (Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council and the
media who take the Atlantic Council's money, like Bellingcat for example) before 2017, and
which must have dried up while Trump was President, will start up again should Biden last
long enough past his inauguration. After all, you know he did indeed push former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to sack his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for continuing to
investigate the activities of Mykola Zlochevsky and his company Burisma Holdings (at which
Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors) and even
boasted about it.
With Biden at the helm, both Democrats and those Republicans (like Mitt Romney) who do not
support Trump can push for further neoliberal, military and other activity against Russia in
eastern Europe and Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia). They might also try to resurrect
their war in Syria and ensure Syria can never get the Golan Heights back.
But if Atlantic Council is onlyy a DNC tool, how do you explain that under YTrump
administration and Pompeo SoS it was Atlantic Council fellow Franak ViaÇorca who
helped organize the Belarusina color revolution, to the extent that now he figures in his
Twitter account as Tikhanovskaya´s personal advisor?
Thanks for your reply! IMO, there wasn't much drop-off in Color Revolution activity under
Trump, and he followed fairly closely the National Defense Directives against both Russia and
China. Perhaps its the blatant rejection of treaties since Biden has vowed to
rejoin/renegotiate, particularly New START. Maybe it's resistance to a currently secret
policy ploy like the Great Reset or Biden's announced very different approach to the pandemic
or some other secret schism we're not privy to yet. I don't doubt the vote result here in
Oregon since our system is extremely hard to violate in any massive manner--it was an
emotional contest thus the high turnout. The joined Media Narrative is cause for concern for
it signals another BigLie, and to go through that effort means a rather important motive.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 12 2020 1:34 utc | 143
The history of the last three decades show that Republican's wage major wars while
Democrats wage small and/or covert wars (liberal interventions) and regime changes.
Republicans will never relinquish the patriotic mantle that allows them to trump (pun
intended) the left's aspirations.
I don't think this holds water. What I see is a clear pattern of decline:
1) George H. W. Bush directly invades Iraq with legitimate American forces. It a
full-fledged invasion, the first war declared for explicitly economic purposes by the USA.
Nobody finds it weird or contests it, because the USA had just emerged victorious from the
Cold War and is now the sole superpower;
2) Bill Clinton, in order to not rub American supremacy on everybody's faces, invades
Somalia and annihilates Yugoslavia with legitimate American forces behind a UN flag. He wins
Yugoslavia but doesn't manage to do a Communist Nürnberg Trial, and loses in Somalia.
The first chink in the armor of the sole hegemon;
3) George W. Bush wins through electoral fraud (Florida). 9/11 happens with his blessing.
He then has to do a kabuki in order to blame it all on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even then he
doesn't earn the UN's blessing. He invades Iraq and Afghanistan with legitimate American
forces and wins in Iraq. He takes Iraq's oil reserves, but the objective doesn't solve
America's economic problems. Afghanistan turns into a swamp. He fails to invade Iran and
fails to bomb North Korea. He loses against Russia in Georgia. The USA still is able to
invade other countries and destroy them with legitimate American forces, but with much more
difficulty and not always achieving what it wants. For the first time since the beginning of
the End of History invasions are halted before they even begin;
4) Obama has to begin his government with a mammoth USD 1.1 trn unconditional bailout to
America's big banks and other companies. He tries to make a profit from the occupation of
Iraq by recalling American troops and substituting them with drones and mercenaries
(Blackwater). Afghanistan continues to drain the coffers. Russia rises. China rises. He
pathetically tries to invade Syria with auxiliaries (ISIS) and fails utterly (Russia even
imposes a no-fly zone to NATO/USA). Invasions are then further scaled down to color
revolutions (Ukraine, etc.). South China Sea is lost without even a fight. Ukraine is
partitioned by Russia after the color revolution and NATO loses the Black Sea forever;
5) Trump cannot even begin a new war. He contents himself with color revolution in Latin
America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Belarus and other Central Asian countries. For the first time
since the End of History, a POTUS tries to be friends with a previous enemy nation (North
Korea and Russia). For the first time, a color revolution is reverted in Latin America
(Bolivia), while a clandestine invasion of Venezuela also fails.
So, the pattern here is clearly one of decline. At the beginning of the End of History
(1991), the USA can invade anyone with its regular forces, legally and with the blessing of
the UN and NATO - and wins all those conflicts. Then, it begins to lose or at least not
completely win - but still do the whole thing legally, with regular forces and with
blessings. Then it still is capable of invading and winning - but not legally and not with
the blessing of even the main NATO allies (France and Germany); also, even when it wins, it
is clear it was not what the Empire needed to stay afloat. Then, it has to abandon any
prospects of invasion by regular forces, having to resort to color revolutions and
clandestine auxiliaries (terrorist armies). Then it is not even capable of doing those color
revolutions successfully anymore (except in Latin America - the Empire's historical little
bitch, so it doesn't really count).
The conclusion we can reach here is that Trump didn't initiate any new war for the simple
fact he couldn't: the Empire is overstretched, its resources dwindling.
With Biden, I think we'll witness this process deepening, but in another key:
"Political wisdom holds that Americans, the American public, doesn't vote on foreign
policy," he said in New York, speaking before a crowd that included some former diplomats.
"But I think that's an old way of thinking. In 2019 foreign policy is domestic policy in my
view. And domestic policy is foreign policy."
With Biden, we can see for the first time in American history the USA officially admitting
it is an empire. The American people will be directly involved and voting and supporting for
foreign policy, i.e. invasions and interventions. Domestic policy will fuse with foreign
policy, in a typical imperial metamorphosis. There will be no going back, it will be a war of
annihilation between the USA (I'm here including its provinces) and the rest of the world. As
the famous Soviet epic once said, it will be a battle not for glory, but "for life on
Earth".
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Biden has a long history of being deeply culpable in human rights abuses. Our instinct may
be to jubilantly proclaim that the suffering for vulnerable population will now end, but that
wouldn't be the case for, say, civilians in war zones. Biden's decision to actively advocate
for the disastrous war on Iraq and the crime bill, which imprisoned millions of
African-Americans, are rightly notorious.
Biden certainly also did not embolden Obama's more peaceful and internationalist
inclinations, which he demonstrated in his speech to the Muslim world and opposition to the
Iraq war, when he served as his vice-president. As the Guardian [2] reported about 2016, the
last year of the Obama administration, "the ( ) administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs.
This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas
with 72 bombs; that's three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day." Under Obama/Biden, ten times
more drone strikes were authorized than under Bush, and the US joined the coalition to bomb
Yemen, which has exacerbated a famine that had killed 84.701 by November 2018.[3]
Biden has never seriously reflected on the lives there were wrecked and the traumas that
were imposed during the post-9/11 wars, and there is no sign that he will deescalate US foreign
policy in 2021. But there is hope: In opposition to Trump, movements to bolster domestic human
rights in the US have been invigorated. The heroes of the last four years – the Dreamers,
as well as the BLM, anti-detention and Sanders activists – will not go away. Can their
call for moral transformation take on global dimensions?
None of our doubts about Biden should diminish our recognition of the racist horrors of the
Trump years. Some of his supporters claim that "Trump never started a war", and submit this
statement as proof that Trump is less damaging to the world than a centrist Democrat only tell
(or know) half the truth. The trend in US foreign policy has been to drop more and more bombs
since 09/11 – and the Trump administration, which was packed with notorious Islamophobes,
represented the sad, recent pinnacle of a trendline that will hopefully not be continued under
the Biden administration. In Afghanistan, warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions in
2019, which was the highest number since the Pentagon began tracking how many bombs it drops in
2006.[4] Consequently the US, and its allied Afghani forces, killed more than the Taliban
within 2019.[5] Trump would have certainly further undermined international humanitarian law in
war zones. After all, he pardoned a war criminal as an intentional symbolical gesture,[6] and
advocated for bombing the families of terror suspects, which is, of course, a crime per the
Geneva Convention.
If the past years have shown anything, it is how important it is to limit the war powers of
presidents no matter who is in office. The next in line usually turned out to be worse in
important respects when it comes to questions of war and peace. The only antidote is holding
Biden accountable on foreign policy, starting today.
With Joe Biden declared president-elect by a chorus of major networks in unison on Saturday,
the same mainstream media has suddenly dropped any notion of 'Russian interference' in the
election which for years had received wall to wall coverage.
Over the weekend an MSNBC host went so far as to declare without evidence
"This might be the cleanest election we have ever had." And conveniently apart from the
'sudden' unprecedented leap in vaccine development and with markets soaring on the news, the
foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White House on
January 20.
As a case in point NATO's official message of congratulations to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
underscored that a Biden White House will finally be able to confront "assertive Russia"
according to a statement by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
"I warmly welcome the election of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I
know Mr. Biden as a strong supporter of NATO and the transatlantic relationship," Stoltenberg's
written
statement began .
And here's where the NATO chief referenced "assertive Russia" and the "rise of China":
"We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia, international terrorism, cyber and missile threats, and a shift in the
global balance of power with the rise of China," Stoltenberg stated .
The suggestion is of course that Trump didn't exercise enough "strength" - though it seems
hard to make this argument especially in the case of China.
And it's further long been pointed out that US-Russia relations have actually been at a low
point in recent history under Trump , given the Trump administration withdrawal from key
weapons treaties like the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Open Skies, and
with New START set to expire early next year.
There's also the attempts to block completion of the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany gas
pipeline, which has included targeted sanctions against Western companies helping to construct
it. The Trump State Department has also done much to open up weapons sales to Ukraine.
Recall too that not only has Trump throughout his presidency demanded European allies do
more in terms of shouldering their fair share of the burden of defense spending for which they
are "delinquent", but has repeatedly called the Cold War era alliance "obsolete" and at some
points even hinted the US could withdraw.
But his ultimate purpose in this appeared geared toward strengthening the organization into
a true alliance and not merely Washington carrying the burden of major spending.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
We detailed last month that top NATO officials
appeared to be openly rooting for a Biden victory following four years of Trump being a
thorn in the side of Brussels. This is true enough, but in terms of Russia one could easily
argue Trump has been a greater hawk in terms of ignoring European demands that key nuclear and
weapons treaties be extended . 07564111 , 5 hours ago
ROFL .. idiot Stoltenberg thinks he is immortal.
cankles' server , 3 hours ago
Wasn't NATO literally designed for war?
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
NATO Declares Biden White House Will Finally Confront "Assertive Russia"
"the foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White
House on January 20."
The only reason any foreign power would prefer to work with Biden is that they know he is
a wimp, that he is corrupt and can be bought (as proven by his history with China) and that
for he will not look out for American interests (as opposed to theirs).
You see, Democrats define anything that takes down America as a win - including there own
contrived victories that will never materialize.
Biden would sit in his underwear and do what he's told to do, like any proper corpse.
That's why the dead (and blue-bots) voted for him.
LevelHeadedMan , 4 hours ago
As we say in Russia;
Собака лает, а
караван идёт.
The dog barks, yet the caravan moves on.
It means we will keep assembling more and more nukes while this idiot continues
bleating.
SMC , 3 hours ago
You have a lot of support from normal, productive Americans.
LevelHeadedMan , 3 hours ago
Thank you. We like regular Americans too!
richard_engineer , 1 hour ago
As an American, I think Russia has been legitimate in its attempts at peace while USA has
been continuously trying to provoke Russia. I think that the bolsheviks you kicked out are
trying to get revenge and use America as their pawn.
Seriously man, I'm legitimately afraid that Russia would launch a pre-emptive attack if
further cornered by USA & NATO. I live in Sacramento, CA - do you think this city would
be targeted by nuke?
I imagine Russia would focus on the defensive nukes placed in Europe first, and then
likely to target many large cities in USA & Europe. Russia has a lot of nukes so I
imagine it would launch full-scale attack to completely disable the opponent from future
attack.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
So after Trump is sworn in on 20th January, NATO is finished. There is no way back from
this.
No1uNo , 5 hours ago
I support the sentiment, my fear is they've mobilised so much resources to constantly
attack Trump, I don't see those attacks ending only escalating. If you can see a way that the
CFR, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council, Soros NGO's etc all get disbanded and some
serious jail time thrown at them - then yes their pet projects will suffer. Without that
Trump needs to be very careful outside of the White House.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
Trump could not take down the DS until everyone could see what was happening. The last 4
years have been all about this election - this is how people will finally SEE what has been
happening. There never were going to any arrests in the first term. Now there will be 4 years
to take down the DS... and another 4 years after that. No need to rush, one step at a time
will get us there.
Thurmonster , 3 hours ago
Riiiight.
philipat , 5 hours ago
LOL. And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
And I for one can't think of ANY yet I can think of many provocations against Russia by NATO.
And, of course, if NATO provokes Russia too hard and war does break out, Europe will be on
the front line and could, if Russia so wished, be reduced to rubble in short order. I can't
imagine why the Europeans would want to do this to themselves but there we have it. At least
it would mark the end of the awful EU!
East Indian , 5 hours ago
Russia has stealthily crawled to place itself just next to NATO's boundaries! Isn't
enough?
acementhead , 5 hours ago
And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
Come on man They're (Russia) building a pipeline to sell gas to Germany. How dare they,
that gas belongs to the US oligarchs.
xpxhxoxexnxixx , 1 hour ago
Isnt it funny that the MSM and Dems are completely fine glossing over the fact that half
the country voted against Biden. It's as if they think we're all united simply because of the
outcome. It's no wonder why we have the country we do, and why the dems continue to squeak by
year after year. There is no desire for them to understand the American people- they simply
figure 'we'll get just enough votes to do what we want' 100% of time. There is no desire for
them to actually want to work with others to improve the country. And year after year we
believe it simply in the 'name of democracy'- as if that actually means anything. So Trump is
the red flag commie garbage man to them, and literally anyone else is freedom. If you ever
see the MSM or social media start to talk about why we have a literal divide in this country,
I think i'll call it quits here on Earth. But it'll never happen.
GoldenDebt , 5 hours ago
These evil F-ers want nuclear war. Trump did it right. I suspect Trump was going to forge
a new peace, demonrats didnt want that. They want to kill us all with a nuke war. Democrats
are pure evil.
Jerzeel , 5 hours ago
More like the usual gang want to beat up again on some **** hole country.
Fireman , 5 hours ago
NATO, North Amerikan Terror Organ, that limp appendage dangling from the Pedophile
Politburo in Natostan capital of USSA's flaccid vassal Brussels, seat of the infamous albeit
collapsing EUSSR wants to be the global gangster sidekick of the Pentacon thugs but just
doesn't want to pay to play. Will the Germans get suckered for a third time into a global war
for their anglozionazi bankster masters and the Washing town thugocracy? Nah...they finally
seem to have figured it and STASI agent "Erika" out as the I$I$ "backed" Saudi Mercan IOU
petroscrip toilet paper dollah gets flushed from the global Ponzi sewer of the Potemkin
Village (idiot) Mercan "economy" of slaughter for the profit of the zero 1%.
Meanwhile the Dark Winter of financial collapse is upon US, on both sides of the
Atlanticist swamp, as the detritus of USSA'S Middle East judaic wars rapes, decapitates and
pillages its way across a seething Europe betrayed by the hag in Berlin and her Soros puppet
master. Syria is where the anglozionazi beast and Pentacon Murder Inc. finally bit off more
than they could chew in their serial judaic wars of terror and the rest of humanity sees it
for what it is. All the emasculated pedophile pawns in Natostan huff and puff at Mr. Bear's
doorstep but that is all these Brownstoned cretins will ever do. It is all over bar the
inevitable bankrupt collapse of €urolandia and the long awaited civil war reloaded in
Slumville, USSA. Bismarck was right more than a century ago, the only future Germany has and
Urupp by default is in the warm embrace of Mr. Bear and his vast supply of energy and
resources as USSA vainly squeezes gas from the "shale miracle" BS and hubris bloated turds in
the stinking Washing town swamp as the brand new cadaver in chief, Creepy Joe and his Camel
get ready to torch Slumville in the mother of all dumpster fires.
Onward to Leningrad with Onkel Adolf and the dancing fool of Natostan.
We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia...
Which is code for:
The EU is poorly run and incredibly weak, having to rely on other nations for resources
and subsidies, so please help us because the glory of Europe has pretty much completely
faded. -signed, little bitch Jens
Is-Be , 4 hours ago
"Mr. Gorbechov, you have my word that we will not advance one inch towards Russia."
They are not worthy of their ancestors. Real Northman are bound by their oaths.
Even Loki could not break his.
NorwegianKing , 5 hours ago
Jens Stoltenberg is a Quisling.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
So the extreme aggression of NATO is going to be used to attack the nonexistent Russian
aggression?
Fabelhaft , 1 hour ago
The plan ... is to minimize Putin and or his philosophy of 'Russian resources for Russia',
to the point that the Russian people will vote his method out and gladly surrender control of
their goods to the West. Then, be good servile Russians. Oh, and another thing, a big thing,
the West hates Russia's Cross. The Cross has to go, also.
Somewhat Unisex , 4 hours ago
The whole Russia tensions are nauseating.
Russia has a GDP similar to South Korea.
But the MIC always needs a boogeyman I suppose.
libfrog88 , 3 hours ago
NATO is so full of ****. They are the ones provoking Russia all the time. They need to
justify their worthless existence and it is costing far too much.
nanook007 , 4 hours ago
Yes of course......parasite globalist warmongers love the democrat pedophile hair
sniffer.
overmedicatedundersexed , 5 hours ago
"War is Peace.".some democrat leftist.
Stringer99 , 5 hours ago
Nato like many other organisations needs a threat, real or imaginary to exist. The US
spends more on weapon systems than the next 16 countries combined. Their usual reason is
things like 9/11. The same forces behind 9/11 include the same nato puppet masters and
connected think tanks who also profit from Nato funding. Its just another business model
involving trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers. Whether its the arms industry or big
pharma, fear is their currency of control.
TheySayIAmOkay , 4 hours ago
Great. When does ISIS funding kick back into full gear?
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 4 hours ago
These Northern Atlantic Terrorists Orcs took out 2 secular leaders (Qaddafi, Saddam) and
tried taking out a third (Assad), and they wonder why radical Islam is filling in the void?
How the hell are these sub humans ever in charge of making such decisions? NATO HQ should be
wiped off the map.
They also made the refugee problem worse.
Haboob , 5 hours ago
Russia is no longer the USSR so why "confront" them.
Simpson , 5 hours ago
Resource rich country.
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
its not case...you cant milk taxpayers for 750 bilions usd a year withouth enemies and
threat...so Military industry created terrorists camps and as it failed..now they wanna
encyrcle china and russia and spread ******** about them...danger is if you provoke around
these borders the war might come even as accident as Putin warned..its all only
softwares...
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
DESPITE the all Trump faults he gave humanity four more years...HIlary would go
nuclear...same apply with Biden.
dog breath , 5 hours ago
Gaslighting is strong with EU. Trump wants NATO military spending to be 2% of GDP. Germany
wants gas pipeline with Russia. This is direct contradiction to this NATO *******
propaganda.
minoas , 1 hour ago
They won't be happy until they kill us all in a nuclear war. Russia is not a threat to
Europe. China does not send it's troops around the world overthrowing governments. Encircled
by US bases, it has built a small island off it's coast to protect it's seas lanes while we
have nearly a thousand military installations around the globe if we count our covert ones.
Russia and China is athreat to world hegemony by the US. That is their crime
Tom Angle , 1 hour ago
Who sponsored a Neo-Nazi coupe on the Russian border? Who continually holds war games on
the Russian border? Who does Russian natural gas keep who warm in the winter? Who creates and
sponsors terrorists to make way for a pipeline to Europe? Who builds bio labs on Russian
borders? So who is assertive?
MoreFreedom , 2 hours ago
Translation: Stoltenberg says he's glad Biden is president because that means they'll all
pocket more US taxpayer money, and the US taxpayer is the sheep. There's money to be made in
NATO deals and deployments, provided the US pays for it.
Theremustbeanotherway , 2 hours ago
In the UK, our politicians are corrupt beyond redemption.
Our legal system is becoming corrupt beyond redemption.
The current senior personnel in our armed forces are pansies and incapable of defending
our nation and only capable of attacking the indigenous population.
The current senior personnel in our police forces are bent out of shape determined to
victimise the indigenous population.
We are still under the cosh of the Bolsheviks in Europe intent on promoting war.
Most of the population of the UK are incapable of seeing through the BS and lies - I now
know what it is like to be held hostage in an asylum!!
Old Captain Hindsight , 5 hours ago
NATO outing themselves as enemies of the people?
It is funny watching all of these idiots jump the gun.
jnojr , 41 minutes ago
Maybe Joe Biden can get a Nobel Peace Prize even faster than Barack Obama did?
Promethus , 1 hour ago
I started in the US military during the cold War. It is so sad that people like me no
longer recognize this country and look to Russia as a bulwark of Christianity and western
civilization.
Stay strong Russia. The USA and western Europe have abandoned God and now are reaping what
they sewed..
"Let's bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can't count the number of
times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of
many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump
presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to
"normalcy" -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise
some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign
policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet.
Susan Rice for Secretary of State
Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden's Vice President,
served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both
under the Obama administration.
While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no
scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some
of her statements:
"I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons
and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6,
2003)
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction
need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes
whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward,
as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration
about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime
change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a
question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before
we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of
Rice's statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.)
She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which
judging by the following quote at
the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a "laissez faire"
attitude : "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?"
In a
speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about
vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as
illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as "flawed" and "insisted on Israel's
right to defend itself and maintained that Israel's democratic institutions could credibly
investigate any possible abuses." Her position has changed little since then, as recently as
2016,
she proclaimed that "Israel's security isn't a Democratic interest or a Republican interest
-- it's an enduring American interest."
Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP
Biden's National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013
to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017.
Blinken had immense
influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate
Biden's approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"For Biden ", he argued , "and for
a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy." He added
"It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is
possible."
The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama's campaign promise
to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led
to even more
chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency.
Blinken seems to be
of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : "On
leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn't organize itself. And until this
[Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing,
helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern
relations among nations. When we're not engaged, when we don't lead, then one or two things is
likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place – but probably not in
a way that advances our interests or values – or no one does. And then you get chaos or a
vacuum filled by bad things before it's filled by good things. Either way, that's bad for
us."
Blinken also appears to be steering
Biden's pro-Israel agenda, recently
stating that Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions
that it makes, period, full stop." which includes an all out
rejection of BDS , the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel's
occupation of Palestine.
Michèle Flournoy for Secretary of Defence
Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama
administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Flournoy, in writing the
Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy
under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.'s endless and costly wars which prevent
us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green
New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, "when the interests
at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary,
the unilateral use of military power."
While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a "Top
Defense and National Security Think Tank" based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the
Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she
declared , that the United States would "need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts
to destroy an adversary's weapons stockpile" before it "could erect defenses to protect those
weapons, or simply disperse them." She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush
administration, in
a speech for the CSIS : "The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation
– continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as
these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran,
North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world
there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials
or weapons."
It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic
consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental,
military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon
contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that
describes itself on its website as "a
unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining
research and technology to keep our world safer." Their partnership on the AI initiative
entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by
Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police
operations.
Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the
biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50
representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees
supported "ask(ing)
Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict." Flournoy did not. She said
that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these
advanced patriot missiles to defend itself.
Conclusion
If a return to "normalcy" means having the same old politicians that are responsible for
endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real
structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call
for "normalcy" is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led
to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the
stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those
posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars.
Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in
France.
By C. J. Hopkins , award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His dystopian novel, ' Zone 23 ', is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. His essays and other works can be found at,
and he can be reached via, cjhopkins.com
or consentfactory.org . OK, so,
that was not cool. For one terrifying moment there, it actually looked like GloboCap was going
to let Russian-Asset Hitler win.
Hour after hour on election night, states on the map kept turning red, or pink, or some
distinctly non-blue color. Wisconsin Michigan Georgia Florida. It could not be happening, and
yet it was. What other explanation was there? The Russians were stealing the election
again!
But, of course, GloboCap was just playing with us. They're a bunch of practical jokers,
those GloboCap guys. Naturally, they couldn't resist the chance to wind us up just one more
time.
Seriously, though, while I enjoy a good prank, I still have a number of liberal friends,
many of whom were on the verge of suffering major heart attacks as they breathlessly waited for
the corporate media to confirm that they had successfully voted a literal
dictator out of power. (A few of them suffer from IBS or other gastrointestinal disorders,
so, in light of the current toilet-paper shortage caused by the Return of the Apocalyptic
Plague, toying with them like that was especially cruel.)
But, whatever. That's water under the bridge. The good news is, the nightmare is
over! Literal Hitler and his underground army of Russia-loving white supremacists have been
vanquished! Decency has been restored! Globalization has risen from the
dead!
... ... ..
Meanwhile, the GloboCap propaganda has reached some new post-Orwellian level. After four
long years of "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION!" now, suddenly, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
ELECTION FRAUD IN THE USA!"
That's right, once again, millions of liberals, like that scene in ' 1984' where the
Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate-Week speech, have been ordered
to radically reverse their "reality," and hysterically deny the existence of the very
thing they have been hysterically alleging for four solid years and they are actually doing
it!
... ... ///
Marian1637 7 hours ago
I can not comprehend
that democrats do not blame Putin for Biden winning!
Reilly 3 hours ago
Very funny, bravo!
Nothing like a bit of slapstick, with a dose of reality also in the middle of a waking
nightmare about to happen. ;))
DeoGratias 4 hours ago
One correction : it is not GloboCap it is
GloboComs. The objective of communism is to create two classes of a society : rulers and
workers. Thus GloboCaps are GloboComs.
Winter7Mute 5 hours ago
A reliable way to make people
believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished
from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact. I'm not even
sure if most journalists or reporters know what their even talking about, when writing these
articles.
Vidarr Kerr 5 hours ago
There is such a thing as Too Much Sarcasm.
EarthBotV2 Vidarr Kerr 4 hours ago
I disagree. The liberazi "thinks" with the gut -- as in "What does your gut tell you?"...
There's a 'good chance' that the US will return to the policy of foreign wars under Joe
Biden, which will make its reconciliation with the EU impossible, Willy Wimmer, former
vice-president of the OSCE, warned.
The main reasons why the Americans voted for Donald Trump four years ago were their
tiredness of constant wars waged by their country and collapsing economy and infrastructure in
the US, Wimmer told RT.
Trump has kept his promise and didn't start any new foreign conflict, but that may well
change if a member of the Democratic Party is in the White House, former Vice President of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly said.
Joe Biden isn't an empty white sheet – he represents the Democratic Party, who in
the 1990s destroyed the Charter of the UN.
The German political veteran recalled the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia under Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, in 1999. He also pointed out that "in the presidency of [Barack]
Obama, Biden was Vice President and he was in absolute accordance with Obama's drone wars and
the wars in the Middle East, therefore there's a good chance that Joe Biden continues in the
same way as the Democratic Party did it in the 1990s and under Obama" before 2016.
"And going back to before 2016 means going back to war" for the US, Wimmer
argued.
Relations between Washington and Brussels have deteriorated under Trump over his demands for
the EU nations to make larger financial contributions to NATO as well as political and economic
pressure on the block to stop dealing with Russia and China.
Hopes that things would improve under Biden will be dashed, "as long as the US and NATO
don't return to the Charter of the UN," the 77-year-old, who also served as State Secretary
to Germany's Defense Minister, said.
However, he pointed out that it remains a question if the current US economy, which was
heavily hit by the coronavirus, would even allow Biden to return to the aggressive policy,
which the Democrats used to pursue.
Unlike German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who already congratulated Biden over beating
incumbent Trump in the US presidential election, Wimmer believes that others "should be
very-very careful with congratulations."
The Democratic candidate declared himself the winner on Saturday after several major
television networks projected that he was on a path to take more than 270 electoral votes
needed to win the presidency after four days of tense vote counts in several battleground
states.
"It's quite unusual that the result of an election is announced by a news agency or a
news channel. We're used in all our countries, which belong to the OSCE, that we have Election
Committees, who announce results. And this hasn't been done yet in the US," he pointed out,
describing the events surrounding the American election as "unbelievable."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory . ..."
The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten
bestselling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump's haphazard and
continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly
vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff's
Fire and
Fury: Inside the Trump White House
was all the rage? It's now available in hardcover for
$0.99
from
online used booksellers. James Comey's
Higher
Loyalty
also sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman's "
insider's
account
" of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire
Sean
Spicer's memoir
as Trump's press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci's
rendering
of
his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski's "
inside
story
" of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not
have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amanuensis Bob
Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do
occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It's called
Tomorrow,
the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy
and if you'll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it.
Let me explain why.
The "Turn"
Wertheim and I are co-founders of the
Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft
, a small Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That
Quincy
refers
to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad
"in search of monsters to destroy."
Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait -- its
very essence -- "would insensibly change from
liberty
to
force.
"
By resorting to force, America "might become the dictatress of the world," he wrote, but "she would be no longer the ruler of
her own spirit." While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt.
A privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male
elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an
ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state
was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding
unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn't this country's purpose to promote revolution
elsewhere or to dictate history's future course.
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks:
the Greatest Of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic
tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid
commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had,
by the beginning of the twentieth century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans
spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914
and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable -- so at least a subsequent generation
of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army's lightning victory in the battle
of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy
paradigm, one he describes as pursuing "dominance in the name of internationalism," with U.S. military supremacy deemed "the
prerequisite of a decent world."
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from
Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for
leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce's
Time-Life
press empire, and
distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among
them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large
role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While
Tomorrow, The World
is not a
long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a
tour de force
. In it, Wertheim
describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France.
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves
castigated as "isolationists," a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed
intervention, meanwhile, became "internationalists," a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the
foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of
"isolationism" that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising "global leadership."
Wertheim persuasively describes the "turn" toward militarized globalism
engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success
prior
to
Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war,
but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what
it meant. Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching
across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically
subversive
arms
industry
-- would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully
constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that "so long as the
phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted."
Contained within that
all
is a
cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense
tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim's book, casting the
Cold War as a
de facto
extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution
of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power --
did
someone
say
"the rise of China"? -- are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment's response
is simply to double down.
So, even now,
staggering
levels
of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling
"national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S.
policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and
expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in
Tomorrow,
The World
is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a
hitherto successful policy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not
produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army's
sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11.
From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed
forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for
a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11,
whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes
for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive,
even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo
(including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression
once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of
a supposed
Pax Americana
) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly
global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of "endless
wars" that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of U.S. policy comparable to the "turn"
that Wertheim describes has occurred.
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump's promise to put
"America First" might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to
mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of "
fire
and fury
" alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ("
we
fell in love
"). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump
abandoned
a
global environmental agreement,
massively
rolled back
environmental regulations domestically, and then
took
credit
for providing Americans with "the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet." Little of this was to be
taken seriously.
Trump's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic
equivalent of
Mulligan
stew
. Examine the contents closely enough and you'll be able to find just about anything. Yet taken as a whole, the
concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national
security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every
component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the
editorial boards of the
New York Times
and
Washington
Post
yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that
yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no
further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to
perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart
puts
it
, "When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that's going
to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers." Biden will increase the Pentagon
budget, keep U.S. troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world's
number-one
arms
merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the
ongoing
modernization
of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the
"inside."
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of
American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. "The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and
autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well." Those
uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent
Foreign
Affairs
essay
.
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things
up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of "dominance in the name
of internationalism" will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the
White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of
evidence showing that it's not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm
that dates from Hitler's assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that
essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the
military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in
discovering new "threats" -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between
self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day
successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes in
Tomorrow,
The World
has proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day
proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was, at best, merely serviceable. It
responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a
necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of
foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" proved to be problematic. Yet even as
conditions changed, basic U.S. policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a
penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry.
Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of:
well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11, however, it's difficult to imagine what
worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different
interpretation prevails: the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any
unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight
decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: it ensures that statecraft will
remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the
bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real
change become possible. The turn in U.S. policy described in
Tomorrow, The World
came
from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit
of deference when it comes to determining what this nation's role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their
power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and
metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns.
While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of
searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step
toward recovery.
Share this:
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
"@realDonaldTrump election night 800,000 lead was wiped out by hundreds of thousands of
mail in ballots counted without any Republican observer," Giuliani tweeted on Sunday
morning, a day after Associated Press called Pennsylvania and the entire election in favor of
Joe Biden.
"Why were Republicans excluded?," he continued, before asking his followers to
"tweet me your guess, while I go prove it in court."
Like his boss, Giuliani has insisted that Biden's apparent victory was the result of fraud.
Republican observers say they were denied access to counting centers, which allowed staff
inside to do "bad things" with the ballots, in Trump's words. At least one postal worker
has claimed that he was ordered to backdate mail-in ballots, while the Trump campaign has
alleged that droves of dead people voted in Philadelphia, and that staff there illegally
counted late-arriving mail ballots.
Giuliani called the "Philadelphia Democrat machine" "brazen," and claimed that the
late heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier and actor Will Smith's grandfather both voted in previous
elections in the city after their deaths.
"I bet Biden dominated this group," he tweeted. "We will find out."
Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight
champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith's grandfather
voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find
out.
Biden beat Trump in Pennsylvania by around 40,000 votes, or 0.6 percent of the total vote,
though a small number of ballots remain to be counted. Though Republicans in the Keystone State
have not outright called Biden's win fraudulent, State House Speaker Bryan Cutler called on
Friday for Governor Tom Wolf to launch a "full audit" of the vote there before
certifying the result.
In a
letter to Wolf, Cutler cited the widespread use of mail-in ballots without signatures, the
exclusion of Republicans from polling places, and the extension of the mail-in deadline as
"issues that cannot be overlooked."
Based on how the vote was run in Pennsylvania, "no matter who wins, you're going to have
50 percent of the population, no matter which side, that is not going to have faith in the
result," State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman told reporters on Friday.
Quizzed by reporters about her handling of the vote, Pennsylvania's Secretary of State,
Kathy Boockvar said that she had done everything "to make sure every voter, every candidate
and every party has access to a fair, free, safe and secure election."
Biden has vowed to regain the world's respect for the Outlaw US Empire, which begs this
question: When did the world actually respect it? "Leaders" who uttered the word respect were
paid to do so as it was painfully clear for those at the top levels of governments that after
WW2 what was the USA was now the Outlaw US Empire since it had no compunction violating
International Law and thus its own fundamental Law--a nuclear armed outlaw is something you
fear, not respect. And even before WW2, FDR had to make clear his foreign policy toward those
in the Western Hemisphere was to be that of a Good Neighbor, not Loan Shark. Again, the Loan
Shark is feared, not respected. So, what respect is it that Biden seeks to regain since none
has existed for over a century? We'll need to wait and see what he does immediately after
he's sworn in on 20 January for he must first show respect for the Constitution he'll swear
to defend and uphold, and that means obeying the edicts of International Law as directed by
the UN Charter which is part of said Constitution. IMO, that would need to be a mandatory
first step if he wants to gain respect. Otherwise, he'll signal the USA will remain the
Outlaw US Empire.
Viewing Biden as a cannula to insert Harris and all that would imply, I ask how such a
weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule. Mrs Thatcher sought this,
as did Bush 43, Truman with Korea, and as many others have classically done, by making a war
and a victory. It does seem sure that the "election" has failed materially to achieve the
basic goal of creating consent. In the example of Thatcher, Robert Green tells us that in the
Belgrano affair the war went very nearly to atomic explosives. One is inclined, in the matter
of atomics, to speculate on how many times luck will prevent nukewar. Of course Korea also
came quite close to nukewar too, and remains there.
The glorious (if hypothetical so far) Harris War may not go well, as Martyanov tells us,
the US has in fact lost military supremacy, and the weak unconsented Harris is not liable, I
judge, to have the strength or understanding to avoid defeat.
Defeat, at this stage of empire, may be akin to the wizard of oz being seen to be a fake.
Indeed, Harris herself seems to be a fake "black" and also a fake champion.
When empires lose wars and are seen to be insane, the several satrapies begin to depart.
Only today, they say, Germany decided not to buy F35's... Therefore, considered as a whole
from this moment in History, it seems to me that we shall have a glorious atomic defeat, will
all that follows.
That would seem to satisfy the Deagle prediction of a mere 54 million persons in USA circa
2025.
When discussing weak people in the White House, don't forget the Bush Baby. Weak
presidents serve a purpose, which is to allow their handlers in the CIA/deep state to work
unimpeded. What this means is that Harris has no bearing on whether the US will go kinetic
again. That decision will be up to committees in the CIA/deep state. Unfortunately, the CIA
is a distillation of the very most violently psychotic and delusional freaks from American
society, which is itself a society that produces more than its share of violently psychotic
and delusional freaks.
Neoliberal fascists continue the purge of the real Left and give us a small taste of what
will happen under a Biden presidency
Posted by: killwallstreet | Nov 8 2020 13:37 utc | 3
------------------------------------------------------
Neoliberals and Neocons are both supporters of the Empire! The only difference is Neocon
don't hide their Empire agenda behind some nice words/slogans like the Neoliberals.
Mao once said he'd prefer to deal with the right party.
I ask how such a weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule.
I think you are failing to see the continuity of EMPIRE policy. Biden, Harris, Trump,
Hillary, Obama, GWBush, Clinton all did or will do what the Deep State EMPIRE managers want
them to. Harris is no any more prone to war-making than any of her predecessors and will not
take risks that the Deep State have not thoroughly examined.
This confirms my hypothesis that stated the liberals didn't like Trump merely because he's
vulgar - not because of his policies.
This is the "confidence thesis", which states that the sole factor for the success of any
given liberal system (not socialism - socialism is failed by design...) is merely the people
in it to make it work and trust blindly it will work. Guess where this thesis is dominant?
The financial sector.
The logic of finance is impregnating in every facet of American life and politics. The USA
is consolidating itself more and more as an exclusively financial superpower.
If he's smart, the likely President-elect will stop the unpopular endless wars and use the
money to help our domestic economy.
...Lunch Pail Joe was supposed to win back the support of white, blue-collar workers who had
defected to the Republicans. Campaign organizers said he would energize Black and Latinx
voters. But there wasn't much of a shift among non-college educated men. And those folks who
did go Democratic largely voted against Trump, notfor Biden. It's as if
Biden had undergone an enthusiasm bypass.
Trump's populist appeal has strong racist and misogynist elements, but also reflects a
genuine anger at economic inequality and endless wars. If Biden simply returns to mainstream
Democratic Party governance, it won't satisfy the Democratic Party base nor those Trump
supporters with legitimate complaints.
So what is to be done?
Biden will have his hands full reversing Trump's disastrous domestic policies. But he can
also make serious changes in US foreign policy.
Biden can implement progressive and popular policies during his first 100 days in office, in
many cases, programs that he already promised and which don't require Congressional approval.
These include:
Stop the war in Yemen : This years-long conflict, which benefits no one but the
oil-rich rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has killed more than 100,000
people and caused the preventable deaths of 113,000 children .
Biden could immediately freeze weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, forcing them to stop
bombing civilians and withdraw their troops. It would be one step toward ending unpopular,
endless wars.
Earlier this year, Democrats and anti-interventionist Republicans in the Senate voted to
invoke the War Powers Act to stop funding the Yemen war. It was vetoed by Trump.
To his credit, Biden supported the war powers resolution. His campaign spokesperson Andrew
Bates
toldThe Washington Post , "Vice President Biden believes it is past time to end US
support for the war in Yemen and cancel the blank check the Trump Administration has given
Saudi Arabia for its conduct of that war."
Lift Trump's unilateral oil blockade of Cuba and restore normal diplomatic relations:
Trump has gone further to economically attack Cuba than any other President. He cut off much of
Cuba's oil supplies from Venezuela by
applying sanctions against international shipping companies. This, combined with a halt in
foreign tourism, has wrecked the Cuban economy. Public transport doesn't have enough gasoline;
trucks can't bring produce from the countryside.
The people of Cuba pose no danger to the US. During the later part of Barack Obama's
presidency, people from the US freely visited Cuba, to the benefit of both countries.
During the campaign, Biden
said , "As President, I will promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted
harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights."
With a stroke of the pen Biden could lift the oil embargo, re-open US visits to Cuba, and
fully staff the Embassy in Havana, which is now operating with a skeleton crew.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear accord: Trump unilaterally withdrew from the internationally
binding Iran
nuclear accord and imposed harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people. This policy of
"maximum pressure" has failed to change Iranian domestic or foreign policy. Biden should
immediately rejoin the accord and lift all sanctions related to nuclear issues.
In September, Biden wrote
, "If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the US would rejoin the
agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations." He added that the new administration
would lift the "disgraceful" ban that prohibits Iranians and people from other Muslims nations
from entering the US.
But Biden's promises were couched
in bellicose, Cold War rhetoric about Iran's alleged threats to the US. Democratic and
Republican hawks will certainly pressure Biden to take a hard line against Iran. But both
countries would benefit from re-implementing the accord and lowering tensions.
End attacks on China: Trump initiated a trade war against China. He tried to ban
Chinese technology from being used in the US and even
sought the arrest of a top Chinese corporate executive. But, of course, China retaliated.
Trump's policy against China has been a massive failure, with the US losing nearly
300,000 jobs as of September 2019.
China poses no military threat to the people of the US. China has one military base outside
its territory; the US has about 750. China now has also developed the world's second largest
economy and competes successfully with US corporations. The trade war is aimed at promoting US
corporate profits at the expense of Chinese competitors.
With executive action, Biden could end the trade war quickly. Unfortunately, Biden has
"drunk the Kool-Aid" when it comes to China. He said , "My focus will be on rallying our friends in
both Asia and Europe in . . . joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology
abuses."
Biden must shift policies on China as part of recognizing that the world has changed a lot
in recent years.
Joe Biden is a mainstream Democrat who supported many of the foreign policy disasters
of past presidencies. He backed the occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War, and he
strongly supports Israel against the Palestinians.
But today, the US is considerably weaker, wracked by recession, and politically divided.
People are fed up with endless wars. Regional powers such as Turkey, Russia, and Iran are
exerting influence in areas formerly under US domination.
If he's smart, Biden will recognize the new reality, stop US interventions, and use the
money being spent on foreign wars to help our domestic economy. I'm confident he will make some
promised changes but progressives will have to build grass roots pressure to make the changes
we really need.
Foreign Correspondent appears every other week. Reese Erlich is an adjunct professor in
International Studies at the University of San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
The world Vice President Biden knew at the end of the Obama administration no longer exists.
In four years, President Trump reshaped the geopolitical reality around the globe, making
Biden's dreams of "normalization" impossible.
If the press reports are true, it appears that much of the world joined the roughly 50
percent of Americans who celebrated the news that Joe Biden had passed the Electoral College
threshold of the 270 votes needed to become president-elect. While America struggles to find a
path where Biden will be able to restore domestic tranquility to a deeply divided nation, the
world will likewise need to get to grips with how it will respond to an administration whose
thinking is rooted in a world that no longer exists.
The geopolitical reality that existed in 2016, following eight years of the Obama
administration, has been radically transformed after four years of a Trump administration which
broke with virtually every previously held diplomatic norm, tradition, and precedent. It was
not just US policy that had been altered – the world also changed, forced to adapt to
Trump's unconventional approach toward international affairs. A Biden administration which
seeks to recreate the world that existed in 2016 will find itself ill-prepared to deal with the
harsh new realities of a post-Trump world.
Repairing the US economy will be a top domestic priority for a Biden administration, and
this cannot be without consideration being given to the contentious state of US-China
relations. Policies
seeking to bring an end to the ongoing US-China trade war will collide with
Biden's tough rhetoric regarding China's military presence in the South China Sea and
elsewhere. It is hard to see how either can be done in isolation, meaning the status quo
inherited from the Trump administration will likely remain for some time to come.
Hollow
climate rhetoric
Joe Biden has promised that he would re-enter the Paris Climate Accord immediately upon
assuming the presidency. When the Trump administration formally withdrew the US from the Paris
Accord on November 4, 2020, Joe Biden responded by tweeting"Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly
77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it."
Re-entering the Paris Climate Accord will not pose much of a problem – the US never
treated it as a treaty, with then-president Obama bypassing constitutional requirements for
Senate advice and consent by simply signing an executive order. But is unlikely that Biden will
be able to get Congress to fund a
multi-trillion-dollar initiative at a time when the US economy is reeling from the economic
downturn brought on by the Civd-19 pandemic. In short, Biden's plan to rejoin the Paris Accord
is little more than political theater with no chance of meaningful success.
Repairing the
Iran deal or not
Another "day one" priority for Biden is to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal). President Trump precipitously withdrew from this
Obama-legacy agreement in May 2018 (another agreement enshrined not as a treaty, but rather
through executive order).
Biden has committed to rejoining the deal "once Iran returns to compliance," and then use
the JCPOA as the basis upon which to negotiate a broader and longer-lasting deal with Iran.
One of the first challenges confronting a Biden administration is to navigate the issue of
what constitutes "returning to compliance." It was the US, not Iran, that withdrew from the
JCPOA, and today the JCPOA framework continues to exist, sans America. As such, the first step
that must be taken is for the US to rejoin without pre-conditions. Then and only then would
Iran consider the possibility of resuming negotiations about any post-JCPOA agreement.
However, some of Biden's key foreign policy advisers
appear to have re-thought their position on Iranian sanctions , which would be lifted if
the US rejoined the JCPOA. There is a feeling that the Trump policy of "maximum pressure" might
be on the verge of paying dividends. Void of any up-front commitment regarding future nuclear
policy, ballistic missiles or regional interference, there is a feeling in the Biden camp that
keeping sanctions in place might be the best policy option vis-a-vis Iran.
Further complicating any future Biden Iran policy will be how a Biden
administration deals with the issue of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria,
and the Trump Arab-Israeli "peace offensive" which has seen several Gulf Arab States normalize
relations with Israel as part of an effort to solidify an anti-Iranian coalition in the Persian
Gulf. It is highly likely that Biden will seek to solidify the US military presence in the
region, thereby threatening the peace agreement with the Taliban, and provoking pro-Iranian
militias in Iraq. Likewise, Biden will seek to use the US military presence inside Syria as a
means of strengthening US-Kurdish ties. In short, a Biden administration will find itself
rapidly bogged down in the forever wars in the Middle East, with no plan on how to either win
or get out.
US-Israeli relations during the Obama administration were at an all-time low, primarily
because of Israel's handling of the issue of Palestinian rights and statehood. With the Trump
administration all but writing Palestine out of any Arab-Israeli framework for peace, the Biden
administration will be immediately confronted by the issue of
how to re-engage on the issue of Palestine , knowing that in doing so it could upset the
trajectory of Arab-Israeli normalization that had been begun under Trump.
Turkey and
NATO
Likewise,
the issue of Turkey looms large . Turkey's involvement in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and now
Azerbaijan has changed the geopolitical landscape in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Levant,
and the southern Caucasus in the four years since the Obama administration. Any effort to
aggressively confront Turkey would need to be taken in conjunction with Biden's plans to
"repair" America's relationship with NATO and the rest of Europe. This is especially the case
regarding Turkey's contentious relations with both France and Greece.
NATO itself is a major issue confronting a Biden administration.
Biden has said he will renew good relations between the US and its NATO allies strained by
four years of the Trump administration. But what does this mean exactly? Will Biden keep US the
forces in Germany that Trump had begun to withdraw? And what will Biden do about US forces in
Poland? Does Biden's pledge to "get tough" with Russia extend to doubling down on demanding new
elections in Belarus? Providing more lethal aid to Ukraine? Further encouraging Georgian
membership in NATO? What will Biden's policy be regarding intermediate-range missiles in Europe
following Trump's withdrawal from the 1987 landmark INF Treaty? The reality is Trump has left a
potential Biden administration a tangled mess in Europe, where any policy initiative in one
area raises a host of problems in another.
And then there is the issue of Russia. Biden spent
his entire campaign promoting how "tough" he was going to be on Russia , and in particular
its president, Vladimir Putin. Two major decisions that will be confronted by a Biden
administration early on, however, would require more finesse than muscle. The most pressing
will be the extension of the Obama-era New START treaty, set to expire on February 21, 2021
– exactly a month and one day after President Biden would be sworn into office. Russia
has indicated that it is ready to extend the New START treaty without preconditions, and
it is likely that a Biden administration would seek to do just this in order to preserve
the last reaming arms control framework between the US and Russia. The next step, however
– negotiating a follow-on treaty – requires an atmosphere of trust that, on the
surface at least – appears to be lacking on the part of a new Biden administration,
especially if it is simultaneously seeking to appear "tough."
Another problem is that of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, connecting Russia with Europe.
The Trump
administration has put in place strong sanctions designed to kill the project. Germany, a
critical NATO ally and one of the nations with which a Biden administration would logically be
seeking to repair relations (especially after the particularly contentious relationship between
Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel), has taken umbrage over what it deems to be US
interference in its sovereign economic interests.
When Biden was vice president under Obama,
he called the Nord Stream 2 project"a bad deal for Europe." Every indication is
that Biden continues to embrace this stance. Even if Biden were to soften his position on Nord
Stream 2 as an olive branch to Germany, however, it would not mean that Biden would be willing
to soften the US policy on sanctioning Russia over Ukraine. The fact is, Biden does not much
care for Putin, and it is hard to see how the kind of personal relationship that preceded most
meaningful US-Russian diplomatic breakthroughs could be engendered, let alone prosper.
There are many other critical foreign policy challenges facing a potential Biden
administration, including the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, Venezuela, the war in
Yemen, and the growing ISIS presence in Africa, to name but a few. A Biden administration would
most likely seek to bring into its ranks foreign policy and national security experts who had
been weaned on eight years of the Obama administration. But the world these experts left in
2016 no longer exists. Moreover, these experts have been virtually shut out from any advisory
role during the Trump administration. A new Biden foreign policy team will be seeking to
rebuild relations with a world based upon an outdated game plan, creating the potential for a
disconnect between expectations and results that could further strain America's relationship
with the global community.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The prevailing view is that a victory for Biden would be bad for Russia, because a
Democratic administration is expected to impose new economic sanctions on Moscow as punishment
for its bad behavior -- first and foremost, for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. This view is widely shared by pro-Kremlin pundits, senior officials and the
executives of state-owned enterprises, and is even promoted by the few remaining independent
Russian media outlets such as the Bell newsletter, a daily staple in the information
diet of the Russian upper-middle class.
A more nuanced view on Biden is held by some people working on U.S. issues in the Russian
government. A president who is not tainted by suspicion of being a Russian asset -- and who
knows how to organize a normal process for national security discussions -- will be able to
restore some guardrails to the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent further deterioration,
those people argue. A President Biden would not be able to pay close attention to Russia, since
he and his senior advisers will be overwhelmed by domestic issues and otherwise focusing on
China. But a possible new Democratic administration appears to be open to retaining some
pillars of the arms control regime and discussing rules of competition in cyberspace. And it
could be more clear-eyed -- and therefore skeptical -- about the side effects and efficiency of
sanctions as the United States' major tool in Russia policy. Much will depend on who is put in
senior positions such as secretary of state and national security advisor, and on the midlevel
bureaucrats controlling the Russia portfolio.
After U.S.-Russian relations nearly hit rock bottom on Trump's watch, nobody in Russia
believes that four more years of Trump could be good for Moscow. If Trump is reelected, the
only silver lining will be the even deeper level of disarray in the Western alliance and U.S.
disengagement from its partners that a second Trump term would likely bring. For the Kremlin,
schadenfreude over the gradual demise of Pax Americana would simply sugarcoat the risks and
downsides of Trump remaining in the White House.
Alexander Gabuev is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center. Twitter:
@AlexGabuev
The Task before "Sleepy Joe" is to put Liberal America Right Back to Sleep
by Jonathan Cook / November 6th, 2020
At birth, all of us begin a journey that offers opportunities either to grow – not
just physically, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually – or to stagnate. The journey
we undertake lasts a lifetime, but there are dozens of moments each day when we have a choice
to make tiny incremental gains in experience, wisdom and compassion or to calcify through
inertia, complacency and selfishness.
No one can be engaged and receptive all the time. But it is important to recognise these
small opportunities for growth when they present themselves, even if at any particular moment
we may decide to avoid grasping them.
When we shut ourselves into the car on the commute to work, do we use it as a moment to be
alone with our thoughts or to silence them with the radio or music? When we sit with friends,
do we choose to be fully present with them or scroll through the news feed on our phones? When
we return from a difficult day at work, do we talk the issues through with family or reach for
a glass of wine, or maybe bingewatch something on TV?
Everyone needs downtime, but if every opportunity for reflection becomes downtime then we
are stagnating, not growing. We are moving away from life, from being human.
Dried-out husk
This week liberal Americans reached for that glass of wine and voted Joe Biden. Others did
so much more reluctantly, spurred on by the fear of giving his opponent another four years.
Biden isn't over the finishing line quite yet, and there are likely to be recounts, court
challenges and possibly violence over the result, but he seems all but certain to be crowned
the next US president. Not that that should provoke any kind of celebration. The rest of the
world's population, future generations, the planet itself – none of us had a vote –
were always going to be the losers whichever candidate won.
The incumbent, Donald Trump, miscalculated, it seems, if he thought dismissing his opponent
as "Sleepy Joe" would be enough to damage Biden's electoral fortunes. True, Trump was referring
to the fact that Biden is a dried-out husk of the machine politician he once was. But after
four years of Trump and in the midst of a pandemic, the idea of sleeping through the next
presidential term probably sounded pretty appealing to liberals.
Most of them had spent their whole political lives asleep, but four years ago they were
forcibly roused from their languor to protest against Donald Trump. They grew enraged by the
symptom of their corrupted political system rather than by the corrupt system itself. For them,
"Sleepy Joe" is just what the doctor ordered.
But it won't be Biden doing the sleeping. It will be the liberals who cheerlead him. Biden
– or perhaps Kamala Harris – will be busy making sure his corporate donors get
exactly what they paid for, whatever the cost to the rest of us.
In this analogy, Trump is not the opposite of Biden, of course. He represents stagnation
too, if of a different kind.
Trump channels Americans' frustration and anger at a political and economic system they
rightly see as failing them. He articulates who should be falsely blamed for their woes: be it
immigrants, minorities, socialists, or the New World Order. He offers justified, if
misdirected, rage in contrast to Biden's dangerous complacency.
But however awful Trump may be, at least some of those voting for him are grappling, if
mostly unconsciously, with the tension between stagnation and growth – and not of the
economic kind. Unlike most liberals, who dismiss this simplistically as "populism", some of
Trump's supporters do at least seem to recognise that the tension exists. They simply haven't
been offered a constructive alternative to anger and blame.
Ritually disappointed
Unlike the liberals and the Trumpists, many in the US have come to understand that their
political system offers nothing but stultifying stagnation for ordinary Americans by
design , even if it comes in two, smartly attired flavours.
They see that the Trump camp rages ineffectually against the corporate elite, deluded into
believing that a member of that very same elite will serve as their saviour. And they see that
the Biden camp represents an ineffectual rainbow coalition of competing social identities,
deluded into believing that those divisions will make them stronger, not weaker, in the fight
for economic justice. Both of these camps appear resigned to being serially – maybe
ritually – disappointed.
Failure does not inspire these camps to seek change, it makes them cling all the more
desperately to their failed strategies, to attach themselves even more frantically and
fervently to their perceived tribe.
That is why this US election – at a moment when the need for real, systemic change is
more urgent, more evident than ever before – produced not just one but two of the worst
presidential candidates of all time. We are looking at exactly what happens when a whole
society not only stops growing but begins to putrefy.
Enervating divisions
Not everyone in the US is so addicted to these patterns of self-delusion and self-harm.
Large swaths of the population don't bother to vote out of hard-borne experience. The system
is so rigged against them that they don't think it matters much which corporate party is in
power. The outcome will be the same for them either way.
Others vote third party, or consciously abstain in protest at big money's vice-like grip on
the two-party system. Others, appalled at the prospect of Trump – and before him the two
Bushes, and before that Ronald Reagan – were forced once again to vote for the Democratic
ticket with a heavy heart. They know all too well who Biden is (a creature of his corporate
donors) and what he stands for (whatever his corporate donors want). But he is slightly less
monstrous than his rival, and in the US system those are the meaningful electoral options.
And among Trump's supporters too, there are many desperate for wholesale change. They voted
for Trump because at least he paid lip service to change.
These groups – most likely a clear electoral majority – could redirect the US
towards political, social, even spiritual growth, if they could find a way to come together.
They suffer from their own enervating divisions.
How should they best use their numerical strength? Should they struggle to win the
presidency, and if so should it be a third-party candidate or should they work within the
existing party structures? What lesson should they draw from the Democratic leadership's
sabotaging – twice over – of Bernie Sanders, a candidate offering meaningful
change? Is it time to adopt an entirely different strategy, rejecting traditional politics? And
if so, can it be made to work when all the major institutions – from the politicians and
courts, to the police, intelligence services and media – are firmly in the hands of the
corporate enemy?
Terrible reckoning
There is no real way to sleep through life, or politics, and not wake up one day –
usually when it is too late – realising catastrophic mistakes were made.
As individuals, we may face that terrible reckoning on our death-beds. Empires rarely go so
quietly. They fall when it is time for their citizens to learn a painful lesson about hubris.
Their technological innovations come back to haunt them, as ancient Rome's lead water-pipes
supposedly once did. Or they over-extend with ambitious wars that drain the coffers of gold, as
warrior-kings have discovered to their cost through the ages. Or, when the guardians of empire
least expect it, "barbarians" – the victims of their crimes – storm the city
gates.
The globe-spanning US empire faces the rapid emergence of all these threats on a planetary
scale. Its endless wars against phantom enemies have left the US burdened with astounding debt.
Its technologies, from nuclear weapons to AI, mean there can be no possible escape from a major
miscalculation. And the US empire's insatiable greed and determination to colonise every last
inch of the planet, if only with our waste products, is gradually killing the life-systems we
depend on.
If Biden becomes president, his victory will be a temporary win for torpor, for complacency.
But a new Trump will emerge soon enough once again to potentise – and misdirect –
the fury steadily building beneath the surface. If we let it, the pendulum will swing back and
forth, between ineffectual lethargy and ineffectual rage, until it is too late. Unless we
actively fight back, the stagnation will suffocate us all.
The emergence in recent weeks of a coalition of neoconservative Republicans and former US
national-security officials who have thrown their support behind the Democratic candidacy of
Joe Biden is an ominous development to those who believe US foreign policy should be guided by
the principles of realism and military restraint, rather than perpetual wars of choice.
In early June, a group of former officials from the George W Bush administration launched a
political action committee (PAC) in support of Biden's candidacy. The group,
43 Alumni for Biden , boasts
nearly 300 former Bush officials and is seeking to mobilize disaffected Republicans
nationwide.
The mobilization appears to be having an impact: More recently, "more than 100 former staff
of [the late US senator John] McCain's congressional offices and campaigns also endorsed Biden
for president,"
according to NBC News , as well
as dozens of former staffers from Senator Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
That Republican support comes in addition to the more than 70 former US national-security
officials who teamed up
and issued a statement urging Biden's election in November.
Citing what they believe is the grave damage President Donald Trump has done to US national
security, the group does include some mainstream Republicans like Richard Armitage and Chuck
Hagel, but also features notable neocon hardliners like Eliot Cohen, John Negroponte and David
Kramer, who, perhaps not incidentally, played a
leading role in disseminating the utterly discredited Steele dossier prior to Trump's
inauguration.
These are not merely grifters or desperate bids for attention by unscrupulous and avaricious
Beltway swamp creatures. Though there are those too: the so-called
Lincoln Project , helmed by neocon operative Rick Wilson, which is an outside group of
Republicans (including former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele)
devoted to defeating Trump in November.
As historian David Sessions recently
tweeted , "Basically nobody in liberal circles is taking seriously the consequences of the
fact that the exiled cadre of the Republican Party are building a massive power base in the
Democratic Party."
The merger between Democrats and neocons is not merely confined to the world of electoral
politics; it is already affecting policy as well.
Over the summer, in response to The New York Times'
dubious "Russia bounty" story , Democratic congressman Jason Crow
teamed up with Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney (daughter of former US vice-president
Dick Cheney) to prohibit Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee also collaborated to pass an amendment that
imposed restrictions on Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany , showing, if nothing
else, that the bipartisan commitment to the new cold war is alive and well.
It is noteworthy that while there has been considerable pushback to economic neoliberalism
within the Democratic Party in recent years, thanks, mainly, to the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders, the advocacy of reformers like Elizabeth Warren and the increasing popularity of
economists like
Stephanie Kelton , the same cannot be said for foreign policy.
Biden has evinced an openness to being "pushed left" on social and economic policies if he
is elected president, but on external affairs he still largely operates within the standard
Washington foreign-policy playbook.
If anything, on foreign policy Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, having fallen
not only under the spell of "Russiagate" but also increasingly under the influence of neocons
and other former Bush officials who have pushed that discredited narrative for their own
ends.
The Democrats have also displayed a rather supine obeisance in regard to the country's
intelligence community, in spite of a
multiplicity of well-documented lies or half-truths that would at the very least justify
some skepticism about their claims or motivations.
Nobody should be surprised.
The neocons had been signaling their intention to flee the Republicans as early as 2016 when
it was widely reported that Robert Kagan had decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president
and speak at a Washington fundraiser alongside other national-security fixtures worried about
the alleged isolationist drift within the Republican Party.
Indeed, the Democrats welcomed the likes of Kagan and fellow neocon extremist Max Boot with
open arms, setting the stage for where we are today: a Democratic presidential nominee running
to the right of the Republican nominee on foreign policy.
Missing: whither the progressives?
Over the past few US election cycles, progressive Democrats have increasingly challenged the
party's prevailing neoliberal bias on domestic economic policy. Equally striking, however, is
that they have been delinquent in failing to provide an alternative to the hegemonic influence
of militarists and interventionists growing within their party regarding foreign policy.
As it stands today, the so-called progressive foreign-policy alternative is really no
alternative at all. To the contrary, it evokes Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's seminal work,
The Leopard , whose main character, Tancredi,
sagely observes to his uncle , "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
change."
So it is with much of what passes for a genuine foreign-policy alternative: The rhetoric
slightly changes, the personnel certainly change, but in substance, the policy status quo
largely remains.
Consider a
recent interview with the socialist Jacobin magazine featuring Matt Duss, a foreign-policy
adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Duss, who seeks to articulate the foundations of a new
"progressive" foreign policy, told the Quincy Institute's Daniel Bessner:
"We have neither the right nor the ability to transform other countries, but we should do
what we can to protect and expand the political space in these countries for local people to
do that work. We can also provide funding or resources for American civil society actors to
work in solidarity with their international counterparts ." [emphasis ours]
That sounds anodyne enough, but in reality, it is nothing but a form of liberal
imperialism. Historically, seemingly benign initiatives conducted under the aegis of local
people backed by so-called democracy-building programs have often planted the seeds for more
malign military intervention later.
Who makes the decision as to which local people to support? How does one (purportedly)
protect and expand that political space? We have seen how well that worked out in Afghanistan,
Iraq, or, indeed, in the mounting human tragedy that is Syria today.
Comments like that of Matt Duss amount to this: "We don't have the right to transform other
countries but we're going to try anyway." Forswearing pre-emptive military action (wars of
choice) isn't enough. Change will only come about when US foreign policy adheres to the
principles of the UN Charter, and above all, the ancient Westphalian principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. American policymakers need to
learn that less is more.
That used to be a guiding principle of Democrats, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "
good neighbor policy " that repudiated intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin
America.
Of course, as subsequent events such as World War II illustrated, there may be a point at
which external assistance/intervention in other parts of the world might become necessary; but
the United States should not perpetually arrogate to itself the role of sole judge and jury in
determining when that line should be crossed, no matter how benign its intentions might
appear.
The broader point is that explicating a foreign policy somewhat less hawkish and merely
paying lip service to international law that transcend the norms established by the Bush-Cheney
neocons isn't enough.
That is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Republican-lite economic agenda embraced by "
New Democrats " such as Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner,
whereby the Democrats internalize the Republican Party's market-fundamentalist paradigm, but
simply promise to implement it more fairly, rather than do away with it altogether.
That appears unlikely to change under a future Biden administration. As American
Conservative editor Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
has noted , "Democratic interventionists and Blob careerists now [sit] at the right hand of
[Biden] like [Antony] Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and
Michele Flournoy , who has been touted as a possible secretary of defense.
"They would sooner drag the country back into Syria, as well as position aggressively
against China if the military pushed hard enough and there was a humanitarian reason to justify
it."
Nowhere in Biden's foreign-policy ambit do we find mainstream figures warning about the
dangers of a new cold war with Russia or China, nor to the broader problems posed by America's
overall propensity toward militarism. In fact,
Biden does just the opposite .
The shape of things to come?
With the notable exceptions of a few anti-war Democrats like Barbara Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Ro
Khanna and Jeff Merkley, the opposition party has spent much of the Trump era turning itself
into the party of war.
Meanwhile, one could envisage a future where the Republicans, under the influence of
"national conservatives" such as Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, or even Trump advisers such as
retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor (recently nominated to be US ambassador to Germany),
becomes the party of realism and restraint abroad.
To the limited extent that President Trump has been guided by any kind of restraint (which
has been
capricious at best ), it has paid dividends for the United States. In the Middle East, for
example, given that the United States is now largely energy-self-sufficient, it no longer needs
to play policeman in that part of the world.
Neoconservatives are flocking to the Biden campaign. The DC braintrust that believes in
using US military power to aid Israel in the Middle East has jumped parties before– to
Clinton in '92, and back to Bush in 2000– and now they're hopping aisles to support
Biden, with Bill Kristol leading the way.
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.
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic , echoed
the fear that Israel is being politicized. "A lot of Jews made a big mistake by taking
something I was in favor of, moving the embassy to Jerusalem and obsessing about that," he
said. But there was huge political risk in that: if the United States is internally divided,
at war with itself, and "Israel has become a partisan issue, which it should never ever be .
That's not in Israel's longterm security interest."
Biden will reverse that trend by appointing strong supporters of Israel, Cohen said.
"Joe Biden has a long record as a friend of Israel. I think we're both quite familiar
with the kinds of people who will go into a Biden administration and I think we feel very
comfortable that they will have a deep and abiding concern for Israel which is not going to
go away."
Edelman also said that Trump has created many "dangers" in the region by not being
aggressive:
"By withdrawing or threatening to withdraw US forces, by repeatedly not replying or
dealing with Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf or against Saudi oil infrastructure,
he's created a sort of vacuum that is being filled in Libya by Russia and by Turkey "
Biden will work with allies and be ready to use U.S. military in the region– or as
Edelman said, "to play."
"The region is a mess," Edelman said. "And yet the president continually says he wants the
U.S. to withdraw from the region. The reality is that the withdrawal of US power form the
region has helped create this morass of threats."
He cited three war zones in which the U.S. or proxies' bombing is essential to U.S.
security, Libya, Yemen and Syria.
In Syria, "The Trump administration pulled out and said, we don't want to play here,"
Edelman said.
"Other forces are going to fill the vacuum created by the absence of US leadership and
they won't be benign forces," Edelman said. Iran, Russia, or Turkey will come in and create a
"vortex of instability that can potentially come back to haunt us" -- with terrorist attacks
or the disruption of energy markets.
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
In other words, Trump has failed the Israel Lobby because he has tried to pull our US forces
from the Middle East and, although he has laid down sanctions against Iran, he has not gone to
war. Of course, these are the people who promoted the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war. They
are probably right that Russia and Turkey would benefit from US pulling out completely
(Libya??), but where are legitimate US interests in all this? Trump ran on ending Middle East
wars and getting out of the region–the original reason the neocons jumped ship (in
addition to fears of a nascent Orange Hitler). Despite being president he has been unable to do
so. He has been strongly
opposed by the foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon -- a testament to the extent
to which the US security establishment is Israel-occupied territory.
Lurking in the background of the attitudes of Cohen and Edelman is the idea that Biden would
tame the forces on the left that have been so critical of Israel in recent years. With Biden
they get it all: Strongly pro-Israel even to the point of initiating a war with Iran, taming
the anti-Israel voices on the left (Kamala Harris with her Jewish husband s not among them),
and perhaps a Senate led by Israel operative Chuck Schumer. Meanwhile the Republican Party
would default to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining neocons, and the hope of a
nationally competitive GOP, much less a truly populist GOP, would die. Bill Kristol loves the
prospect of a long-term Democrat domination.
And of course, all of these bellicose proposals are cloaked in a veneer of "Jewish values"
-- not so ironic if one assumes, as is certainly the case, that promoting war for specifically
Jewish interests is indeed a Jewish value.
Cohen spoke about Jewish values. He and his family belong to an orthodox synagogue and
have raised four children with a religious education. "I've tried to live my life by Jewish
values. One thing that's very important for Jewish Republicans. Obviously the issue of Israel
is important, it's the only Jewish state, it's important to look after it and for it to
thrive, but what is our approach to politics?" Jews don't believe that you Render unto God
the things that are God and render unto Caesar the thing that are Caesar's and therefore not
take issue with a politician's character "so long as they do what we want them to do." He
said, "That's not the Jewish way." In the Book of Samuel, the king engages "in despicable
behavior," and the prophet storms into his bedroom. "We believe that character matters." And
this election is about character.
Okay, Trump is not a saint. But given that Biden is up to his eyeballs in scandal doesn't
bother Cohen at all -- despite overwhelming documentation. So we are not supposed to care that
the Biden family raked in millions by using Biden's influence to alter US foreign policy or
that China could easily blackmail him into doing their bidding on trade and military issues. So
in the end, it's really about what Cohen, Edelman, Kristol, et al. think is good for Israel
(Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot jumped the GOP ship even before Trump was elected). Again, count
me unsurprised.
And of course, the other thing is that neocons have always been on the left
within the Republican Party. One might say they have attempted to not only make Israel a
bi-partisan issue (their first priority) but also promoting the liberal/left social agenda,
such as replacement-level non-White immigration, as a bipartisan issue -- both values strongly
promoted by the mainstream Jewish community. They jumped ship mainly because Trump was
promising to undo the liberal/left social agenda as well as disengage from foreign wars and US
occupation of the Middle East. During the 2016 campaign, some of the strongest denunciations of
Trump came from neocons ("
Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump: Neocon Angst about a Fascist America" ).
If you haven't seen it, Carlson's interview with Bobulinski is damning, and the documents he
refers to have been thoroughly authenticated.
Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life and knows what they are like. This is a
double-edged sword for jews as he is wise to their dishonest criminality and double-dealing
and is able to work around their machinations and dishonesty.
This s why (some) jews hate him. If he wanted to, he could expose them for what they truly
are
To Trump's credit, he has his own security detail interspersed within his Secret Service
protection team making possible harm or actions against him difficult if not impossible. A
good thing
I truly believe that Jews are the strongest assets Satan has. They are constantly forcing
us super-stupid Gentiles into wars for Israel. We have Gentile-American soldiers (Jews don't
serve) facing off against my white Christian brothers, mainly to be a counter-balance to
Iranian forces in the country who are battling U.S.-backed terrorists. Jews hate Russians
because they are white Christians and they actually hate us white-Christians in America, too.
(For now, we are simply useful idiots for them.) It is time that we Gentiles wake up and kick
every single last Jew out of this country before the Jews get us all killed!
DJT has done a good job of separating the J wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Unfortunately, it's the chaff that seems to have all the power money and influence. For
now.
Who paid for all this peace in the Middle East?
American tax money was used to
De-stabilize Iraq
De-stabilize Libya
De-stabilize Syria
Only Iran is left as a major power in the Middle East.
Let's get the draft going to get our brave boys and girls(and LGBTQ) fighting to maintain
peace in the Middle East.
We ALL need to give until we can give no more.
Maybe draft exemptions for the Ivy League, someone has to tell us what to do.
Jewish promoted Critical Race Theory believes and teaches that systemic racism is the main
reason why blacks commit criminal acts. Therefore the response to the disparity between White
and Black crime is to alter the standards, i.e., change White expections of the Black
community. Because to say to Black Americans that they must alter their behavior to meet the
current standards is racist.
Samuel Krasner, the Jewish DA in Philadelphia, is aboard with this. He decriminalised
shoplifting in his jurisdiction. And we now have shoplifters walking out of stores with
armfuls of stolen goods whilst smiling in the cameras and saying, 'I can't be
prosecuted.'
Then there is this unbelievable piece of BS legislation from Virginia: "Virginia
legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights,
etc."
When Virginia state legislator who sponsored the bill, Patrick Hope, was asked about this
by a reporter from The Daily Press he responded by saying he didn't know that police were no
longer allowed to stop vehicles for not having their lights illuminated.
Patrick Hope sponsored a bill without actually knowing what was in it! If you think at
this stage that Patrick Hope is a hopeless idiot he gets worse.
When the importance of working brake lights on vehicles was mentioned to Hope he said:
"The brake lights -- I'm not concerned about that as a safety issue -- but I can certainly
see how headlights could be of concern ."
A Virginia state legislator is dumb enough to believe that brake lights have no importance
whatsoever to road safety in his state.
The modern United States? You couldn't f ** king make it up! By the way, who are the
majority people driving defective cars in Virginia? Blacks and other newly arrived
minorities, of course.
Would the local authorities in any part of Israel decriminalise shoplifting for a minority
demographic in their area? Not likely. How about Samuel Krasner, would he recommend that
crime be legalised for minorities in the state of Israel? No, he wouldn't. He's not stupid.
He would not do anything that would destroy his native country.
Would an utter idiot like Hope be allowed to introduce insane life endangering legislation
in Israel? No, his Jew financial backers would not allow that.
But, Trump or no Trump, all this is coming to your local area of America very soon.
It's amazing. It's astounding. A cursory look shows there are Jews behind every act of
destruction against White America and its founding culture.
The Jews are driving the de-educating of American youth, they've staffed 90% of the media
with lying, immoral and shameless journalists and installed unintelligent and easily
corruptible politicians in both US political parties.
As we see with Hope, the Jews have made possible state legislators who are so stupid that
they are probably suffering from mental health issues. What's very sad is that there's hardly
a peep from the great American public against them.
The Jews who first suggested making anti-semitism a crime in the West actually said to
their comtemperies at the time that it was just a "pipe dream." They never actually thought
in their wildest dreams that Western people and politicians would accept the lie that
anti-Jewishness was systemic in the West and needed laws to counteract it.
But, unbelievably for them, they easily got their anti-Semitism legislation enacted. And
then, enboldened, they drove ahead with Holocaust denial and all the other BS.
Now, as we see with the headlights, brake lights and the decriminalising of shoplifting
for Blacks, the Jews have become viciously emboldened. They've learned that European
provenanced Whites will accept any and all Bull S ** t that is thrown at them.
Shame on all Americans for sitting idly by whilst the tiny Jew demographic urines on all
that your forefathers built and fought for.
If your descents are Islamist slaves policed by Blacks in the latter half of this century
(all ruled from on-high by the Jews) they'll deserve it. They'll deserve it because their
fathers and grandfathers were idle and lazy cowards who sat on their butts while the great
inheritance which they were bequeathed was pulled out from under them.
BTW: Who had secured a vantage point in New York in September 2001 from which to watch the
planes fly into the buildings? And who then danced and cheered energetically as the planes
hit the buildings and killed 2,977 people?
Surely, you might think, it was Arabic Islamists, or Pakistanis, or some other race of
Muslims.
You'd be wrong if you thought this.
The correct answer is "five Israelis". Yes, it was five Jews who danced and sang as 2,977
Americans were murdered in cold blood.
@Lot el. Cursed with the loss of thousands of American lives resulting from such actions.
Cursed with the loss of tens of thousand of non-American lives from such actions. All this
for a shitty little country with which America doesn't even have a defence treaty.
Our Steadfast Ally ? The USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard and the Israeli selling of American
defence technology to China immediately spring to mind. There is no defence treaty between
America and Israel. Israel is not America's ally. Rather it is a parasite on the American
body politic. Either Americans rip the parasite off their body, or it will eventually kill
America.
It appears the "Russia, Russia, Russia" cries from Adam Schiff and his dutiful media peons
is dead (we can only hope) as Director of National Intel John Ratcliffe just confirmed to Foxx
Business' Maria Bartiromo that:
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
As Politico's Quint Forgey details
(@QuintForgey) , DNI Ratcliffe is asked directly whether accusations leveled against the
Bidens in recent days are part of a Russian disinformation effort.
He says no:
"Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no
intelligence that supports that."
" We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that
Hunter Biden's laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It's simply not true.
"
"And this is exactly what I said would I stop when I became the director of national
intelligence, and that's people using the intelligence community to leverage some political
narrative."
"And in this case, apparently Chairman Schiff wants anything against his preferred
political candidate to be deemed as not real and as using the intelligence community or
attempting to use the intelligence community to say there's nothing to see here."
"Don't drag the intelligence community into this. Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of
some Russian disinformation campaign. And I think it's clear that the American people know
that."
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.
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.
As we detailed previously, as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal threatens to throw the 2020
election into chaos with what appears to be solid, undisputed evidence of high-level corruption
by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the same crowd which peddled the
Trump-Russia hoax is now suggesting that Russia is behind it all .
To wit, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who swore on National television
that he had evidence Trump was colluding with Russia - now says that President Trump is handing
the Kremlin a "propaganda coup from Vladimir Putin."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has gone full tin-foil , suggesting that Giuliani was a 'key
target' of 'Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.'
2/ Russia knew it had to play a different game than 2016. So it built an operation to cull
virulently pro-Trump Americans as pseudo-assets, so blind in their allegiance to Trump that
they'll willingly launder Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.
Yet, if one looks at the actual facts of the case - in particular, that Hunter Biden appears
to have dropped his own laptops off at a computer repair shop, signed a service ticket , and
the shop owner approached the FBI first and Rudy Giuliani last after Biden failed to pick them
up, the left's latest Russia conspiracy theory is quickly debunked .
This is the story of an American patriot, an honorable man, John Paul Mac Issac, who tried
to do the right thing and is now being unfairly and maliciously slandered as an agent of
foreign intelligence, specifically Russia. He is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own
man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I've known John Paul's dad as
Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his
military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews
of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers
his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served
their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple – Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid
damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Mac Issac,
examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on
the harddrive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul
Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and down loaded the data . During this process he saw some
disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other
issues . With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden
and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. H unter did not respond . In the
ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to
contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed
John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was
sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring
with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an
agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the
FBI. He was told basically, get lost . This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI
agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John
Paul's business . He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached.
Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device .
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John
Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a
subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the
purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive
and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard
nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared
with President Trump's defense team.
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 lack of action and communication with the FBI led John Paul to make the fateful decision
to contact Rudy Giuliani's office and offer a copy of the drive to the former mayor. We now
know that Rudy accepted John Paul's offer and that Rudy's team shared the information with the
New York Post.
John Paul Mac Issac is not responsible for the emails, images and videos recovered from
Hunter Biden's computer. He was hired to do a job, he did the job and submitted an invoice for
the work. Hunter Biden, for some unexplained reason, never responded and never asked for the
computer. But that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter
Biden's lawyer called John Paul Mac Issac and asked for the computer to be returned. Too late.
That horse had left the barn and was with the FBI.
John Paul, acting under Delaware law, understood that Hunter's computer became the property
of his business 90 days after it had been abandoned.
At no time did John Paul approach any media outlet or tabloid offering to sell salacious
material . A person of lesser character might have tried to profit. But that is not the essence
of John Paul Mac Issac. He had information in his possession that he learned, thanks to events
subsequent to receiving the computer for a repair job, was relevant to the security of our
nation. He did what any clear thinking American would do–he, through his father,
contacted the FBI. When the FBI finally responded to his call for help, John cooperated fully
and turned over all material requested .
The failure here is not John Paul's . He did his job. The FBI dropped the ball and, by
extension, the Department of Justice. Sadly, this is becoming a disturbing, repeating
theme–the FBI through incompetence or malfeasance is not doing its job.
Any news outlet that is publishing the damnable lie that John Paul is part of some
subversive effort to interfere in the United States Presidential election is on notice. That is
slander and defamation. Fortunately, the evidence from Hunter Biden's computer is in the hands
of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani and, I suspect, the U.S. Senate. Those with the power to do
something must act. John Paul Mac Issac's honor is intact. We cannot say the same for those
government officials who have a duty to deal with this information.
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
"Joe Biden's 'war economy' policies are a radical break with the status quo."
Telegraph
"Bidenomics is a heady brew. The Democrats' $7.9 trillion blast of extra spending is a step
beyond Roosevelt's New Deal. It mimics the Keynesian expansion of the Second World War and
consciously aims to run the economy at red-hot speeds of growth.
If enacted in full, it is large enough to lift the US economy out of the zero-rate
deflationary trap of the last decade and entirely reshape the social and financial
landscape.
The stimulus will be corralled inside the closed US economy by Joe Biden's protectionist
"Buy America" policies, his industrial strategy, and his carbon border tax (i.e. disguised
tariffs against China). This limits leakage.
It is a laboratory of sorts for a post-globalisation experiment in what used to be called
"reflation in one country" – before the free flow of goods and capital emasculated
sovereign governments.
"It's quite likely that, just as in World War II, when we push down on the economic
accelerator, we will find that we have been running on one cylinder up until no w," said the
Roosevelt Institute, now advisors to the
Biden campaign .
This is why
Moody's Analytics estimates that Bidenomics accompanied by a Democrat clean sweep of
Congress would lift American GDP by an extra 4.8pc, add an extra seven million jobs, and raise
per capita income by an extra $4,800 over the next four years , compared to a clean sweep by
Donald Trump. Economic growth would rocket to 7.7pc in 2022." Telegraph -------------
Evans-Pritchard, the author of this piece baldly declares that the Trump tax cut failed to
stimulate economic growth and that a clean sweep by the Democrats in November would lead to
massive GDP growth and a reduction in present economic inequalities in American society. I will
be very interested in your comments. pl
That's a fine read Col. Thank goodness that after 47 years as a politician, including 8
years as VP - during which TARP did what? - Biden finally has a plan to Tax and Spend that
beats all the Tax and Spend plans that went before this one.
Just what is this getting spent on - the same things Obama-Biden promised, "green" (the
color of money) energy, solar charging stations and 1.5 million energy efficient homes
(didn't the Housing bubble cause a little economic problem?), 'educaiton'! I wonder if that
includes teaching us all critical race theory? and "infrastructure". And here I thought
broken records were out of style.
Where's the money coming from? According to Oxfordeconomics, which the Guardian links to,
Biden's raising taxes, but it won't lower consumer spending:
".... we estimate an overall multiplier of 0.25 for the individual provisions in Biden's tax
package. So, for every dollar of tax increase, households would reduce their spending by 25
cents. As such, while the proposal would generate a substantial revenue inflow, we
don'tbelieve it would significantly constrain consumer spending."
So what is the decline in corporate spending if you raise corporate taxes? The economists
at Oxfordeconomics conveniently left that out, nor did they eplicitly tell you that a decade
of tax revenue will still leave you with 60 years of tax burden from Joe's spending.
"On the corporate tax front, the most significant revenue raisers are:•A 7ppt
increase in the statutory corporate tax rate to 28%, which would raise $1.3tn over
10years.•An increase in taxes on foreign earnings.•A 15% minimum tax on global book
income.•The elimination of several real estate investment tax preferences." (Oooh look,
Trump's screwed! Yeah! I wonder how all those REITs look with that?)
Another unasked question: Who is going to do all that economy stimulating work if there is
a national lockdown due to Covid?
"LaRouche's comments were prompted by an article published in the Telegraph on May 19 by
British intelligence stringer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose experience in orchestrating U.S.
impeachment drives for the British goes back to his attacks on President Bill Clinton.
Evans-Pritchard, on the eve of Trump's first trip abroad as President, is spreading the black
propaganda line that Trump might already be incapacitated, in much the same way as President
Richard Nixon was incapacitated by then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who "instructed
U.S. military officials to ignore any order from the Oval Office to use nuclear weapons."
Evans-Pritchard asserts that the key to overthrowing Trump is to pull Republican support
away from him, which he admits is still strong. But what happens next? He quotes Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, former British UN ambassador and now chairman at Gatehouse Advisory Partners:
"America can be very powerful if it decides to act hard. Xi Jinping and Putin will probably
wait and see whether Trump self-destructs." Evans-Pritchard then raises the question: How
will Trump behave "when the special prosecutor [Robert Mueller] starts to let rip with a
volley of subpoenas."
I like the idea of a Carbon Border Tax. Or at least the one proposed by the EU, as I have
not seen Biden's proposal. It has never made sense to me that we import from countries with
low environmental standards when our own manufacturers are handicapped.
But unless Biden can carry Democratic Senatorial challengers against GOP incumbents it
ain't gonna happen. It will be stalled in the Senate. There is no way McConnell will even
allow it on the Senate floor.
This thinking has been wrong, repeatedly so, for the last 10 years. The idea that there is
just one more pedal to push down to jumpstart the economy belies the truth that we have
experienced the most accommodative and expansive monetary policy on a global level in modern
times.
Aside from the lack of efficacy, which I may look to discuss at length later on, there is
another striking thing about this plan, and that is how it will be paid for. The reason is
not the traditional "where will the money come from" I know where it will come from, cheap US
debt, but it tells us two key things. The first is that the functional ideas of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT) that you can basically just issue debt and have your central bank both
monetize it and keep the interest payments low and use that to fund largely unlimited
government spending have for the most part been endorsed by those on the left as a mechanism
to deliver on their grand plans. The second thing that is striking though is what they want
to spend the money on, which is military spending and infrastructure and not healthcare and a
green new deal. This calls into question what alignment there is on the cadres of the left or
the possibility that starting with infrastructure is a way to run cover to expand these
fantasy economics to social projects without reorienting the economy towards their
achievement.
Evans-Pritchard's talents are wasted on economic commentary. He writes well, but in the
breathless tones of a failed thriller writer. His entire worldview is based on the notion
that it is always two minutes to midnight. It's a shame that they put all of his stuff behind
a paywall.
Maybe if Biden's plan is approved we will finally see the inflation that Wall Street and
its media minions have been whining about for the past forty years.
I have no doubt that the collapsing pocket that is Conservative Inc will luxuriate back on
the familiar loser's ground of "fiscal responsibility."
Biden's plan, such as it is, simply marries the essence of Trump's nationalist policies
with Great Society spending levels. Like so much of his platform, it is designed to keep the
progressives on the plantation until Nov 3 and not one minute beyond.
Sure it will. The devil is in the details. When has any Democrat economic plan ever
produced intended results. First they have to confess what went wrong with their trillion
dollar "War on Poverty" that now requires another trillion to pretend to clean up that
grotesquely distorted mess.
Until they confess to their sins of the past, they are doomed to repeat them. How are they
going to remedy their decades of teacher union K1-2 fail turning out entire generations of
dysfunctional illiterates who are somehow going to be absorbed into this dynamite
economy.
They are sitting in the back room smoking dope and spinning tales. What I hear is wealth
confiscation and/or turning on the printing presses. Time for a good recap of Obama's initial
"Green Jobs Revolution" from his first term - who did those promise work out and why are we
having to undo the piles of excrement Biden First Term left behind.
I have a bad case of deja vu When in fact the Trump Tweaking was paying long term
dividends, until the deep state hijacked covid to destroy any possible Trump bragging rights.
Never forget Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU address and declaring they were all lies --
and then carrying out her covid porn agenda to make sure she was proven correct.
Remember the three generation rule - all revolutionary and planned economies always fail
by the third generation. Soviet Union, Margaret Thatcher's warning, Cuba, etc ......if all
the wealth in the world was redistributed, it would be back in similar hands three
generations later. Societies always stratify, even since the Sumerians.
America is unique primarily because of the mobility it offers between the strata by its
relatively free market system. Don't mess with it. Democrat's heavy handed planned utopia is
a nightmare.
I am no economist. However, I am not in debt. I am not wealthy, but I have all I need and
want. I've worked very hard during my life and enjoyed my jobs because they were suited to my
training and kislls. My retirement funds keep me comfortable. My two sons are doing well in
our current economy. That's, of course, a self-centered view of the situation.
But, with that in mind, I say this: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." (I know Biden is not
Greek, but I hope you get my point.)
I am also remembering the Obama administration. I may receive only an Obama phone and an
EBT card.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is generally a very astute writer. However, on economics and
national fiscal policies and central banking he has bought into the Davos sophistry that
defies common sense for over a decade.
An example of this sophistry is this line from the passage in your post - "..lift the US
economy out of the zero-rate deflationary trap of the last decade...". Ask an average
American if they've seen any price deflation in their rents or house prices, their kid's
tuition, their health care premiums, their cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of tacos at
their neighborhood taqueria, the cost of getting their shirt cleaned, over the past decade
and they'll laugh at you. The cost of living of average Americans have risen and that is the
real living experience. But of course if you're Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi or Jerome Powell
or Ms. Lagarde then we are in a "deflationary trap" and they should print more and more money
that gets shipped first to their friends on Wall St. The Party of Davos as Jack called
it.
Under the government enforced lockdown, how many trillions has the US federal government
under the Trump administration borrowed from future generations in the first and now the
second stimulus waiting for approval? How many trillions did Jerome Powell print up and send
to his friends at Blackrock and Citadel?
GDP is a useless indicator IMO. Digging trenches and filling them up will raise GDP. A
very important indicator however is productivity growth. That has been lagging for many
years. Another are median household income & wealth, which has also been lagging. What
we've seen in the US is a dramatic increase in wealth inequality between the top 0.1% vs the
bottom 80% over the past 50 years and this curve continues to accelerate - second order
derivative!! The second is the level of systemic debt across all sectors - individuals,
corporate and government at all levels that has continuously risen over 50 years increasing
systemic leverage to a point larger than during the civil war and WW II. This has occurred
under both parties and the Trump presidency has actually increased it despite the rhetoric.
Compare the Balance of Trade relative to the soundbites.
A systematic restructuring of our economy away from financialization, away from bailouts
of the oligarchy, away from unprecedented market concentration, away from untrammeled credit
expansion to back previous credit losses and having a monetary authority with a singular
focus on sound money is what's necessary. But that's not gonna happen under either Trump or
Biden as it will gore the ox of the Party of Davos whose interests is what both sides
primarily cater to. More debt-fueled government spending always ends up as socialism for the
oligarchy which is exactly what we've had for decades. It is an economic truism that as
productivity of debt continually declines, economic productivity also declines. That's the
trap we are in!
Been very happy with my gold investments these past two years and will stick with them
thanks, Biden would supercharge them.
Longer term I am looking to have most of my money in Asia, Russian oil companies also seem
to like drilling for oil, rather than desperately trying to be anything else than producing
oil like BP and the rest. Demographics are dire for most of the West and the US is likely to
continue transitioning in to a Latin American style country. People have been well
conditioned in to not talking about such things but no point talking about the increasing
economic dysfunction without talking about the underlying cause. A massive increase in
immigration will lead to a surge in inequality, anemic economic growth, fiscal deficits and a
decline in gdp per capita.
Time to start think about investments the way a well to do Latin would.
Well, Biden has to get elected first, we'll see. Carbon taxes, hmmm - another way to
destroy the middle-class?
Something to think about is the European Central Bank, they are a meeting late this month
with "experts" to determine if they will go to a digital currency. The ECB might then decide
the "experts" are right and go full digital on Jan 1st, 2021. We might see a whole lot of
Euro money coming into the USA, hope so. However, the Federal Reserve has not been printing
any new bank notes so you'll have trouble finding crisp bills for Christmas gifts.
IMO, based on the debt current and future we are loading on the backs of our children, it
matters not a whit which of the paths are chosen. Both will end in destruction of said debt
by some method - because you can only load so much on horseback and still ride. As we stand
now, we are walking alongside a swaybacked packhorse already. Closing off the country, where
the only growth has been in the services sector for decades, makes sense in what
universe?
Raise taxes? They have only ever increased in my lifetime, my fathers and his. At what
point does the Boston Tea Party repeat? From where I sit, everything either party does is
only adding fuel to a coming conflagration, as nothing is actually paid for - a ledger entry
is aggregated and we march on. The piper will get paid, as he has the children...
1.socialism and keynesian economics as a viable theory dead dead right now....today and
politicians know it
2. central banks are trapped at zero bound interest rates with no way under heretofore main
stream economic theories to stimulate their respective economies
3. politicians are largely dumb as a bag of hammers with not a shred of understanding what to
do other than to listen to think tanks warmed over rehashed ideas that have not worked in the
past and won't now.
4. what biden is proposing is MMT with communist thomas piketty theory disguised as classical
keynesian nonsense being sold to a public almost as dumb as those doing the selling
5. in order to make this works they will have to institute guranteed basic income for the
umpteen millions of people who will NEVER work again under this policy of bullshit
6. and lastly to ensure NO ONE can escape this trap which will evolve into an UGLY neo
feudalism for 99% of the populace this team of genuinely EVIL people will have to CANCEL ALL
paper money FORCING everyone to have a bank account for using digital money THE ONLY money
that can exist if this comes to pass. banks loves this as it gives them a cut of all the
action
7.as a result taxes will be anything they want and YOU have no escape or recourse
whatsoever
8. say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing and your economic life under digital money will
be cancelled placing you into destitution and death
9. this is a recipe for slavery on a gigantic scale ensuring the 1/10 of 1% can rule without
disturbance forever
10 revolution will be the only option at that point and since the police and military will
continue to be paid by the state it will be bloody
On the other hand, if this scheme promises to bring back the Jimmy Carter 14% interest
rates on CD's for us retired folks, I say bring it on. Everyone else will just have to deal
with the economic rubble later on their own.
I just need another good 15 years or so myself. In other words, never believe old people
when it comes to managing the US economy- our goals are selfish and very short term. So like,
what's in this for meeeeeee?
Biden must have listened to AOC for this fiscal policy advice. Bring back chicken coops
and victory gardens, and turn in your scrap metal because we are WAR.
What in God's name is Biden having a Brit pushing his economic plan. We all know they
embellish everything which then falls apart into pieces. Yes, Fred I remember those +14%
interest rates I paid on my mortgage and still kick myself for not taking the 100k down
payment and putting it into a 14% 30 year CD and renting. But then we all have those
memories. Sure would not want my grandchildren paying those rates on a 500k mortgage as it
would kill the real estate business and this country.
Sleepy Joe will be ready for the assisted living center by year two and we would be stuck
with Checkbook Harris, UGH. Vote for the Bullcrapper that gets things done.
Ahem; This has been done before: After Hitler was elected in 1933; He slammed the borders
shut to money transfer, then started building the autobahn. It worked, Germany came out of
the slump. Of course, Hitler then moved on to building planes & tanks. Also, Modern
Monetary theory says you can run the printing presses & print money like mad, as long as
that paper is going into a real, working economy, it gets recycled. That does not describe
the current 'developed world' economy; the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) has
eaten it's own tail. When all the other assets have jacked up half way to the moon, there
will be another gold rush (same as 1930s) & my shack in northern BC will shake with all
the helicopters flying around to work up new gold mines.
Candidate Donald Trump's 2016 programme was clear. Bring industry back home. Ditto the
troops. Ensure an adequate defence. Drain the swamp.
Looked good. I hadn't realised that his main achievement would be somewhat simpler. Stay
functioning in office in the face of the most dangerous series of attacks on an American
President that can have been seen since the early nineteenth century.
So clearly he's going to need another term in office to get on with all the things he
should have been able to get on with in the first.
Candidate Joe Biden was, I thought at first, stealing part of the Trump 2016 programme. Bring
industry back home. Turns out not - as far as I can see America will remain the most heavily
industrialised country going. But, as in my own country, much of the industry will still be
abroad. With the jobs.
As with my own country Biden's America will be environmentally virtuous. It'll hit some
good targets. It'll not use as much fossil fuel. Yesterday's heavy polluters - the coal mines
and steel mills - won't pollute any more.
Fake. Again as with my own country the dirty industries we still rely on will still be
roaring full steam ahead. Coal will still be mined. Steel will still be produced. But
elsewhere.
So Candidate Joe Biden will not be the man to put that part of the Trump 2016 programme
into action. He'll be the man who continues with the fake environmentalism we've already seen
so much of. Naturally, if the heavy industry is outsourced so is our pollution. Doesn't look
that clever a trick to me, even if it fools the eco-warriors.
In a recent op-ed on RT, I outlined the
puzzling and ironic configuration that is the anti-Trump 'resistance.' But I didn't explore one
important 'interest group' within a 'deep state' intent on destroying Trump's presidency at all
costs -- namely, the neocon
hawks of both major political parties and the
military and
intelligence establishments that defy strict party affiliation.
This contingent includes members of top military brass and intelligence
officers , of course, but also military and intelligence contractors, including those
employed by the permanent bureaucracy to foil Trump's first run for the presidency by
attempting to tie him to "Russian collusion ."
Condemn Trump all you want. It's quite fashionable and facile to do so. The penchant has
long since leaked across the Atlantic via the US and international media establishments. But
critics must be either uninformed or disingenuous to liken Trump
to Hitler . Hitler was, after all, a fascist strong man and supremacist intent on
militarism and world expansionism. And Trump is nothing of the sort.
Quite the contrary, Trump wants no part of expansionism. He has insisted that he deplores
the endless wars in the
Middle East and
Afghanistan . Trump has been removing troops from both
regions since his presidency began. And he's reportedly been foiled in efforts for a
complete withdrawal by his generals . But now he
may be prepared to flout their prerogatives and take matters into his own hands, if
given a second term.
While Trump touts a strengthened
military , the Trump Doctrine
involves a particular brand of populist American
nationalism . This includes a foreign policy stemming from 19th-century Republican
politics . Those who
have subscribed to this political position have been traditionally non-interventionist, while
demanding that a premium be laid on national self-determination, the protection of national
sovereignty via strong borders, and the promotion of national self-interest over international
or global entanglements.
Trump has suggested that the military brass wants to start wars to
enrich military contractors.
The hue and cry coming from the political establishment over Trump's foreign military
policy is a thin scrim to cover for the interests of the military industrial complex. And the
interests of the military industrial complex are for its own expansion and the profits that
derive from it.
Trump's foreign policy on the limited use of military force runs counter to those of the
Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden administrations. Both of these followed the orders of neocon hawks.
Shocking his left-wing base, Obama retained many of
Bush's top cabinet members, including war hawk Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And, of course,
then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) voted in favor of
and championed
the invasion of Iraq in 2002.
The Obama administration not only continued the Bush campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
extended them with record-breaking bombings in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. Recall that it was Obama who
murdered, via a drone bomb, sixteen-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was
the son of alleged al-Qaeda fighter (and American citizen) Anwar Awlaki, who Obama had
bombed two weeks earlier, in Yemen. In fairness it must be noted that a US raid in Yemen resulted
in the
death of Abdulrahman's 8-year-old sister in 2017. But it was Obama who exploded the
conflict in Yemen.
The Obama-Biden international adventurism extended to the invasion
of Libya and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, an escapade that destabilized
that country and led directly to the arming of
jihadists. Under Obama, the Pentagon and CIA directly armed and trained Syrian "rebels"
fighting Bashar Assad, many of whom then
grew into the ISIS caliphate. A 2016 iconic headline in the Los Angeles Times said it all:
"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA
." It is interesting to note that it was Trump who ended the
CIA's training of the so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels whose intent was the
toppling Assad's government.
Obama was elected in 2008 on his promise to end Bush's war in Iraq, a conflict he said he
opposed from the
outset . Instead, Obama and his war hawks expanded this war and added several others. And
all of this after Obama was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize (for no apparent reason) in 2009.
The military escalation under Obama-Biden surely explains the deep state's preference for
Biden over Trump. But what about the voters? In opposing Trump and favouring Biden, the leftist
'resistance' is
supporting the continuation of dodgy and illegal US invasions and endless wars. An
achievement to be proud of. On the other hand, voters who support non-intervention and troop
withdrawal favour the Republican, Donald Trump.
So, tell me again: who's 'left' and who's 'right' in this US presidential election?
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.
"... Well, according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed before Donald Trump took office. ..."
"... Of course, this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the 2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop corruption allegations. ..."
"... You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"? ..."
Always
glowing in her Schiff-protected bubble of virtue-signaling safety, former Ukraine
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told Congress that she knew little about Burisma Holdings and the
long-running corruption probe against the company now so infamously linked to Joe Biden's son
Hunter, specifically testifying under oath, "It just wasn't a big deal."
Well,
according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in
Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials
around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed
before Donald Trump took office.
Then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's concerns were first raised in a Ukrainian news story
about a Russian-backed fugitive lawmaker in Ukraine, who alleged Burisma had dumped
low-priced natural gas into the market for officials near Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko to buy low and sell high, making a bribe disguised as a profit.
The scheme was confirmed by U.S. officials before Yovanovitch alerted the top State
official for Ukraine and Russia policy in Washington at the time, Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland, the memos show.
"There are accusations that Burisma allegedly had a subsidiary dump natural gas as a way
to pay bribes," Yovanovitch wrote Nuland on Dec. 29, 2016, noting the story "mentions that
Hunter Biden and former Polish President Kwasniewski are on the Burisma Board."
The alert was the second in two years in which the embassy alleged Burisma had paid a
bribe while Vice President Joe Biden's son served on its board.
Back in February 2015, then-embassy official George Kent reported to the U.S. Justice
Department evidence that Burisma had made a $7 million cash bribe to Ukrainian prosecutors
before those prosecutors killed a separate corruption probe in the United Kingdom by
failing to produce required evidence.
This was after Trump's election win and just 22 days before President Obama left office.
Of course,
this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma
conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the
2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop
corruption allegations.
You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was
implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"?
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.
@vk , hilarious post trying to potray modern day USN as fhe same one who fought japanese..
after WW2 all USN did was doing tag with soviets and today even their skill lost in the
current situation.. The good ole US navy is gone, all that left is aging airframes and ships
and confused doctrine that focused on clearing endless brush fires from restless natives..
USN are not able to fight peer enemy naval force, its man power are not sustainable in
such fight , thus they will resort to military draft system again and pray tell how many
foolish ignorant gung ho flag waving american would enlist ? it is easy for chickenhawks to
scream war war war but when their lives or their kid's lives on the line of fire most will
ran away to canada or mexico
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year ..."
"... Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class? ..."
"... This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent. ..."
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again. ..."
"... So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another day. ..."
"... Trump may or may not win. But if he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton. ..."
"... And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops Richie Rich gets uneasy. ..."
"... I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom Perez. ..."
"... I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings? ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for
a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class,
the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg
has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great
question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will
the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the
DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No
Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC.
The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their
way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected
to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's
neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was
a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius
Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging
games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their
financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing
private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates.
That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention
would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American
voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting
that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times
have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot,
"Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately."[1]Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN
warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election
returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will
have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop
him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem . Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen
with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's
not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the
courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the
voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the
superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation
contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
This problem would not exist if the United States had a European-style parliamentary system
that would enable a third party to obtain space on the ballots in all 50 states. If this were
Europe, the new party of Bernie Sanders, AOC et al. would exceed 50 percent of the
votes, leaving the Wall Street democrats with about the same 8 percent share that similar
neoliberal democratic parties have in Europe ( e.g ., Germany's hapless neoliberalized
Social Democrats), that is, Klobocop territory as voters moved to the left. The "voting
Democrats," the 99 Percent, would win a majority leaving the Old Neoliberal Democrats in the
dust.
The DNC's role is to prevent any such challenge. The United States has an effective
political duopoly, as both parties have created such burdensome third-party access to the
ballot box in state after state that Bernie Sanders decided long ago that he had little
alternative but to run as a Democrat.
The problem is that the Democrat Party does not seem to be reformable. That means that
voters still may simply abandon it – but that will simply re-elect the Democrats' de
facto 2020 candidate, Donald Trump. The only hope would be to shrink the party into a shell,
enabling the old guard to go way so that the party could be rebuilt from the ground up.
But the two parties have created a legal duopoly reinforced with so many technical barriers
that a repeat of Ross Perot's third party (not to mention the old Socialist Party, or the Whigs
in 1854) would take more than one election cycle to put in place. For the time being, we may
expect another few months of dirty political tricks to rival those of 2016 as Obama appointee
Tom Perez is simply the most recent version of Florida fixer Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (who gave
a new meaning to the Wasserman Test).
So we are in for another four years of Donald Trump. But by 2024, how tightly will the U.S.
economy find itself tied in knots?
The Democrats' Vocabulary of Deception
How I would explain Bernie's program. Every economy is a mixed economy. But to hear Michael
Bloomberg and his fellow rivals to Bernie Sanders explain the coming presidential election, one
would think that an economy must be either capitalist or, as Bloomberg put it, Communist. There
is no middle ground, no recognition that capitalist economies have a government sector, which
typically is called the "socialist" sector – Social Security, Medicare, public schooling,
roads, anti-monopoly regulation, and public infrastructure as an alternative to privatized
monopolies extracting economic rent.
What Mr. Bloomberg means by insisting that it's either capitalism or communism is an absence
of government social spending and regulation. In practice this means oligarchic financial
control, because every economy is planned by some sector. The key is, who will do the planning?
If government refrains from taking the lead in shaping markets, then Wall Street takes over
– or the City in London, Frankfurt in Germany, and the Bourse in France.
Most of all, the aim of the One Percent is to distract attention from the fact that the
economy is polarizing – and is doing so at an accelerating rate. National income
statistics are rigged to show that "the economy" is expanding. The pretense is that everyone is
getting richer and living better, not more strapped. But the reality is that all the growth in
GDP has accrued to the wealthiest 5 Percent since the Obama Recession began in 2008. Obama
bailed out the banks instead of the 10 million victimized junk-mortgage holders. The 95
Percent's share of GDP has shrunk.
The GDP statistics do not show is that "capital gains" – the market price of stocks,
bonds and real estate owned mainly by the One to Five Percent – has soared, thanks to
Obama's $4.6 trillion Quantitative Easing pumped into the financial markets instead of into the
"real" economy in which wage-earners produce goods and services.
How does one "stay the course" in an economy that is polarizing? Staying the course means
continuing the existing trends that are concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the
One Percent, that is, the Donor Class – while loading down the 99 Percent with more debt,
paid to the One Percent (euphemized as the economy's "savers"). All "saving" is at the top of
the pyramid. The 99 Percent can't afford to save much after paying their monthly "nut" to the
One Percent.
If this economic polarization is impoverishing most of the population while sucking wealth
and income and political power up to the One Percent, then to be a centrist is to be the
candidate of oligarchy. It means not challenging the economy's structure.
Language is being crafted to confuse voters into imagining that their interest is the same
as that of the Donor Class of rentiers , creditors and financialized corporate
businesses and rent-extracting monopolies. The aim is to divert attention from voters' their
own economic interest as wage-earners, debtors and consumers. It is to confuse voters not to
recognize that without structural reform, today's "business as usual" leaves the One Percent in
control.
So to call oneself a "centrist" is simply a euphemism for acting as a lobbyist for siphoning
up income and wealth to the One Percent. In an economy that is polarizing, the choice is either
to favor them instead of the 99 Percent.
That certainly is not the same thing as stability. Centrism sustains the polarizing dynamic
of financialization, private equity, and the Biden-sponsored bankruptcy "reform" written by his
backers of the credit-card companies and other financial entities incorporated in his state of
Delaware. He was the senator for the that state's Credit Card industry, much as former
Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut's Insurance
Industry.
A related centrist demand is that of Buttigieg's and Biden's aim to balance the federal
budget. This turns out to be a euphemism for cutting back Social Security, Medicare and relate
social spending ("socialism") to pay for America's increasing militarization, subsidies and tax
cuts for the One Percent. Sanders rightly calls this "socialism for the rich." The usual word
for this is oligarchy . That seems to be a missing word in today's mainstream
vocabulary.
The alternative to democracy is oligarchy. As Aristotle noted already in the 4 th
Confusion over the word "socialism" may be cleared up by recognizing that every economy
is mixed, and every economy is planned – by someone. If not the government in the public
interest, then by Wall Street and other financial centers in their interest. They
fought against an expanding government sector in every economy today, calling it socialism
– without acknowledging that the alternative, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is
barbarism.
I think that Sanders is using the red-letter word "socialism" and calling himself a
"democratic socialist" to throw down the ideological gauntlet and plug himself into the long
and powerful tradition of socialist politics. Paul Krugman would like him to call himself a
social democrat. But the European parties of this name have discredited this label as being
centrist and neoliberal. Sanders wants to emphasize that a quantum leap, a phase change is in
order.
If he can be criticized for waving a needlessly red flag, it is his repeated statement
that his program is designed for the "working class." What he means are wage-earners and this
includes the middle class. Even those who make over $100,000 a year are still wage earners, and
typically are being squeezed by a predatory financial sector, a predatory medical insurance
sector, drug companies and other monopolies.
The danger in this terminology is that most workers like to think of themselves as
middle class, because that is what they would like to rise into. That is especially he case for
workers who own their own home (even if mortgage represents most of the value, so that most of
the home's rental value is paid to banks, not to themselves as part of the "landlord class"),
and have an education (even if most of their added income is paid out as student debt service),
and their own car to get to work (involving automobile debt).
The fact is that even $100,000 executives have difficulty living within the limits of
their paycheck, after paying their monthly nut of home mortgage or rent, medical care, student
loan debt, credit-card debt and automobile debt, not to mention 15% FICA paycheck withholding
and state and local tax withholding.
Of course, Sanders' terminology is much more readily accepted by wage-earners as the
voters whom Hillary called "Deplorables" and Obama called "the mob with pitchforks," from whom
he was protecting his Wall Street donors whom he invited to the White House in 2009. But I
think there is a much more appropriate term: the 99 Percent, made popular by Occupy Wall
Street. That is Bernie's natural constituency. It serves to throw down the gauntlet between
democracy and oligarchy, and between socialism and barbarism, by juxtaposing the 99 Percent to
the One Percent.
The Democratic presidential debate on February 25 will set the stage for Super
Tuesday's "beauty contest" to gauge what voters want. The degree of Sanders' win will help
determine whether the byzantine Democrat party apparatus that actually will be able to decide
on the Party's candidate. The expected strong Sanders win is will make the choice stark: either
to accept who the voters choose – namely, Bernie Sanders – or to pick a candidate
whom voters already have rejected, and is certain to lose to Donald Trump in
November.
If that occurs, the Democrat Party will evaporate as its old Clinton-Obama guard is no
longer able to protect its donor class on Wall Street and corporate America. Too many Sanders
voters would stay home or vote for the Greens. That would enable the Republicans to maintain
control of the Senate and perhaps even grab back the House of Representatives.
But it would be dangerous to assume that the DNC will be reasonable. Once again, Roman
history provides a "business as usual" scenario. The liberal German politician Theodor Mommsen
published his History of Rome in 1854-56, warning against letting an aristocracy block
reform by controlling the upper house of government (Rome's Senate, or Britain House of Lords).
The leading families who overthrew the last king in 509 BC created a Senate chronically prone
to being stifled by its leaders' "narrowness of mind and short-sightedness that are the proper
and inalienable privileges of all genuine patricianism."[2]
These qualities also are the distinguishing features of the DNC. Sanders had better win
big!
I wonder how much of the rot at the top of the Dem party is simple dementia. By
the age of 70, half of people have some level of dementia. Consider Joe Biden – is
anyone in the public sphere going to state the obvious – that he has dementia and as
such is unfit for office?
First, my priors. I voted for Sanders in 2016, will vote for him in 2020, and
expect him to be elected president. Further I believe that where we find ourselves today is
the result of at least 40 years of intentional bi-partisan policies. Both parties are
responsible.
If Sanders, upon being elected, were able to snap his fingers and call into
existence his entire program, it would immediately face a bi-partisan opposition that would
be funded by billions of dollars, which would be willing to take as long as necessary, even
decades, to roll it back.
Just electing Sanders is only the first step. There must be a committed,
determined follow through that must be willing to last decades as well for his program to
stick. And there will be defeats along the way.
Several observations. If Hillary had beaten Trump, Sanders would have trudged
back to Vermont and would never have been heard from again. The MSM would have dismissed his
program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class. But she didn't, so here we are,
which is fantastic.
Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will
win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again
dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would
trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again.
So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least
bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has
far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the
two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another
day.
If he loses to Trump, but closely, which can mean a lot of different things,
his program would live to fight another day. Moreover, if the D's are seen to actively
collude with Trump, this less bad outcome would be even better.
I am an old geezer and don't expect to live long enough to see how all of this
plays out. But I am very optimistic about his program's long term prospects. There is only
one bad outcome, a Trump 48 state sweep, which I consider very unlikely. But most
importantly, the best outcome, his election, and the two least bad outcomes, the D's stealing
the nomination from him or his losing a close general election, all still will require a
decades long commitment to make his program permanent.
Where do people get this? Take a deep breath. Trump may or may not win. But if
he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the
popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton.
And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops
Richie Rich gets uneasy.
Hammered by a 5 star general. The Deplorables kids were raised to look up to
generals, not New Yawk dandys. How does this affect them? And it's still
February.
Just an FYI: The five-volume Mommsen "History of Rome" referenced in the text
is available in English on Project Gutenberg, free and legal to download. Probably everyone
here knows this, but just in case
How about Bernie call himself "Roosevelt Democrat" instead of "Democratic
Socialist". It would give all those in the senior demographic a better understanding of what
Sander's policies mean to them as opposed to the scary prospect of the "Socialist"
label.
The Democrats should have been slowly disarming the word "socialist" for at
least the last decade. In principle, it's not difficult – as Michael Hudson says
– "Every economy is a mixed economy" – and in a very real sense everyone's a
socialist (even if only unconsciously). I'm not saying that bit of rhetorical jujitsu would
magically turn conservative voters progressive but you'll never get to the point where you
can defend socialist programs on the merits if you always dodge that fight. It's just a shame
that Bernie Sanders has to do it all in a single election cycle and I don't think choosing a
different label now would help him much.
He could even compare himself to the earlier Roosevelt: Teddy
Roosevelt.
By 1900 the old bourbon Dem party was deeply split between its old, big
business and banking wing – the bourbons – and the rising progressive/populist
wing. It was GOP pres Roosevelt who first pushed through progressive programs like breaking
up railroad and commodity monopolies, investigating and regulating meat packing and
fraudulent patent medicines, etc. Imagine that.
I just finished Stoller's book Goliath and according to him, Teddy
wasn't quite as progressive as we are often led to believe. He wasn't so much opposed to
those with enormous wealth – he just wanted them to answer to him. He did do the things
you mentioned, but after sending the message to the oligarchs, he then became friendly with
them once he felt he'd brought them to heel. He developed quite the soft spot for JP Morgan,
according to Stoller.
TR wanted to be the Boss, the center of attention with everyone looking up to
him. As one of his relatives said, he wanted to be the baby at every christening and the
corpse at every funeral.
I have a sense that changing his party affiliation label at any point in time
since Sanders began running for president in 2016 would be a godsend to his enemies in both
hands of the Duopoly. They'd tar him loudly as a hypocrite without an ounce of integrity,
using personal politics to distract from the issues.
Meanwhile, we can expect to see the Socialist (and Communist, and
Russia-Russia-Russia) nonsense reiterated as long as Sanders has strong visibility. He's
extremely dangerous to both parties and their owners. I don't' believe the DNC will let him
take the convention, but if he does, I'll bet the Dems give him minimal support and hope he
fails–better the devil you know, etc.
It's time to put your money in reality futures by putting all that you can into
supporting Bernie, AOC, etc. and all your local candidates that support at least democratic
socialism and ourrevolution the DSA Justice Dems or other groups that have people but need
money. I was having a conversation with a friend who was complaining that he was getting too
many emails from Bernie asking for money after he had given the campaign a "modest amount".
My suggestion was in honor of his children and grandchildren he should instead GIVE 'TIL IT
FEELS GOOD. My spouse and I, I told him, gave the max to Bernie and now we don't give upset
when he asks for more. There will likely never be a moment like this in history and there may
not be much of a history if things go the wrong way now. He agreed.
Exactly right. I gave Bernie the max in 2019 and will keep giving throughout
2020. This campaign is about not just me, but all of us. It's now. We must fight for this
change as has always been the historical precedent.
I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and
support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not
to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom
Perez.
I am coming to understand that might have been necessary within the context of
one last desperate attempt to work with the Democratic party. But now I find myself
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely
clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe
even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street
lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings?
Little as it has been the answer has a lot to do with my willingness to pour
more money into repetitively self-defeating behavior.
I am a somewhat old geezer, too, who caucused for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. This
article is very good and helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I was disappointed in
Obama, who didn't follow through on the things I cared about, and I was devastated when
Clinton was crowned the Democratic nominee well before the Convention, all the while holding
onto a smidgen of hope that somehow Bernie would pull through as the
nominee.
I was ecstatic when Bernie announced his candidacy for 2020. He is our only
hope, and now we have a second chance. But now I am spending half my time screaming at people
on tv and online who can't even hear me, and even if they could, they don't give a s–t
what I think. It's Clinton 2.0–same thing all over again, four years later. Just who do
these people (DNC, MSM, and others with a voice) think they are, to decide for the Democratic
voters which candidate will be the nominee, who won't be the nominee, without regard to what
the voters want? They are a bunch of pompous as–s who have some other motive that I am
not savvy enough to understand. Is it about money in their pockets or what?
It should be as simple as this–Bernie is leading in the polls, if they
are to be believed, and good people of all demographics want him to be our next President. He
is a serious contender for the nomination. Show the man some much-earned respect and put
people on MSM and publish articles by writers who help us understand what the anti-Bernie
panic is about and why we shouldn't panic. Help us to explain his plans if he hasn't
explained it thoroughly enough instead of calling him crazy. But to dismiss him as if he has
the plague is not furthering the truth, and it is a serious injustice to the voting public.
Naked Capitalism can't do it alone.
There is a lot of good analysis out there, mainly on Youtube. I particularly
like The Hill's Rising. A young progressive Democrat and a young progressive Republican (who
even knew there was such a thing!) 'splain a lot of the antipathy. Another good source is
Nomiki Konst, who is working on reforming the Dem party from within. Here she talks to RJ
Eskow about how the DNC is structured and how she hopes to provide tools for rank-and-file
Dems to wrest the levers of power from the establishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ7wm6DCPV4
Private sector cannot operate without same. Harrold
The problem is that the population, including FDR in his time, have been duped
into believing that the private sector REQUIRES government privileges for private depository
institutions, aka "the banks."
So currently we have no truly private sector to speak of but businesses and
industry using the public's credit but for private gain.
Last night's Democracy Now was interesting. Amy seems to be less of a commie
hater than she recently was with her participation in the Russia-Russia-Russia smears against
Trump. She held court last night with Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff discussing just exactly
what "socialism" means. It was a great performance.
Krug seemed a little shellshocked about the whole discussion and he said we
shouldn't even use the term "socialism" at all because all the things Bernie wants are just
as capitalist – that capitalism encompasses socialism. But he stuttered when he
discussed "single-payer" which he claimed he supported – his single payer is like Pete
Buttigieg's single-payer-eventually. He tried to change the subject and Amy brought him
straight back.
Then Wolff, who was in excellent form, informed the table that "socialism" is a
moveable feast because it can be and has been many things for the advancement of societies,
etc. But the term always means the advancement of society. Then Krug dropped a real bomb
– he actually said (this is almost a quote) that recently he had been informed by
Powell that debt isn't really all that important.
Really, Krug said that. And he tried to exetend that thought to the argument
that anybody can provide social benefits – it doesn't require a self-proclaimed
"socialist".
Richard Wolff confronted that slide with pointing out that it hasn't happened
yet – and he left Krug with no excuses. It was quite the showdown. Nice Richard Wolff
is so firmly in Bernie's camp.
Krug looked evasive – and I kept wishing they had invited Steve Keen to
participate.
Yes pft, the favored candidate of the DNC is clearly Trump.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 6 2020 19:25 utc | 58
Only if the ungrateful commoners who identify as Democrats or moderates can't be brought to
heel and give their full throated support for the DNC's favoured Cookie Cutter candidate who
might as well be one of those dolls with a string and a recording you hear when you pull the
string.
Then yes, they would prefer 'fore moar years!!' of the Ugliest American ever to be
installed as President of the United States.
One of things I respect about Tulsi Gabbard is she ain't no Doll with a string attached.
When she made the comment about cleaning out the rot in the Democratic Party, she left no
doubt her intent and goals. And to take on hillary, the Red Queen to boot, why that was
simply delicious.
Alas, the View, the DNC, it's web of evil rich and the media will never forgive her for
Soldiering for her Country.
The democratic party must be thee only political party in all world history that actively
suppresses people who want to vote for them.
Looks like the democrats are set to lose the same way they did in 2016. Basically as Matt
Bruenig wrote in his article "The Boring Story
of the 2016 Election
Donald Trump did not win because of a surge of white support. Indeed he got less white
support than Romney got in 2012. Nor did Trump win because he got a surge from other
race+gender groups. The exit polls show him doing slightly better with black men, black
women, and latino women than Romney did, but basically he just hovered around Romney's
numbers with every race+gender group, doing slightly worse than Romney overall.
However, support for Hillary was way below Obama's 2012 levels, with defectors turning
to a third party. Clinton did worse with every single race+gender combo except white women,
where she improved Obama's outcome by a single point. Clinton did not lose all this
support to Donald. She lost it into the abyss. Voters didn't like her but they weren't
wooed by Trump .
The Third Wave neocons pointed out an interesting fact. Clinton won bigly CA, NY, and MA
which gave her something like 7 million votes. However, Trump won the remaining 47 states by
four million.
"... 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.
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
"If this succeeds, we'll be well on the path to dictatorship." This seems predicated on
the idea that 'whites' will only be able to hold onto power by Dictatorship. Population
trends suggest whites will still be the largest group [just under half] in 2055. A
considerable group given their, to borrow the phrase, 'privilege'. Add conservative Asian and
even Catholic Latino voters, is it that difficult to envisage a scenario where Republicans
sometimes achieve power without Dictatorship? They are already benefiting from the radical
left helping drive traditional working class white voters to the right [helped by
Republican/Fox etc hyperbole].
Radical left is either idiots of stooges of intelligence agencies and always has been.
IMHO the idea that " whites" are or will be the force behind the move to the dictatorship is
completely naïve. Dictatorship is needed for financial oligarchy and it is the most
plausible path of development due to another factor -- the collapse of neoliberal ideology and
complete discrediting of neoliberal elite. At least in the USA. Russiagate should be viewed as
an attempt to stage a color revolution and remove the President by the USA intelligence
agencies (in close cooperation with the "Five eyes") .
I would view Russiagate is a kind of Beer Hall Putsch with intelligence agencies instead of
national-socialist party. A couple conspirators might be jailed after Durham investigation is
finished (Hilter was jailed after the putsch), but the danger that CIA will seize the political
power remains. After all KGB was in this role in the USSR for along time. Is the USA that
different? I don't think so. There is no countervailing force: the number of people with
security clearance in the USA exceed five million. This five million and not "whites" like some
completely naïve people propose is the critical mass for the dictatorship. https://news.yahoo.com/durham-surprises-even-allies-statement-202907008.html
The potential explosiveness of Durham's mission was further underscored by the disclosure
that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former CIA director, in how the
intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference.
BTW "whites" are not a homogeneous group. There is especially abhorrent and dangerous
neoliberal strata of "whites" including members of financial oligarchy, the "professional
class" and "academia" (economics department are completely infected.) as well as MIC
prostitutes in MSM.
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in US foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing US foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001.
All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable."
This imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the UN in order to be the
anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are
US imperialists, who want instead to destroy the UN, and to extend American power over
the entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the
world, and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The UN would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: US imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take over
Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central neoconservative
goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme than Obama's
policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the US Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want US missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the US; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (US imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the US empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to the
security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning,
to neoconservatives, under US control] , and that it continue to resist Russian
expansionism [like Russia cares about US expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere?
Really? Is that actually what this is about? It's about extending US imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but,
actually, "Clear
and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under US President Barack Obama, the US
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a US naval base." ]
, its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov, make clear
Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination not to be
surrounded by enemies -- by US-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is 'malign', she says]
. If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the United States will
regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into Europe and combating
Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?] have anchored
our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and demanded to be a part
of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before Obama's takeover of
Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of NATO, and they
considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010, Gallup
found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your country,' 40%
said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was US policy when I became ambassador in
August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political and
economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the US news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government,
which the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against
America's current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and
understands accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of
Ukraine, and the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government
(installing it), and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss
at Burisma, Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed
Ukraine's new Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped. It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the
Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a US fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the US Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the US-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the US-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
US-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly contradicting
– contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is presented
here .Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by America's
press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
US-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this
firm when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017,
simply ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. Aseries of recordingswould seem
to back up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov hadfour meetings– with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic
Studies), Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer
(McCain Institute).
Doug Schoen filedFARA
documentsshowing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5)
– in part to arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street
Journalreportedhow Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a political
rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington by
the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and with
John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's Ukrainian
rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai, Biden's New
York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West andturn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team
in Ukraine, no longer is on the US team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an unsuccessful
attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to lead the company.
Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the pressure from Ukraine's
bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.) Zelensky is
squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10 September 2019,
the Financial Timesreported that
"The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would jeopardise
its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery of the
$5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't
likely to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican US
Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic Party
profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but
also its international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election
ticket were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat
anything that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket
which would remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the
perhaps 5% of Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and
who is the least-neoconservative member of the US Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's
supporters, but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American
politics. The 2020 US Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's
billionaires probably won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have
enormous powers over the Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The US
Supreme Court made it this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and
the 2010
Citizens United decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money people.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy in
Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had
promised to end the war (which the US had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow
that -- they want to force him to accept more US-made weapons and more US training of Ukraine's
troops in how to use them against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a US operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal US President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal US
President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a
public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times. This
was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried hard
to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional representation in the US House, and instead of yet a third system of the Electoral
College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it has become
thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy of wealth
controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the Revolution in
order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as constituting
our Government.
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy"
the case the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why the
Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good reason
to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in
that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been paused at the
time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation. The aid
was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were supposedly being coerced into
doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under
President Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses
have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different
reasons. So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no
one even claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple
slogan, "he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something
wrong and getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought
crime the Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not president
Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely claiming they
had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016
election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and lying
about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations of the
Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise that
impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is to the
American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians, and
they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee operative,
who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly redacting her
name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her testimony as a witness
in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent years. They got
caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President
Trump was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and
the president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee, formerly
known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political benefit they want
from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to this country will be
long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president? They have pitted
Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually believe the entire
galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president since the day the
American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so
our nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they finally
learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a change. In
addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican members
transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key witnesses
that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This rule was not
displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it applies to the
Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly scheduling an agreed upon
time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key witnesses that you have
continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my
staff to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of
their memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's
alienation from mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what
had been 49% rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted now almost only by liberals. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media). In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia,
UAE, and Israel). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the US nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR)
agenda. Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama
did .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close:
The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The
Event that Created Christianity.
Over a dinner of the "Presidential Cheeseburger" and wedge salad, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor
that Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador to Ukraine, was bad-mouthing the
president -- an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied, according to two people
with knowledge of the dinner.
The exchange foreshadowed the role that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman would come to play in Mr.
Trump's Ukrainian campaign.
Less than two weeks later, Mr. Parnas met with another critic of Ms. Yovanovitch,
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, in his Washington congressional office. Mr. Parnas, who
had recently met Mr. Sessions at a fund-raiser, showed him a map of a crucial pipeline related
to their gas venture, a photo shows.
By the end of the meeting, though, the topic had shifted to Ms. Yovanovitch, and Mr. Parnas
reiterated what he had heard, a person briefed on the meeting said. After the meeting, Mr.
Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch had spoken
disdainfully of the Trump administration, and suggesting her removal. Mr. Sessions, who lost
his re-election bid last year, has previously said he wrote the letter independently of Mr.
Parnas and Mr. Fruman, after speaking to congressional colleagues.
Federal prosecutors contend in the indictment against Mr. Parnas that he was not just
making small talk but sought to oust Ms. Yovanovitch "at the request of one or more Ukrainian
government officials," which could be a violation of federal laws that require Americans to
register with the Justice Department when lobbying for foreign political interests. The
indictment did not name any Ukrainian officials.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
Looks like both Yovanovich and Hill are connected to Soros and did his bidding instead of pursuing Trump policies as for
Ukraine. Yovanovich was clearly dismiied due to her role in channeling damaging to Trump information during 2016 elections,
the fact that she denies (as she denied the exostance of "do not procecute list"). And nothing can be taken serious from a
government official until she denied it.
Notable quotes:
"... Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a hate figure on the far right. ..."
"... This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros." ..."
"... "My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties." ..."
"... "When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to "this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well." ..."
"... Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role. ..."
Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security
Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including
antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a
hate figure on the far right.
In her testimony to Congress, Hill described a climate of fear among administration
staff.
The UK-born academic and biographer of Vladimir Putin said that the former ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was the target of a hate campaign, with the aim of driving her from
her post in Kyiv, where she was seen as an obstacle to some corrupt business interests.
Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine in May on Trump's orders. In a 25 July conversation
with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump described Yovanovitch as "bad news"
and predicted she was "going to go through some things". The former ambassador has testified
she felt threatened by the remarks.
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, led calls for Yovanovitch's dismissal, as did two of Giuliani
business associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. All three are under scrutiny in hearings being
held by House committees looking at Trump's use of his office to put pressure on the Ukrainian
government to investigate his political opponents.
"There was no basis for her removal," Hill testified. "The accusations against her had no
merit whatsoever. This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be
baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros."
"I had had accusations similar to this being made against me as well," Hill testified. "My
entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls,
conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been
giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with
all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties."
She added that the former national security adviser, HR McMaster "and many other members of
staff were targeted as well, and many people were hounded out of the National Security Council
because they became frightened about their own security."
"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbours
reported somebody coming and hammering on my door," Hill said, adding that she had also been
targeted by obscene phone calls. "Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad."
"When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to
"this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well."
In Yovanovitch's case, Hill said: "the most obvious explanation [for the smear campaign]
seemed to be business dealings of individuals who wanted to improve their investment positions
inside of Ukraine
itself, and also to deflect away from the findings of not just the Mueller report on Russian
interference but what's also been confirmed by your own Senate report, and what I know myself
to be true as a former intelligence analyst and somebody who has been working on Russia for
more than 30 years."
Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy
theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
The most interesting part of testimony is that CrowdStrike machinations in case of DNC leak which was artificially turns into
Russian hack (and probably not without Crowdstyle server located in Ukraine). As this is connected to Steel which is a hot
spot for the UK government was swiped under the carpet.
She actually met with Steele. She was shown Steele dossier before it was published.
CrowdStrike was mentioned only is passing and was instantly dismissed by rabid neocon Hill.
While this was the central issue with Zelensky administration.
All questioning was about semi-senile Biden, who is probably the most favorable contender on
Democratic side for Trump.
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
The State Department, where I worked for 24 years as a Foreign Service officer (FSO) and
diplomat, reminds me a lot of my current hometown, New York City. Both places spend an
inordinate amount of time telling outsiders how great they are while ignoring the obvious
garbage piled up around them. It's almost as if they're trying to convince themselves that
everything is okay.
Like New York City telling itself the Broadway lights mean folks won't notice the homeless
problem and decaying infrastructure, the State Department fully misunderstands how it appears
to others. Across Facebook groups and internal channels, FSOs this week are sending each other
little messages tagged #FSProud quoting former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's closing soliloquy
from her impeachment testimony.
Yovanovitch's testimony otherwise read like an HR complaint from hell, as if she were
auditioning for a Disgruntled Employee poster-child position to cap off her career. She had
already been fired by the time the alleged impeachable act took place -- Trump's July 25 phone
call -- and was stuck in a placeholder job far removed from Ukrainian policy. She witnessed
nothing of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" the House is investigating, and basically used
her time to complain she knew more than her boss did so he fired her.
At the end of her
testimony , Yovanovitch unfurled a large metaphorical flag and wrapped herself and the
entire Foreign Service in it. Her lines had nothing to do with Ukraine: they were recruiting
boilerplate about how FSOs are nonpartisan servants of the Constitution, how they all live in
harm's way, yada yada. She name-checked diplomats from four decades ago held hostage in Iran,
and rolled in a couple of CIA contractors when tallying up the "State" death toll from
Benghazi. She omitted the we-don't-talk-about-that-one death of FSO
Anne Smedinghoff in Afghanistan, whose 25-year-old life was destroyed participating in a
propaganda photo-op.
This is the false idol image the State Department holds dear of itself, and people inside
the organization today proudly christened Ambassador Yovanovitch its queen. Vanity Fair
summed it up better than the long-winded FSOs bleating across social media: "A hero is born
as Yovanovitch gives voice to widespread rage at State. 'I think people are feeling huge pride
in Masha,' says a former ambassador." Yovanovitch uses her Russian nickname, Masha, without
media comment, because of course she does.
And that's the good part. Alongside Yovanovitch, bureaucrat-in-a-bow-tie George Kent issued
pronouncements against Trump people he never met who ignored his tweedy advice. Ambassador Bill
Taylor leaked hoarded personal text messages with Trump political appointees. Taylor's deputy,
David Holmes, appeared deus ex machina (Holmes had a photo of Yovanovitch as his Facebook
page cover
photo until recently!) to claim that back in the summer, he somehow overheard both sides of a
phone conversation between Trump and political appointee, EU ambassador Gordon Sondland. Holmes
eavesdropped on a presidential call and dumped it in the Democrats' laps, and now he's
nonpartisan #FSProud, too.
Interesting that the major political events of the last few years have all crisscrossed the
State Department: Clinton emails and Foundation shenanigans, the Steele Dossier and all things
Russiagate, and now impeachment and Ukraine. And never mind that two major Democratic
presidential candidates-in-waiting, Clinton and Kerry, had a home there. That's an awful lot of
partisanship for an organization bragging about being nonpartisan.
Gawd, I need to wash my hands. I am #FSProud that in my 24 years as a diplomat, I never
perjured myself, or claimed to or actually did eavesdrop on someone else's phone call, then
spoon-fed the info months later to my boss on TV to take down a president mid-campaign, all
while accepting cheers that I was nonpartisan and thinking my role as a snitch/bootlicker was
going to help people view my organization as honorable.
FSOs see themselves as superheroes who will take down the Bad Orange Man. The organization
flirted with the role before: "
dissent " by State strayed close to insubordination opposing Trump's so-called Muslim Ban.
Everyone remembers the Department's slow-walking the release of Hillary Clinton's emails (after
helping hide the existence of her private server). The Department turned a blind eye to
Clinton's nepotism in hiring her campaign aides (remember
Huma ?) and use of America's oldest cabinet position to create B-roll ahead of her soiled
campaign.
Maybe the State Department's overt support for Candidate Clinton did not make clear enough
what happens when the organization betrays itself to politics.
While FSOs are gleefully allowing themselves to be used today, they fail to remember that
nobody likes a snitch. No matter which side you're on, in the end nobody will trust you,
Democrat or Republican, after seeing what you really are. What White House staffer of any party
will interact openly with his diplomats knowing they are saving his texts and listening in on
his calls, waiting? State considers itself a pit bull when in fact it's betrayed its golden
nonpartisan glow. Hey, in your high school, did anyone want to have the kids who lived to be
hall monitors and teacher's pets as their lunch buddies?
The real problems go much deeper. A Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report showed more than one fourth of all Foreign Service positions were either unfilled or
filled with below-grade employees. At the senior levels, 36 percent of positions were vacant or
filled with people of lower rank and experience pressed into service. At the crucial mid-ranks,
the number was 26 percent unfilled.
The thing is, that GAO report is from 2012 , and it showed similar results to one
written in 2008. The State Department has danced with irrelevancy for a long time, and its
efforts to be The Resistance as a cure today feel more like desperation than heroism. State's
somnolent response, even during the mighty Clinton and Kerry years, to what should have been a
crisis call (speculate on what the response might be to a report saying the military was
understaffed by 36 percent) tells the tale.
As the world changes, State still has roughly the same number of
Portuguese speakers as it does Russian among its FSOs. No other Western country uses
private citizens as ambassadors over career diplomats to anywhere near the
extent the United States does, where about a third of the posts are doled out as political
patronage mainly because what they do doesn't matter. The secretary of state hands out lapel
buttons reading " Swagger
"; imagine a new secretary of defense doing the same -- and then being laughed out of
office.
FSOs wade in the shallowest waters of the Deep State. Since the 1950s, the heavy lifting of
foreign policy -- the stuff that ends up in history books -- mostly moved into the White House
and the National Security Council. The increasing role of the military in America's foreign
relations further sidelined State. The regional sweep of the AFRICOM and CENTCOM generals, for
example, paints State's landlocked ambassadors as weak.
State's sad little attempt to stake out a new role in nation-building failed in Iraq , failed in Afghanistan , and failed in Haiti . The organization's Clinton-Kerry era joblet promoting
democracy through social media was a flop. Trade policy has its own bureaucracy outside Foggy
Bottom.
What was left for State was reporting, its on-the-ground viewpoint that informs
policymakers. Even there the intelligence community has eaten State's sandwiches with the
crusts cut off lunch -- why listen to what some FSO thinks the prime minister will do when the
NSA can provide the White House with real-time audio of him explaining it in bed to his
mistress? The überrevelation from the 2010 Wikileaks documents dump was that most of
State's vaunted reporting is of little value. State struggled through the Chelsea Manning trial
to convince someone that actual harm was done to national security by the disclosures.
For the understaffed Department of State, that leaves pretty much only the role of concierge
abroad, the one Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch, and their lickspittles Kent and Holmes,
complained about as their real point during the impeachment hearings. Read their testimony and
you learn they had no contact with principals Trump, Giuliani, and Pompeo (which is why they
were useless "witnesses," they didn't see anything firsthand) and griped about being cut out
of the loop and left off conference calls. They testified instead based on overheard
conversations and
off-screen voices. Taylor whined that Pompeo ignored his reports.
Meanwhile, America's VIPs need their hands held abroad, their motorcades organized, and
their receptions handled, all tasks that fall squarely on the Department of State. That is what
was really being said underneath it all at the impeachment hearings. It is old news, but it
found a greedy audience repurposed to take a whack at Trump. State thinks this is its moment to
shine, but all that is happening is a light is being shined on the organization's partisanship
and pettiness in reaction to its own irrelevance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well:
How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper's
War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent .
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
"... It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he needs to speed things up. ..."
"... The ambassador also shows her true state between various masks she wears during impeachment interviews, the cameras have an easy time capturing it, it's a smirk, & she seems to show it to the democrats as well. One bad actor. ..."
"... For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey, McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper, Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this country apart. ..."
"... Was she even actually intimidated? She had already known Trump's opinion of her job performance for some time. She had been reassigned, as was the administration prerogative. There was no threat to take further action against her. Trump merely again stated he was unhappy/disappointed wherever she had been assigned. ..."
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
The ambassador also shows her true state between various masks she
wears during impeachment interviews,
the cameras have an easy time
capturing it, it's a smirk, & she seems to show it to the democrats
as well.
One bad actor.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
As that photoshopping suggests, these Democrats live in an altered
reality. Fantasy. Insanity? Not sure Joseph Goebbels meant telling
oneself lies over and over eventually turns them into truths. But it
seems to for these Democrats.
And they vote their fantasies...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
Was she even actually intimidated?
She had already known Trump's
opinion of her job performance for some time.
She had been reassigned, as was the administration prerogative.
There was no threat to take further action against her.
Trump merely again stated he was unhappy/disappointed wherever she
had been assigned.
"Intimidated"?
B.S. She is/was supposedly a top diplomat/negotiator.
If her skin is that thin, and she is that easily "intimidated",
then she is clearly at a job level well above her competence.
of course, during her testimony,
she would not even have known
about the tweet,
much less been allegedly intimidated by it,
nor could her "testimony" been affected in any way by the tweet,
except that Adam Schiff showed it to her to elicit a response.
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ." ..."
"... I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never excuse war. ..."
"... Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world order to add to its Degeneracy. ..."
"... They conflate PNAC strategy with US security and anyone not in to military intervention for the PNAC is a traitor. ..."
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
To [Samantha Power] applies Scott Fitzgerald's often cited comment. Once Biden is back in
power, all these people will come back from the cold & rain the bombs on the globally
deplorables.
Lily Lynch @lilyslynch
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then
retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them
together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ."
"liberal internationalism in Obama's cabinet. That made her [Powers] a target for his
critics. Her openness to military intervention – she was against [W Bush?] it in Iraq
but for it in Libya – drew flak from the left."
How can a supposed liberal [Obama was not a liberal in a traditional sense, maybe post
modern?] favor military intervention?
Does it involve ignoring "state run industrial age mass murder"?
Does it see a rationalized outcome to justify state mass murder?
I think post modern morality goes more towards the means don't matter much less the end---
see Libya!
I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never
excuse war.
Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world
order to add to its Degeneracy.
Let's say it's
January 2021
, and President Bernie Sanders has just assumed office. On his second day as
commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in world history, Bernie and his foreign policy
team are ushered into the White House Situation Room. After being seated at a long wooden table, a
group of diplomats and military officers informs Bernie that armed militants in the Central African
Republic have placed artillery around a town and are threatening to bombard its 10,000 inhabitants.
The townspeople have requested that the United States destroy the weapons and save their lives.
What should Bernie do?
For
Samantha Power
, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during Barack Obama's
second term, this really is no question at all: You eliminate the weapons. Power has dedicated her
life to promoting humanitarian intervention -- the idea that the United States, as the world's
"indispensable nation," has the moral duty to use its awesome military capabilities to prevent or
halt atrocities. First as a war reporter covering the Balkans in the 1990s, then as the Pulitzer
Prize–winning author of "
A
Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide
, and finally as a government official
herself, Power has insisted that the "responsibility to protect" innocents from slaughter is
sacrosanct, even if it means U.S. military adventurism or violating foreign nations' sovereignty.
When civilians are threatened, Power believes we must save them.
THE
EDUCATION OF AN IDEALIST: A MEMOIR by Samantha Power
Dey Street Books,
592 pp., $29.99
For this position, she has been both praised and
lambasted. Power's supporters see her as a
moral beacon
in a world focused on power politics at the expense of human rights. In the last
two decades, she has shaped the way a generation of liberal analysts and policymakers understand
international relations and their role within it: Barack Obama has
called her
"one of our foremost thinkers on foreign policy," while Ben Rhodes has said she was
"who I wanted to become when I moved down to Washington." Meanwhile, critics like the law professor
Aziz Rana
understand her as an unreconstructed "war hawk," who employs the discourse of human
rights to mask American imperialism. For them, Power embodies the contradictions of liberal
geopolitics, in which lofty rhetoric is used to justify military action in regions where the United
States has at best tangential interests.
Power's memoir arrives at a time when she and her approach have fallen from favor -- both with the
current administration, which has adopted a nakedly transactional approach to foreign affairs, and
with left-wing foreign policy thinkers, who want to dismantle U.S. military dominance. Against
these tides, Power's new book seems intended to rehabilitate both her agenda and her own
reputation, as she narrates in vivid and engaging prose her rapid rise to some of the most
influential positions in U.S. foreign policy-making. It's the story of a sympathetic protagonist
just trying to save innocent lives -- yet one that inadvertently demonstrates the lethality of good
intentions. The most startling thing about a book titled
The Education of an Idealist
is that Power appears not to have learned very much.
Power's early years exemplified the peripatetic privilege of the global bourgeoisie. She was
born in Ireland in 1970, the daughter of a doctor mother and a dentist father. In 1979, after her
father's alcoholism destroyed her parents' marriage, Power's mother moved with Samantha and her
brother to the United States. Power quickly acclimated to American life; she lost her Irish accent,
began a lifelong love affair with baseball, and started on her high school's basketball team. She
also studied hard for the SAT, and in 1988 was accepted to Yale University.
During Power's sophomore year, the
Berlin Wall
came
down, the Cold War ended, and she became a political junkie who quizzed herself on the news of the
day. In the summer of 1990, she took a trip to Europe that would transform her life. Power began
her journey with a visit to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Walking through the bleak Secret
Annex drove home to Power "the horror of Hitler's crimes," and after her visit she started to keep
a list of books she wanted to read on "what U.S. officials knew about the Holocaust and what they
could have done to save more Jews." Soon after, she traveled to Dachau, where she "wondered aloud
what the modern world would look like if President Roosevelt had not finally entered the war."
(Ignoring, naturally, the Soviet Union's role in ending World War II, and that it was the Red Army
that liberated Auschwitz.)
Power's trip persuaded her that U.S. military force could legitimately be used to save innocent
lives. The Holocaust became for her the moral justification for American empire in an era in which
the United States no longer faced any perceived existential threats. Power concluded that if the
United States didn't rule the world, genocide was inevitable, and for the remainder of her career
she would view atrocities in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East through the prism of the
Holocaust: After all, if the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the 1940s, why
couldn't it do the same in the
1990s
,
2000s
, and
2010s
?
If the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the
1940s, why couldn't it do the same in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?
The timing of Power's
trip was also crucial for her intellectual development. Before the disintegration of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, it was difficult to argue that the U.S. military could serve as a neutral
arbiter of human rights. Not only was the nation engaged in an avowedly political struggle with an
existential communist enemy, but the Vietnam War and several other failed interventions underlined
the dangers of using military force for ideological ends. Communism's collapse made it possible for
Power to imagine the U.S. military as a nonideological guarantor of broadly accepted human rights.
The empire could act for humanity, not politics. For Power -- and for many in her generation -- the U.S.
military was the base upon which the liberal international order of free markets, democracy, and
human rights would be constructed.
By her senior year at Yale, Power had determined that she "wanted to end up in a position to 'do
something'" about humanitarian crises. After graduating, she interned at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, where Mort Abramowitz, the endowment's president and a former ambassador to
Turkey, was turning his attention to the incipient Bosnian War. The more Power learned about the
conflict and its atrocities, "the more unnerved" she became. The war, she writes, provided her with
"a focus -- a specific group of people in a specific place who were being pulverized." To publicize
their suffering, she decided to become a
war reporter
, and in late 1993 she moved to the Balkans, armed with little more than a laptop.
Power was in Zagreb, Croatia, when on February 5, 1994, Bosnian Serbs mortared the
Markale
market
in Sarajevo, killing 68 civilians. As she watched news footage of "market vendors
carrying away the bloodied remains of their mutilated friends," she found herself "rooting for the
first time in [her] life for the United States to use military force." She spent the next year and
a half writing pieces on
civilian
suffering
that she hoped would engender a domestic outcry and convince President Bill Clinton
to forcibly end the siege of Sarajevo.
As time went on and Clinton refused to intervene (the U.S.-led NATO Operation Deliberate Force
would not commence until August 1995), Power began to consider a new track that was "less about
describing events and more about directly trying to shape them." The decisive moment came in July
1995, when she learned that the Bosnian Serb army
murdered
more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The sheer brutality of the genocide
compelled Power to take up a place at Harvard Law School (she had applied and been accepted earlier
that year), with the intention of becoming a prosecutor "who could bring murderers to justice."
At Harvard, Power returned to the question that had haunted her at the Anne Frank House and
Dachau: Don't Americans, as citizens of the world's greatest power, have a personal responsibility
to save lives if we have the capacity to do so? She enrolled in a class on the ethics of using
force and, most important for her future career, she wrote a paper that examined "what U.S.
policymakers
themselves
were thinking" when they failed to respond to twentieth-century
genocides. This paper was her first step toward her 2002 book
"A Problem From Hell,"
which
codified a decade of liberal thinking about humanitarian intervention, and which transformed Power
into an
internationally renowned expert
on human rights and genocide prevention.
"A Problem From Hell"
had two main arguments. First, it claimed that throughout the
twentieth century "the United States has consistently refused to take risks in order to suppress
genocide" and, by not acting, had failed the people of Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, among other
places. Second, the book maintained that in the future, U.S. decision-makers should take steps to
prevent or halt atrocities along "a continuum of intervention" that would range "from condemning
the perpetrators or cutting off U.S. aid to bombing or rallying a multinational invasion force."
Power did not, as many critics later avowed, unthinkingly advocate military intervention; rather,
she considered intervention as the final in a series of graduated steps intended to avert or stop
genocide. But as Power herself would soon learn, when Americans were presented with the hammer of
military force, many atrocities began to look like nails.
Power's book was perfectly primed for the post-9/11 moment, during which the question on many
Americans' minds was not whether the United States should remake the world, but how.
"A Problem
From Hell"
quickly became a cudgel in the
debate
over invading Iraq; as Power notes, several pundits clamoring for war invoked her book, arguing
that the 1980s Iraqi campaign of genocide against the Kurds gave the United States a casus belli.
Even though Power herself opposed the invasion, the writers who referenced
"A Problem From
Hell"
were not exactly misreading the book: Power
had placed
U.S. military intervention on the menu of options available to policymakers who said
they wanted to protect human rights.
In a moment defined by paranoia, revenge fantasies, and a sense of moral crusade, it is not
particularly surprising that
"A Problem From Hell"
was employed to rationalize war. The
book's relevance at the time, in fact, helps explain why it won the Pulitzer Prize for general
nonfiction in April 2003, one month after the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq.
Samantha
Power in 2013 at an International Civil Society event with Secretary of State John Kerry and National
Security Adviser Susan Rice
Jin Lee/Bloomberg/Getty
With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Power got the chance to use her ideas to shape U.S.
policy more directly. Obama and Power first met in the spring of 2005, when Obama was an ambitious
junior senator from Illinois. They worked together for a year (Power volunteered to serve in his
office), and when Obama won the Democratic primary in 2008, he hired her as a foreign policy
adviser, later appointing her to the National Security Council as senior director for multilateral
affairs and senior director for human rights.
In government, Power swiftly learned that few officials cared about human rights; many, in fact,
deemed them a distraction from more important issues of power politics. Nevertheless, while at the
NSC, Power helped expand by $50 million U.S. aid to Iraqi refugees, increased the number of Iraqis
allowed to resettle in the United States, and doubled the government's refugee stipend. She also
advocated for the United States to run for a seat on the
U.N.
Human Rights Council
, which it won in 2009. From this perch, U.S. officials spurred a number of
resolutions focused on revealing human rights abuses in various nations, including Iran, Syria,
Sudan, and North Korea. Moreover, Power proudly emphasizes, the United States "succeeded in getting
the Human Rights Council to reduce by half the share of country-specific resolutions on Israel."
As this last comment indicates, for Power, protecting human rights means disciplining nations of
the Global South that are not U.S. allies. Throughout
The Education of an Idealist
, she
barely mentions Israel or Saudi Arabia -- she says nothing about Israel's occupation of the West Bank
or the Saudi war on women and LGBTQI+ people. These silences are deafening, because the type of
world Power wants to build will never be realized if only certain countries -- namely, those that
stand outside America's imperial sphere -- are held to account. Her approach does not make much sense
from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending human
rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital
in a mostly quixotic attempt to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Meanwhile, Power completely ignores the human rights violations that took place in her own
country under Obama's watch; like many liberal interventionists, she is far more vexed by suffering
abroad. Nowhere does she address
police violence
against African Americans,
mass surveillance
,
refugee
detention
, or
mass
incarceration
. Nor does she give much thought to the colonial violence that defines American
history: In
The Education of an Idealist
, she recalls inviting a Serbian official to meet
with her in the so-called Indian Treaty Room, where she lectured him on the importance of
apprehending the war criminal Ratko Mladić. Somehow, Power overlooks the irony of championing
justice in a room named for repeatedly broken treaties that the U.S. government made with the
native population against which it committed genocide.
Power's most consequential decision during Obama's first term displayed a shortsightedness that
has often accompanied her faith in U.S. military power. With the outbreak of civil war in Libya,
Power began to advocate vociferously in favor of intervention to stop a potential massacre at
Benghazi. In particular, during a March 15, 2011, meeting, Power endorsed U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice's proposal to establish a
no-fly zone
over Libya and attack Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Obama approved Rice's plan, and on
March 19, a U.S.-led NATO coalition began
bombing Libya
,
initiating a process that concluded with Qaddafi's death. Despite the war's expansion and the chaos
that ensued, Power remains proud of her contribution. For her, "once the revolution spread, the
real question became how to use the tools at our disposal to bring about the best possible -- or the
least bad -- outcome."
But was that the real question? Here are some other questions that are equally important and
that she should have taken more seriously before Obama commenced Operation Odyssey Dawn: Is the war
likely to expand? If the war expands and Qaddafi is deposed, who will govern Libya? Is the United
States -- especially the American public -- willing to commit itself to reconstruction efforts? What
precedent does the intervention potentially set? Power never really asked these questions, because
ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a
categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course). For this reason,
throughout her time in office Power regularly encouraged war.
In Obama's second term, Power left the NSC to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
this position, she won many admirable victories: She aided in establishing a U.N. post
dedicated
to monitoring global LGBT rights;
brought countries together
to end the deadly Ebola outbreak of 2014; and promoted a resolution
that demanded the United Nations
deport
any peacekeeping units from countries in which U.N. soldiers were reported to have
committed sexual assault.
Yet it was also during Obama's second term that Power found herself less able to convince the
president of the moral necessity of intervention. In her memoir, she relates that when she first
learned that Bashar al-Assad's government had employed chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war,
she hoped "Obama would respond forcefully" and was disappointed when he didn't. Nevertheless, in
August 2013, Power was heartened to discover that Obama intended to answer the Syrian government's
murder of 1,400 people in a
chemical weapons attack
with airstrikes of military targets.
Power's expectations, however, were dashed when she was informed that Obama had decided to seek
congressional authorization for the airstrikes. "What happens if Congress doesn't support you?" she
asked the president. "Does that mean Assad could just keep using chemical weapons?" In the end,
Obama determined that Congress would rebuff his plan and
chose not
to go ahead with a vote; against Power's wishes, he also refused to intervene.
Instead, the president accepted Russia's offer to work together to disable Assad's chemical weapons
program. For her part, Power "shuddered at the inadequacy of the effort" to decrease Assad's
stockpile, despite the fact that U.S.-Russian collaboration provided an opportunity to build the
trust necessary to reach a political resolution of the conflict.
Power's recollection of the Syria debate highlights her meritocratic skepticism of democratic
politics. She writes that she "regretted that our administration had not ascertained whether we had
the votes
before
the President announced he was going to Congress. Had he known he would
fail, [she] did not believe he would have chosen the path he did." Power, in other words, wanted
Congress to rubber-stamp Obama's decision to intervene; she wasn't interested in having a real
public discussion about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using military force. In fact,
Power has the temerity to express disappointment with the U.S. public for refusing to support
intervention. Most Americans, she laments, "wanted no part of Syria. The student activists, civic
groups, churches, mosques, and synagogues that had come out
en masse
to demand help for
the people of Darfur [where in the mid-2000s a genocide erupted] were largely silent." Such a
statement evinces the privilege of an individual who has no reason to fear the
effects
another Middle Eastern intervention might have on her own family -- or on the people of
the Middle East.
The assumption running through Power's career is that the American empire is able to act as a
force for good in the world. At her memoir's end -- and in the wake of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and
Syria -- she affirms that "on issue after issue, either the United States brought a game plan to the
table or else the problem worsened." Though this might be true in some cases, it is certainly not
the rule, especially when one considers the
disastrous effects
of the nation's wars in the Greater Middle East; its
pointless
antagonism
of China, Russia, and Iran; its unwillingness to take the business-unfriendly steps
required to arrest climate change; and its unhesitating promotion of a capitalist system that has
exploited the labor of untold millions. The last several decades have taught us that the world
needs far less American "leadership" than it has enjoyed.
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely
philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of
course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes
place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical
uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers
actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the
American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here
may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Simply maintaining an enormous military able to intervene anywhere in the world carries its own
set of malign consequences: endless wars, global arms proliferation, a militaristic political
culture, the diversion of resources from welfare to weapons, and the strengthening of the
military-industrial complex, to name just a few.
The Education of an Idealist
does not
account for these social ills, or consider that the only way we can avoid them is by giving up the
capacities that enable us (theoretically, if not in practice) to alleviate foreign suffering.
The historian Samuel Moyn has
warned
that we must be careful not to elevate "the narrow and rare problem of when to send the military to
help strangers into the decisive one around which the future of American foreign policy revolves."
Power's memoir shows how much the discourse of humanitarian intervention obscures. By focusing on
the question "Do we save innocent lives?" liberal interventionists like Power shift our attention
from an equally important query: "How do we change conditions so lives don't need to be saved?" A
world oriented around this last question would look very different from the one we have now.
Daniel Bessner is the Pyle Assistant Professor in American Foreign Policy at the University of Washington
and author of
Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual
.
@ dbessner
This is one of the things I find so disingenuous about the Jews. On the one hand, they
claim they are always the victims. On the other, they claim they are superior intellectually.
They are a money cult and they promote one another shamelessly. And yet they have the balls
to talk about white privilege. Talk about a red herring. My God.
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
urban/suburban crowd.
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
Haigin88 ->
Tom J. Davis Clinton's Iraq
war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived
that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think ,
Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China,
she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from
Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think
Since most progressive figures would never publicly call for extending a U.S.-led military
occupation, this petition shows that the war propaganda in Syria – particularly as it
relates to the Kurds – has been highly effective in subverting the progressive anti-war
left as it relates to the Syrian conflict.
How he's going to explain supporting kidnappers, murders, drug dealers:
Another Beautiful Soul: Counterpunching the Global Assault on Dissent
I was recently alerted to Sonali Kolhatkar's Truth Dig article, "Why Are Some on the
Left Falling for Fake News on Syria?", which Counterpunch found important enough to republish
under the title, "The Left, Syria and Fake News." Kolhatkar's article was introduced to me as
the work of a "beautiful soul."
...
The beautiful soul is consumed with "philanthropic fantasies and sentimental phrases
about fraternity", Engels once remarked. They advocate "edifying humanism" and "generic,
vague, moral appeals" not "concrete political action" to challenge "a specific social
system".* It's not clear what Counterpunch is counterpunching, but in the case of Draitser
and Kolhatkar, it's certainly not US imperialism.
Beautiful souls appear not to recognize that the war in Syria is a concrete political
struggle connected to a specific social system related to empire; it is the struggle of the
United States to extend its dictatorship over all of the Arab world and of Arab nationalists
in Damascus and their allies to counter US imperial designs. All the beautiful soul
recognizes is that people are being killed, families are being uprooted, small children are
being terrorized, and they wish it would all just end. They're not for justice, or an end to
oppression and the dictatorship of the United States, or for equality; they're for the
absence of conflict. And they don't seem to particularly care how it's brought about.
...
In any event, whatever left Kolhatkar is part of, is not a left that has much to do
with challenging and overcoming a real world system of domination, oppression and
exploitation. It's a left whose goal is the absence of conflict, not the presence of justice;
it's for pious expressions of benevolence, not engagement with a real world struggle against
dictatorship on an international level.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be
a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In
this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider.
Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can
ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited
immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only
quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a
Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.
Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials
were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican
establishment of their day, and humiliated it.
Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy
designed to prosper Americans first.
Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because
of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though
a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.
He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally,
but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a
country any more.
Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like
Ike, both built up the military.
Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget
through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's
day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt.
"An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.
The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide
in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America.
Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.
However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in
history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the
Reagan era.
As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the
1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and
"America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.
Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.
The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a
landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned
him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers
48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest
tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.
Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united
Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative
accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen
senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war
with GOP leaders on the Hill.
And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes
on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job
of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly.
Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."
It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number
of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.
The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey
art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.
when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral
process
Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree
to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political
establishment.
Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you
want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy
you appear to inhabit at the moment:
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in
Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the
grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to
the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance
was often as much a pretext as a real motive.
Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the
US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its
manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live
differently.
As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical
this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and
as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive
to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies
that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests
of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.
Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump
regime's seeming plans in this regard:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald
Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe
and the US.
"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND
newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue
will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."
It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense
they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want
the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies
the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against
Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US
stooges.
The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and
past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective
leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he
did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete
fuckup.
Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence.
Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.
I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.
Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse
when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.
Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain
she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was
whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with
Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic
policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately
be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in
the world.
Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will
be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly
not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid
South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion,
and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons
to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government
is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.
You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf
of all five of them, even though three of them lost
Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really
matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European
nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue
to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.
All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the
aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those
players.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane
domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This
would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only
used to evil ends in the world.
Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go
immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power
globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.
You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling
and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic
policy issues will pale before such horror.
2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite
in 30 or just 20 years?
3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you
it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the
rot cannot be stopped.
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after
Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next
8 years?
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US
perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless
Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not
even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might
at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner
the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers),
then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American
Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called
deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe
Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency
and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."
As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White
jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by
the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and
Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly
White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the
Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd
guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote
in US presidential elections.
Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president
given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia
this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour
on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with
Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus
in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.
Reagan said: 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.
Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend
itself or its allies.
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in
a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that
Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good
decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence
speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in
the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just
in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary
to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from
it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people
(like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced
just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets
necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo
the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.
Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket
. He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie
denied to them by the establishment .
Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal
lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."
Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC.
They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit
them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the
rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball."
http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/
This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get
more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an
empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within
"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable,
has been denied access to elite positions."
Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the
fragmentation of political parties
cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the
most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence
(see Secular Cycles for this analysis).
But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of
living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues
and rising expenses) are also important contributors.
Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.
Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is
depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from
Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are
all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is
still strong.
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world
are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It
wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections
to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.
Today
Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war
is avoided.
On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies
because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem
is depending on US too much
Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about
what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible
with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism
and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration
policies that keep out Muslims).
I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions
about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have
a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
5minU The Great Transformation by
Jerry Michalski (Aug 8, 2013) This is a 5-minute University about Karl Polanyi's 1944
book, The Great Transformation, which is one of my favorite works of history.
This is a 5-minute University about Karl Polanyi's 1944 book, The Great Transformation,
which is one of my favorite works of history.
Paul Krugman
Against Bernie Sanders | Ian Welsh Paul Krugman Against Bernie Sanders. 2016 January 28. tags: ...
Krugman obfuscates this in his actual post, ... Vichy Left is a good way to label Paul Krugman, ...
Krugman as Part of the Vichy Left Brand Cover for the Democratic Party Messaging Apparatus. Yves Smith,
quite correctly, lays into Krugman for being a political ...
Therefore you must like Krugman ... I regard the Vichy Left as ... and Corporate Crime Reporter is that
there is something seriously wrong with Naked Capitalism ...
Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout
and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment ...
Paul Krugman's Amazing About Face ... what really is being said by the liberal left these days. So,
we've Krugman on record as saying that it's all a ...
Vichy France (in French, Régime de Vichy) is the common name of the French State (État français) headed
by Marshal Philippe Pétain during World War II.
Krugman - a Vichy Left coward? 27 January, 2016 at 23:53 | Posted in Politics & Society | Leave a comment.
Paul Krugman's recent posts have been most peculiar.
Left Out: A Critique of Paul Krugman Based on a Comprehensive Account of His New York Times Columns,
1997 through 2006 Econ Journal Watch, Volume 5, Number 1,
Here is the paragraph Krugman quotes, which left-wingers have chewed over, in their uniquely oblivious
way, for years: It must be very strange to be President Bush.
Boehner Retires from the Vichy GOP . Dedhedvedev. 9/27/2015, ... the Left has more words for statism
than the Eskimos have for ... Paul Krugman's economic policies ...
Someone sent me an email this evening with some details on the Paul Krugman response to James Montier
which I discussed here. I had previously stated that the Krugman ...
It's us or them. Home; Latest ... happily accepted by the Senator Patty Murray on behalf of the Vichy
... Krugman and Bernstein flog the idea that we need more ...
Vichy France, formally French ... 1940, divided France into two zones: one to be under German military
occupation and one to be left to the French in full sovereignty
Paul Krugman, number-one opinion ... might be better stated that he is the prophet of more and more
government intervention and the precise reason that the Left is ...
Every once in a while, Paul Krugman gives an object lesson in Keynesian economics and his M.O. generally
is as follows: create a caricature of other points of view ...
Many of his policies boil down to sheer liberal mantras in the style of Paul Krugman ... France Waking
Up to Its Anti-Semitism ... he departs sharply from the left ...
Paul Krugman has become an embarrassment to the economics profession. Despite his Nobel Prize and despite
his previous high regard in the profession, his twice-a-week ...
Paul Krugman brings up some really unpleasant but necessary memories in Monday's column-memories of
the 2000 Bush versus Gore election and the devastatingly shoddy ...
New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman has penned another in a series of unprincipled and
dishonest attacks on Bernie Sanders on behalf of the Democratic ...
Most economists are not susceptible to partisanship in their work, a new scholarly study finds. But
anyone who reads Paul Krugman's columns in the New York Times will ...
Yet a few weeks ago Krugman wondered how Republicans could rally around Trump ... you find you have
none left for the Donald Trumps of the world-and ...
Donald Trump; Paul Krugman (Credit: Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Tim Shaffer/Photo montage by Salon) Highlights:
For writing the truth about Trump, Paul Krugman is ...
Left Out: A Critique of Paul Krugman Based on a Comprehensive Account of His New York Times Columns,
1997 through 2006 by Daniel B. Klein and Harika Anna Barlett.
Krugman: Left Has 'Level Of Openness' To Other Views Not Shared By the Right. Krugman: Left Has 'Level
Of Openness' To Other Views Not Shared By the Right.
Discover the Normaderm range online at SkinStore. All your favorite Vichy skincare is now available
to buy online at SkinStore with free delivery over $49.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 The Chomsky Left and the Krugman Left Michael Bérubé in Dissent: Earlier this
year I had a lively email exchange with an exceptionally ...
Contra Krugman. 0 Views. Tags Booms and ... Paul Krugman smears with a broad brush when he condemns
the Austrian theory of the business ... not enough left to see the ...
How did Paul Krugman get it so Wrong? John H. Cochrane* September 16 2009 . Many friends and colleagues
have asked me what I think of Paul Krugman's New York Times ...
LiftActiv Serum 10 Eyes & Lashes Dual-Powered Eyes & Lashes ... Must be logged-in to your Vichy Account
at checkout in order to receive Free US Ground Shipping on ...
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman believes that increased public spending - akin to the efforts of the New
Deal during the Great Depression - is the best way ...
Delusional, ultra-liberal columnist Paul Krugman of The New York Times recently attacked Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump as a "racist" for daring to ...
Paul Krugman's Self-Protectionist Moment. ... Krugman has been a booster of trade and ... A Left Keynesian
Gaze and Capital Mobility and the Threat to ...
On ABC's This Week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said President Obama is one of the most consequential
presidents in modern American history, ranking third ...
"I think poets have become the conscience of our culture," Sam Hamill, who is a famous poet from Port
Townsend, Washington, said recently. Well, until now ...
In light of the horrific murder of a security guard by an alleged extremist at the U.S. Holocaust Museum,
liberal pontificator Paul Krugman of the New York Times is ...
Economist Stephen Moore debates New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on the economy, employment, spending
and election politics. Krugman said it is "ridiculous" how ...
A chill wind blows. In light of the horrific murder of a security guard by an alleged extremist at the
U.S. Holocaust Museum, liberal pontificator Paul Krugman of the ...
Last week, Gawker got the scoop on the terms of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's new position
with the City University of New York. A letter from the ...
Krugman specifically mentions rural Whites, the people who for decades have been the bogeymen of Jewish
political imagination in America. This quote from Terry Cooney ...
Mario Rizzo takes you inside the pseudo-scientific mind of the contemporary academic "economist". No
wonder the economics profession is widely perceived to be as ...
by Herman Daly . Paul Krugman often writes sensibly and cogently about economic policy. But like many
economists, he can become incoherent on the subject of growth.
This post originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's
New Rules Project. Nobel economist ...
Krugman the loony lefty likes just about the only openly Republican hair band while Trump favors globalist
gay boy piano man. Opposites can admire each other I suppose.
Official site of The Week Magazine, offering commentary and analysis of the day's breaking news and
current events as well as arts, entertainment, people and gossip ...
For the left, the Department of Veterans Affairs is how healthcare is ideally supposed to work. No insurance
companies, no private doctors, no competition - just ...
KRUGMAN LINKS. DIRECT KRUGMAN LINKS. The Conscience of a Liberal -- Paul Krugman's blog- Paul's New
York Times blog, where he posts usually several times a day.
Paul Krugman explains "Why I Haven't Felt The Bern" - He complains about Team Sanders. "In each case
the story runs into big trouble if you do a bit of ...
Krugman on Economy, Klein on Social Security by Oly Mike. Thinking about Mary's post on Krugman and
his take on things. I continue to be completely convinced that ...
Paul Krugman, whose Wikipedia page claims he is the 21st most cited economist in the world (as if being
21st is somehow worthy of distinction) and disingenuously ...
There are nearly no countries which are both poor have high average IQ and larger than 10 million population.
Dude. Paul Krugman is a second rate intellect in a ...
Paul Krugman is a frustrated man - a Cassandra whose wise warnings are regularly ignored by fellow economists,
policy experts and political leaders alike.
In his contribution to the debate over whether there is a group of open-minded reformed conservatives,
Paul Krugman misrepresents the central focus of the left-right ...
Paul Krugman released a new book yesterday called "End This Depression Now". In the introduction, Krugman
writes: The best way to think about this continued slump ...
Have you read the reviews on Krugman's new book yet? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004... It's essentially
impossible that the debt will be paid off ...
President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union speech, called for a minimum-wage hike and for government-mandated
paid family and medical leave. "We are the only ...
On the tenth anniversary of the brutal 9/11 attacks on the United States, Paul Krugman, in a short but
scathing New York Times blog post, elected to use the occasion ...
More and more, Paul Krugman is turning into a caricature of himself. The Nobel Prize-winning New York
Times columnist wrote an op-ed this week arguing that Amazon ...
The City University of New York will pay economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman an estimated
$225,000 over the course of nine months to participate in ...
Krugman's contribution to the 10th anniversary 9/11 observations is this predictably despicable screed.
This man should be forced to resign, even from the ...
I use the term Left with the capital in the way that many use the term Right to describe the disciples
of Limbaugh. I ask because in reading his last article he ...
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.
Pat Lang says: April 8, 2021 at 9:54 pm
Ishmael Zechariah says: April 8, 2021 at 10:50 pm
Walrus says: April 8, 2021 at 11:22 pm
Thomas says: April 9, 2021 at 8:08 pm
Andrei Martyanov says: April 9, 2021 at 12:42 am
Peter Reichard says: April 9, 2021 at 6:28 am
john kliss says: April 9, 2021 at 6:35 am
JohninMK says: April 9, 2021 at 7:09 am
BillWade says: April 9, 2021 at 7:51 am
jonst says: April 9, 2021 at 8:34 am
Yeah, Right says: April 9, 2021 at 7:58 pm
jon stanley says: April 10, 2021 at 9:49 am
Seamus Padraig says: April 9, 2021 at 8:38 am
Terence Reeves-Smyth says: April 9, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Some Dude says: April 9, 2021 at 9:11 am
Per/Norway says: April 9, 2021 at 5:39 pm
phodges says: April 9, 2021 at 6:42 pm
J says: April 9, 2021 at 10:20 am
Ed Lindgren says: April 9, 2021 at 11:57 am
Patrick Armstrong says: April 9, 2021 at 4:15 pm
Deap says: April 9, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Eol says: April 10, 2021 at 3:20 pm
English Outsider says: April 12, 2021 at 10:08 am
@Dwaine.Castle852 2 hours ago
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from
'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes
claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
Eric Zuesse
December 8, 2020 © Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Victoria Nuland is shown greeting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015. © Reuters
/ Mikhail Palinchak 9 Follow RT on 
US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence - ex-US agent Scott Rickard
FILE PHOTO. Victoria Nuland during her visit in Kiev, Ukraine. ©Serg Glovny / Global Look
Press 81 Follow RT on 
Trump won, regardless of the election outcome because Trumpism is here to stay
Joe Biden and MIchele Flournoy © Reuters / Jonathan Ernst and Yuri Gripas 705 1 Follow RT
on 
© REUTERS/Yara Nardi 128 1 Follow RT on 
Trump's Pentagon shuffle suggests either no more wars or just one with Iran
Print
Rudy Giuliani speaks to reporters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 7, 2020 ©
Reuters / Eduardo Munoz 476 Follow RT on 
Trump was a symptom of American decline that Biden is unlikely to reverse
Caitlin Johnstone: Don't fool yourself, your Biden vote was not a 'vote against fascism'
A
supporter of Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden wears a Captain America costume
during a gathering outside Perez Art Museum before his arrival for a town hall event in Miami,
Florida, U.S., October 5, 2020 © REUTERS / Marco Bello 31 Follow RT on 
Joe Biden isn't a foreign policy guru. He's a Stepford wife repeating 'War Party' talking
points The Trump Doctrine
Trump-Biden debate put US democracy on display – we're now little more than the world's
laughing stock armed with nukes
Subscribe
