Propaganda can be defined as a war on reality using fake news, disinformation and other
methods. An attempt to create an artificial reality. The key here is
controlling the narrative
While Senator McCarthney has a certain gist for this staff and probably would be a suitable
candidate for high collision in NKVD, he was not a pioneer. He was just a talanted follower. This
type of modem witch hunt was first implemented on large scale by Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917.
Actually Bolsheviks originated many modern methods of brainwashing of the population. which
later were enhanced and further developed in Nazi Germany and than imported to the USA after WWII.
Creation of intelligence agencies by Truman was actually a creation of national security state and
with it the huge apparatus of state propaganda controlled and directed by intelligence
agencies, which gradually acquired considerable level of control of MSM
(see Church Committee - Wikipedia )
In other words it was a gradual switch to a "cult-style" practice of mind control of
population (Bolshevism actually can be best viewed as a cult merged with the political movement,
much like political Islam today ). the main methods here is generation and control of "suitable"
David Glasner (I cut quite a bit -- the original is more than twice as long):
What's so Great about Free Trade? : Free trade is about as close to a sacred tenet as can
be found in classical and neoclassical economic theory. ... Despite the love and devotion that
the doctrine of free trade inspires in economists, the doctrine ... has never been popular among
the masses. ...
April 01, 2016 at 12:32 AM
The key to understanding that disconnect is, I suggest, the way in which economists have been
trained to think about individual and social welfare, which, it seems to me, is totally different
from how most people think about their well-being. In the standard utility-maximization framework,
individual well-being is a monotonically increasing function of individual consumption, leisure
being one of the "goods" being consumed, so that reductions in hours worked is, when consumption
of everything else is held constant, welfare-increasing. Even at a superficial level, this seems
totally wrong. ...
What people do is a far more important determinant of their overall estimation of how well-off
they are than what they consume. When you meet someone, you are likely, if you are at all interested
in finding out about the person, to ask him or her about what he or she does, not about what he
or she consumes. Most of the waking hours of an adult person are spent in work-related activities.
... It seems to me that what matters to most people is the nature of their relationships with
their family and friends and the people they work with, and whether they get satisfaction from
their jobs or from a sense that they are accomplishing or are on their way to accomplish some
important life goals. ...
Moreover, insofar as people depend on being employed in order to finance their routine consumption
purchases..., the unplanned loss of their current job would be a personal disaster, which means
that being employed is the dominant the overwhelming determinant of their well-being. Ordinary
people seem to understand how closely their well-being is tied to the stability of their employment,
which is why people are so viscerally opposed to policies that, they fear, could increase the
likelihood of losing their jobs.
To think that an increased chance of losing one's job in exchange for a slight gain in purchasing
power owing to the availability of low-cost imports is an acceptable trade-off for most workers
does not seem at all realistic. Questioning the acceptability of this trade-off doesn't mean that
... in principle, the gains from free trade are[n't] large enough to provide monetary compensation
to workers who lose their jobs, but I do question whether such compensation is possible in practice
or that the compensation would be adequate for the loss of psychic well-being associated with
losing one's job, even if money income is maintained. ...
The psychic effects of losing a job (an increase in leisure!) are ignored by the standard calculations
of welfare effects in which well-being is identified with, and measured by, consumption. And these
losses are compounded and amplified when they are concentrated in specific communities and regions...
The goal of this post is not to make an argument for protectionist policies, let alone for
any of the candidates arguing for protectionist policies. The aim is to show how inadequate the
standard arguments for free trade are in responding to the concerns of the people who feel that
they have been hurt by free-trade policies or feel that the jobs that they have now are vulnerable
to continued free trade and ever-increasing globalization. I don't say that responses can't be
made, just that they haven't been made.
The larger philosophical or methodological point is that ... economic theory can tell us that
an excise tax on sugar tends to cause an increase in the price, and a reduction in output, of
sugar. But the idea that we can reliably make welfare comparisons between alternative states of
the world when welfare is assumed to be a function of consumption, and that nothing else matters,
is simply preposterous. And it's about time that economists enlarged their notions of what constitutes
well-being if they want to make useful recommendations about the welfare implications of public
policy, especially trade policy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Barkley Rosser ...
The happiness literature on the impact of involuntary unemployment on happiness is quite large,
with people like David Blanchflower having played important roles. An offhand summary is that
becoming involuntarily unemployed is indeed one of the events that is most devastating to the
happiness of most people, with only a few events worse, including having one's spouse die or being
thrown in jail.
DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Friday, April 01, 2016 at 06:58 AM
It is not becoming involuntarily unemployed that is devastating. It is the loss of income
security that sucks. I was laid off 6/16/2015, but I was 66 years and 2 months old having earned
37 years of service credit in our defined benefits pension plan and then granted an additional
6 years pension service credit by virtue of taking my severance benefits in the form of enhanced
I had wanted to work six more years so I could take survivor benefit and still have a sufficient
retirement income, but the severance package allowed me that freedom instead.
With firms no longer offering defined benefits pension plans then we need to expand social
security into a full income pension plan. We need to increase unemployment benefits as well. Once
we have paid for that then the plutocrats will find that they are better off paying US workers
to make stuff since all their global price arbitrage profits have been clawed back.
PPaine -> DrDick...
April 01, 2016 at 07:10 AM
I think this is an important factor. It is certainly the case that a certain level of consumption
increases happiness, but beyond a fairly moderate level, I do not think it actually adds much.
Another important factor is having something meaningful to do with your time. For most people,
that is work. Boredom is a serious problem among the retired.
We have more then just skill crushing, job experience crushing. Impacts of domestic production
erasing imports. We have the implied competition on wages. Of import threats
Wage stag !
JohnH -> PPaine ...
April 01, 2016 at 07:31 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DrDick...
April 01, 2016 at 09:58 AM
Economists largely ignore distribution of benefits, focusing on efficiency and the 'total good.'
How that total good is divvied up is largely irrelevant to them, unless the populace gets testy.
In fact, most people would be better off if the economy were slightly smaller but distributed
much more evenly. Economists just can't seem to wrap their heads around that concept.
April 01, 2016 at 12:45 AM
"I think this is an important factor."
[Not sure which this that you are agreeing with. So, let's say that income security means a
roof over are heads and food to eat for the whole family. Then there is this boredom thingy. With
a little acreage and a sound mind and body then staying occupied, productive (in some manner of
speaking - a rose is a rose is a rose), and happy is a piece of cake. A tenement room with nothing
but a TV would be death sentence for me. If not for money then I would never have needed to work
for someone else. I see good honest work to do everywhere I look.]
He came close but he missed the major point. SECURITY.
What do most people see as their life goal? To raise a family. How long does it take? Decades.
Flexibility isn't a boon - it is a disaster for most people.
If you only look at a static picture of the world (which is the traditional view of economists)
how can you possibility see this?
ilsm -> reason...
April 01, 2016 at 04:35 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason...
April 01, 2016 at 05:24 AM
Economics is about "distribution of scarce resources......." if I recall ECON 101.
That phrase is as forgotten and ignored as the thing in the Declaration of Independence about
"all men created equal"!
Unless the measure of "good" wrt distribution is the hoard of the richest.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason...
April 01, 2016 at 06:10 AM
"He came close but he missed the major point. SECURITY..."
[Too bad. As I was reading this I was liking it so much that it had already elevated my former
opinion of David Glasner, technically elegant, all the way up to topically relevant and possibly
even socially astute, but from what you say then I must put a hold on that socially astute. I
guess I had better read the entire article before I begin to comment further.]
Benedict@Large -> reason...
April 01, 2016 at 06:18 AM
You are correct. Glasner missed the point on security, so he also missed the point that if
income is maintained then that would cover the lion's share of well being. Glasner is correct
that money is not everything, just as consumption is not everything, but that really does come
down to just how much money that we are talking about. I worked a long time contributing into
a traditional pension plan. I took great pride in my work, but I have not missed my job or felt
inadequate because of the lack of that purpose for a minute since I was laid off on 6/16/2015.
That's because between my social security and pension incomes then I can still make my mortgage
payments and all my other bills and due to my reduced expenses on payroll taxes, clothes, and
gas have more money left over for landscaping and other home projects than I did when I was working.
If I was eating cat food or living under a bridge then I would be feeling much worse about having
been laid off.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Benedict@Large
April 01, 2016 at 06:47 AM
There is no such thing as free trade. At best, there are treaties which successively approximate
free trade. The problem comes in with who negotiates these agreements, the agreements largely
addressing the concerns of those selected to do so, while ignoring the concerns of those not selected
to do so. Which is the entire problem. Capital is selected; labor is not. (Neither much is
So who ends up liking these things? Capital. Who ends up not liking them? Labor and environment.
Duh? Is this really that hard to figure out?
"There is no such thing as free trade...."
PPaine -> reason...
April 01, 2016 at 07:14 AM
[Sure there is. Anne complains about this as well. But a large part of maintaining plutocracy
within the framework of a democratically electoral republic is the copious use of misleading euphemisms.
We all know what they really mean, or at least all of us here reading and commenting at EV know
what they mean. My guess is that unemployed workers in the rustbelt know what they mean as well.
Republicans talk about being free all of the time, but what they really are is just cheap.
There is nothing free in life. Most people know this intuitively. There are choices and consequences.
One consequence of the overuse of "free trade" is the emergence of fair trade. As far as I can
tell the rebranding will hardly put a dent in the arbitrage profits. ]
April 01, 2016 at 04:09 AM
Might I submit this word
A decent measure of Control over ones fate
The job markets must always offer everyone ....everyone an opportunity to prosper
Ours is a job based culture as the blog post asserts so clearly
To control ones fate and ones love ones fate
Job opportunities and options
must. always be out there cajoling you to " join us "
April 01, 2016 at 06:11 AM
The United States benefits and historically has benefitted by being one large trading block.
Increases in wealth are linked to improvements in transportation even today.
One stumbling block in international trade is the restriction on movement of labor. This is
a huge problem for the EU. Another problem is distribution of the profits from trade. How much
should be captured by private interests and how much should go to the public good. Should some
profits from trade be returned from one country to another? This is often done through severance
taxes or export fees.
"Free trade" (whatever that is) is not necessarily fair trade. Free trade is a slogan special
interest use to protect their capture of trade profits. Fair trade would be the attempt to manage
trade such that the maximum number of winners is produced.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RueTheDay ...
April 01, 2016 at 06:22 AM
It seems to me that a couple of obvious points are being missed.
1) The "gains from free trade" argument is simply that under conditions of trade, more "stuff"
will be produced than under conditions of autarky, so theoretically there will be more available
for everyone. That says nothing about how those gains are distributed, i.e., there will be individual
winners and losers. In practice, those gains never seem to actually get redistributed so it's
impossible to say everyone is made better off.
2) What is the root cause of comparative advantage? The textbooks tell us - differences in
initial factor endowments, technology, and tastes. What does that mean in a world where a company
in a developed company can pick up its capital (and implicitly, technology) and move it to a lesser
developed country with cheaper labor, because capital is far more mobile than labor, in order
to produce goods to supply its home market (where tastes differ)?
Fred C. Dobbs
April 01, 2016 at 06:35 AM
Glasner did not really miss your point # 1, but he muddled the message a bit over the benefits
of redistribution. Almost everyone, but especially those trained in economics, seems to miss your
point #2. The most basic premise of comparative advantage has long been broken by technology,
but the fiction of that old saw serves the price arbitrage motives of capital so well that it
has been preserved in amber like the fossilized bug it is.
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs...
April 01, 2016 at 07:12 AM
The Democrats "Free Trade" Divide
Mark Engler - April 23, 2008
"Free trade" has produced some of the most contentious political debates of our times. In a
famous April 2000 article in the New Republic (*), economist Joseph Stiglitz argued, "Economic
policy is today perhaps the most important part of America's interaction with the rest of the
world. And yet the culture of international economic policy in the world's most powerful democracy
is not democratic." During the Bush years, economic policy received far less attention in political
discussion than before; the use of military force took center stage. However, the trade and development
debate went on, and it continues to affect fundamental questions of global poverty, inequality,
and opportunity. Under a new Democratic administration-or under a Republican administration that
demotes the neocons in favor of the more traditional, realist foreign policy establishment-it
is likely that economic policy will again become the most important part of America's interaction
with the world. And it is likely that it will remain profoundly undemocratic.
The injustices of neoliberal trade policy and the hypocrisy of U.S. stances in international
negotiations have produced an upheaval in multilateral institutions like the WTO, and this has
helped to transform the debate about the global economy. But trade is also an important domestic
issue. Today, trade policy plays an important role in the battle for the soul of the Democratic
One of the major accomplishments of the Clinton administration was to move to the fore of the
Party a faction led by the centrist, corporate-friendly Democratic Leadership Council. Working
with pro-"free trade" Republicans, Clinton and the DLC made passing the North American Free Trade
agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 and approving U.S. entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in
1994 into bipartisan crusades. The coalition in favor of corporate globalization was always tenuous,
however. In recent years, especially as the Bush administration implemented an increasing belligerent
foreign policy, the "free trade" coalition has frayed. ...
April 17, 2010
What I Learned at the World Economic Crisis
By Joseph Stiglitz
Next week's meeting of the International Monetary Fund will bring to Washington, D.C., many
of the same demonstrators who trashed the World Trade Organization in Seattle last fall. They'll
say the IMF is arrogant. They'll say the IMF doesn't really listen to the developing countries
it is supposed to help. They'll say the IMF is secretive and insulated from democratic accountability.
They'll say the IMF's economic "remedies" often make things worse--turning slowdowns into recessions
and recessions into depressions.
And they'll have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1996 until last November,
during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with
the U.S. Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled.
The global economic crisis began in Thailand, on July 2, 1997. The countries of East Asia were
coming off a miraculous three decades: incomes had soared, health had improved, poverty had fallen
dramatically. Not only was literacy now universal, but, on international science and math tests,
many of these countries outperformed the United States. Some had not suffered a single year of
recession in 30 years.
But the seeds of calamity had already been planted. In the early '90s, East Asian countries
had liberalized their financial and capital markets--not because they needed to attract more funds
(savings rates were already 30 percent or more) but because of international pressure, including
some from the U.S. Treasury Department. These changes provoked a flood of short-term capital--that
is, the kind of capital that looks for the highest return in the next day, week, or month, as
opposed to long-term investment in things like factories. In Thailand, this short-term capital
helped fuel an unsustainable real estate boom. And, as people around the world (including Americans)
have painfully learned, every real estate bubble eventually bursts, often with disastrous consequences.
Just as suddenly as capital flowed in, it flowed out. And, when everybody tries to pull their
money out at the same time, it causes an economic problem. A big economic problem.
The last set of financial crises had occurred in Latin America in the 1980s, when bloated public
deficits and loose monetary policies led to runaway inflation. There, the IMF had correctly imposed
fiscal austerity (balanced budgets) and tighter monetary policies, demanding that governments
pursue those policies as a precondition for receiving aid. So, in 1997 the IMF imposed the same
demands on Thailand. Austerity, the fund's leaders said, would restore confidence in the Thai
economy. As the crisis spread to other East Asian nations--and even as evidence of the policy's
failure mounted--the IMF barely blinked, delivering the same medicine to each ailing nation that
showed up on its doorstep.
I thought this was a mistake....
Getting fired from your job is one of the most stressful events one can experience in life.
Two psychiatrists once conducted a study to attempt to discover how stressful various events
were. They did a massive survey of 5000 people.
Losing your job was calculated to be a 47/100. To compare, having your home foreclosed on was
a 30 and the death of a close friend was a 37. The only things more stressful than losing your
job were things regarding beginning or ending a marriage, and going to prison.
It's understandable why most people are very, very risk averse when it comes to job loss.
See: Holmes TH, Rahe RH (1967). "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale". J Psychosom Res 11
June 27, 2017 at 07:11 AM
How does one describe this faction of Democrats? Corporate
Democrats. Neoliberals? What's the shorthand way of
distinguishing them from Berniecrats?
JohnH -> Christopher H....
June 27, 2017 at 07:24 AM
Democrats Help Corporate Donors Block California Health
Care Measure, And Progressives Lose Again
BY DAVID SIROTA ON 06/26/17 AT 4:06 PM
As Republican lawmakers grapple with their unpopular bill
to repeal Obamacare, Democrats have tried to present a united
front on health care. But for all their populist rhetoric
against insurance and drug companies, Democratic powerbrokers
and their allies remain deeply divided on the issue - to the
point where a political civil war has spilled into the open
in America's largest state.
In California last week, Democratic state Assembly Speaker
Anthony Rendon helped his and his party's corporate donors
block a Democrat-sponsored bill to create a universal health
care program in which the government would be the single
Rendon's decision shows how progressives' ideal of
universal health care remains elusive - even in a liberal
state where government already foots 70 percent of the total
health care bill.
Until Rendon's move, things seemed to be looking up for
Democratic single-payer proponents in deep blue California,
which has been hammered by insurance premium increases.
There, the Democratic Party - which originally created
Medicare - just added a legislative supermajority to a
Democratic-controlled state government that oversees the
world's sixth largest economy. That 2016 election victory
came as a poll showed nearly two-thirds of Californians
support the creation of a taxpayer-funded universal health
care system in a state whose population is roughly the size
of Canada - which already has such a system.
California's highest-profile federal Democratic lawmaker
recently endorsed state efforts to create single-payer
systems, and 25 members of its congressional delegation had
signed on to sponsor a federal single-payer bill.
Meanwhile, after Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had
twice vetoed state single-payer legislation, California in
2010 elected a governor who had previously campaigned for
president on a pledge to support such a system. Other
statewide elected officials had also declared their support
for single-payer, including the current lieutenant governor,
who promised to enact a universal health care program if he
is wins the governorship in 2018.
None of that, though, made the difference: Late Friday,
Rendon announced that even though a single-payer bill had
passed the Democratic-controlled state senate, he would not
permit the bill to be voted on by the Assembly this year.
"As someone who has long been a supporter of single payer,
I am encouraged by the conversation begun by Senate Bill
562," Rendon said. But "senators who voted for SB 562 noted
there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the
fact it does not address many serious issues, such as
financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities
of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to
make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation."
Since 2012, Rendon has taken in more than $82,000 from
business groups and healthcare corporations that are listed
in state documents opposed the measure, according to an
International Business Times review of data amassed by the
National Institute on Money In State Politics. In all, he has
received more than $101,000 from pharmaceutical companies and
another $50,000 from major health insurers.
In the same time, the California Democratic Party has
received more than $1.2 million from the specific groups
opposing the bill, and more than $2.2 million from
pharmaceutical and health insurance industry donors. That
includes a $100,000 infusion of cash from Blue Shield of
California in the waning days of the 2016 election - just
before state records show the insurer began lobbying against
the single-payer bill.
While Rendon oversees a supermajority, it had never been
clear that Assembly Democrats would muster the two-thirds
vote needed under the state constitution to add the new taxes
needed to fund the single-payer system proposed by the
senate-passed bill. That is because the Democratic Assembly
caucus includes progressive legislators but also more
conservative members who are closer to business interests.
In addition to the money given to Rendon, the groups
opposing the single-payer measure have delivered more than
$1.5 million to Democratic assembly members since the 2012
election cycle. In all, the 55 Democratic members of the
80-seat Assembly have received more than $2.7 million from
donors in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries
in just the last three election cycles.
Complicating matters for this year's single-payer bill was
the fact that the pharmaceutical industry had just spent more
than $100 million to defeat a 2016 ballot measure in
California aimed at lowering drug prices. That wave of money
was a powerful reminder that major industries opposed to
single-payer have virtually unlimited resources to spend
against California's Democratic incumbents in the next
election if those Democrats ultimately try to pass a bill.
"Subject To Enormous Uncertainty"
The episode in California was the latest defeat for
single-payer health care advocates, who have faced a string
of losses at the hands of Democrats whose party has continued
to attract significant cash from the health care industries
that benefit from the current system.
In the last decade, Barack Obama raised millions of
dollars from health care industry donors and then backed off
his previous support for single-payer. He and other
administration officials explicitly declared that the
Affordable Care Act would not become a Medicare-for-all
system. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate then failed to
pass a proposal to create a publicly run insurance option to
compete with private insurers.
More recently, Vermont's Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin
abandoned his state's high-profile push for single-payer in
2014 - just as he was serving as chairman of the Democratic
Governors Association, a group whose top donors included
UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross, AstraZeneca and the
pharmaceutical industry's trade association.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's
campaign was boosted by millions of dollars from health care
industry donors, and she derided Bernie Sanders for pushing
single payer, saying such an idea would "never, ever come to
pass." In the same 2106 election, prominent Democratic Party
consultants helped lead an insurer-funded campaign - backed
by prominent Democratic lawmakers - to kill a single-payer
ballot measure in Colorado.
And yet despite those defeats, single-payer advocates were
thinking big at the beginning of 2017. Heading into the new
legislative sessions, Democrats controlled both governorships
and legislatures in six states - and another
Democratic-leaning state with a Democratic governor, New
York, appeared to have legislative support for single-payer.
With its Democratic supermajority, California was the biggest
focus of attention among progressive healthcare advocates.
According to a June report by California senate analysts,
the single-payer legislation that was introduced in
Sacramento this year would have created a government agency
called Healthy California that would be "required to provide
comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage
system for all California residents." The program would have
been prohibited from charging participants premiums and
co-pays and would have covered "all medical care determined
to be medically appropriate by the members' health care
provider," according to the Senate report.
While the report said fiscal estimates "are subject to
enormous uncertainty," it projected that $200 billion worth
of existing federal, state and local health care spending
would offset about half of the estimated $400 billion annual
cost. Shifting that money, though, could require California
to secure waivers from the federal government that would
allow it to redirect the federal money into the new program.
The original bill did not include a specific tax proposal
to raise the rest of the needed revenue. However, the report
estimated that the other $200 billion could be funded by
moving state payroll taxes up to 15 percent , a levy the
report said "would be offset to a large degree by reduced
spending on health care coverage by employers and employees."
"The Only Health Care System That Makes Any Sense"
At the start of California's legislative session, bill
proponents pitched the sweeping measure as a way to protect
the state from Trump administration health care policy. They
may have been banking on support from California's top
Democrat, Gov. Jerry Brown, who endorsed single payer during
his 1992 presidential campaign.
"I believe the only health care system that makes any
sense is a single-payer system," Brown said during a March
1992 Democratic presidential forum. "I don't see any way,
after having worked on this problem in the largest state in
the union, which, after all, has the highest medical costs,
to really contain costs without establishing a single payer
for all basic services."
But as the the California legislation began moving
forward, Brown cast doubts on it in comments to reporters in
"Where do you get the extra money?...This is the whole
question. I don't even get ... how do you do that?" said
Brown, who has collected more than a quarter-million dollars
of campaign contributions from groups opposing the bill.
Supporters of the legislation tried to answer the
governor's question with a detailed economic analysis
asserting that the legislation could save the state money
through lower administrative costs and drug prices.
"Providing full universal coverage would increase overall
system costs by about 10 percent, but ... single payer system
could produce savings of about 18 percent," concluded a May
2017 study led by University of Massachusetts-Amherst
economist Robert Pollin. "The proposed single-payer system
could provide decent health care for all California residents
while still reducing net overall costs by about 8 percent
relative to the existing system."
That same month, U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
- California's highest-ranking federal official -- seemed to
give the idea a boost. At a Capitol Hill press conference,
she said "the comfort level with a broader base of the
American people is not there yet" for a federal
Medicare-for-all bill, but she promoted state efforts.
"I say to people, if you want that, do it in your states.
States are laboratories. It can work out. It is the least
expensive, least administrative way to go about this," she
said. "States are a good place to start."
Economist Pollin echoed that argument, telling IBT that
the California situation is fundamentally different than
Vermont, which in 2014 abandoned its high-profile effort to
create the nation's first state-based single-payer system.
While single-payer could still be feasible in small states,
he said, the concept was particularly well suited to a very
large state like California.
"The issue of bargaining power is important relative to
pharmaceutical companies, and that's one big area of
savings," he told IBT. "If the pharmaceutical companies say
we're not interested in selling to Vermont, they can walk
away from Vermont. But they can't do the same thing with
California because it's too large a market. It's the same
thing with doctors - they are not going to run away from a
market of 33 million people just because their reimbursement
rates will be at Medicare levels. And the state of California
is already used to running big operations, so it has the
administrative power to do this kind of thing."
Despite Brown's lack of support, and opposition from
Republican lawmakers and health insurers, the California
senate passed the single-payer bill in June. Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders pressed the Democratic governor and California
lawmakers to enact the bill.
"As we sit here tonight, the California state senate has
passed single-payer," Sanders told a gathering of thousands
of activists in Chicago. "Now it's up to the California House
and the governor to do the right thing and help us transform
health care in this country by leading the way."
All of the pressure, however, was not enough to persuade
Rendon. Calling the legislation "woefully incomplete," he
announced that "SB 562 will remain in the Assembly Rules
Committee until further notice."
The move was instantly polarizing. Inside the labor
movement, the California branch of the Service Employees
International Union - which has long supported single-payer
health care - issued a statement supporting Rendon's
decision, saying the organization wants changes to the
legislation. SEIU's affiliates have previously negotiated a
collective bargaining agreement with insurer Kaiser
Permanente, which would be "dismantled" under the
single-payer bill, according to Kaiser's lobbyist.
By contrast, the California Nurses Association, which
represents 100,000 unionized nurses in the state, slammed
Rendon, asserting that he had acted "in secret in the
interests of the profiteering insurance companies" and that
he had "destroy[ed] the aspirations of millions of
Californians for guaranteed health care."
The internecine attacks were equally fierce within the
"Today's announcement that the Assembly will not be moving
forward on single-payer, Medicare-for-All healthcare for
California at this time is an unambiguous disappointment for
all of us who believe that healthcare is a right for every
Californian," said newly elected California Democratic Party
chairman Eric Bauman, who until the middle of June had worked
in the Assembly speaker's office under Rendon, and ran his
Southern California office. "We understand that SB 562 is a
work in progress, but we believe it should keep moving
forward, especially in light of the widespread suffering that
will occur if Trump and Congressional Republicans succeed in
passing their cold-blooded, morally bankrupt so-called
Perhaps seeking to bridge the divide, Rendon left open the
possibility that the bill will come up next year.
"Because this is the first year of a two-year session,
this action does not mean SB 562 is dead," he said. "In fact,
it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the
senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed. The
Senate can use that time to fill the holes in SB 562 and pass
and send to the Assembly workable legislation that addresses
financing, delivery of care, and cost control."
Rendon's focus on financing underscored the fact that
passing tax increases to generate hundreds of billions of
dollars of new revenue is generally no easy political task -
and such initiatives can be particularly tricky in
California. There, a 1988-passed measure called Proposition
98 typically requires that a significant amount of any new
tax revenue must go to education. Another 1979 measure known
as the Gann limit also aims to restrict spending increases.
Funding a single-payer system could require complex
legislation or even a separate ballot measure.
Bill proponents, though, say those potential roadblocks
are navigable within the scope of the bill they are pushing.
In an interview with IBT, Michael Lighty of the California
Nurses Association noted that the Senate version of the
legislation included language to make sure that the new
health care system would not launch unless state officials
certified that adequate funding was available.
"The speaker says the bill is 'woefully incomplete' but he
stopped the process that would have completed it," Lighty
said. "We have a failsafe mechanism in the legislation. In
the event anticipated monies are not available from whatever
source for whatever reason, we can address it before full
program operation. There are all sorts of options, but you
can't do any of it if the bill doesn't move forward."
Bauman told IBT that despite the opposition within his own
party, he expects progressive Democrats to continue pushing
for single payer.
"What Democratic activists need to be doing every day is
educating our elected officials and the public on just how
important the fight for health care is, and on why this is
the moral and ethical fight of the day," he said.
If the poll is correct and 2/3 of Californians support single
payer, they should do an initiative.
Christopher H. -> Christopher H....
June 27, 2017 at 07:24 AM
The only way to buck
the corporate Democrats is often the initiative process.
BTW I call them Wall Street Democrats because it's the
Rubin-Summers-Geithner wing of the party that is stifling
"Yes the California Senate pased(sic) a "single
payer" proposal but it is not moving in the House until
someone does the hard work of deciding: (a) what are the
details about what is being provided; and (b) how it will be
U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's
foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed
himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to
place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination
and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th
"Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications
are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to
June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.
As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to
overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve
that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated
policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow
Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis
of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting
about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included
that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been
reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in
Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary
to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and
this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an
overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to
bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:
page 69 of 100:
D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed
Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront
of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally,
he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and
Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support
to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.
E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.
A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.
B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and
Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia),
and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On
the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent
to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western
countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts
And here is from the part that the press did report:
Ayssar Midani, May 23, 2015 · Paris, France:
"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting
powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that
the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly
lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its
old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.
The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that
AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist
[i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land
route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return
of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.
I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama
and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria,
in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then,
I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into
Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan
Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting
to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.
Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage
(and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to
the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's
fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of
course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)
These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to
the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged
on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,"
for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:
18 Sep 2012
2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall
of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due
to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the
weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately
prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers
for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds,
and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.
It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy
of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he
would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which
is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation
of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 (
Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either
in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending
in nuclear war.
When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the
12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not
yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium
did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The
Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately,
"'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which
point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded
'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama
such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular
matter were actually spot-on.
Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September
2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even
arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored
Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria (
and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty,
and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and
might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there,
after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only
"bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called
"bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and
also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already
at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey
- a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging
its war without NATO's support.
Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which,
if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of
NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely
be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes
to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting
on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate,
to do that?
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 .
Eric Blair says
June 27, 2017
Moon of Alabama
commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored
DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:
June 26, 2017
Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces
continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?
COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort
to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign.
We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them,
then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and
to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what
it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with
pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.
In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted
in their movement:
if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going
to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.
Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer al-Tanf is now useless and the
Syrian army is free to do what it does:
COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used
that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are
in and around that area.
You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know,
progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to
fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would
We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business,
and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are
going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that
in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those
So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our
partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But
if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.
Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems
almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down
with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists,
their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a
coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.
On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by
the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten
or beat every nation in the world into submission.
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction,
so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the
relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity
its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
captain Swing says
June 27, 2017
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review
of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't
go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.
"According to Hersh, the LRB did not want to be "vulnerable to criticism for seeming to take
the view of the Syrian and Russia governments when it came to the April 4 bombing in Khan Sheikhoun."
So much for diversity of thought in today's West."
Very interesting article from Counterpunch. Thanks.
Jerry Alatalo says
June 27, 2017
June 26, 2017
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump totally ignoring
his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible
had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what
his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth
to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin
Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council
of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and
literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.
Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United
Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the
world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must
become held to account for their deceptions.
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split
by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian
retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the
whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at
the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
Michael Leigh says
June 26, 2017
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle
East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate
failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional
Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.
Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain
and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi
division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages
financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.
Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate
and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.
The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders;
is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded
deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
- After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
- After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
- After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
- After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
- After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
- The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
- The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
- Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
them to snap out of it
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
June 27, 2017 at 3:55 am
Louis Fyne ,
June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
June 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm
CNN producer on video admitting that it's all bunk courtesy of James
Okeefe. Expect Fox News to run this clip 24/7.
June 27, 2017 at 11:31 am
Thanks for the link confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
June 27, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
- The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
- Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
- Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
- It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
June 27, 2017 at 5:10 pm
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
June 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
June 27, 2017 at 4:48 pm
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
June 27, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
- Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
- They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
- Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
June 27, 2017 at 8:23 am
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
June 27, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Please don't conflate the left with the "Liberal Media". There is no
left mass media in this country.
June 27, 2017 at 8:34 am
Why the Democratic party is doomed:
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
loseRussia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passι. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
June 27, 2017 at 5:26 pm
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
June 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
June 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
June 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
June 27, 2017 at 3:11 pm
I don't think I'd count on Bernie. He loves his committee appointments
too much and will never leave the DImRats.
June 27, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Just to be clear, the text in my comment above was written by Julian
Assange, not me. See the link at the top of said comment.
June 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
June 27, 2017 at 11:33 pm
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a
new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party
Granted, however it shouldn't be forgotten that there are significant
barriers to reforming the D-party too.
June 27, 2017 at 5:19 am
Invert "legal barrier" to "asset to be seized"
June 27, 2017 at 5:37 am
The Dims because that's what these people truly are will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
June 27, 2017 at 11:08 am
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
June 27, 2017 at 11:14 am
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
June 27, 2017 at 5:50 am
Team D will continue to double down because it is in the interests of
those running Team D to do so.
June 27, 2017 at 1:53 pm
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
Germany's gas pact with Putin's Russia endangers Atlantic alliance
June 27, 2017 at 6:02 am
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
June 27, 2017 at 11:23 am
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
June 27, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
just Republicans sorry, integer
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
June 27, 2017 at 8:42 am
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
June 27, 2017 at 8:44 am
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
June 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm
In the last six months, I have gone from being curious about Russia to
learning how to speak Russian. Thanks for the inspiration, Democrats.
June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am
Now I remember where I first heard of Norman Solomon.
June 27, 2017 at 9:31 am
But, but, it was HER TURN!
And her investors are really pissed off.
$1.5B up in smoke and not even a blue dress to show for it.
June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
June 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
June 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm
It also is attacking the Republicans from the right, always a Team D
June 27, 2017 at 8:58 am
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
Left in Wisconsin
June 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Disclaimer, this link is from Trump's son-in-law's publication, but the
audio has not been questioned AFAIK..
I suspect the American voter does not believe they were "played" by the
But they may believe that is what the Democrats are attempting to do with
the entire Russia-gate campaign
As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance.
June 27, 2017 at 9:18 am
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
June 27, 2017 at 10:13 am
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Jonathan Holland Becnel
June 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
and in many cases, not so secretly wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm
Good to see this Neoliberal farce go away.
June 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
- Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
- Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
- Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
June 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Re the country list.
It was Wesley Clark who saw the list of middle east/African countries the
USA would attack and destroy.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
June 27, 2017 at 10:55 pm
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Re Crimea you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume
they want the country to move right.
- Kick the left. Always.
- Pretend to #resist, while really you are in it to keep the political money
- While distracting their supporters with Russia gate/GA-06/Trump's latest
twit, Medicare and ACA get gutted.
- Run on returning to the status quo on 2018, taking single payer will be off
It's brilliant... If you know their goal is to move the country right and be a
bulwark against the left.
karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 4:04:52 PM |
For me, this "pre blame" statement is meant to act as a blanket covering up numerous bad
news erupting: Trump Care being proven to be Death Care as thousands will die prematurely
when their mediocre heath care insurance gets cancelled and Medicare gets gutted, "The best estimate
based on scientific studies is that about 29,000 Americans would die each year as a result,"
New Pew International Study shows 74% have No Confidence in Trump, which would likely be even
more if the survey were taken today,
The recent admission covered here that the Outlaw US Empire has lost in Syria and is making
the alt-media rounds.
A new study shows global carbon sinks are filled and essentially backing-up with CO2 concentrations
still rapidly rising despite the leveling of emissions,
And a host of other bad news could be listed as well, one being that CNN has finally admitted
that Russiagate was totally contrived to increase "ratings," with 3 key staff members either resigning
or fired. It's hard to gauge how deep domestic resistance to the Republican agenda is currently
given Trump's entire set of campaign points are now proven lies faster than any previous president's.
stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:19:44 PM |
Q @ 55
Chemical weapons kill babies, none of the other kinds do. P.S. Macron to craft by half.
Funny how the emphasis on children is a common thread -- yes, the media needs to shock
the reader and violence against children is clearly the lever of choice. The WH statement almost
sounds like a threat.
stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:38:23 PM |
Note the coincidence with the 3 CNN dipshits resigning over, of all things, fake news. Hopefully
it spreads to the WaPo and PBS and their global equivalents.
stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:46:39 PM |
Trump has some domestic victories under his belt, the Supreme Court upholding his travel ban,
the CNN 3 little pigs, Modi's cameo, Obama administration under fire for allowing alleged Russian
hacking to go unpunished, booming stock market, et alia...
So, thinking sideways, suppose all this good news for Trump are gifts from the PTB in advance
of another retaliatory strike against the Syrian windmill? If State and DOD are not parties to
the new chemical strike project, then the source is exclusive to the WH? Or is Trump's team
looking for a PR surge by attacking Syria in its typical symbolic whilst ineffective way?
Looks like their game is lost in Syria. Unless ally Israel wants to push across the Golan
and take Damascus on its own, I smell desperation too.
Not only in the US -- UK needs a distraction from the burning tower/£1BN bribe to Irish MPs,
France has a new pretty boy who needs to prove himself a badass -- all in the face of the Qatari
divorce that appears to solidify the R+6 (7?) platform for the new silk road.
peter @ 65
james | Jun 27, 2017 4:47:50 PM |
Things get more partisan during elections, sanity partially returns after. Hillary not
elected, mission accomplished. We'll never know if this clusterfuck is worse than what could have
been. I don't think the term "snowflake" has been used here for weeks.
@55 quentin / @64 stumpy... i agree quentin.. it has ran thru my mind many times before.. why
make this special status for chemical weapons.. all of the shit that kills people is bad.. and
yeah - the combo of chemical attack murdering innocent children - that one two punch that the
usa and it's headchopping friends in the west trot out gets very tiring... if any of them actually
cared, they would put a stop to all their war making and leave syria alone.. alas, they are too
into making war to stop.. one day this will stop but the lying msm will be long gone by then...
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27, 2017 4:51:32 PM |
Which people do you mean? Soros? Rothschild?
Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 5:01:38 PM |
Come on, the politicians themselves are guilty as hell and must be brought for war tribunals.
Bush jr., Blair, Sarkozy, Obama, Hillary and so on.
Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 27, 2017 1:55:50 PM | 50
I'm not fussy. I mean every person/entity which "donates" to political parties in the West.
Allowing donations to political parties should be illegal because it facilitates the privateisation
(Private ownership) of the parties. It has led to the delegitimisation, in the eyes of The Public,
by the MSM skunks & weasels, of candidates who have not been nominated by a large, corrupt, Privately
Owned, political party.
In the interim, donations to political parties should be made through a single Central Clearing
House, with Rules.
1. No anonymous donations.
2. Every donor must have a valid name, address & 24/7 phone number.
3. A donor making multiple, frequent, small donations, shall be prosecuted for devious humbuggery
and banned from ANY political activity for 3years and get 2 years in the jug if caught cheating
on the ban.
4. The Central Clearing House shall keep a Publicly Accessible, searchable Register of each
and every donation. The Register will be updated each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and sworn
to be fully up to date in the first week of every month.
69 have a read through this recent article. I have often thought about the legalised corruption
that is called sponsorship and consultancies, but this article stunned me as to how open the US
is to all this shit.
jawbone | Jun 27, 2017 5:04:04 PM |
From @21 -- AP also running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon
being prepared. How would the US military "see" such preparations? Are there 3 witches around
a boiling kettle? Would not anyone preparing poison attacks do it out of sight?
Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 5:07:07 PM |
The article I linked to @70 is about the Koch organisation putting its people into the Trump government
to influence policy. What stunned me is how they are openly proud of their achievement in getting
their people into the admin after Trump won and how open they are on doing this purely for the
purpose of influencing government policy.
karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 5:17:54 PM |
frances | Jun 27, 2017 6:03:37 PM |
Thanks for all your replies; they're nice to read! As for chemical weapons, I once argued that
all weapons are chemical in their makeup and ought to be banned--isn't that what the Periodic
Table qualifies, that all elements are chemical in their nature? The onset of life is now understood
as a series of chemical processes (still ongoing) that allowed for complete replication and thus
regeneration, which is why chemical pollutants are such a threat to life's structure. And as usual,
the greatest abuser/user of chemical weapons is the accuser itself--The Outlaw US Empire.
"This little game has been going on for 68 years. Specifically, the U.S.government has been
trying to replace the Syrian government with folks who will be
Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 6:18:24 PM |
subservient to America since 1949 3 years after Syria became an independent nation.
The CIA succeeded in carrying out a coup in Syria 1949. In 1957, the American president
and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria using a false flag. (False
flags are not only historically documented, but presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals,
spooks, soldiers and police have ADMITTED to planning and carrying out false flag attacks).
In 1983, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2009 and 2012, American officials again schemed about regime
change in Syria." from Zerohedge.
According to a few news articles, Pentagon spokesman Naval Captain Jeff Davis has also made a
statement to the press. Nothing Showing at the DOD website so I tried the US navy website.
karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 6:19:12 PM |
At the moment the US navy seems pre-occupied with LGBT events.
Three latest US navy news articles...
- Naval Intelligence Commander Keynotes LGBT Pride Event (27 June 2017)
- Rear Adm. Robert Sharp, director of the National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office
and commander of Office of Naval Intelligence, jumped at the opportunity to speak at this year's
Sixth Annual Intelligence Community (IC) Pride Summit held at FBI Headquarters.
- Truxtun Sailors Celebrate Pride Month (26 June 2017)
- The Cultural Diversity Education Team (CDET) aboard USS Truxtun (DDG 103) hosted a program
on the ship's mess decks to celebrate Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month,
- NAVSUP Headquarters Celebrates LGBT Pride Month 2017 (26 June 2017)
- Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Headquarters recognized Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month during an event with Nicole Miller, director, TransCentralPa
Family, June 26.
So, what's happening on the battlefront to provoke this extremely clumsy false flag threat?
Well, it's not good for the Outlaw US Empire and its terrorist proxies. Here's the very latest
Quadriad | Jun 27, 2017 6:19:23 PM |
"News that you won't hear before few days from the two key battle fields at the moment:
"1) Ithriyah-Resafa The situation is the following:
ISIS defending fiercely the last 10 kms of road, the use of TOWs and VBIEDs has been huge,
way higher than ISIS using at Raqqa city.
The amount of mines and IEDs has been also a key reason for the delay in closing the gap.
The pocket in eastern Khanaser is not defended by a large amount of ISIS terrorists, though
they do have the fire power to deliver unnecessary KIA for the SAA and allies.
Not surprisingly the final showdown is at the Ithriyah oil & gas field and the Zakia crossroad,
"In few days we will hear from the MoD that the road is 100% safe, with that, the whole pocket
will be ISIS free, and the battle for Northeastern Hama and Central Homs will seriously kick off,
everything is timed and coordinated at this point, event the Desert Hawks are moving to the NE
Hama area, this offensive will happen as soon as the MoD declares the road safe.
"2) T3-T2 road and the shortest way to Der ez Zor
"The Syrian desert is seeing a classic warfare in the past few weeks, tanks battling tanks,
impressive CAS and the incredible amount of TOWs use. So far the SAA and its allies have done
an amazing job.
"As reported in the last few days, the Syrian High Command made the call to go for the kill
on T3-T2 without clearing Bir al Jafeef pocket that was somehow slowing the advance down.
"Once the decision was made, the SAA advanced 70-90 kms and basically took control of the road
up to Hamaymah village, leaving the pocket to be dealt latter, which happened today in fact. The
whole area around T3 is now 100% safe, and the implications are many:
The SAA is about to declare 100% liberated the Hail gas field.
The SAA has now control of part of a desert road that can lead to Der ez Zor
"The current situation around T3-T2 is as following:
Humaymah is reported safe, though we wont hear from MoD.
Fight is around T2, but the critical aspect is the cut off on many desert roads from al Bukamal
to T2, Iraq border and to Mayaden.
"Future battle will toward the desert village of Faydat Bin Muwaynah.
"The next key component of the offensive to Der ez Zor will be inside the red triangle below,
the T2 is a key corner, Faydat Bin Muwaynah is a frontline against crazy suicidal ISIS coming
from Mayaden, al Hail and Doubayat gas fields are another important component, as well as the
possibility to control multiple roads that reach Der ez Zor, from the busy highway bypassing al
Sukhanah or desert roads.
"With all the above plus the real unreported progress by the SAA, there is good reason to hope
for the SAA and allies to reach Der ez Zor in very few weeks and not months.
"There is no doubt that the US is struggling to adapt to this new situation, minimum to zero
control of the Iraq border, the loss of initiative to control al Bukamal, the loss of initiative
to delay the SAA to reach Der ez Zor.
"There is no doubt that the last possible alternative for the US to delay the SAA and allies
is to use another murderous false flag in Syria so the use of cruise missiles and air attacks
are wide spread on all fronts, but then they may find it harder to face AAs and RuAF/SAAF, the
allied force is indeed waiting for the US to make another bad decision.
"The SAA and allies can not and will not be distracted with what the US may try to do, they
will continue to press forward at high speed toward Der ez Zor while killing as many as US backed
ISIS as possible."
At this juncture, I don't know of anything the Evil Empire can do to thwart defeat of its plans.
#25 off mainstreet
Giap | Jun 27, 2017 6:36:14 PM |
That second paragraph about the Welt allowing this to come out mirrors my own thoughts. Furthermore,
what if Macron's main assigned role is to simply keep an eye on Merkel and on her successor?
Melville's, Moby Dick , understood well that the United States was a mslignant enttity.
fast freddy | Jun 27, 2017 6:44:13 PM |
Chemicals - White Phosphorus can be used "legally" according to the doctrine of assholes whom
deem it so - for ILLUMINATION purposes.
ragehead | Jun 27, 2017 7:17:25 PM |
Of course, Israel and the US have blasted human beings (civilians, of course, including women
and children) with it in any case using the bullshit ILLUMINATION fig leaf cover story.
It is horribly disfiguring and often deadly when it lands on someone.
Thank you for the comments and thought-provoking analysis, all. My 2 cents:
brian | Jun 27, 2017 7:22:30 PM |
I am still not sure whether the spat between KSA/Qatar is all it seems, especially now. We
know that Turkey has moved troops and F-16s towards Qatar, under the pretext of defending against
any KSA aggression towards Qatar. There are also several reports of Israel moving its jets to
the KSA, under the pretext of defending against a possible coup (if these reports are to be believed).
My gut instinct at the time was that this was a ruse, designed to give approprite cover for
moving these chess pieces towards the Persian Gulf. Erdogan flips on a dime, and I wouldn't rule
out the possibility of the US giving him something he couldn't possibly refuse in exchange for
some ground/air support. Qatar's opinion on that matter would be irrelevant, I think - Turkey
can be either an ally or an enemy, depending on who makes the best offer.
With this recent WH announcement, I am reminded of a commentator here from a thread way back
(maybe 2-3 months ago), who suggested that Trump's style involved utilizing "asymmetrical leadership
to wage asymmetrical warfare". Who's behind this most recent announcement? Is the US going after
Syria? Or is it Iran? Syria again? It could very well be both.
Apologies if I am ill-informed on some of my statements/assumptions here; please feel free
to correct me. I am short on time these days and generally do not go outside MoA/Facebook/Reddit
for news anymore.
Bless you all for doing God's work. The oft-unwritten history of the world both fascinates
and terrifies me.
you wil find that US also orhestrated GHOUTA attack, as it used that as an excuse to attack
damascus.. but such planning to manouvre the navy takes time
jawbone | Jun 27, 2017 7:34:19 PM |
karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 7:35:37 PM |
The United States saw what appeared to be active Syrian preparations for a possible chemical
weapons attack at Shayrat airfield, the same Syrian airfield the United States struck in April,
Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said on Tuesday.
"This involved specific aircraft in a specific hangar, both of which we know to be associated
with chemical weapons use," Davis said, speaking by phone from Washington.
Really? CBS Evening News also said US military reported heavy activity at air field bombed
in April and overheard communications to SAA chemical weapons group.
I asked Canthama about al-Bukamal and Iraq's PMU being hindered by Iraq PM. What follows is his
"Al Bukamal-al Qaim has been US point to exchange weapons, money and goods with ISIS for a
long time. This is the place where most of the US/UK/Israhell weapons supply came to ISIS, visually
checked by hundreds of Iraqis and widely reported since 2014. The US has also abused its luck
with dozens of Helis landing and taking off near al Bukamal, all reported as covert ops but they
"Iraq has a delicate situation, it curved to the US regime back in 2014, to hold ISIS in Iraq.
By them US decided to push ISIS to Syria while reducing ISIS footprint in Iraq, a lot of things
went wrong and ISIS became bigger than initially intended.
"Abadi has been navigating under tremendous pressure, the financial State of Iraq has difficulties
due to the lower oil prices, the US manipulates weapons/hardware deliveries and last but not least
the US has a strong influence in the Iraq Army.
"Having said that, the PMU has a strong influence of Iran and Hizballah, while now it belongs
to the Iraq Army influence, it has no to minimum relationship with the US inside Iraq, it has
been targeted by the USAF many times, the last major one near al Qaim/al Bukamal, interesting
coincidence right ?
"The situation with the PMU is excellent, it is getting more power, like the IRGC in Iran,
and Abadi is doing that, besides, it has so many branches that people simply can not follow it
as a whole unit, several of the PMU branches are heavily present in Syria, many thousands are
in fact in the Syrian desert and is supporting the border clean up process from the Syrian side,
and the US can not do a thing about that.
"Abadi knows it has to balance the US pressure with the Iranian one, but it is Iraq that has
a C&C in Baghdad with Syria, Russia, Iran and Hizballah.
"So, yes, Abadi says thing to calm the US down, but the PMU has life of its own, the US can
not stop the PMU in cleaning up all the the Syrian-Iraqi border, it will happen in the next months
for sure, up to Sinja.
"Keep in mind Mosul will be ISIS free in few days, Tal Afar will be also liberated in a month
or so, than there is Hawija pocket, it will be held by the Iraqi Army, mostly, so the PMU will
have the Iraq desert to play wilth, meaning Nineveh and Anbar.
"Folks are wrong to think the PMU is only a Shia force, it is primarily Shia due to the larger
population in Iraq, but is has a lot of Sunnis, Yazidis, Kurds and Christians. They have turned
into a formidable force, and will be used in easing down the situation with the Kurds up north
On March 25, 2011, a Qatar Air Force Mirage 2000-5, took
off from Souda Air Base, in Crete, to help enforce a no-fly zone protecting rebels being
attacked by Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi. Qatar was the first Persian Gulf nation to
help the U.S. in the conflict.
were more than symbolic. The Qatari military trained rebel units, shipped them weapons,
accompanied their fighting units into battle, served as a link between rebel commanders
and NATO, tutored their military commanders, integrated disparate rebel units into a
unified force and led them i
the final assault on Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli
never had to hold their hand," a retired senior U.S. military officer says. "They knew
what they were doing." Put simply, while the U.S. was leading from behind in Libya, the
Qataris were walking point.
The Qatar intervention has not been forgotten at the
Pentagon and is one of the reasons why Defense Secretary James Mattis has worked so
diligently to patch up the falling out between them and the coalition of Saudi-led
countries (including the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt), that have isolated and blockaded the
nation. In fact, Mattis was stunned by the Saudi move. "His first reaction was shock,
but his second was disbelief," a senior military officer says. "He thought the Saudis
had picked an unnecessary fight, and just when the administration thought they'd gotten
everyone in the Gulf on the same page in forming a common front against Iran."
At the time of the Saudi announcement, Mattis was in
Sydney with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to dampen concerns about the Trump
administration's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate
accords. The two glad-handed Australian officials and issued a reassuring pronouncement
on U.S. intentions during a
June 5 press briefing
with that nation's foreign and defense ministers. When the burgeoning split between the
Saudis and Qataris was mentioned, Tillerson described it as no more than one of "a
growing list or irritants in the region" that would not impair "the unified fight
against terrorism "
But while Tillerson's answer was meant to soothe
concerns over the crisis, behind the scenes he and Mattis were scrambling to undo the
damage caused by Saudi action. The two huddled in Sydney and decided that Tillerson
would take the lead in trying to resolve the falling out. Which is why, three days after
the Sydney press conference, Tillerson called on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and
Egypt to ease their anti-Qatar blockade and announced that the U.S.
supported a Kuwaiti-led mediation effort
problem for Tillerson was that his statement was contradicted by Donald Trump who,
during a Rose Garden appearance on the same day,
saying the emirate "has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level."
A close associate of the secretary of state says that
Tillerson was not only "blind-sided by the Trump statement," but "absolutely enraged
that the White House and State Department weren't on the same page." Tillerson's aides,
I was told, were convinced that the true author of Trump's statement was U.A.E.
ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
put two-and-two together," his close associate says, "and concluded that this absolutely
vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters.
Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess." The Trump
statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: "Rex
is just exhausted. He can't get any of his appointments approved and is running around
the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a
Worse yet, at least from Tillerson's point of view, a
White House official explained the difference between the two statements by telling the
press to ignore the secretary of state. "Tillerson may initially have had a view," a
White House official told the
"then the president has his view, and obviously the president's view prevails."
Or maybe not. While Trump's June 9 statement signaled
that the U.S. was tilting towards the Saudis and the UAE, Tillerson and Mattis have been
tilting towards Qatar. And for good reason. "Every time we've asked the Qataris for
something they've said 'yes,' which isn't true for the Saudis," the retired senior U.S.
military officer with whom I spoke says. "It really started with the help the Qataris
gave us in Libya, but it goes well beyond that. They've been absolutely first rate on
ISIS. The Saudis, on the other hand, have been nothing but trouble in Yemen,
especially. Yemen has been a disaster, a stain. And now there's this."
That view has been reflected by both Mattis and
Tillerson. Six days after Trump's statement, Mattis met with Qatari Defense Minister
Khalid al-Attiyah to sign an agreement shipping 36 F-15 fighters to the Gulf nation.
The $12 billion sale
had been in the works for years, so Pentagon officials
were able to claim that it had not been fast-tracked by Tillerson, whose department
oversees arms transactions. But the Mattis announcement seemed suspiciously well-timed
to signal Mattis' and Tillerson's views.
On the same day that Mattis was announcing the Qatar
arms agreement, Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that it would be a
mistake to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, one of the primary
reasons that the anti-Qatar coalition gave for isolating their Gulf neighbor. "There are
elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of government," Tillerson
said, naming Turkey and Bahrain as having brotherhood members in their parliaments.
Those "elements," Tillerson added, have renounced violence and terrorism. "So, in
designating the Brotherhood in its totality as a terrorist organization . . . I think
you can appreciate the complexities this enters into our relations with [governments in
But the single most important reason for the Qatar
tilt is obvious to anyone who knows how to read a map. The U.S. leases the al-Udeid Air
Base, southwest of Doha, which is home to the Air Force's 379th Air Expeditionary Wing.
The U.S. (and the Qataris), not only mount fighter-bombers from al-Udeid against ISIS
units in Iraq and Syria, the base serves as the first line of defense against Iranian
encroachments in the region. Even more crucially, al-Udeid not only protects America's
Persian Gulf allies, it protects Israel and would be a launching point for U.S.
aircraft against Iran were Israel to be attacked by the Islamic Republic.
More crucially, particularly from Mattis's
point-of-view, the Saudi-Qatar feud not only shattered the anti-Iran coalition the
administration cobbled together during the president's trip to Riyadh, it redrew the
geopolitical map of the Middle East. In the wake of the Saudi-Qatar falling out, Turkey
pledged its support for Qatar (and deployed troops to a Qatari military base to guard
Qatar's sovereignty), while Iran took steps to help ease the Saudi-imposed blockade.
"The Saudis and Emiratis have told us repeatedly that
they want to weaken Iran, but they've actually empowered them," a senior Pentagon
consultant who works on the Middle East told me. The Saudi actions, this official went
on to explain, have backfired. Instead of intimidating the Qataris, the Saudis have
"thrown them into the arms of the Iranians." The result is an uneasy, but emerging
Turkish-Qatari-Iranian alliance backed by Russia. "This isn't just some kind of Gulfie
dust-up, where we can go out and hold everyone's hands," this Pentagon consultant says.
"The Saudis have handed the Iranians a gift and we're on the outside looking in."
The official then shook his head. "Listen, I can
certainly understand where Mattis and Tillerson are coming from. I mean, with friends
like these, who needs enemies."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the
The Most Dangerous Man in America:
The Making of Douglas MacArthur.
His next book,
The Pentagon's Wars,
be released in October. He tweets
June 26, 2017 at 11:29 pm
June 27, 2017 at 12:51 am
Sure that explains the what they did. but it begs the larger question, as to
why they did something so incredibly worthless to US interests as support the
removal of Pres Col Qaddafi in the first place.
So in short the previous admin., apparently with aide of Gen Mattis
orchestrated a regime change , further destabilizing a region we need to be
The fact that they are shocked should tell us something about just what they
understand to the regional issues and players. Excuse me, but if they represent
the adults, I am unsure what your comprehension of adult is.
Ohhh because we are launching attacks against ISIS/ISIL. Excuse me but I am
unsure what ISIS?ISIL contingent you are talking about. The one's we support in
Syria, and Yemen or the ones we aided in overthrowing the Libyan government.
And let's see, Israel supports the coalition that includes Saudis and we
Let's get something straight. The election of Mr. trump has not made issues
worse. Nor has his policy. What it has done is revealed just how completely
askewed things are. You may want to portray the gentleman photo'd as fence
menders. but what it reveals is complicity in having shattered the fence in the
Shifting fault onto Mr Kushner is almost unforgivable. Whatever
disagreements, I had with his positions regarding Israel, Syria and Iran - he
is not responsible for the dynamic in play before he arrived. Even if that
dynamic betraying fault lines since his arrival.
Why the current Pres chose people, regardless of how fine they are who
opposed his stated agenda is beyond me.
Ohhh wait - they are adults.
Really, there is nothing left to say. The primary source of extremism is Saudi
Arabia, from which came Al Qaeda and ISIS. It is not Islam and Mohammad that is
the root of the problem, it is Wahhabism and al-Wahhab that is the root of the
June 27, 2017 at 5:47 am
So, Clintons, Bushes, and now Trump kiss Saudi .
Guess who is missing from that list.
So the adults in the room are those who want to continue the stupid and
disastrous ME policies of the past? They may be adults, but they are stupid
adults, or criminals, or both.
June 27, 2017 at 6:31 am
Great article! The Trump White House is at war with reality. This morning one
reads about threats of harsh action directed against Syria if there is another
chemical weapons attack, setting up a perfect scenario for the "rebels" to
Adriana I Pena
June 27, 2017 at 6:36 am
And what is the evidence that such a thing is being planned? It is
not clear and might be coming from any one of the usual partisan sources.
Apparently the State and Defense Departments were not in the loop on the White
House warning but our UN Ambassador was. She elaborated, warning that Russia
and Iran would also be held to blame if Syria does anything. Incredible!
I think it is time to apply the Three Stooges test.
June 27, 2017 at 7:01 am
"How different would
things be if Curly, Larry, and Moe were running the show?"
If the answer if "Not very" don't waste time making moral judgments. Just
get out of there before the next explosion.
I guess the word " adult" here means mature intelligent people obsessed with
building a coalition and possibly starting a war with Iran for no good reason
at all. Kushner and Trump are morons, but sometimes ( often) in politics you
have a situation with two factions that are both wrong.
June 27, 2017 at 8:00 am
Perhaps shattering the Anti-Iran coalition is a good thing .
Having all these
Sunni ISIS supporter/U.S. "allies" in a cat fight may be just what we need . to
get our heads out of our backsides and realize who the real enemies are . " would be a launching point for U.S. aircraft against Iran were Israel to
be attacked by the Islamic Republic."
..Yeah; like THAT'S gonna' happen .
June 27, 2017 at 8:12 am
Not a fan of toppling Gaddafi but yeah, Qatar is a pragmatic country.
June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am
Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that it would be a
mistake to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, "There
are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of
government," Tillerson said, naming Turkey and Bahrain as having brotherhood
members in their parliaments.
Good point, couldn't we make the same argument regarding Hezbollah, our
obsession with Hezbollah risks destabilizing Lebanon for that exact same reason
or is that part of operation chaos? The Shiites make up 30% of the population
of Lebanon and have been able to form a coalition with the Christians, are we
gunning for total disenfranchisement to make the Sunnis / Saudis happy.
So yes, the Iranians are the villains, yet again, just for acting like
adults. Maybe they are more adult like then we give them credit for.
Because inviting Russia to get closer to the Persian Gulf and Arabia Sea has
been the Holy Grail of all other world powers for two centuries.
Trump's Qatar thing was no mere gaffe, but a thunderbolt that would leave
non-Russian leaders from Eurasian powers of the past two centuries gob-smacked.
June 27, 2017 at 8:57 am
Just imagine Truman and Eisenhower having bourbon together over this one .
The "adults in the room" are the people that want to go to war with Iran?
June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am
A sign of good faith all around who believe the neocons have encircled and now
captured the White House would be to fire Mr and Mrs Kushner, NOW!!!!
June 27, 2017 at 11:46 am
Dan - It is both. The adults in the room and the children playing with matches
all want a war with Iran.
Adult (singular) In The Room
June 27, 2017 at 11:51 am
@Dan : "The "adults in the room" are the people that want to go to war with
June 27, 2017 at 12:42 pm
You have a point, but it applies to Mattis far more than Tillerson.
Tillerson never advised Trump to do anything so stupid as to send US troops
back into to Afghanistan.
June 27, 2017 at 12:46 pm
"Trump's Qatar thing was no mere gaffe, but a thunderbolt that would leave
non-Russian leaders from Eurasian powers of the past two centuries
It was my understanding that invading sovereignty territory of another state
of no threat was bad manners, not to mention, a violation of international law.
I am convinced that the problem here is the Pres not having though through his
agenda juxtaposed against those he brought on board, because he respected them
for whatever reason.
And having respect for them is no doubt deserved, but whether that means
they could mesh agendas - given the differences, doubtful. And as for the Saudi
coalition, it might do well to remember that other states and other alliances
have their own agendas. We have been stomping around this region for quite some
time as though what we wanted was all that mattered.
I suspect that having demonstrated our vulnerabilities with Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, etc. Those days when our foot print
mattered has shrunk significantly. And the more we allow ourselves to get
played via multiple payers at odds with one another, the more that will remain
June 27, 2017 at 3:06 pm
The present ruler of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim has become far more supportive of
muslim terrorist groups which include Muslim Brotherhood than the previous
ruler. Qatar has taken in Qaradari who supports the Muslim Brotherhood In
Egypt. The MB are growing in strength in Arab countries. I would not trust any
June 27, 2017 at 3:28 pm
I think western governments are naοve over the MB. It is quite possible for
some members to preach peace and other undertake violence in order to create
confusion. For the USA Government to say Qatar is fine because it supported us
over Libya is naοve
The problem with Saudi Arabia is that whatever the Government says or does,
there are thousands ( at least 5000) members of the family and other wealthy
Saudis of which a minority probably support Muslim terrorism. Pakistan since
1973 has steadily become more fundamentalist and has taken money from the USA
while supporting the Taliban killing American troops.
The reality is that the Foreign Service does not know what is happening in
these countries and doubt the governments actually do either. Americans are far
too trusting and take things at face value . In The Middle East people are
quite capable of receiving money from you and stabbing you at the same time,
all the while smiling.
Saudi is concerned by the Houthis( Shia ) in Yemen because the southern border
is almost impossible to guard due to the Empty Quarter Yemeni raiding parties
could easily raid into Saudi and then disappear- read Wilfred Thessiger's
Arabian Sands account of crossing the empty quarter in the 1940s.
Saudi did try to conquer Qatar in the 1930s. The questions which are not asked
- Why has Qatar/Sheik Tamim started to support Muslim terrorism when Saudi is
reigning back support?
- Are historical conflicts between Qatar and Saud Arabia part of the problem ?
- Is Iran a threat to Qatar which has to be appeased at all cost?
A good piece, Mr. Perry, especially in pointing out (sadly, have to add "yet
again") the incredible amateurism/incompetence of the Trump Administration's
foreign policy "efforts" in the Middle East, but (as has been pointed out here)
conflating "forming a common front against Iran" with the position of "the
adults in the room" is a dubious proposition.
June 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm
It's curious but I have yet to
see any FP analysis pieces (from either Left or Right) laying out any good
reasons why seeking
, rather than seriously-more-antagonistic,
relations with Iran would be a bad thing for the world in general (not just
No way Tillerson stays around. This is a guy who lead one of the world's most
powerful and complex companies. He is way too smart to let these folks tarnish
Those of us who are highly critical of Israel's ability to
manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites
that permit comments on our articles are almost
immediately inundated with hostile postings that are
remarkably similar in both tone and substance. Given that
it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites
read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously,
react similarly to its content, and then go on to express
their disgust in very similar language, many of us have
come to the conclusion that the Israeli government or some
of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests
turn loose supporters who are dedicated to combating and
refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a
The fact is that Israel is extremely
active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area
between covert operations and overt governmental activity.
Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in
the media, but they normally do it openly with an
ambassador or press officer countering criticism by
sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a
talk show. Such activity is generally described as public
diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized
government official and the information itself is both
plausible and verifiable, at least within reasonable
limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in
other activities that are not so transparent and which are
aimed at spreading false information.
When an intelligence organization seeks to influence
opinion by creating and deliberately circulating "false
news," it is referred to as a "disinformation operation."
But Israel has refined the art of something that
expands upon that, what might be referred to more
accurately as "perception management" or "influence
operations" in which it only very rarely shows its hand
overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time
bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get
its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving
recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared
information sheets, and internet alerts to potential
targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew
name, hasbara, which means literally "public explanation."
It is essentially an internet-focused "information war"
that parallels and supports the military action whenever
Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or
seeks to influence public opinion in the United States and
... ... ...
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a
number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the
"importance of the internet as the new battleground for
Israel's image." Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime
Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated with the National
Union of Israeli Students to establish "covert units" at
the seven national universities to be structured in a
"semi-military" fashion and organized in situation rooms.
Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the
The serious collaboration between government and
volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in
early 2009, an incursion into Gaza that killed more than
1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled
together a group of mostly young computer savvy soldiers
supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel
to post a number of government-crafted responses to
Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website
giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United
Support). The website included a desktop tool called
Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles
appearing on the internet that had to be challenged or
attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists
receiving the now-inactive Megaphone's alerts.
There have also been reports about a pro-Israel
American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle
East Reporting in America (CAMERA) preparing to enter its
own version of developments in the Middle East on the
popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails from CAMERA
reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit
material on Wikipedia "to help us keep Israel-related
entries from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors,"
while also recommending that articles on the Middle East
be avoided initially by supporters so as not to arouse
suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also
advised to use false names that did not hint at any
Israeli or Jewish connection and to avoid any references
to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly
were actively engaged in the program when it was exposed
in the media and the program was put on hold.
CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved
501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to
it are tax exempt. Such exemptions are granted to
organizations that are either charitable or educational in
nature and they normally preclude any involvement in
partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to
qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its
application for special tax status stressed that it is
educational. Whether its involvement in "un-tainting"
Wikipedia truly falls within that definition might well be
debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried
out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be
considered to be a good candidate for registration under
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its
activity is uniquely focused on promoting the perceived
interests of a foreign government.
The use of Israel's universities as propaganda mills by
the government also raises other significant issues. The
growing BDS movement has included some Israeli
universities as targets because of their alleged
involvement with the government in the occupation of the
West Bank. That the universities are also involved in
possible government-sponsored information operations might
be an additional convincing argument that BDS supporters
might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli
Every government is engaged in selling a product, which
is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it
does it. But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to
influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from
a country which receives more than $3 billion annually
from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying
to be propagandized by people working for a foreign
government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but
are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence
operation directed against the United States, something
that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s.
That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid
and political cover from Washington while it is actively
working to make sure that Americans are poorly informed
about the Middle East reveals more than anything the
corruption of our political class and media, both of which
appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to
anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp,
exiled off mainstreet
June 27, 2017 at 4:47 am GMT
June 27, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT
This is documented long-term foreign influence which has reached treason
levels in the past, for instance at the time the USS Liberty was sunk in
June, 1967. This can be contrasted with the phony Russia accusations
levelled by many of the same people whose first loyalty is to the Israeli
state rather than to the yankee imperium employing them. I don't see this
June 27, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT
Tip of the iceberg:
The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
"Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has
never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all
these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.
"Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired
secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to
establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points
throughout the country."
"Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US
Telecommunications Grid For The NSA"
"IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology"
How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
June 27, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT
Israel's global news penetration (via hasbara) and other disinformation
strategies are routine. Diabolical, but routine.
The Zionist state's
various tricks and manipulations are legendary and ruthless. They function
as a backdoor attack on intellectual liberty as well as open political
discourse. They are anti-democratic.
Thus, even 'freedom of expression' in America is under constant Israeli
pressure and surveillance. No stone goes unturned.
This is why Holocaust 'education' is ubiquitous and, when possible,
mandatory. If the stories fail, inject guilt. It's an unscrupulous strategy
that is working.
Meanwhile, Zionist myths rain down endlessly via American TV and
throughout American mass media. Deep Zionist victimology has penetrated even
US public schools. Hasbara is strategic. It is unrelenting. Ironically, it
represents the tribal interest of a foreign power. Do Americans live under
soft occupation? It increasingly looks that way.
This explains why Jewish suffering, Jewish innocence, and Jewish
victimology are now compulsory subjects in American lifefrom schools to
children's TV, to higher education and adult cinema. 'Dominare the message'.
On the other hand, Israel's commitment to segregation between Jews and
gentiles is quietly steadfast. "Unshakable'. This head-scratching phenomena
has been obscured by the Fake News meme involving America's
'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Yet it is an absolute ruse. No such heritage
exists. These are Zionist-lead political movements and Zionist headlines.
They tread on the thin, manufactured ice. Theydo not exist organically.
Christ's teachings were in fact a break from Judaism. Christ said as
much. Christianity is an Open Admissions theology that stresses universal
ethics that are non-racial. On the other hand, Israel is tribal, racial and
exclusionary. This wouldn't be so repulsive if not for Israel's vociferous
(and insincere) support for 'equality' and its pious contempt for 'white
Jewish racism is commanded by God. And Israel's ethical basis is polluted
by nepotism, 'chosenness' and racial favoritism under God. It is a
collection of myths and yarns that drip with tribal supremacism.
It's worth remembering also that Jews in Israel have a distinct word for
their version of 'Apartheid'. It is 'Hafrada', which means 'separation' in
Hebrew. Ever heard of it? Of course not! Hasbara operatives and their
cousins in US news media make sure of that.
Sadly, we Americans live under soft occupation.
Significantly, few non-Jews have ever heard of 'hafrada'. But everyone
has heard of 'Apartheid'.
Gee. How come?
We can thank the legions of young Israeli activists (and their elders)
for this deliberate omission and assorted side shows. Control speech.
Make no mistake about it: Israel is a racial supremacist state.
Segregation is a core Zionist value. Jewish exceptionalism is their
paramount goal. America is a useful, but temporary, ally. This is the nature
of the 'special relationship.'
Ronald Thomas West
June 27, 2017 at 7:27 am GMT
Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews
are capable of.
In 1948, thanks to the persecutions of the jews during WWII, Israel had a
lot of sympathy in the world.
Nowadays, with no solution anywhere in sight for the Palestinians who were
ethnically cleansed in 1948, in Germany a Secretary for, against,
Antisemitism seems necessary.
Germany debates if criticism of Israel, antizionism, is he same as
Norman Finkelstein and Ilian Pappe recently were not allowed to speak in
Indeed Israel is great in propaganda, but the effects are less and less.
Israel has but one 'friend', the USA, and how sincere this friendship is is
more and more debatable.
Mobilising jews to write on fora, in many languages, any time there have
been Israeli atrocities, may have the opposite effect.
Anyone familiar with these fora notices how these propagandists pop up, and
disappear after some time.
What they are paid even is known, four or five dollars per message.
It looks like 'you can fool all people some time, some people all the time,
but not all the people all the time', still is true.
June 27, 2017 at 9:17 am GMT
"What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed
against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the
1970s and 1980s"
Jesse Ventura would have us believe the CIA is as busy as it ever had
been, when it comes to running operations against the American people. I
agree with Jesse.
Meanwhile, here's a collection of links I'd assembled some time back,
includes American military psyops (esp Air Force) along the lines of hasbara
(who're also included)
June 27, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT
The CIA and NSA are essentially the jewish elite secret police.
They align exactly with Mossad. Hence 9-11.
Read the Devil's Chessboard by Stephen Talbot. We've previoulsy lived
under a gentile plutocracy since the assasination of JFK.
But something happened since as Zion rose to prominence. The coup against
Nixon by the Deep State is a part of the puzzle. Allen Welsh Dulles groomed
Nixon. So his loyalists would never have removed him. My hunch is that
Nixon's fall to the Washington Post, consummate deep state pillar, is the
key to understanding the later 20th century and our current 'occupation'.
Its a pity nobody could ask David Rockefeller in candour how his group had
lost control or merged with the new Zionists.
... ... ...
June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT
here it is folks in all its glory.enjoy.just the plain truth
sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately
inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone
Speaking of substance, they typically lack any of it. They usually resort
to smarmy personal attacks as well as scatological foolishness and crass
bragging. Some resort to juvenile pseudo-intellectual banter that's
obviously intended to intimidate or humiliate, while another favorite tactic
seems to be off topic trash that's also supposed to impress the rest of us