Archive for the ‘Military’ Category
2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ASIANS, BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CONTROL, BLACKS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DISABLED, DONALD TRUMP, ED MARTIN, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, KATRINA PIERSON, LATINOS, MARCO GUTIERREZ, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, OBAMACARE, POLITICO, PRISONERS OF WAR, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, SOCIAL SECURITY, TEA PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DISCOURSES, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, WAYNE ROOT, WOMEN
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 3, 2018 at 12:01 am
Many pundits have sized up Donald Trump—as a Presidential candidate and President.
But how would Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th-century Florentine statesman, assess Trump?
Machiavelli’s two great works on politics—The Prince and The Discourses—remain textbooks for successful politicians more than 500 years later.


Niccolo Machiavelli
Consider Trump’s notoriety for hurling insults at virtually everyone, including:
- Latinos
- Asians
- Muslims
- Blacks
- The Disabled
- Women
- Prisoners-of-War
These insults delight his white, under-educated followers. But they have alienated millions of other Americans who might have supported him.
And what does Machiavelli have to say about gratuitously handing out insults and threats?
-
“I hold it to be a proof of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and insulting words towards any one.
-
“For neither the one nor the other in any way diminishes the strength of the enemy–but the one makes him more cautious, and the other increases his hatred of you, and makes him more persevering in his efforts to injure you.”
Many of those who supported Trump as a Presidential candidate expected him to stop constantly picking fights if he became President. Machiavelli had a stern warning for them:
-
“…If it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful. But if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change the mode of his procedure.
-
“No man can be found so prudent as to be able to adopt himself to this, either because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him, or else because, having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it…
-
“For if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change.”
Then there is Trump’s approach to consulting advisers.
Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he consults about foreign policy, Trump replied; “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”

Donald Trump
This totally contrasts the advice given by Machiavelli:
-
“A prudent prince must [choose] for his counsel wise men, and [give] them alone full liberty to speak the truth to him, but only of those things that he asks and of nothing else.
-
“But he must be a great asker about everything and hear their opinions, and afterwards deliberate by himself in his own way, and in these counsels…comport himself so that every one may see that the more freely he speaks, the more he will be acceptable.”
And Machiavelli has potent advice on the selection of advisers:
- “The first impression that one gets of a ruler and his brains is from seeing the men that he has about him.
- “When they are competent and loyal one can always consider him wise, as he has been able to recognize their ability and keep them faithful.
- “But when they are the reverse, one can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice.”
Consider some of the advisers Trump has relied on in his campaign for President:
- Founder of Latinos for Trump Marco Gutierrez told MSNBC’s Joy Reid: “My culture is a very dominant culture. And it’s imposing, and it’s causing problems. If you don’t do something about it, you’re gonna have taco trucks every corner.”
- At a Tea Party for Trump rally at a Harley-Davidson dealership in Festus, Missouri, former Missouri Republican Party director Ed Martin reassured the crowd that they weren’t racist for hating Mexicans.
From the outset of his Presidential campaign, Trump polled extremely poorly among Hispanic voters. Comments like these didn’t increase his popularity.
- Wayne Root, opening speaker and master of ceremonies at many Trump campaign events, told Virginia radio host Rob Schilling: People on public assistance and women getting birth control through Obamacare should not be allowed to vote.
This proved a big turn-off among the 70% of women who have an unfavorable opinion of him—and anyone who receives Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security.
- Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Captain Humayun Khan–who was killed by a truck-bomb in Iraq in 2004.
Obama became President in 2009—almost five years after Khan’s death. And Clinton became Secretary of State the same year.
When your spokeswoman becomes a nationwide laughingstock, your own credibility goes down the toilet as well.
Finally, speaking directly to Trump, Machiavelli warns: Unwise princes cannot be wisely advised.
-
“It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised, unless by chance he leaves himself entirely in the hands of one man who rules him in everything, and happens to be a very prudent man. In this case, he may doubtless be well governed, but it would not last long, for the governor would in a short time deprive him of the state.”
All of which would lead Niccolo Machiavelli to warn, if he could witness American politics today: “This bodes ill for your Republic.”
1984 (BOOK), ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ALAMO, ALTERNET, AMELIA EARHART, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHARLES LINDBERG, CIA, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, GARDEN OF EDEN, GEORGE ORWELL, GEORGE W. BUSH, GHAZALA KHAN, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, JOHN LENNON, JOSEPH STALIN, KATRINA PIERSON, KATRINAPIERSONHISTORY, KHIZR KHAN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SPANISH INQUISITION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WASHINGTONPOST, TIME, TITANIC, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, YOKO ONO
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 30, 2018 at 1:47 am
“We don’t apologize for America anymore,” President Donald Trump said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri.
“We stand up for America. We stand up for the patriots who defend America.”
That was on July 24, 2018.
Yet, eight days earlier, on July 16, Trump had stood before assembled reporters in a press conference in Helsinki, Finland. Standing next to him was Vladimir Putin, the absolute dictator of Russia.
It was there that Trump blamed American Intelligence agencies—such as the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—instead of Putin for Russia’s subversion of the 2016 Presidential election.

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin in Helsinki
“You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server, why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
“I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
So much for “we don’t apologize for America anymore.”
But worse was to come at the VFW Convention.
“Just stick with us,” Trump told his audience. “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. Just remember: What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Political pundits were appalled. But Trump’s attitude was entirely predictable.
During the 2016 election, he tried to convince Americans that:
- He did not insult the parents of Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed by a truck-bomb in Iraq in 2004; and/or
- Barack Obama was responsible for Khan’s death. And so was Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
On July 28, 2016 Trump had become embroiled in a series of angry exchanges with Khan’s father, Khizr, and his mother, Ghazala.
Khizr was a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention, and he used the opportunity to attack Trump:
“If it was up to Donald Trump, [Humayun] never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country….You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”
Republicans desperately wanted Trump to end the conflict and return to attacking his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
That was the assignment given to Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson.
Appearing on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on August 2, Pierson said: “It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagements that probably cost his life.”

Katrina Pierson
Totally ignored in that scenario:
- President George W. Bush lied the nation into a needless war that cost the lives of 4,486 Americans and wounded another 33,226.
- Barack Obama did not become President until 2009—almost five years after Khan’s death.
- And Hillary Clinton did not become Secretary of State until the same year.
Pierson argued that Trump should be exempt from apologizing to the Khan family because he “never voted for the Iraq War.”
“Hillary Clinton did,” Pierson added. “And then she didn’t support the troops to have what they need.”
It’s true that Clinton, elected U.S. Senator from New York in 2000, voted in 2002 to support Bush’s attack on Iraq.
But Obama, elected U.S. Senator from Illinois in 2004, strongly opposed the Iraq war from the onset of his term. In fact, he made it a major issue during his 2008 Presidential race against Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain.
Pierson’s attempt to rewrite history touched off a frenzy on Twitter, leading to the creation of the hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory. Its purpose: To mock Pierson’s revisionist take on history.
Among the tweets offered:
- Hillary Clinton slashed funding for security at the Ford Theater, leading to Lincoln’s assassination.
- Obama introduced John Lennon to Yoko Ono, and well, you know.
- Obama gave Amelia Earhart directions to Kenya.
- Remember the Alamo? Obama and Hillary let it happen.
- Obama and Clinton kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
- Obama decided that too many lifeboats would offend radical Islamic terrorists aboard the Titanic.
- Barack Obama convinced the serpent to tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden.
- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton organized The Spanish Inquisition.
The effect turned Trump’s spokeswoman into a nationwide laughingstock. And her efforts to rewrite history didn’t help Trump.
On August 3, 2016, Pierson appeared on CNN’s New Day. She admitted being wrong about the timeline and said she had been trying to say that Donald Trump had no connection to the Khans.
Later on CNN, Anderson Cooper asked Khizr Khan to comment on Pierson’s allegation.
“Do I need to say anything?” Khan replied. “Lack of understanding, lack of factual correctness, it’s just nothing but political vote pandering.”
In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, the unnamed Party’s slogan is: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
The same holds true for Trump and Republicans: They hope to rewrite the past, as Joseph Stalin did, to wash away their crimes and errors—and pin these on their self-declared enemies.
And thus gain—and retain—absolute power over 300 million Americans.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CIA, CLINTON WATTS, CNN, CYBERWARFARE, DAILY KOS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DONALD TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR, ERIC TRUMP, ERIK PRINCE, ESPIONAGE, EUROPEAN UNION (EU), FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, GRU, HILLARY CLINTON, JAMES B. COMEY, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JARED KUSHNER, JEFF SESSIONS, MICHAEL COHEN, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, MIKE PENCE, MOSCOW PROJECT, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO), NPR, PAUL MANAFORT, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, REX TILLERSON, RICK GATES, ROBERT S. MUELLER, RUSSIA, SALLY YATES, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WIKILEAKS
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 26, 2018 at 12:08 am
More than a year and a half after taking office, President Donald Trump remains haunted by “the Russian connection.”
Throughout 2016, the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) found numerous ties between officials of the Trump Presidential campaign and Russian Intelligence agents.
And many of those he has appointed to office have strong ties to the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
One of these was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. In 2013, as the chief executive of ExxonMobil, he was presented with the 2013 Order of Friendship award. He had just signed deals with the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft. Its chief, Igor Sechin, is a loyal Putin lieutenant.

Rex Tillerson
Another such official is Attorney General Jeff Sessions. During the 2016 campaign, Sessions—then serving as a surrogate for Donald Trump’s campaign—twice spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
But during his Senate nomination hearings, Sessions denied that he had had “communications with the Russians” during the campaign.
The discovery of numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian Intelligence agents led the FBI to investigate Russia’s efforts to subvert the 2016 Presidential election. That investigation is still ongoing.
So did the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
On March 30, 2017, Clinton Watts, an expert on cyber warfare, testified before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. As part of his testimony, he presented a prepared statement on “Disinformation: A Primer In Russian Active Measures And Influence Campaigns.”

FROM WATTS’ STATEMENT: Russia certainly seeks to promote Western candidates sympathetic to their worldview and foreign policy objectives. But winning a single election is not their end goal.
Russian Active Measures hope to topple democracies….from the inside out [by] creating political divisions….
[Their ultimate goals are] the dissolution of the European Union and the break up of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO).
Achieving these two victories against the West will allow Russia to reassert its power globally and pursue its foreign policy objectives bilaterally through military, diplomatic and economic aggression.
On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Early reports traced the leak to Russian hackers.
On July 27, at a press conference in Doral, Florida, Trump declared: “Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing—I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
This was nothing less than treason—calling upon a foreign power, hostile to the United States, to interfere in its Presidential election.
On numerous occasions, Trump has fiercely denied any Russian connections. For example:
July 27, 2016: “I mean I have nothing to do with Russia. I don’t have any jobs in Russia. I’m all over the world but we’re not involved in Russia.”
January 11, 2017: “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”
February 7, 2017: “I don’t know [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy.”
Yet, in 2008, Donald Trump, Jr. said at a New York real estate conference: “In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. Say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo, and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
And Trump’s son, Eric, has been quoted as saying in 2014: “Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.”
The Moscow Project is an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Its objective: “Analyzing the facts behind Trump’s collusion with Russia and communicating the findings to the public.”
According to its March 21, 2018 report (updated on July 10): “In total, we have learned of 80 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia linked operatives, including at least 23 meetings.
“And we know that at least 24 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them….
“The Trump campaign issued at least 15 blanket denials of contacts with Russia, all of which have been proven false.”
Members of the Trump team who had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition include:
- Michael Cohen
- Roger Stone
- Donald Trump Jr.
- Jeff Sessions
- Paul Manafort
- Jared Kushner
- Carter Page
- Michael Flynn
- Erik Prince
- George Papadopoulos
- Anthony Scaramucci
- Rick Gates
Flynn and Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians to investigators.
Manafort faces trial for money-laundering relating to his work for the government of Putin-supported government of Ukraine.
In July, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller charged 12 officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, with crimes committed to the high-profile hacking and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.
As trials begin and indicted men begin to sweat, expect more revelations to come.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, AP, BBC, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CIA, CLINTON WATTS, CNN, CYBERWARFARE, DAILY KOS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DONALD TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR, ERIC TRUMP, ERIK PRINCE, ESPIONAGE, EUROPEAN UNION (EU), FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, GRU, JAMES B. COMEY, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JARED KUSHNER, JEFF SESSIONS, MICHAEL COHEN, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, MOSCOW PROJECT, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO), NPR, PAUL MANAFORT, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, REX TILLERSON, RICK GATES, ROBERT S. MUELLER, RUSSIA, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WIKILEAKS
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 25, 2018 at 12:09 am
On July 16, President Donald Trump attended a press conference in Helsinki, Finland, with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
There he blamed American Intelligence agencies—such as the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—instead of Putin for Russia’s subversion of the 2016 Presidential election.

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin in Helsinki
“Just now President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016,” Associated Press Reporter Jonathan Lemire said to Trump. “Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe?”
Trump chose to attack Democrats and the FBI as partners in a conspiracy: “You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server, why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
“…Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying….
“I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.”
Clinton Watts is a consultant and researcher on cyberwarfare. He has served as
- An FBI Special Agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF);
- The Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC); and
- As a consultant to the FBI’s Counter Terrorism Division (CTD) and National Security Branch (NSB).
In a statement he prepared for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Watts outlined cyberwarfare measures that Russia used to subvert the 2016 Presidential campaign.
He delivered this on March 30. 2017. Part of this reads as follows:
Through the end of 2015 and start of 2016, the Russian influence system….began pushing themes and messages seeking to influence the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election.
Russia’s overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views toward the Kremlin. The final months leading up to the election have been the predominate focus of Russian influence discussions to date.

Clinton Watts
However, Russian Active Measures were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary season and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed.
The final piece of Russia’s modern Active Measures surfaced in the summer of 2016 as hacked materials from previous months were strategically leaked.
On 22 July 2016, Wikileaks released troves of stolen communications from the Democratic National Committee and later batches of campaign emails. Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks revealed hacked information from a host of former U.S. government officials throughout July and August 2016.
For the remainder of the campaign season, this compromising material powered the influence system Russia successfully constructed in the previous two years.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump—as the Republican nominee for President—steadfastly refused to acknowledge the efforts of Vladimir Putin’s government to ensure his election:
October 24, 2016: “I have nothing to do with Russia, folks, I’ll give you a written statement.”
December 11, 2016 “They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea.”
On December 16, 2016, then-FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. agreed with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House.
Even after the release of this Intelligence statement, Trump continued to deny that Russia had played a role in his election.
On February 16, 2017, as President, he tweeted: “The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story – RUSSIA. Fake news!”
FROM WATTS’ STATEMENT: This pattern of Russian falsehoods and social media manipulation of the American electorate continued through Election Day and persists today.
Many of the accounts we watched push the false Incirlik story in July now focus their efforts on shaping the upcoming European elections, promoting fears of immigration or false claims of refugee criminality.
They’ve not forgotten about the United States either. This past week, we observed social media campaigns targeting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan hoping to foment further unrest amongst U.S. democratic institutions, their leaders and their constituents.
As we noted two days before the Presidential election in our article describing Russian influence operations, Russia certainly seeks to promote Western candidates sympathetic to their worldview and foreign policy objectives.
But winning a single election is not their end goal. Russian Active Measures hope to topple democracies through the pursuit of five complementary objectives:
- Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
- Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
- Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
- Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
- Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction.
From these objectives, the Kremlin can crumble democracies from the inside out creating political divisions resulting in two key milestones:
- The dissolution of the European Union and
- The break up of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO).
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALEXANDER SHUSTOROVICH, ALTERNET, ANDREW INTRATER, AP, BBC, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CIA, CITIZENS UNITED, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, FOX NEWS, JOHN MCCAIN, LEN BLAVATNIK, LINDSEY GRAHAM, MARCO RUBIO, MITCH MCCONNELL, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, OLIGARCHS, POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS), POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT MUELLER, ROD ROSENSTEIN, Ronald Reagan, RUSSIA, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SIMON KUKES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SUPREME COURT, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 24, 2018 at 12:06 am
A Pew Research Center survey released on August 29, 2017, found that 36% of Americans approved of President Donald Trump. Most other polling rated his approval between 35 and 40%.
About Republicans, the survey found:
- Just over two-thirds agreed with his positions;
- 19% didn’t like his conduct;
- 46% said they had mixed feelings;
- 34% liked the way he behaved as President.
When asked what they liked most about Trump’s Presidency, those who approved of his performance cited his personality and conduct four times more often than his policies.

Donald Trump
On August 30, 2017, an article in Salon tackled this group head-on: “Most Americans Strongly Dislike Trump, But the Angry Minority That Adores Him Controls Our Politics.”
It described these voters as representing about one-third of the Republican party:
“These are older and more conservative white people, for the most part, who believe he should not listen to other Republicans and should follow his own instincts….
“They like Trump’s coarse personality, and approve of the fact that he treats women like his personal playthings. They enjoy it when he expresses sympathy for neo-Nazis and neo-Confederate white supremacists.
“They cheer when he declares his love for torture, tells the police to rough up suspects and vows to mandate the death penalty for certain crimes. (Which of course the president cannot do.)
“…This cohort of the Republican party didn’t vote for Trump because of his supposed policies on trade or his threat to withdraw from NATO. They voted for him because he said out loud what they were thinking. A petty, sophomoric, crude bully is apparently what they want as a leader.”

Supporters giving the Nazi “Sieg Heil” salute to Trump
According to the Pew survey, they only comprise 16% of the population. That leaves 65% of Republicans who are revolted by Trump’s personality and behavior. But they are being advised by GOP political consultants to vigorously support him.
“Your heart tells you that he’s bad for the country,” one anonymous consultant told the Salon reporter. “Your head looks at polling data among Republican primary voters and sees how popular he is.”
It’s precisely these hard-core Fascists who come out in mid-term elections—and they’re scaring the remaining 65% who make up the GOP establishment.
That’s one reason why the vast majority of Republicans continue to fanatically support Trump: They fear he will turn his hate-filled base on them.
But there’s a second reason why Republicans back Trump—especially against Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s probe of Russia’s subversion of the 2016 election.
Many House and Senate Republicans have received millions of dollars in “campaign contributions” from Russian oligarchs who are answerable to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
In 2017, for example, Russian oligarch Len Blavatnik gave millions of dollars to top Republican leaders—such as Senators Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.
Altogether, four Russian oligarchs—Blavatnik, Alexander Shustorovich, Andrew Intrater and Simon Kukes––contributed $10.4 million from the start of the 2015-16 election cycle through September 2017.
Of this, 99% went to Republicans—including Senator John McCain and Governors John Kasich and Scott Walker.
And, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, the donations are entirely legal.
Republicans don’t fear that Trump will destroy the institutions that Americans have long cherished—such as:
- An independent judiciary
- A free press
- An incorruptible Justice Department
- Intelligence agencies (such as the FBI and CIA) charged with protecting the country against subversion.
Trump has furiously attacked all of these—and Republicans have either said nothing or rushed to his defense.
Republicans don’t fear that he has all but destroyed decades of solid relations between the United States and longtime allies, such as Canada and Great Britain.
Republicans don’t even fear that he will sell out the Nation to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
The American Intelligence community—the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—has unanimously determined that Russia subverted the 2016 Presidential election. But Trump—who has repeatedly praised Putin—has repeatedly denied it.

What Republicans fear is that Trump will finally cross one line too many—like firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
And that the national outrage following this will force them to launch impeachment proceedings against him.
But it isn’t even Trump they most fear will be destroyed.
What they most fear losing is their own hold on nearly absolute power in Congress and the White House.
If Trump is impeached and possibly indicted, he will become a man no one any longer fears. He will be a figure held up to ridicule and condemnation—like Richard Nixon.
And his Congressional supporters will be branded as losers along with him.
Republicans vividly remember what happened after Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace on August 9, 1974: Democrats, riding a wave of reform fever, swept Republicans out of the House and Senate—and Jimmy Carter into the White House.
If Republicans are conflicted about supporting Trump, their dilemma boils down to this:
- Can I hold onto my power—and all the privileges that go with it—by supporting Trump? Or:
- Can I hold onto my power—and privileges—by deserting him?
This is how Republicans define morality today.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BEN RHODES, BILL CLINTON, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARRY S. TRUMAN, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 19, 2018 at 12:07 am
On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”—not Iraq.
On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.


Condoleeza Rice
Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on AlQaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:
- Saddam had worked hand-in-glove with Bin Laden to plan 9/11.
- Saddam was harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda throughout Iraq.
- Saddam, with help from Al-Qaeda, was scheming to build a nuclear bomb.
Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.
Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service—because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.

Dick Cheney
Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further claimed that US intelligence agencies had determined:
- the precise locations where these weapons were stored;
- the identities of those involved in their production; and
- the military orders issued by Saddam Hussein for their use in the event of war.
Among other lies stated as fact by members of the Bush administration:
- Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa.
- Thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium.
- Iraq had up to 20 long-range Scud missiles, prohibited under UN sanctions.
- Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including nerve gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin.
- Saddam Hussein had issued chemical weapons to front-line troops who would use them when US forces crossed into Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld
Consider the following:
August 26, 2002: Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”
September 18, 2002: Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”
October 7, 2002: Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
Bush never regretted his decision to invade Iraq—on March 20, 2003.
Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.
In fact, Bush—who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard—even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.
He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004—one year after he had started the war.

George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ dinner
To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.
Click here: Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq – YouTube
“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.
“Nope—no weapons over there! Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.
Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women—-the elite of America’s media and political classes—laughed heartily during Bush’s performance.
It was a scene worthy of the court of the ancient Caesars, complete with royal flunkies: “Hey! The country we just destroyed wasn’t a threat to us after all! Isn’t that a gas?”
The war that Bush had deliberately provoked:
- Took the lives of 4,484 Americans.
- Cost the United States Treasury at least $2 trillion.
- Created a Middle East power vacumn.
- Allowed Iran—Iraq’s arch enemy—to eagerly fill it.
- Frightened and repelled even America’s closest allies.
- Killed at least 655,000 Iraqis.
- Bush retired from office with a lavish pension and full Secret Service protection.
- He wrote his memoirs and was paid $7 million for the first 1.5 million copies.
- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice retired to private business, wrote their own memoirs, and lived in comfort as respected elder statesmen.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BEN RHODES, BILL CLINTON, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARRY S. TRUMAN, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 18, 2018 at 12:04 am
September 11, 2018, will mark the 17th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on United States soil. Inevitably, this is a time to remember all those whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out.
But it is also a time to remember those Americans who made this atrocity—and the Iraq war that followed—inevitable.
British historian Nigel Hamilton has chronicled their arrogance and indifference in his 2010 biography: American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Hamilton noted that Richard Clarke, the national security advisor on terrorism, was certain that Osama bin Laden had arranged the [USS.] Cole bombing in Aden on October 12, 2000.
For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States—either abroad or at home.
But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
Rice initially refused to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject. Then she “insisted the matter be handled only by a more junior Deputy Principals meeting” in April, 2001, writes Hamilton.
Wolfowitz, the number-two man at the Department of Defense, said: “I don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”
Even after Clarke outlined the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz—whose real target was Saddam Hussein—said: “You give bin Laden too much credit.”
Wolfowitz insisted that bin Laden couldn’t carry out his terrorist acts without the aid of a state sponsor—namely, Iraq.
Wolfowitz, in fact, blamed Iraq for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clarke was stunned, since there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in this.
“Al-Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the United States,” Clarke warned his colleagues. He pointed out that, like Adolf Hitler, bin Laden had actually published his plans for future destruction.

Osama bin Laden
And he added: “Sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.”
Wolfowitz heatedly traded on his Jewish heritage to bring Clarke’s unwelcome arguments to a halt: “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.”
Writing in outraged fury, Hamilton sums up Clarke’s agonizing frustrations:
- Bush’s senior advisors treated their colleagues who had served in the Clinton administration with contempt.
- President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz seemed content to ignore the danger signals of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
- This left only Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy Richard Armitage, Richard Clarke and a skeptical Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to wage “a lonely battle to waken a seemingly deranged new administration.”

Richard Clarke
Clarke alerted Federal Intelligence agencies that “Al-Qaeda is planning a major attack on us.” He asked the FBI and CIA to report to his office all they could learn about suspicious persons or activities at home and abroad.
Finally, at a meeting with Rice on September 4, 2001, Clarke challenged her to “picture yourself at a moment when in the very near future Al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of Americans, and imagine asking yourself what you wish then that you had already done.”
Seven days later, Al-Qaeda struck, and 3,000 Americans died horrifically—and needlessly.
Neither Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld nor Wolowitz ever admitted their negligence. Nor would any of them be brought to account.
Disgustingly, these were the same officials who, afterward, posed as the Nation’s saviors—and branded anyone who disagreed with them as a traitor, practices the Right continues to exploit to this day.
Only Richard Clarke—who had vainly argued for stepped-up security precautions and taking the fight to Al-Qaeda—gave that apology.
On March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings. Addressing relatives of victims in the audience, he said: “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.”
Yet even worse was to come.
On the evening after the September 11 attacks, Bush took Clarke aside during a meeting in the White House Situation Room:
“I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam [Hussein, the dictator of Iraq] did this. See if he’s linked in any way.”
Clarke was stunned: “But, Mr. President, Al-Qaeda did this.”
“I know, I know,” said Bush. “But see if Saddam was involved. I want to know.”
Hussein had not plotted the attack–and there was no evidence proving that he did. But the attack gave “W” the excuse he wanted to remove the man he blamed for the 1992 defeat of his father, President George H.W. Bush.
Bush believed that his father would have been re-elected if he had “gone all the way” into Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War.
He would finish the job that his father had started but failed to compete.
On September 12, 2001, Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BEN RHODES, BILL CLINTON, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARRY S. TRUMAN, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 17, 2018 at 1:19 am
“Many of the people who work in American foreign policy today were shaped by the experience of the 1990s, when the United States was ascendant. The Berlin Wall came down. Democracy was spreading across Europe, Latin America and East Asia.
“Russia was on its back foot, and China had not yet risen. We really could shape events in much of the world. NATO could expand into the former Soviet Union without fear that Russia would invade one of those countries. We could bring together the whole world to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.”
So writes Ben Rhodes, author of the newly-released The World As It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House.
For eight years, Rhodes saw Barack Obama up close as few others did. He served as, first, a speechwriter, then deputy national security adviser, and finally as all-around aide and diplomat-without-portfolio.

Rhodes notes that Obama sometimes warned that America’s post-Cold War moment in the sun wouldn’t last: “Shock and awe. Regime change. A trillion dollars later, we couldn’t keep the electricity running in Baghdad.
“The Iraq war disturbed other countries—including U.S. allies—in its illogic and destruction, and accelerated a realignment of power and influence that was further advanced by the global financial crisis.
“By the time Obama took office, a global correction had already taken place. Russia was resisting American influence. China was throwing its weight around. Europeans were untangling a crisis in the Euro-zone.”
To begin at the beginning:
Even as the rubble was being cleared at the Pentagon and World Trade Center, President George W. Bush was preparing to use the attack as an excuse to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
Hussein had not plotted 9/11, and there was no evidence that he did. But that didn’t matter to Bush and those planning the invasion and conquest of Iraq.
British historian Nigel Hamilton has dared to lay bare the facts of this disgrace. Hamilton is the author of several acclaimed political biographies, including JFK: Reckless Youth and Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.
In 2007, he began research on his latest book: American Caesars: The Lives of the Presidents From Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Nigel Hamilton
By Nigel Hamilton (Nigel Hamilton picture)
The inspiration for this came from a classic work of ancient biography: The Twelve Caesars, by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus—known as Suetonius.
Suetonius, a Roman citizen and historian, had chronicled the lives of the first twelve Caesars of imperial Rome: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
Hamilton wanted to examine post-World War II United States history as Suetonius had examined that of ancient Rome: Through the lives of the 12 “emperors” who had held the power of life and death over their fellow citizens—and those of other nations.
For Hamilton, the “greatest of American emperors, the Caesar Augustus of his time,” was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led his country through the Great Depression and World War II.
His “”great successors” were Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy–who, in turn, contained the Soviet Union abroad and presided over sustained economic prosperity at home.
By contrast, “arguably the worst of all the American Caesars” was “George W. Bush, and his deputy, Dick Cheney, who willfully and recklessly destroyed so much of the moral basis of American leadership in the modern world.”
Among the most lethal of Bush’s offenses: The appointing of officials who refused to take seriously the threat posed by Al-Qaeda.
And this arrogance and indifference continued–right up to September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and Pentagon became targets for destruction.
Among the few administration officials who did take Al-Qaeda seriously was Richard Clarke, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council.
Clarke had been thus appointed in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. He continued in the same role under President Bush—but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access.
This put him at a severe disadvantage when dealing with other, higher-ranking Bush officials—such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
These turned out to be the very officials who refused to believe that Al-Qaeda posed a lethal threat to the United States.
“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “in the entire first eight months of the Bush Presidency, Clarke was not permitted to brief President Bush a single time, despite mounting evidence of plans for a new al-Qaeda outrage.” [Italics added]
Nor did it help that, during his first eight months in office before September 11, Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time.
For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States–either abroad or at home.
But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
A FEW GOOD MEN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BIRTH CONTROL, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, EARL BUTZ, ESPN, FACEBOOK, FOSTER FRIESS, JACK NICHOLSON, JEREMY LIN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWS MEDIA, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RACISM, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RICK SANTORUM, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TOM CRUISE, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 13, 2018 at 12:03 am
The 1992 military courtroom drama, “A Few Good Men,” climaxes with a brutal exchange that has since become famous.

Jack Nicolson vs. Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men”
The legal combatants are Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Marine Colonel Nathan R. Jessup (Jack Nicholson).
COLONEL JESSUP: You want answers?
KAFFEE: I want the truth!
COLONEL JESSUP: You can’t handle the truth!
Apparently, many of those who work in the television news business feel the same way about their audiences.
[WARNING: This column contains some words that some readers may find offensive. Read on at your own risk.]
On February 18, 2012, editor Anthony Federico posted this headline on ESPN’s mobile website:
Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers
Cost Knicks in Streak-Snapping Loss to Hornets.
The headline was posted at 2:30 a.m. and quickly removed when someone realized that it might be seen as offensive. By Sunday afternoon, Federico had been fired from ESPN.

Jeremy Lin
It’s true that “Chink” is seen by Asians as a derogatory word. It’s equally true that ESPN has the right to discipline its employees when they violate its journalistic standards.
But ESPN should not have the right to treat its audience like so many school children who must be protected, at all costs, from life’s unpleasantness.
Consider ESPN’s apology:
“Last night, ESPN.com’s mobile web site posted an offensive headline referencing Jeremy Lin at 2:30 am ET. The headline was removed at 3:05 am ET.
“We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again. We regret and apologize for this mistake.”
Note the words “posted an offensive headline.” If you didn’t already know what the headline had said, ESPN wasn’t going to enlighten you.
And other news networks—such as ABC and NBC—have acted similarly, referring to the “c-word” without telling viewers just what was actually posted.
Since the “c-word” is often used as a euphemism for “cunt,” it’s easy to see how many viewers could imagine the writer had used a very different expression.
The official reason given for refraining from actually saying the word that lies at the center of the story is to offending some members of the audience.
But when the use of certain words becomes central to a news story, editors and reporters should have the courage to reveal just what was said—and let the audience decide for itself.
The evening news is—supposedly—aimed at voting-age adults. And adults need—and deserve—the hard truth about the world they live in. Only then do they have a chance to reform it–if, in fact, they decide it needs reforming.
Examples of such censorship are legion. For instance:
In 1976, during the Republican Presidential Convention, entertainer Pat Boone asked Earl Butz, then Secretary of Agriculture: Why was the party of Lincoln having so much trouble winning black votes for its candidates?
“I’ll tell you what the coloreds want,” said Butz. “It’s three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit.”

Earl Butz
Unknown to Butz, a Rolling Stone reporter was standing nearby. When his comments became public, Butz was forced to resign.
Meanwhile, most TV and print media struggled to protect their audiences from the truth of Butz’ racism.
Many newspapers simply reported that Butz had said something too obscene to print. Some invited their readers to contact the editors if they wanted more information.
TV newsmen generally described Butz’ firing as stemming from “a racially-offensive remark,” which they refused to explain.
In short: A high-ranking government official had been fired, but adult audiences were not allowed to judge whether his language justified that termination.
Or consider this:
On February 16, 2012, Foster Friess, offered his views about the importance of legalized birth control. Friess was the wealthy investor bankrolling a super PAC for GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Foster Friess
Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, from Wikimedia Commons
“This contraceptive thing, my gosh it’s such inexpensive,” said Friess. “Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”
Many news organizations refused to share Friess’ statement, merely saying that he had made an “offensive remark about women.”
It’s understandable that women would be highly offended by this remark. But shielding them from the repressive mindset of those who support Right-wing candidates like Santorum would ill serve their interests.
Censoring the truth has always been a hallmark of dictatorships. It has no place in a democracy—no matter how well-intentioned the motives of those doing the censoring.
Some words will always be hateful—-to blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, women, men. In short, everybody.
Refusing to acknowledge their use will not cause them to vanish.
The truth is the truth. If you can’t handle it, that’s your problem.
But those of us who can deserve the opportunity to learn it. And, when necessary, to act on it.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, ANTI-COMMUNISM, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BILL MITCHELL, BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BIRTHERISM, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHUCK TODD, CNN, COMMUNISM, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, JAMES COMEY, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, MEET THE PRESS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, NPR, POLAND, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REINCE PREIBUS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RICHARD M. NIXON, ROBERT MUELLER, RUSSIAN BOTS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, THE APPRENTICE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THIS WEEK, TIME, TREASON, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WIKILEAKS, WORLD WAR 11
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 2, 2018 at 12:04 am
There was a time when Republicans saw—and portrayed themselves—as America’s foremost defenders against Communism.
This is well-illustrated by the career of Wisconsin United States Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
Elected to the Senate in 1946, he rose to national prominence on February 9, 1950, after giving a fiery speech in Wheeling, West Virginia:
“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

Joseph McCarthy
No American—no matter how prominent—was safe from the accusation of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer.
Among those slandered:
- Folksinger Pete Seeger
- President Harry S. Truman
- Writers Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast and John Steinbeck
- Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who had overseen America’s strategy for defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan
So imagine how Red-baiting Republicans like McCarthy and then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon would feel dumbfounded at the following:
On February 20, 2018, a purge of Russian “bots” by Twitter sparked outrage by—yes!—Right-wingers.
Bots are fake accounts used to spread propaganda or advertising campaigns. Investigations by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have uncovered massive efforts by Russia to throw the 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump.
They did so by swamping “social media” sites like Facebook, Google and Twitter with genuinely fake news.
The Twitter purge came a week after Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies for interfering in that election. The indictments detailed an elaborate plot to wage “information warfare” against the United States.
Right-wingers suddenly found thousands of their Russian bot followers had disappeared—and accused Twitter of secretly deleting like-minded accounts.

“Twitter is currently purging the followers on conservative accounts only. I just lost 3000 followers in one minute,” tweeted Candace Owens, director of urban engagement for Turning Point USA. This is a student organization promoting limited government and free markets.
Bill Mitchell, a Right-winger known for his controversial tweets defending President Donald Trump, claimed that he lost roughly 4,000 followers overnight.
“This is a damn joke,” tweeted Mike Zollo. “Twitter is absolutely censoring conservative and right wing speech for no damn reason other than their disagreement with it. But, liberals can write vile comments and threaten us with no punishment.”
From the end of World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it would have been unthinkable for a Republican Presidential candidate to find common cause with a Soviet dictator.
But that utterly changed when Donald Trump won, first, the Republican Presidential nomination and, then, the White House. Trump lavishly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin—and even called on him to directly interfere in the 2016 Presidential race.
On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Early reports traced the leak to Russian hackers.
“Russia, if you are listening,” Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida, “I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing—I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
This was nothing less than treason—calling upon a foreign power, hostile to the United States, to interfere in its Presidential election.
On December 16, 2016, then-FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. agreed with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House.

Trump, however, has steadfastly denied any such role by Russia: “I think it’s ridiculous,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it….No, I don’t believe it at all.”
The last time dictator-worshiping Fascists found common cause with dictator-worshiping Communists was in August, 1939.
Germany’s Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin agreed to end—at least temporarily—their years of violent rivalry and personal slander.
Hitler planned to invade Poland, and feared he would have to fight its allies, France and England, if he did. He didn’t want to have to fight the Soviet Union, too.
And Stalin saw Hitler’s warlike ambitions as useful to his own dreams of conquest: He wanted—and got—-the eastern half of Poland, while Hitler’s legions occupied the western half.
Similarly, Donald Trump—the arch capitalist—and Vladimir Putin—the arch Communist—found common cause
Putin wanted a President who would withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—which would instantly render that alliance kaput. And give Russia a free hand to attack Europe.
And Trump had repeatedly said the United States was paying an unfairly large portion of the monies needed to maintain that alliance.
And Trump wanted to be President—to enrich himself and his family, to become the center of the world’s attention, and to destroy anyone who dared confront or contradict him.
And in supporting his dictatorial agenda, his millions of Right-wing followers have found common cause with the followers of a Communist dictator’s agenda.
2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ASIANS, BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CONTROL, BLACKS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DISABLED, DONALD TRUMP, ED MARTIN, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, KATRINA PIERSON, LATINOS, MARCO GUTIERREZ, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, OBAMACARE, POLITICO, PRISONERS OF WAR, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, SOCIAL SECURITY, TEA PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DISCOURSES, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, WAYNE ROOT, WOMEN
THE TOAD WHO NEVER BECAME A PRINCE
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 3, 2018 at 12:01 amMany pundits have sized up Donald Trump—as a Presidential candidate and President.
But how would Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th-century Florentine statesman, assess Trump?
Machiavelli’s two great works on politics—The Prince and The Discourses—remain textbooks for successful politicians more than 500 years later.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Consider Trump’s notoriety for hurling insults at virtually everyone, including:
These insults delight his white, under-educated followers. But they have alienated millions of other Americans who might have supported him.
And what does Machiavelli have to say about gratuitously handing out insults and threats?
Many of those who supported Trump as a Presidential candidate expected him to stop constantly picking fights if he became President. Machiavelli had a stern warning for them:
Then there is Trump’s approach to consulting advisers.
Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he consults about foreign policy, Trump replied; “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”
Donald Trump
This totally contrasts the advice given by Machiavelli:
And Machiavelli has potent advice on the selection of advisers:
Consider some of the advisers Trump has relied on in his campaign for President:
From the outset of his Presidential campaign, Trump polled extremely poorly among Hispanic voters. Comments like these didn’t increase his popularity.
This proved a big turn-off among the 70% of women who have an unfavorable opinion of him—and anyone who receives Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security.
Obama became President in 2009—almost five years after Khan’s death. And Clinton became Secretary of State the same year.
When your spokeswoman becomes a nationwide laughingstock, your own credibility goes down the toilet as well.
Finally, speaking directly to Trump, Machiavelli warns: Unwise princes cannot be wisely advised.
All of which would lead Niccolo Machiavelli to warn, if he could witness American politics today: “This bodes ill for your Republic.”
Share this: