Posts Tagged ‘JOSEPH STALIN’
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AP, BBC, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DIMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, GREAT TERROR, JAMES COMEY, JEFF SESSIONS, JOSEPH STALIN, KEITH SCHILLER, MIKE FLYNN, MIKHAIL TUKHACHEVESKY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, NIKOLAI ZHILAYEV, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROBERT MEULLER 111, ROD ROSENSTEIN, RUSSIAN ESPIONAGEky, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, SERGEY KISLYAK, SERGEY LAVOV, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DISCOURSES, 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, UPI, USA TODAY, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR 11, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 6, 2017 at 12:02 am
…A truly great man is ever the same under all circumstances. And if his fortune varies, exalting him at one moment and oppressing him at another, he himself never varies, but always preserves a firm courage, which is so closely interwoven with his character that everyone can readily see that the fickleness of fortune has no power over him.
The conduct of weak men is very different. Made vain and intoxicated by good fortune, they attribute their success to merits which they do not possess. And this makes them odious and insupportable to all around them. And when they have afterwards to meet a reverse of fortune, they quickly fall into the other extreme, and become abject and vile.
–Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses
Three heroes, two villains.
Two of the heroes are Russian; the third is an American.
The villains: One Russian (actually, Georgian); one American.
First up–in order of disappearance: Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky (pronounced too-ka-chev-sky)
Tukhachevsky (February 4, 1893 – June 12, 1937) was a leading Soviet military leader and theoretician from 1918 to 1937.
He commanded the Soviet Western Front during the Russian-Polish War (1920-21) and served as Chief of Staff of the Red Army (1925-1928).
He fought to modernize Soviet armament, as well as develop airborne, aviation and mechanized forces. Almost singlehandedly, he created the theory of deep operations for Soviet forces.
Mikhail Tukhachevsky
All of these innovations would reap huge dividends when the Soviet Union faced the lethal fury of Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht.
In 1936, Tukhachevsky warned Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin that Nazi Germany might attack without warning–and ignite a long and murderous war.
Stalin–the son of a Georgian cobbler–resented Tukhachevsky’s coming from a noble family. A monumental egomaniac, he also hated that Tukhachevesky’s fame rivaled his own.
Warned of the approaching German danger, Stalin shouted: “What are you trying to do–frighten Soviet authority?”
Joseph Stalin
The attack that Tukhachevsky warned against came five years later on June 22, 1941, leaving at least 20 million Russians dead.
But Tukhachevsky wasn’t alive to command a defense.
The 1930s were a frightening and dangerous time to be alive in the Soviet Union. In 1934, Stalin, seeing imaginary enemies everywhere, ordered a series of purges that lasted right up to the German invasion.
In 1937-38, the Red Army fell prey to Stalin’s paranoia.
Its victims included:
- Three of five marshals (five-star generals);
- Thirteen of 15 army commanders (three- and four-star generals);
- Fifty of 57 army corps commanders; and
- One hundred fifty-four out of 186 division commanders.
And heading the list of those marked for death was Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
Arrested on May 22, 1937, he was interrogated and tortured. As a result, he “confessed” to being a German agent plotting to overthrow Stalin and seize power.
On his confession, which survives in the archives, his bloodstains can clearly be seen.
On June 11, the Soviet Supreme Court convened a special military tribunal to try Tukhachevsky and eight generals for treason.
It was a sham: The accused were denied defense attorneys, and could not appeal the verdict–which was foregone: Death.
In a Russian version of poetic justice, five of the eight generals who served as Tukhachevsky’s judges were themselves later condemned and executed as traitors.
Within hours of the verdict, Tukhachevsky was summoned from his cell and shot once in the back of the head.
From 1937 until 1956, Tukhachevsky was officially declared a traitor and fifth-columnist.
Then, on February 25, 1957, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev delivered his bombshell “Secret Speech” to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
In this, he denounced Stalin (who had died in 1953) as a ruthless tyrant responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children. He condemned Stalin for creating a “personality cult” around himself, and for so weakening the Red Army that Nazi Germany was able to easily overrun half of the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1943.
On January 31, 1957, Tukhachevsky and his co-defendants were declared innocent of all charges and were “rehabilitated.”
Today, he is once again considered a Russian hero and military genius.
Next hero: Nikolai Sergeyvich Zhilayev (pronounced Zill-lay-ev)
Zhilayev (November 18, 1881 – January 20, 1938) was a Russian musicologist and the teacher of several 20th-century Russian composers. Among these: Dimitri Shostakovich.
Zhilayev, a member of the Russian Academy of Art-Sciences, taught at the Moscow Conservatory. Among his friends–to his ultimate misfortune–was Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
In 1938, he, too, became a casualty of what has become known as The Great Terror.
In his posthumously-published memoirs, Testimony, Shostakovich, his pupil and friend, described how Zhilayev faced his end with a calmness that awed even the NKVD (the predecessor to the KGB) secret police sent to arrest him.
ABC NEWS, ABU GARIB PRISON, ALTERNET, AMERICAN CAESARS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DICK CHENEY, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, GUANTANAMO, JOSEPH STALIN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, POLAND, POLITICO, POPE JOHN PAUL II, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TORTURE, TWITTER, TWITTER CNN, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 10, 2017 at 10:38 am
Dick Cheney left office as co-President of the United States on January 20, 2009. During the last four years, he has had time to write his memoirs and reflect on the legacies of the George W. Bush Presidency.
His book, In My Time, was published in 2012. And, in March, 2013, Cheney appeared in the Showtime-produced documentary, “The World According to Dick Cheney.”
Dick Cheney
Throughout the program, Cheney showed no interest in introspection.
“I don’t go around thinking, ‘Gee, I wish we’d done this, or I wish I’d done that,’” said Cheney. “The world is as you find it, and you’ve got to deal with that….You don’t get do-overs.
“I did what I did, and it’s all part of the public record and I feel very good about it. If I had it to do over again, I’d do it in a minute.”
When the interviewer, R.J. Cutler, raised how the administration altered privacy rights, tortured detainees and pushed for an unnecessary war in Iraq, Cheney replied:
“Tell me what terrorist acts you would let go forward because you didn’t want to be a mean and nasty fella?”
Perhaps the most telling moment came when Cheney outlined his overall views on Realpolitick:
“Are you going to trade the lives of a number of people because you want to preserve your honor?” asked Cheney. “This was a wartime situation and it was more important to be successful than it was to be loved.”
Perhaps Cheney was thinking of Niccolo Machiavelli’s famous quote about love versus fear in The Prince, his primer on how to attain political power:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved.
For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote, but when it approaches, they revolt….
Niccolo Machiavelli
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Cheney appears to belileve that it’s better to be feared than loved.
In that, he has plenty of company among his fellow politicians–in the United States and elsewhere. But there is more to Machiavelli’s teaching, and this is usually overlooked–as it most certainly was by Cheney:
Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred: for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together….
If Cheney considers himself a student of Machiavelli, then he utterly ignored this last offering of cautionary advice.
By authorizing the use of torture, the administration made itself–in the eyes of its Western European allies as well as its Islamic enemies–an epicenter of evil. “Guantanamo”–the Marine base in Cuba that had been largely forgotten over the decades–became a synonym for Auschwitz.
And after photographs emerged of the tortures and humiliations of detainees at Abu Garib Prison in Iraq, the United States sank even lower in the world’s estimation.
Among the human rights violations committed upon prisoners held by U.S. Army military police and assorted CIA agents:
- physical abuse
- psychological abuse
- torture
- rape
- sodomy
- homicide.
Of the ultimate legacy of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, historian Nigel Hamilton wrote in his 2010 book, American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush:
“…arguably the worst of all the American Caesars, who willfully and recklessly destroyed so much of the moral basis of American leadership in the modern world.”
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin believed, above all, in the brutal use of force–whether applied by prison torturers or legions of soldiers unrestrained by the Geneva Convention.
Once, when told that a certain policy he wanted to pursue would be heavily criticized by the Pope, he famously asked: “How many divisions does the Pope have?”
Stalin died in 1953. Had he lived on into the 1980s, he would have found out.
It was then that Pope John Paul II showed the power of an aroused spirituality.
John Paul II
When the Soviet Union seemed about to invade his native Poland as it had Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Pope reportedly sent the Kremlin a message: He would fly to Warsaw and place himself directly in the line of fire.
The Soviets never dared launch their planned invasion.
It is a lesson utterly lost on the likes of men like Dick Cheney.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALEC BALDWIN, ALTERNET, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FSB, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, MORNING JOE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NATO, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI-SOVIET "NON-AGGRESSION PACT", NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLAND, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, REUTERS, RUSSIA, SALON, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, 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, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT, WIKILEAKS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 24, 2017 at 10:29 am
The love-fest between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump certainly got off to a great start.
No doubt well-informed on Trump’s notorious egomania, Putin called a press conference to announce: “He is a bright personality, a talented person, no doubt about it. It is not up to us to appraise his positive sides, it is up to the U.S. voters. but, as we can see, he is an absolute leader in the presidential race.”
Vladimir Putin
That was on December 17, 2015.
Trump didn’t lose any time responding. On the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.
“He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country”–yet another insult at President Barack Obama.
Donald Trump
Both Putin and Trump are well-known for their authoritarian characteristics. But more than one dictator’s admiration for another might explain their continuing “bromance.”
Trump has repeatedly attacked United States’ membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). He believes the United States is paying an unfairly large portion of the monies needed to maintain this alliance–and he wants other members to contribute far more.
He has also said that, if Russia attacked NATO members, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after determining whether those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”
If he believed that they had not done so, he would tell them: “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
For Putin, this clearly signaled a reason to prefer Trump over his 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton. Trump’s statement marked the first time that a major Presidential candidate placed conditions on the United States’ coming to the defense of its major allies.
The withdrawal of the United States from NATO would instantly render that alliance kaput. Its European members that have long hurled insults at the United States would suddenly face extinction.
Even if their armed forces proved a match for Russia’s–which they wouldn’t–their governments would cower before the threat of Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal.
Trump’s motives for his “bromance” with Putin are more difficult to decipher.
Some believe that Trump–a notorious egomaniac–is simply responding to an overdoses of Putin flattery.
Others think that, while visiting Moscow, Trump made himself vulnerable to Russian blackmail.
There are unconfirmed Intelligence reports that he paid–and watched–several Russian prostitutes urinate on a bed once slept on by President Obama and his wife at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The alleged incident was reportedly captured by hidden microphones and cameras operated by the FSB, the successor to the KGB.
A recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch featured a Putin lookalike intimidating Alec Baldwin’s Trump at a press conference–by holding up a video tape marked “Pee-Pee Tape.”
Still others believe that Trump–who has refused to release his tax returns–is deeply in dept to Russian oligarchs.
On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the DNC. And they clearly revealed a bias for Hillary Clinton and against her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
The leak badly embarrassed Clinton. About to receive the Democratic Presidential nomination, she found herself charged with undermining the electoral process.
Cyber-security experts believed the hacking originated from Russia–and that Putin had authorized it.
Even so, Putin is not the first Communist dictator to find common cause with an avowed Right-winger.
On August 23, 1939, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin signed a “non-aggression pact” with Nazi Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.
Joseph Stalin
The reason: Hitler intended to invade Poland–but feared going to war with the neighboring Soviet Union if he did so. By signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin, he avoided this danger–and gained “rights” to the western half of Poland.
Adolf Hitler
Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1990-048-29A / CC-BY-SA 3.0 [CC BY-SA 3.0 de (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)%5D
In addition, Nazi Germany began receiving huge shipments of raw materials from the Soviet Union–as part of Stalin’s effort to placate Hitler and avoid a Nazi-Soviet clash.
And Stalin got something, too: The eastern half of Poland, which would be occupied by the Red Army.
But the Hitler-Stalin alliance lasted less than two years. It ended without warning–on June 22, 1941.
With 134 divisions at full fighting strength and 73 more for deployment behind the front–a total of three million men–the German Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union.
Hitler had long intended to obtain “living space” for Germany–in Russia. By 1941, having conquered most of Europe, he felt strong enough to embark on his great crusade.
There are three ways Putin may come to regret his “bromance” with Trump.
First: Trump may be not be able to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama for interfering in the 2016 election.
Second: Increasing political pressure on Trump by Democrats and even Republicans for that interference may result in even tougher action against Russia.
And third: Trump is known for his egomania, not his loyalty. He may take offense at some future perceived Putin slight. In such case, he may well decide he doesn’t owe anything to the man he once called “a leader.”
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANDREI FEDEROV, BORIS YELTSIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, KIM JONG-UN, MISS TEEN USA, MISS UNIVERSE, MISS USA, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, RED ARMY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on February 23, 2017 at 3:39 pm
The love-fest between Donald and Vladimir Putin began on December 17, 2015.
Putin made the first move: “He is a bright and talented person without any doubt. He is the absolute leader of the presidential race.
“He says he will want to reach another, deeper, level of relations (with Russia). What else can we do but to welcome it? Certainly, we welcome it.
“That is none of our business to evaluate his accomplishments, but he remains the absolute front-runner in the presidential race. He is an outstanding and talented personality without any doubts.”
Appearing on the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump responded in kind: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
Donald Trump
The host, Joe Scarborough, was taken aback: “Well, I mean, [Putin’s] also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
TRUMP: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.
TRUMP: I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m confused. So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?
TRUMP: Oh sure, absolutely.
When Trump praised Putin as a leader–“unlike what we have in this country”–he no doubt meant President Barack Obama.
Ironically, it was not Obama but President George W. Bush to whom his insult applies.
In June 2001, Bush and Vladimir Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.
Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush
Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.
“I did play rugby,” said Bush. “Very good briefing.”
Bush knew that Putin had worked for Soviet intelligence. So he should not have been surprised that the KGB had amassed a lengthy dossier on him.
But more was to come.
BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy Land.
PUTIN: It’s true.
BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir?
Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others–even world leaders–through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian theology.
Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commonality to build a bond. He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.
“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”
Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.
“Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Associated Press correspondent Ron Fournier asked Bush.
“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue.
“I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”
Now Putin is putting his KGB skills to work with another President–Trump.
At Putin’s direction, an Intelligence dossier is being prepared on Trump. According to Andrei Fedorov, former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, a team of retired diplomats and Putin staffers are compiling a seven-page profile of Trump’s psychological state.
Trump is depicted as a naive risk-taker who acts like a “tough guy.”
The dossier will be given to Putin before their first meeting–for which no date has been set.
Federov said that Trump doesn’t understand Putin and should listen more to his team, “especially in the areas where he is weak.”
Trump’s constant battles with the American press worry the Kremlim: “He’s dancing on thin ice,” said Federov. “It’s a risky game.”
Mikhail Kasyanov, who was once prime minister under Putin, said that Putin was worried that, unless Trump is careful, he will lose the political clout he needs to improve relations with Russia.
In particular, Putin wants American economic sanctions against Russia–imposed by President Barack Obama over Russian interference in the 2016 election–lifted.
American hostility toward Russia has been increased by three major revelations:
- Russia’s hacks against the Democratic party to sway the election in favor of Trump;
- Members of Trump’s Presidential campaign were in regular contact with senior Russian Intelligence officials; and
- Trump’s being forced to fire his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, over his ties with Russia.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BASKET OF DEPLORABLES SPEECH, BENGHAZI HEARINGS, BERNIE SANDERS, BILL CLINTON, BLACKS, CBS NEWS, CELINDA LAKE, CLINTON FUNDATION, CNN, COLIN POWELL, COMMUNISM, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, EMAIL SERVER, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES WEBB, JOSEPH STALIN, KARL MARX, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LIBYA, MAO ZEDONG, MICHELLE OBAMA, NBC NEWS, POPULISM, RACISM, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Ronald Reagan, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SOCIALISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM BROKAW, TONIGHT SHOW, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, Vladimir Lenin, WHITES, WHITEWATER, WIKILEAKS, WOMEN, YOUTH
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 18, 2016 at 10:22 am
Donald Trump owes his victory to a wide range of circumstances. Among these:
#10 Hillary Clinton gave only one memorable speech during the campaign–and then she quashed any benefits that might have come from it.
This was the “basket of deplorables” speech, delivered at a New York fundraiser on September 9. It was the only Clinton speech to be widely quoted by Democrats and Republicans.
She divided Donald Trump’s supporters into two groups. The first group were the “deplorables,” for whom she showed open contempt:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic –you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
“He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people–now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
Hillary Clinton (Gage Skidmore photo)
But the second group, she said, consisted of poor, alienated Americans who rightly felt abandoned by their employers and their government:
“But the other basket–and I know this because I see friends from all over America here….but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from.
“They don’t buy everything [Trump] says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
After giving this speech, Clinton threw away the good it might well have done her.
First, the day after making the speech, she apologized for it: “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’–that was wrong.”
Many of Trump’s followers were racists, sexists and xenophobes–who deserved condemnation, not apologies. By apologizing, she looked weak, indecisive.
Second, having eloquently reached out to many of the men and women who were a prime constituency for Donald Trump, she made no effort to follow up.
She could have used this moment to offer an economic package that would quickly and effectively address their vital needs for jobs and medical care.
But that would have required her to put one together long ago. And all she had to offer now was boilerplate rhetoric, such as: “Education is the answer.”
Worst of all, Trump turned her speech against her, tweeting: “Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!”
It did.
#11 Neither the Democrats nor the TV networks dared reveal the full intensity of hatred and violence that were hallmarks of Trump’s rallies–and campaign.
Three New York Times reporters who covered Trump’s rallies for over one year routinely witnessed his supporters hurl vulgar taunts such as:
At Hillary Clinton: “Trump that bitch!” “Kill her!” “Lock her up!” “Hillary is a whore!” “Hang the bitch!”
At protesters: “Get out of here, you fag!” “Get him!” “Get the fuck out of here!”
At Latinos: “Build a wall–kill them all!” “Fuck those dirty beaners!” “Send them bastards back. I’m sure that paperwork comes in Spanish.”
At Muslims: “Fuck Islam!” “Islam is not a religion, partner. It’s an ideology.” “You don’t come and talk about America when you’re supporting Muslims.”
At President Barack Obama: “Fuck that nigger!”
H. Allen Scott, a reporter for Fusion, attended a Trump rally and overheard conversations that startled him.
In one, a man marked Arabs as the enemy: “Those sand niggers are out to get us. We need to bomb the hell out of them.”
In the other, the supposed threat came from a different source: “The Donald will get all those Jews out of Washington.”
When protesters were ejected, Trump supporters went wild–and usually turned violent. Protesters were beaten and kicked–often with Trump’s encouragement.
Protesters and supporters duke it out at a Donald Trump rally
Audiences at Trump rallies were overwhelmingly white. Not all were racists, but many of those who were advertised it on T-shirts: “MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN.” Confederate flags were commonly displayed.
TV news networks and the Hillary Clinton campaign could have aired–repeatedly–such footage. Had they done so, Americans would have gotten a brutal, firsthand look at the anger and racism inherent in Trump’s candidacy–and followers.
Instead, Trump was allowed to appear on late-night shows like Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show where he was treated with kid gloves for fun and laughs.
Thus, it is pointless to blame any one person (such as Hillary Clinton) or group (such as those who voted for third-party candidates) for Clinton’s loss. Many factors played a part–including some that, to keep this series at a reasonable length, could not be mentioned.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BASKET OF DEPLORABLES SPEECH, BENGHAZI HEARINGS, BERNIE SANDERS, BILL CLINTON, BLACKS, CBS NEWS, CELINDA LAKE, CLINTON FUNDATION, CNN, COLIN POWELL, COMMUNISM, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, EMAIL SERVER, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES WEBB, JOSEPH STALIN, KARL MARX, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LIBYA, MAO ZEDONG, MICHELLE OBAMA, NBC NEWS, POPULISM, RACISM, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Ronald Reagan, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SOCIALISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM BROKAW, TONIGHT SHOW, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, Vladimir Lenin, WHITES, WHITEWATER, WIKILEAKS, WOMEN, YOUTH
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 17, 2016 at 12:05 am
Fans of Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders have loudly claimed that if he had gotten the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would have crushed Donald Trump at the polls.
Since he didn’t get the nomination, we will never know.
But Sanders would have carried his own negatives–which the Republicans would have gleefully exploited. Among the issues he championed:
- Make college tuition free and debt-free.
- Medicare for all.
- Strengthen and expand Social Security.
Although worthy positions, they would have allowed Republicans to label him a “big-spending liberal.”
In addition, Sanders had labeled himself a “democratic Socialist.” For millions of proudly ignorant Americans, “socialist” means “Communist.” And Fox News and the Republican party would have gladly assured them they were correct.
Liberty Maniacs, a Minnesota-based brand that designs and sells political and satirical apparel, literally cashed in on this image with an eye-catching T-shirt.
It depicted Sanders’ face alongside those of Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. And underneath were the words: “Bernie IS MY COMRADE.”
No doubt Republicans would have flooded the airways with similar images.
Sanders’ partisans continue to insist he was “cheated” out of the nomination by Hillary Clinton. But this still leaves unanswered the question:
If Sanders couldn’t prevail against the alleged ruthlessness of Clinton in the primaries, how could he have done so against Trump in the general election?
As the saying goes: “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
#5 Democrats and liberals fell prey to hubris. They dismissed Donald Trump as a bad joke: Surely voters would reject a bombastic, thrice-married “reality show” host who had filed for corporate bankruptcy four times.
If comments on Facebook are any guide, many liberals believed Clinton would bury him at the polls: Blacks, women, youth and Hispanics will turn out huge for her. Democrats will retake the Senate, and maybe even retake the House.
If many Democrats/liberals didn’t vote, one reason may be that they expected others to do it for them.
#6 The coalition that twice elected Barack Obama deserted Hillary Clinton.
Clinton did worse-than-expected among all the groups she was counting on to support her: Blacks, women, youth and Hispanics.
- In 2012, Obama got 93% of the black vote; in 2016, Clinton got 88%.
- In 2012, Obama got 55% of the women’s vote; in 2016, Clinton won 54%.
- In 2012, Obama got 60% of the vote of those under 30; in 2016, Clinton got 54%.
- In 2012, Obama got 71% of the Hispanic vote; in 2016, Clinton got 65%.
Clinton proved less popular even among whites than Obama: In 2012, Obama won 39% of their votes; in 2016, Clinton won 37%.
#7 For years, Republicans had waged a vicious campaign to demonize Hillary Clinton.
This included even falsely accusing her of conspiring to murder American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya.
Kevin McCarthy, a Republican member of the House of Representatives unintentionally admitted this on Fox News on September 30, 2015:
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today?
“Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
Kevin McCarthy
Thus, McCarthy revealed that:
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body.
- Its true purpose was not to investigate the killings of four American diplomats during a 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
- It’s actual purpose: To destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
#8 Republicans attacked Clinton for using a personal email account–while ignoring that her two Republican predecessors had done the same.
General Colin Powell served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. He not only used a private email account but advised Clinton to do so as she was about to move into the same job in 2009.
Powell’s successor as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, similarly used a private email account during her tenure (2005-2009).
Yet while Republicans hounded Clinton, accusing her of recklessly endangering national security, they totally ignored Powell’s and Rice’s uses of private email accounts.
#9 Trump, adopting the role of a populist, appealed to blue-collar voters. Clinton offered a “love-your-CEO” economic plan–and suffered for it.
Trump visited “Rustbelt” states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and vowed to “bring back” jobs that had been lost to China, such as those in coal mining and manufacturing. Clinton didn’t deign to show up, assuming she had those states “locked up.”
Most economists agree that, in a globalized economy, such jobs are not coming back, no matter who becomes President.
Even so, voters went for the man who promised them a better future, and shunned the woman who didn’t come to promise them any future at all.
In May, Democratic pollster CeLinda Lake had warned Clinton to revamp her economic platform.
“Democrats simply have to come up with a more robust economic frame and message,” Lake said after the election. “We’re never going to win those white, blue-collar voters if we’re not better on the economy. And 27 policy papers and a list of positions is not a frame. We can laugh about it all we want, but Trump had one.”
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BASKET OF DEPLORABLES SPEECH, BENGHAZI HEARINGS, BERNIE SANDERS, BILL CLINTON, BLACKS, CBS NEWS, CELINDA LAKE, CLINTON FUNDATION, CNN, COLIN POWELL, COMMUNISM, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, EMAIL SERVER, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES WEBB, JOSEPH STALIN, KARL MARX, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LIBYA, MAO ZEDONG, MICHELLE OBAMA, NBC NEWS, POPULISM, RACISM, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Ronald Reagan, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SOCIALISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM BROKAW, TONIGHT SHOW, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, Vladimir Lenin, WHITES, WHITEWATER, WIKILEAKS, WOMEN, YOUTH
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 16, 2016 at 12:13 am
Since November 8, Democrats and liberals (the two are not always the same) have been in shock.
“How could this happen?” they keep asking–themselves and others. “How could the country go from electing a brilliant, sophisticated, humane man like Barack Obama to electing an ignorant, coarse, brutal man like Donald Trump?”
Efforts have been made to blame one person/group or another. But the truth is that many factors were involved, and the fallout will be felt for months–if not years–to come.
#1 Hillary Clinton was an uninspiring candidate. When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw compared his rallies to Hannah Montana concerts. Audiences were excited by his charisma, eloquence, relative youth (47) and optimism (“Yes We Can!”).
Clinton radiated none of these qualities. She was 67 when she declared her candidacy for President–and looked it. Her speaking voice grated like the proverbial fingernail on a blackboard.
Hillary Clinton
She seemed to have been around forever–as First Lady (1993-2001), as Senator from New York (2001-2009) and as Secretary of State (2009-2013). Those born after 2000 thought of the Clinton Presidency as ancient history. She was offering a resume–and voters wanted an inspiration.
#2 Clinton brought a lot of baggage with her. In contrast to Obama, whose Presidency had been scandal-free, Clinton–rightly or wrongly–has always been dogged by charges of corruption.
During the Clinton Presidency, a failed land deal–Whitewater–while Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas triggered a seven-year investigation by a Republican special prosecutor. No criminality was uncovered, and no charge was brought against either Clinton.
After leaving the White House, she and her husband set up the Clinton Foundation, a public charity to bring government, businesses and social groups together to solve problems “faster, better, at lower cost.”
As Secretary of State, more than half of Clinton’s meetings with people outside government were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If a “pay-to play” system wasn’t at work, one certainly seemed to be.
She cast further suspicion on herself by her unauthorized use of a private email server. This wasn’t revealed until March, 2015–after she was no longer Secretary of State.
She claimed she had used it to avoid carrying two cell-phones. But, as Secretary of State, she traveled with a huge entourage who carried everything she needed. Her critics believed she used a private email system to hide a “pay-for-pay” relationship with Clinton Foundation donors.
Finally, as a candidate for President, she “secretly” worked with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, to ensure that she would get the nomination.
As DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz was expected to be impartial toward all Democratic candidates seeking the prize. This included Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s chief competitor.
Bernie Sanders
So Sanders and his supporters were outraged when WikiLeaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the DNC.
The emails revealed a clear bias for Clinton and against Sanders. In one email, Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC, suggested that Sanders, who is Jewish, could be portrayed as an atheist.
#3 The Obamas’ support proved a plus/minus for Clinton. Understandably, President Obama wanted to see his legacies continued–and she was the only candidate who could do it.
So he–and his wife, Michelle–stormed the country, giving eloquent, passionate speeches and firing up crowds on Clinton’s behalf.
President Barack Obama
So long as either Obama stood before a crowd, the magic lasted. But once the event was over, the excitement vanished. Hillary simply didn’t arouse enough passion to keep it going.
And when Obama supporters compared the President and First Lady with Clinton, they found her wanting–in attractiveness, grace, eloquence, trustworthiness and the ability to inspire.
#4 Not enough Democrats entered the Presidential race. Among those few who did:
- Martin O’Malley, former governor of Maryland;
- Lincoln Chaffee, former governor of Rhode Island;
- James Webb, former U.S. Senator from Virginia;
- Lawrence Lessig, professor at Harvard Law School;
- Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders;
- and former First Lady/U.S. Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Of these candidates, it’s worth noting that O’Malley withdrew during the primaries. Chaffee, Webb and Lessig withdrew before the primaries started.
Many liberals wanted Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren to run. As a specialist in consumer protection, she had become a leading figure in the Democratic party and a favorite among progressives.
But, without giving a reason, she declined to do so.
Thus, at least on the Democratic side, the stage was already set at the outset of the race.
No matter who the Republican nominee would be, the Democratic one would be Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
Sanders fans have loudly claimed that if only he had gotten the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would have crushed Trump at the polls.
But Sanders would have carried big negatives as well–which the Republicans would have gleefully exploited.
These will be explored in Part Two of this continuing series.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, GENOCIDE, HITLER-STALIN NONAGGRESSION PACT, HOLOCAUST, HOLOCAUST MUSEUM, JAMES COMEY, JEWS, JOSEPH STALIN, NATO, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, POLAND, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 2, 2016 at 1:07 am
Everybody, it seems, hates genocide. But not everybody owns up to it.
FBI Director James Comey found this out firsthand.
On April 16, 2015, he published an Opinion piece in The Washington Post, entitled: “Why I Require FBI agents to Visit the Holocaust Museum.”
Comey wants them to see the horrors that result when those who are entrusted with using the law to protect instead turn it into an instrument of evil.
FBI Director James Comey
And he wants agents to “see humanity and what we are capable of.”
“Good people helped murder millions,” he wrote.
“And that’s the most frightening lesson of all–that our very humanity made us capable of, even susceptible to, surrendering our individual moral authority to the group, where it can be hijacked by evil.
“Of being so cowed by those in power. Of convincing ourselves of nearly anything.
“In their minds, the murderers and accomplices of Germany, and Poland, and Hungary, and so many, many other places didn’t do something evil.
“They convinced themselves it was the right thing to do, the thing they had to do. That’s what people do. And that should truly frighten us.”
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
It was these paragraphs that landed Comey in diplomatic hot water.
Click here: Why I require FBI agents to visit the Holocaust Museum – The Washington Post
On April 19–three days after the editorial appeared–Poland’s Foreign Ministry urgently summoned Stephen Mull, the U.S. Ambassador to Warsaw, to “protest and demand an apology.”
The reason: The FBI director had dared to say that Poles were accomplices in the Holocaust!
Poland’s ambassador to the United States said in a statement the remarks were “unacceptable.”
And he added that he had sent a letter to Comey “protesting the falsification of history, especially …accusing Poles of perpetuating crimes which not only they did not commit, but which they themselves were victims of.”
Shortly after Poland’s announcement, Stephen Mull, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, told reporters he would contact the FBI about the situation.
“Suggestions that Poland, or any other country apart from the Nazi Germany was responsible for the Holocaust are wrong, harmful and offensive,” he said, speaking in Polish.
And he emphasized that Comey’s remarks didn’t reflect the views of the Obama administration.
In fact, Comey’s remarks were dead-on accurate.
And Mull’s were a craven act of Political Correctness.
But at least one Polish citizen was not offended by Comey’s editorial.
Jan Grabowski
Jan Grabowski, 50, is a graduate of Warsaw University and is currently a history professor at University of Ottawa. He is also the son of a Holocaust survivor.
He has suffered death threats, is boycotted in the Canadian Polish community where he lives today, and is not always welcome even in his homeland.
But he will not be intimidated from speaking and writing the truth about those in Poland who enthusiastically collaborated with Nazis to slaughter Jews during World War II.
Over the years, he has published several books on this subject. And his latest one is certain to outrage many of his countrymen. His new book, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland, was published in October, 2014.
“I tried to understand how only very few of those Jews who decided to hide were able to stay alive until 1945,” said Grabowski in an interview with The Times of Israel.
“The purpose of my research was to discover the condition of the Jews who managed to avoid being sent to death camps and chose to live in hiding. My research brought me to the level of individual cases of people who chose to hide.”
It took Grabowski more than three years to research and write his book. He interviewed Holocaust survivors and local residents, primarily in Poland, Israel and Germany.
“It is more complicated than just blaming the Poles for betraying their Jewish neighbors,” said Grabowski.
“On the one hand there were extraordinarily brave Poles who risked their lives to save Jews, and on the other hand there was no great love between Poles and Jews before World War II.
“During the war these relationships became even more hostile. A large segment of the Polish population was displeased with their neighbors’ help to the Jews during the war, and for many it seemed even as an unpatriotic step.
“Therefore, some segments of the Polish population took an active part in the hunt for the Jews, and that is what the new book deals with.”
Many Poles still refuse to acknowledge the the collaboration of so many of their countrymen with the perpetrators of the Holocaust. It’s a role often played by nations that don’t want to acknowledge their past criminality.
During the Nuremberg war crimes trials, Russian judges representing the Soviet Union successfully lobbied to conceal a vital historical truth.
In late August, 1939, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had negotiated a “non-aggression pact” with Adolf Hitler. That was known.
But a secret protocol of that agreement dictated that Germany could conquer only the western half of Poland. The eastern half of that country would be occupied by the Red Army.
As long as politicians’ fragile egos are at stake, genocide will continue to be a matter of state policy–and a disowned one.
2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMMUNIST CHINA, CONFRONT AND CONCEAL, DAVID E. SANGER, DICK CHENEY, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS), JOSEPH STALIN, NBC NEWS, NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, REPUBLICANS, SADDAM HUSSEIN, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PENTAGON, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WALL STREET, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 12, 2016 at 12:22 am
Psssst! The Republicans and Chinese Communists (“Chi-Coms”) have something in common.
They both much preferred the foreign policy of George W. Bush to that of Barack Obama.
It’s one of the many fascinating revelations offered in Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Uses of America Power.
The author is David E. Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Early in 2011, Sanger had lunch at the Central Party School outside Beijing. This is where the party’s leadership debates questions that are thought too controversial to air in public.
A retired general in the People’s Liberation Army sat down next to Sanger and, in a relaxed moment of candor, said:
“I sat through many meetings of the People’s Liberation Army in the 80s and 90s where we tried to imagine what your military forces would look like in 10 to 20 years.
“But frankly, we never thought that you would spend trillions of dollars and so much time tied down in Afghanistan and the Middle East. We never imagined that as a choice you would make.”
Chinese military parade
And, writes Sanger: “Not so secretly, the Chinese were delighted by the Bush-era wars. The longer the United States was bogged down trying to build democracies in foreign lands, the less capable it was of competing in China’s backyard.
“But now that America was emerging from a lost decade in the Middle East, the Chinese began to ask: How should China respond? With cooperation, confrontation, or something in-between?”
And the Chinese were equally thrilled that the United States had squandered so much of its treasury during the eight-year Bush Presidency.
In the decade following 9/11, the Pentagon went on an unprecedented spending binge. The defense budget grew by 67%, to levels 50% higher than it had been per average year during the Cold War.
According to Sanger: “An estimate [the New York Times] put together for the tenth anniversary of the [9/11] attacks suggested that the United States had spent at least $3.3 trillion.”
These monies had gone on
- securing the country;
- invading and trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq; and
- caring for wounded American soldiers.
“Put another way,” writes Sanger, “for every dollar al-Qaeda spent destroying the World Trade Center and attacking the Pentagon, America had spent $6.6 million in response.
“The annual Pentagon budget of $700 billion was equivalent to the combined spending of the next twenty largest military powers….
“The world had come to expect that America would underwrite global security, regardless of the cost. Obama was determined to change that mind-set.”
In short, America became financially and militarily vulnerable during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
And this flatly contradicts the standard Republican line: Obama is a weak President–and is betraying us to the (pick one or both) Muslims/Communists.
It also speaks volumes that the two most important members of the George W. Bush administration declined to attend the 2012 Republican National Convention. Just as they declined to attend the 2016 one.
That, of course, meant former President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
And why was that? Perhaps it’s because polls show that a majority of Americans continue
- To blame Bush for lying the country into a needless, bloody and expensive war with Iraq.
- To blame him for presiding over the 2008 Wall Street meltdown.
- To see Dick Cheney as the Dr. Strangelovian manipulator of George W. Bush.
Even former President George H.W. Bush said he wouldn’t attend the convention.
It’s possible that Bush, Sr., didn’t want to serve as a reminder that his son left the White House with the lowest popularity rating of any modern President.
And that was just fine with those planning to attend the convention–especially its nominee-to-be, Mitt Romney.
They wanted to do with George W. Bush what Nikita Khrushchev and his fellow Communists did with the embarrassing Joseph Stalin: Bury him far from public view.
Romney certainly didn’t want the viewing audience to be reminded that the United States sharply declined in wealth and prestige during the eight-year reign of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress.
Romney and his fellow conventioneers also didn’t want to remind the country of something else: That Obama has spent most of his own Presidency trying to undo the harm his predecessor did, in both foreign and domestic policy.
Thus, now approaching the 2016 election, the Republican party finds itself torn.
Its leaders want Americans to believe that Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the Republic. Donald Trump, its nominee for President, has even accused Obama of being “the founder of ISIS.”
This ignores that ISIS didn’t join Al-Qaeda until October, 2004–more than a year after Bush invaded Iraq. And that it was Bush’s destruction of Iraqi stability under Saddam Hussein that enabled ISIS to spread like a cancer throughout Iraq and Syria.
So while Republicans rail that Obama is the worst President in American history, they know that most Americans believe that title goes to the last Republican one.
1984 (BOOK), ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE ORWELL, GEORGE W. BUSH, GHAZALA KHAN, GREAT SOVIET ENCYCLOPEDIA, HILLARY CLINTON, HISTORY, HUMAYUN KHAN, JOSEPH STALIN, KATRINA PIERSON, KHIZR KHAN, LAVRENTI BERIA, NBC NEWS, NKVD, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTONPOST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 4, 2016 at 12:21 am
At one time, Americans believed that the wholesale rewriting of history happened only in the Soviet Union.
A classic example of this occurred in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Lavrenti Beria had been head of the NKVD, the dreaded secret police, from 1938 to 1953. In 1953, following the death of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, Beria was arrested and executed on orders of his fellow Communist Party leaders, who feared they were targets of a coming purge.
Lavrenti Beria
But the Great Soviet Encyclopedia had just gone to press with a long article singing Beria’s praises.
What to do?
The editors of the Encyclopedia wrote an equally long article about “the Bering Straits,” which was to be pasted over the article about Beria, and sent this off to its subscribers. An unknown number of them decided it was safer to paste accordingly.
Today, the Republican party is furiously rewriting history in a desperate attempt to win the 2016 Presidential election.
Specifically, its members are now trying to convince Americans that:
- Donald Trump, their nominee for President, did not insult the parents of Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed by a truck-bomb in Iraq in 2004; and/or
- Barack Obama is responsible for Khan’s death. And so is Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
That is history according to Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson.
Since July 28, Trump has found himself embroiled in a no-win war-of-words 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.”
Trump predictably responded during a July 30 interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.
“I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices,” said Trump. “I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs.”
And, on Twitter, he posted: “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!”
Trump has been bitterly attacked by veterans’ organizations for his running feud with the Khan family.
Republicans are desperate for Trump to end the conflict and return to attacking his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Presumably, 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 abord 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 has been to turn Trump’s spokeswoman into a nationwide laughingstock. And her efforts to rewrite history have not helped Trump.
On August 3, 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 has no connection to the Khans.
Later on CNN, Anderson Cooper 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 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.
&docid=EPok_ZIEc87UzM&tbnid=Mz_XfR6ARm69rM%3A&vet=1&w=215&h=309&bih=469&biw=819&ved=0ahUKEwj-7_me_6zQAhXrwlQKHXAtCcIQxiAIAg&iact=c&ictx=1)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AP, BBC, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DIMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, GREAT TERROR, JAMES COMEY, JEFF SESSIONS, JOSEPH STALIN, KEITH SCHILLER, MIKE FLYNN, MIKHAIL TUKHACHEVESKY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, NIKOLAI ZHILAYEV, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROBERT MEULLER 111, ROD ROSENSTEIN, RUSSIAN ESPIONAGEky, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, SERGEY KISLYAK, SERGEY LAVOV, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DISCOURSES, 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, UPI, USA TODAY, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR 11, WORLD WAR ii
THREE HEROES, TWO VILLAINS: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 6, 2017 at 12:02 am…A truly great man is ever the same under all circumstances. And if his fortune varies, exalting him at one moment and oppressing him at another, he himself never varies, but always preserves a firm courage, which is so closely interwoven with his character that everyone can readily see that the fickleness of fortune has no power over him.
The conduct of weak men is very different. Made vain and intoxicated by good fortune, they attribute their success to merits which they do not possess. And this makes them odious and insupportable to all around them. And when they have afterwards to meet a reverse of fortune, they quickly fall into the other extreme, and become abject and vile.
–Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses
Three heroes, two villains.
Two of the heroes are Russian; the third is an American.
The villains: One Russian (actually, Georgian); one American.
First up–in order of disappearance: Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky (pronounced too-ka-chev-sky)
Tukhachevsky (February 4, 1893 – June 12, 1937) was a leading Soviet military leader and theoretician from 1918 to 1937.
He commanded the Soviet Western Front during the Russian-Polish War (1920-21) and served as Chief of Staff of the Red Army (1925-1928).
He fought to modernize Soviet armament, as well as develop airborne, aviation and mechanized forces. Almost singlehandedly, he created the theory of deep operations for Soviet forces.
Mikhail Tukhachevsky
All of these innovations would reap huge dividends when the Soviet Union faced the lethal fury of Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht.
In 1936, Tukhachevsky warned Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin that Nazi Germany might attack without warning–and ignite a long and murderous war.
Stalin–the son of a Georgian cobbler–resented Tukhachevsky’s coming from a noble family. A monumental egomaniac, he also hated that Tukhachevesky’s fame rivaled his own.
Warned of the approaching German danger, Stalin shouted: “What are you trying to do–frighten Soviet authority?”
Joseph Stalin
The attack that Tukhachevsky warned against came five years later on June 22, 1941, leaving at least 20 million Russians dead.
But Tukhachevsky wasn’t alive to command a defense.
The 1930s were a frightening and dangerous time to be alive in the Soviet Union. In 1934, Stalin, seeing imaginary enemies everywhere, ordered a series of purges that lasted right up to the German invasion.
In 1937-38, the Red Army fell prey to Stalin’s paranoia.
Its victims included:
And heading the list of those marked for death was Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
Arrested on May 22, 1937, he was interrogated and tortured. As a result, he “confessed” to being a German agent plotting to overthrow Stalin and seize power.
On his confession, which survives in the archives, his bloodstains can clearly be seen.
On June 11, the Soviet Supreme Court convened a special military tribunal to try Tukhachevsky and eight generals for treason.
It was a sham: The accused were denied defense attorneys, and could not appeal the verdict–which was foregone: Death.
In a Russian version of poetic justice, five of the eight generals who served as Tukhachevsky’s judges were themselves later condemned and executed as traitors.
Within hours of the verdict, Tukhachevsky was summoned from his cell and shot once in the back of the head.
From 1937 until 1956, Tukhachevsky was officially declared a traitor and fifth-columnist.
Then, on February 25, 1957, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev delivered his bombshell “Secret Speech” to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
In this, he denounced Stalin (who had died in 1953) as a ruthless tyrant responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children. He condemned Stalin for creating a “personality cult” around himself, and for so weakening the Red Army that Nazi Germany was able to easily overrun half of the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1943.
On January 31, 1957, Tukhachevsky and his co-defendants were declared innocent of all charges and were “rehabilitated.”
Today, he is once again considered a Russian hero and military genius.
Next hero: Nikolai Sergeyvich Zhilayev (pronounced Zill-lay-ev)
Zhilayev (November 18, 1881 – January 20, 1938) was a Russian musicologist and the teacher of several 20th-century Russian composers. Among these: Dimitri Shostakovich.
Zhilayev, a member of the Russian Academy of Art-Sciences, taught at the Moscow Conservatory. Among his friends–to his ultimate misfortune–was Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
In 1938, he, too, became a casualty of what has become known as The Great Terror.
In his posthumously-published memoirs, Testimony, Shostakovich, his pupil and friend, described how Zhilayev faced his end with a calmness that awed even the NKVD (the predecessor to the KGB) secret police sent to arrest him.
Share this: