Posts Tagged ‘VLADIMIR PUTIN’
ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, KGB, KIM JONG-UN, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO), NPR, POLITICO, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 15, 2016 at 1:20 am
Donald Trump spent five years slandering Barack Obama as “the President from Kenya.”
And now it appears that the United States is on the brink of inaugurating him as “the President from Vladimir Putin.”
On December 14, NBC News reported that “U.S. intelligence officials now believe with ‘a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.”
According to senior Intelligence officials, Putin had several motives:
- Waging a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, whom he has long disliked;
- Publicly disgrace the United States by revealing corruption at the heart of its politics; and
- “Split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore.”
The CIA believes that Putin wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI isn’t so certain, feeling that Putin might have simply wanted to do as much harm as possible.
Even so, an air of unreality clings to all of this.
The bromance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been well-known for more than a year.
On June 2, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said exactly that to an audience in San Diego, California:
“And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald [Trump’s] bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.
“He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.
“He said, ‘You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit’ for taking over North Korea–something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.
“And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A. Now, I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants,” said Clinton.
To many people, it’s the ultimate odd-couple: The lifelong Communist and former KGB officer (Putin) walking arm-in-arm with the billionaire, publicity-hungry capitalist (Trump).
First Putin:
“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.
“He is saying that he wants to move to a different level of relations with Russia, to a closer, deeper one. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome that.”

Vladimir Putin
Now Trump:
“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
Appearing on the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, [he’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.
And Trump has gone well beyond handing out compliments.
On July 22, 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.
And how did Trump react?
By declaring, at a press conference in Doral, Florida: “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.
Why would Putin want to back Trump?
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 inform them: “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
For Putin, this clearly signaled a reason to prefer Trump to Clinton. The withdrawal of the United States from NATO would instantly render that alliance kaput. Its European members don’t have the armed forces to match Russia’s–nor Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal.
As January 20, 2017, rapidly approaches, America faces a stark choice: Empower a man elected with help from a hostile power–or declare him ineligible as a result.
1991 GULF WAR, 2003 IRAQ WAR, 2016 ELECTION, 9/11, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CLINTON FOUNDATION, CNN, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, EMAIL SERVER, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GLASS-STEAGALL ACT, HILLARY CLINTON, HURRICANE KATRINA, JEB BUSH, KUWAIT, MICHAEL BROWN, MONICA LEWINSKY, NBC NEWS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, Ronald Reagan, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SAUDI ARABIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIMOTHY MCVEIGH, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WHITEWATER
In History, Politics, Social commentary on November 9, 2016 at 11:38 am
If there is one thing Republicans, Democrats and Independents can agree on, it’s this: 2016 gave America perhaps its most divisive Presidential election in modern history.
Many pundits have correctly noted that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump–especially Trump–brought a coarseness to the election never before seen.
Saturday Night Live brutally captured this in a series of skits featuring Alec Baldwin as Trump and Kate McKinnon as Clinton.

But if basic civility proved a casualty of this campaign, there were two other casualties that the overwhelming majority of Americans will be glad to see finally buried: The Bush and Clinton family political dynasties.
Since 1980–36 years ago–there has been only one American Presidential election that did not feature a Bush or Clinton as a candidate. Consider:
- 1980: George H.W. Bush–first as a Presidential candidate; then, losing the Republican nomination to Ronald Reagan, as Reagan’s pick for Vice President.
- 1984: Bush--as Reagan’s continued choice as Vice President.
- 1988: Bush–as Reagan’s anointed choice for President, and then serving as President for four years.
- 1992: Bush--as President running for a second term, only to be defeated by Bill Clinton, whose star now rises.
- 1996: Clinton–as President, running for and winning a second term until 2001.
- 2000: George W. Bush, son of the former President and Governor of Texas, runs for and wins the Presidency.
- 2004: Bush, running for a second term and winning it.
- 2008: Hillary Clinton–former First Lady and now New York Senator runs for the Democratic nomination and loses it to Barack Obama. Even so, he picks her to be his Secretary of State for the next four years.
- 2012: The only Presidential election year since 1980 when neither a Bush nor a Clinton is a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.
- 2016: Jeb Bush–son of George H.W. and brother to George W., he seeks the Republican nomination but is easily humiliated and defeated by Trump.
- 2016: Hillary Clinton–having resigned as Secretary of State, she wins the Democratic nomination and loses the race to Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Among the “legacies” of both the Clintons and the Bushes:
- George H.W. Bush: Sends a half-million American troops to Saudi Arabia to “liberate” Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. The real reason: To secure continued American access to Kuwaiti oil.

George H.W. Bush
- Presides over one of the worst recessions in American history–causing him to lose the 1992 Presidential election.
- Bill Clinton: “Romances” White House intern Monica Lewinsky–and gets impeached (but not convicted) for it.

Bill Clinton
- Repeals FDR’s Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking. This allows big banks to merge, becoming “too big to fail”–and sets the stage for the 2008 financial meltdown.
- After Right-wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh blows up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, Clinton refuses to condemn Republicans’ 50-years’ demonizing of government that is largely responsible for it.
- George W. Bush: Repeatedly ignores intelligence warnings of a coming attack by Al Qaeda, which results in the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

George W. Bush
- Lies the United States into a needless war in Iraq, which costs the lives of 4,486 Americans and costs the treasury at least $2 trillion.
- Assures his fellow Americans that he has “looked into the soul” of Vladimir Putin and found him a man “very straightforward and trustworthy.”
- After Hurricane Katrina devastates New Orleans, his Federal Emergency Management Agency–staffed with political hacks–bungles getting desperately-needed aid to America’s stricken citizens. Bush famously congratulates FEMA Director Michael Brown: “Heck of a job, Brownie.”
- Hillary Clinton: As First Lady, refuses to release documents about Whitewater, a failed Arkansas land deal. This brings on a needless, seven-year investigation by a Republican special prosecutor which turns up–nothing.

Hillary 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 are with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If there isn’t a “pay-to play” system at work, there certainly is the appearance of one.
- Clinton casts further suspicion on herself by her unauthorized use of a private email server. She claims it’s so she doesn’t have to carry two cell-phones. But, as Secretary of State, she travels with a huge entourage who carry everything she needs.
- As a candidate for President, she “secretly” works with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, to ensure that she will get the nomination.
- She wins the nomination–but is so unpopular she loses to Donald Trump by an overwhelming margin in the Electoral College.
Millions of liberals and Democrats are no doubt dismayed at the outcome of the 2016 election.
And Republicans who sided with Trump will now find themselves at odds with those who refused to do so.
But Democrats and Republicans alike can rejoice that these two embarrassing–and disastrous–family political dynasties have finally been swept into the ashcan of history.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE, ANTONIN SCALIA, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHILE, CIA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HENRY KISSINGER, HILLARY CLINTON, KIM JONG-UN, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, ROBERT PAYNE, SALVADOR ALLENDE, SOCIALIST REICH PARTY (SPR), TEAMSTERS UNION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S. SENATE, U.S. SUPREME COURT, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 7, 2016 at 9:19 am
On September 4, 1970, Salvador Allende, a physician and politician, became the 30th President of Chile.
More importantly, he became the first Marxist to win leadership of a Latin American country in a free election.

Salvador Allende
Once in office, Allende began carrying out his socialist agenda. This included:
- Nationalizing large-scale industries (notably banking and copper mining);
- Government administration of the educational and health care systems;
- Providing free milk for children in the schools and shanty towns of Chile;
- Allocating 3,000 scholarships to Mapuchechildren to integrate the Indian minority into the educational system; and
- Establishing an obligatory minimum wage for workers of all ages (including apprentices).
For staunchly anti-Communist President Richard Nixon, the rise of Allende to such power was a nightmare. In September, 1970, he authorized the CIA to spend $10 million to prevent Allende from gaining power–or to overthrow him if he did.
After failing to prevent Allende from winning a democratic election, the CIA plotted to replace him with a military junta.
Henry Kissinger, then acting as Nixon’s national security adviser, infamously said: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

Henry Kissinger
On September 11, 1973, the Chilean military, aided by the United States and the CIA, staged a coup against Allende.
Allende committed suicide or was shot to death (accounts vary) and a brutal military tyranny under General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was quickly installed.
Only in 1990 was democracy restored in Chile.
So what does a Henry Kissinger remark made 43 years ago have to do with the 2016 American Presidential election?
A November 5 CNN opinion piece explains it best.
Titled, “The World Is Watching America’s Election,” the article noted: “Many months ago” people around the world “sounded a mixture of entertained and puzzled by the campaign.
“People were asking ‘Who is Donald Trump?’ ‘What are Hillary Clinton’s chances?’”
But American elections affect more than Americans–they affect millions of people in countries throughout the world.
“Increasingly, the amusement and befuddlement have given way to alarm and disgust. And in authoritarian countries where ‘democracy’ comes in quotation marks, authorities are deriving visible pleasure from describing American democracy as a chaotic sham.”
During a trip to Japan in May, President Barack Obama said he had found global leaders “rattled” by the rise of Trump.

Donald Trump
Especially alarming to many Americans has been the mutual admiration society among Trump and foreign dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong On.
Click here: The world is watching America’s election (Opinion) – CNN.com
In his bestselling 1973 biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, British historian Robert Payne harshly condemned the German people for the rise of the Nazi dictator.
To America’s shame, much of what he wrote about the Germans now applies to those Americans supporting Trump:

“[They] allowed themselves to be seduced by him and came to enjoy the experience….[They] followed him with joy and enthusiasm because he gave them license to pillage and murder to their hearts’ content. They were his servile accomplices, his willing victims….
“If he answered their suppressed desires, it was not because he shared them, but because he could make use of them. He despised the German people, for they were merely the instruments of his will.
“Many Germans voted against Hitler but few fought actively against him, and of these even fewer fought with clean weapons and clear consciences.”
There is a very real danger that millions of ignorant, hate-filled, Right-wing Americans will catapult Donald Trump–a man without kindness or charity–into the Presidency.
And that this man–who apparently received no love, and can give no love–will assume all the awesome power that goes with that office.
Thus, to rephrase Kissinger: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Fascist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”
A first step in that direction would be the legal abolishing of the Republican party as a threat to the American democratic system.
For example: Several Republican Senators, including John McCain, have openly boasted that even if Hillary Clinton becomes President, they will prevent her from filling the Supreme Court seat left vacant in February by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
It’s the President’s duty to nominate Supreme Court Justices–and the Senate’s to vote Yes or No to confirm them.
Ignoring the mandate of a national election and refusing to carry out their Constitutionally-assigned duties is a flagrant violation of their oaths of office.
And that is, in itself, sufficient cause for their removal from office.
To rephrase what Robert F. Kennedy once said about the underworld-dominated Teamsters Union: “Quite literally, your life–the life of every person in the United States–is in the hands of the Republicans and their followers.”
In Germany, the Socialist Reich Party (SPR)–an heir to the Nazi party–has been banned since 1952. Yet Germany remains a strong force for democracy in Europe.
In America, it’s time to remove Right-wing totalitarians–and the dangers they represent to democratic government–from the levers of power they now hold.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ASHLEY MADISON, BENGHAZI, BERNIE SANDERS, BOBBY MOOK, CBS NEWS, CNN, CYBERSECURITY, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, EMAILS, FACEBOOK, FORTUNE, HACKING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUFFINGTON POST, LATINOS, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM BROKAW, TWITTER, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. UNCUT, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WHITEWATER, WIKILEAKS, WOMEN
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 3, 2016 at 12:02 am
The signs were there long before Wikileaks confirmed them.
Even the most casual observer of politics could see the aren’t-we-cute? relationship between Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Clinton, of course, was the former First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York and Secretary of State under President Barack Obama. She was also, by popular consensus, the candidate to beat for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination.
And Wasserman-Schultz was the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Nobody expected Clinton to act impartially. But that was the expectation demanded of Wasserman-Schultz.
There were, after all, other Democrats besides Clinton seeking their party’s nomination–the most prominent of these being Bernie Sanders, the U.S. Senator from Vermont.

Bernie Sanders
Yet Wasserman-Schultz made no effort to hide her clear bias on behalf of Clinton.
On December 18, 2015, writing in The Huffington Post, political blogger Miles Mogulescu sounded a warning:
“It’s increasingly clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, isn’t acting as a neutral party Chair, trying to insure a fair and democratic primary and building the Democratic Party in the states.
“Rather, she’s acting as a shill for Hillary Clinton, doing everything in her power to ensure that no one will effectively challenge Hillary’s coronation as the nominee.”

Hillary Clinton
Two days later, on December 20, 2015, the website, U.S. Uncut published an article:
5 TIMES DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ VIOLATED DNC RULES AND STACKED THE DECK IN FAVOR OF CLINTON.
The article bluntly stated that Wasserman-Schultz “has made a name for herself among many Democratic voters as a shill for the Clinton machine.” And then it offered five specific examples to back up this assertion:
- Scheduling primary debates to garner as few viewers as possible–and thus “circle the wagons” around the front-running Clinton.
- Locating grassroots Clinton field offices at DNC offices.
- Shutting off Bernie Sanders’ access to the DNC’s voter database, thus crippling his ground strategy.
- Raising money for the Clinton campaign via a top DNC official.
- Lining up Superdelegates for Clinton before the first primary debate.
So no one should have been surprised when the full dimensions of the truth were finally revealed on July 22, 2016.
That was when Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the DNC.
The emails had been exchanged from January 2015 through May 2016. And they clearly revealed a bias for Hillary Clinton and against Sanders.
One email revealed that Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC, suggested that Sanders, who is Jewish, could be portrayed as an atheist.
Sanders’ supporters had long charged that the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz had undercut his campaign. Now they had the evidence in black-and-white.
The leak badly embarrassed Clinton. About to receive the Democratic nomination for President, she found herself charged with undermining the electoral process.
Wasserman-Schultz proved the first casualty of the leak, resigning as chair of the DNC and saying she would not open the Democratic convention as previously scheduled.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
Clinton’s campaign manager, Bobby Mook, put his best spin on the scandal: He blamed the Russians for the leak. Their alleged motive–to help Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Cyber-security experts believed the hackers originated from Russia–and that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have authorized it.
Perhaps the worst mistake of the DNC was not putting so many embarrassing emails into computers.
Its worst was favoring Hillary Clinton above all other Presidential candidates.
On August 31, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years.
A July 6 Fortune story sheds light on “Why Trump and Clinton Are America’s Most Disliked Presidential Candidates.”
Trump: “After making comments insulting Muslims, Latinos and women, Trump has been unable to fend off charges of racisms and sexism.”
Clinton: “Clinton is dogged by voter mistrust stoked by her handling of classified State Department information on a private email server, the Benghazi hearings, and the long-ago Whitewater scandal.”
And applying to both candidates: “People who exhibit a few instances of socially unacceptable behavior are quickly labeled as deviant and have to commit disproportionately many more acceptable behaviors to restore their reputation.”
Since October, Trump has been dogged by his admission of sexually predatory behavior toward women: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful–I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
At least a dozen women have since charged him with making unwanted sexual advances.
Such revelations would normally prove the kiss of death for any Presidential candidate.
Had the Democrats chosen a genuinely popular candidate–or at least one who was not so widely hated as Clinton–the electoral map would now look very different.
But as matters now stand, Trump and Clinton seem locked dead-even in the polls.
In 2008, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw compared the Presidential campaign rallies of then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama to popular Hannah Montana concerts.
In 2016, not even the most partisan Democrats would make such a remark about Clinton.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 28, 2016 at 12:02 am
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton disagree on everything–except that the United States should intervene to stop Syrians from slaughtering one another.
In fact, there are ten excellent reasons for withdrawing American soldiers from their current war on ISIS forces in Syria.
1. It’s been only five years since the United States disengaged from its disastrous war in Iraq. On December 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–killed 4,487 service members and wounded another 32,226.
2. The United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan. Although the American military role formally ended in December, 2014, airstrikes against Taliban positions continue and U.S. troops remain in combat positions.
U.S. Special Operations troops, serving as advisors and trainers of struggling Afghan government forces, still unleash military operations against the Taliban.
3. Intervening in Syria could produce unintended consequences for American forces-and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism. American bombs or missiles could land on one or more sites containing stockpiles of chemical weapons. Imagine the international outrage that will result if the release of those weapons kills hundreds or thousands of Syrians.

U.S. warship firing Tomahawk Cruise missile
Within the Islamic world, the United States will once again be seen as waging a war against Islam, and not simply another Islamic dictator.
4. Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism. Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.

Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–“Carlos the Jackal”
5. There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–only murderers who have long served a tyrant or now wish to support the next tyrant. With no history of democratic government, Syrians aren’t thirsting for one now.
6. The United States had no part in creating the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashir al-Assad.
Thus, Americans have no moral obligation to support those Syrians trying to overthrow it since 2011.
7. The United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.”
But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what his “state policy” is toward Syria. He’s said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
8. The Assad regime is backed by–among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hezbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Americans.

Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. Besides plotting 9/11, It has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis.
Examples of these sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.

Flag of Al Qaeda
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
9. The United States could find itself in a shooting war with Russia.
The Russians have shipped bombers, tanks and artillery units to Syria, in addition to hundreds of Russian troops. This is an all-out effort by Russian President Vladimir Putin to bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime–and show that Russia is once again a “major player.”
What happens if American and Russian tanks and/or artillery units start trading salvos? Or if Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War l.
But there’s a difference between 1914 and 2015: Today’s Great Powers have nuclear arsenals.
10. While Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
Every dead supporter of Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda–or ISIS–makes the United States that much safer.
The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.
When Al-Qaeda blows up civilians in Damascus, their relatives will urge Hezbollah to take brutal revenge. And Hezbollah will do so.
Similarly, when Hezbollah destroys a mosque, those who support Al-Qaeda will demand even more brutal reprisals against Hezbollah.
No American could instill such hatred in Al-Qaeda for Hezbollah–or vice versa. This is entirely a war of religious and sectarian hatred.
This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 5, 2016 at 12:04 am
According to Micheal Scheuer, America needs to end its role as Israel’s permanent bodyguard.
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security on October 9, 2013, Scheuer warned:
“If it was up to me, I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow. All I worry about is that continuing preaching of American politicians to the American people that our relationship with the Israelis doesn’t cause us to have dead Americans and extraordinary expenses in fighting the Muslim world.”

Michael Scheuer
For decades, the United States has pursued two policies in the Middle East, one based on relations with the Arab world and the other based on relations with Israel.
Policy 1: Maintaining access to vast amounts of Arab oil at low prices.
Policy 2: Maintaining the security of Israel.
Since the Arabs and Israelis hate each other, each side constantly tries to sway American support in its direction.
Every step the United States takes to defend Israel–diplomatically or militarily–ignites hatred of Americans among Islamics.
And every step–diplomatically or militarily–the United States takes to improve its relations with Islamic countries convinces Israelis that they’re being “sold out.”
President George W. Bush tilted strongly toward Israel. That convinced Israelis to go on building settlements in occupied Arab territory–and alienated the Arabs.
President Barack Obama, seeking a balanced approach, leaned heavily on Israel to stop building settlements. This alienated the Israelis–who continued building settlements–while leaving the Arabs enraged.
In short: The United States is like a giant who has one foot stuck in Israel and the other stuck in any Islamic country–leaving his private parts fully exposed to whichever side wants to take a shot at them.
This is not to deny that Israel has a right to exist. Every nation–including Israel–has the absolute right to defend itself from aggression.
But no nation–including Israel–should have the right to expect another nation to act as its permanent bodyguard.
Millions of Americans believe they are morally obligated to defend Israel owing to the barbarism of the Holocaust. America, however, was never a party to this, and has nothing to atone for.
But there is another reason many Americans feel committed to Israel. And it has nothing to do with concern for the fates of Israelis.
It lies in the mythology of the Christian Right: Many fundamentalist Christians believe that, for Jesus Christ to awaken from his 2,000-year slumber, Israel must first re-conquer every inch of territory it supposedly held during the reign of Kings David and Solomon.

Right-wing Christian fantasy: Dead man hovering
After Christ returns, they believe, the Jews will face a choice: Become Christians or go to hell. For evangelical Christians, Jews remain the eternal “Christ killers.”
And if Jews must assume temporary control of the Middle East to bring about the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, so be it.
This is also the view of many Right-wing members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Clearly, people who hold such totally irrational views shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.
Unfortunately, such unbalanced views are shared by millions of equally irrational evangelical Christians.
During his appearance before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Scheuer absolutely rejected the conservatives’ assertion that jihadists wage war on us because they “hate us for our freedoms.”
SCHEUER: These people are fighting for something substantive, for something religious….They are not going to fight us because we have women in the workplace.
That is an insanity. What they are fighting us about is what we do.
…I would draw your attention to the reality that, to the best of my knowledge, neither we nor any of our NATO partners have yet to capture a Western Islamist fighter whose words or documents have shown a motivation to attack based on hatred for liberty, elections or gender equality.
Invariably, they attribute their motivation to U.S. and Western military intervention and support for Israel and Muslim tyrannies.
Scheuer’s take on Israel brought him into direct conflict with Rep. Peter T. King (R-New York).

Congressman Peter T. King
KING: I would just say we would have more dead Americans if we didn’t stand by our allies in the Middle East. We would just be encourage al-Qaeda to take advantage of us.
SCHEUER: You know, you are presiding over a bankruptcy. What can be worse? What has been the goal of al-Qaeda since it was formed? To bankrupt the United States. Who is winning today, sir? We are done like dinner.
KING: We are winning and we will continue to win unless we take the advice of people like you.
SCHEUER: Sir, you are exactly wrong. We are losing. Two U.S. field armies were defeated by men in the field with weapons from the Korean War.
KING: The fact is we have not been successfully attacked since September 11.
SCHEUER: The fact is, sir, we have had two military defeats overseas, which is far more important.
And, warns Scheuer, more defeats–domestic and international–lie ahead unless the United States radically changes its policies toward the Middle East.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 4, 2016 at 12:04 am
For America to avoid permanent military entanglements in the Middle East, it must learn to mind its own business.
So says Michael Scheuer, a 20-year CIA veteran who, from 1996 to 1999, headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer has repeatedly warned: The United States must not deploy troops in Syria.
More than 310,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
And many members of Congress are demanding that “we must do something” to stop all that killing.
Three reasons have already been given for why America should steer clear of the Syrian tar-baby. Among the others:
Fourth, the Assad regime is backed by–among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hezbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.

Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. Besides plotting 9/11, It has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis.
Examples of these sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.

Flag of Al Qaeda
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
Fifth, intervening in Syria could produce unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
President Obama has repeatedly said American warplanes are targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). But bombing is never as accurate as its proponents insist.
An accidental American strike on Syrian government forces could lead the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.
Assad could do this simply because he hates Jews–or to lure Israel into attacking Syria.
If that happened, the Islamic world–which lusts to destroy Israelis even more than “apostate” Muslims–would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.
Sixth, the United States cannot defeat ISIL through air power alone.
President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIL in September, 2014. Since then, the United States Air Force has dropped thousands of bombs on ISIL convoys.
This has not, however, destroyed ISIL. And its failure to do so has only led to demands by hawkish Republicans and Democrats for “boots on the ground.”
This was in fact predictable. Air power alone failed to secure victory over Nazi Germany during World War II and Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Nor did it “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering during the 2003 Iraq war.
Seventh, while Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
Eighth, China and Russia are fully supporting the Assad dictatorship–-and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens.
Any move by the United States to directly attack the Assad regime could ignite an all-out war with Russia and/or China.
What happens if American and Russian forces start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War l.
Ninth, America’s past efforts in the Middle East have usually gone horribly awry.
Two examples should suffice:
Iran: Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953. His decision to nationalize the Iranian oil industry led to his overthrow in a CIA coup.
He was replaced by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled until 1979 when a national upheaval forced him to flee. Iranians have never forgiven the United States for subjecting them to the 25-year reign of a brutal despot.

Shah of Iran
Afghanistan: In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. America began supplying shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan Mujahideen fighters. These shifted the balance of the war to the Afghans, who brought down countless Soviet airplanes and helicopters.
Deprived of air supremacy, the Soviet Army lost 14,453 killed and 53,753 wounded, and withdrew by 1989.
Americans congratulated themselves on their Realpolitic. But many of the Stingers remained in the hands of jihadists–who decided that America was now “The Great Satan.” One of those jihadists: Osama bin Laden.
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 3, 2016 at 12:02 am
According to Micheal Scheuer, for all their ideological differences, Republicans and Democrats share one belief in common:
“An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.

Michael Scheuer
From 1996 to 1999 he headed Alec Station, the CIA’s unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center.
He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.
And he’s convinced that if America wants peace, it must learn to mind its own business.
He’s also the author of two seminal works on America’s fight against terrorism: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (2003) and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq (2008).
Scheuer says that Islamics don’t hate Americans because of “our way of life”–with its freedoms of speech and worship and its highly secular, commercialized culture.
Instead, Islamic hatred toward the United States stems from America’s six longstanding policies in the Middle East:
- U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments;
- U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula;
- U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall;
- U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low;
- U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; and
- U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
Scheuer contends that no amount of American propaganda will win “the hearts and minds” of Islamics who can “see, hear, experience, and hate” these policies firsthand.
But there is another danger facing America, says Scheuer, one that threatens “the core of our social and civil institutions.”
And in Marching Toward Hell he bluntly indicts that threat: The “profound and willful ignorance” of America’s “bipartisan governing elite.”

Scheuer defines this elite as “the inbred set of individuals who have influenced…drafted and conducted U.S. foreign policy” since 1973.
Within that group are:
- politicians
- journalists
- academics
- preachers
- civil servants
- military officers
- philanthropists.
“Some are Republicans, others Democrats; some are evangelicals, others atheists; some are militarists, others pacifists; some are purveyors of Western civilization, others are multiculturalists,” writes Scheuer.
But for all their political and/or philosophical differences, the members of this governing elite share one belief in common: “An unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
And he warns that this “bipartisan governing elite” must radically change its policies–such as unconditional support for Israel and corrupt, tyrannical Muslim governments.
Otherwise, Americans will be locked in an endless “hot war” with the Islamic world.
On September 28, 2014, President Barack Obama provided an example of this “unquenchable ardor to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations and times.”
In an appearance on 60 Minutes, Obama spoke about his recent decision to commit American troops to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Steve Kroft: I think everybody applauds the efforts that you’ve made and the size of the coalition that has been assembled.
But most of them are contributing money or training or policing the borders, not getting particularly close to the contact. It looks like once again we are leading the operation. We are carrying…
President Obama: Steve, that’s always the case. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation. We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.
And when trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing. They don’t call Moscow. They call us. That’s the deal.

President Barack Obama
Steve Kroft: I mean, it looks like we are doing 90%.
President Obama: Steve…when there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge making sure Haiti can rebuild. That’s how we roll. And that’s what makes this America.
Scheuer believes that America shouldn’t be the world’s 9-1-1 number. And that the place to start is by not deploying troops to Syria.
More than 470,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war. The conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Among the reasons why America should steer clear of the Syrian bloodbath:
First, since 1979, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports: Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safehouse in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–-the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.

Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–“Carlos the Jackal”
Second, there are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–-only murderers who have long served a tyrant and other murderers who now wish to become the next tyrant.
Third, the United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, except “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.” But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what his “state policy” is toward Syria–or what he intends to gain by attacking it.
Obama has said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–-and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CENTRAL AMERICA, CHAING KAI-SHEK, CHINA, CNN, COLUMBIA, COMMUNISM, CRIMEA, CUBA, CZECHOSLAVAKIA, DEMOCRATS, FACEBOOK, GUATEMALA, GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEZBOLLAH, HUNGARY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LATIN AMERICA, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAO TSE-TUNG, MITT ROMNEY, MONROE DOCTRINE, NBC NEWS, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, POLAND, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD M. NIXON, SOCHI OLYMPICS, SOVIET UNION, SPHERES OF INFLUENCE, SYRIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UKRAINE, VIETNAM, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on September 27, 2016 at 12:05 am
It didn’t take much for American Right-wingers to start salivating–and celebrating.
All it took was for Russia to move troops into its neighboring territories of Ukraine and Crimea.
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the American Right felt dejected. Accusing Democrats of being “terrorist-lovers” just hadn’t been as profitable as accusing them of being “Communists.”
The torch had barely gone out at the much-ballyhooed 2014 Sochi Olympics when Russian President Vladimir Putin began menacing the Ukraine.
Even while the Olympics played out on television, Ukrainians had rioted in Kiev and evicted their corrupt, luxury-loving president, Victor Yanukovych.
And this, of course, didn’t sit well with his “sponsor”–Putin.

Yanukovych had rejected a pending European Union association agreement. He had chosen instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.
And that had sat well with Putin.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Putin had yearned for a reestablishment of the same. He had called that breakup “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”
So it was almost a certainty that, when his chosen puppet, Yanukovych, was sent packing, Putin would find some way to retaliate.
And since late February, 2014, he has done so, gradually moving Russian troops into Ukraine and its autonomous republic, Crimea.

Vladimir Putin
By late March, it was clear that Russia had sufficient forces in both Ukraine and Crimea to wreak any amount of destruction Putin may wish to inflict.
And where there is activity by Russians, there are American Rightists eager–in Shakespeare’s word–to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”
Or at least to use such events to their own political advantage.
Right-wingers such as Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachussetts who lost the 2012 Presidential election by a wide margin to Barack Obama.
“There’s no question but that the president’s naiveté with regards to Russia,” said Romney on March 23, 2014.
“And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia’s intentions, the president wasn’t able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you’re seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you’re seeing in Syria.”
All of which overlooks a number of brutal political truths.
First, all great powers have spheres of interest–and jealously guard them.
For the United States, it’s Latin and Central America, as established by the Monroe Doctrine.
And just what is the Monroe Doctrine?
It’s a statement made by President James Monroe in his 1823 annual message to Congress, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.
It has no other legitimacy than the willingness of the United States to use armed force to back it up. When the United States no longer has the will or resources to enforce the Doctrine, it will cease to have meaning.

For the Soviet Union, its spheres of influence include the Ukraine. Long known as “the breadbasket of Russia,” in 2011, it was the world’s third-largest grain exporter.
Russia will no more give up access to that breadbasket than the United States would part with the rich farming states of the Midwest.
Second, spheres of influence often prove disastrous to those smaller countries affected.
Throughout Latin and Central America, the United States remains highly unpopular for its brutal use of “gunboat diplomacy” during the 20th century.

American gunboat
Among those countries invaded or controlled by America: Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
The resulting anger has led many Latin and Central Americans to support Communist Cuba, even though its political oppression and economic failure are universally apparent.
Similarly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) forced many nations–such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslavakia–to submit to the will of Moscow.
The alternative? The threat of Soviet invasion–as occurred in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Third, even “great powers” are not all-powerful.
In 1949, after a long civil war, the forces of Mao Tse-tung defeated the Nationalist armies of Chaing Kai-Shek, who withdrew to Taiwan.
China had never been a territory of the United States. Nor could the United States have prevented Mao from defeating the corrupt, ineptly-led Nationalist forces.
Even so, Republican Senators and Representatives such as Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy eagerly blamed President Harry S. Truman and the Democrats for “losing China.”
The fear of being accused of “losing” another country led Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon to tragically commit the United States to “roll back” Communism in Cuba and Vietnam.
Now Republicans–who claim the United States can’t afford to provide healthcare for its poorest citizens–want to turn the national budget over to the Pentagon.
They want the United States to “intervene” in Syria–even though this civil war pits Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of America’s greatest enemies, against each other.
They want the United States to “intervene” in Ukraine–even though this would mean going to war with the only nuclear power capable of turning America into an atomic graveyard.
Before plunging into conflicts that don’t concern us and where there is absolutely nothing to “win,” Americans would do well to remember the above-stated lessons of history. And to learn from them.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, HUMAN RIGHTS, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN MCCAIN, NBC NEWS, RUSSIA, SYRIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 16, 2016 at 12:19 am
On September 11, 2013, the New York Times published an Op-Ed (guest editorial) from Russian President Vladimir Putin, entitled: “A Plea for Caution from Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.”
No one should be surprised that Putin came out strongly against an American air strike on Syria.
Its “President” (i.e., dictator) Bashir al-Assad, is, after all, a close ally of Russia. Just as his late father and dictator, Hafez al-Assad, was a close ally of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991.

Putin, of course, is a former member of the KGB, the infamous secret police which (under various other names) ruled the Soviet Union from its birth in 1917 to its collapse in 1991.
He grew up under a Communist dictatorship and clearly wishes to return to that era, saying publicly: “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
So it would be unrealistic to expect him to view the current “Syria crisis” the same way that President Barack Obama does.
(A “crisis” for politicians and news media is any event they believe can be exploited for their own purposes.
(In the case of media like CNN–which has devoted enormous coverage to the use of poison gas in Syria–the motive is higher ratings. “If it bleeds, it leads,” goes the saying in the news business.
(In the case of politicians–like Obama and Putin–the motive is to further their own status. And thus power.
(Few politicians really care about the “human rights” of other nations–unless promoting this issue can empower themselves and/or their own nations.
(President Ronald Reagan, for example, often wailed about the Soviets’ oppression of the Polish union, Solidarity–while firing hundreds of unionized air traffic controllers who went on strike.)
In his September 11 guest editorial in the New York Times, Putin offered the expected Russian take on Syria:
- Yes, poison gas was used in Syria.
- No, it wasn’t used by the Syrian Army.
- It was used by “opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons.”
- “There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough [al] Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government.”
But it’s the concluding paragraph that has enraged American politicians the most–especially right-wing ones. In it, Putin takes exception with American “exceptionalism.”

Vladimir Putin
Referring to President Obama, Putin wrote:
“And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’
“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
“There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.
“We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Putin has never publicly shown any interest in religion. But by invoking “the Lord,” he was able to turn the Christian beliefs of his Western audience into a useful weapon.
“I was insulted,” then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters when asked for his blunt reaction to the editorial.
“I have to be honest with you, I was at dinner, and I almost wanted to vomit,” said U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey).
Putin had dared to question the self-righteousness of American foreign policy–and those who make it.
Making his case for war with Syria, Obama had said: “America is not the world’s policeman….
“But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.
“That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.”

President Barack Obama
In short: Because we consider ourselves “exceptional,” we have the divine right to do whatever we want.
It’s not necessary to see Putin as a champion of democracy (he isn’t) to see the truth in this part of his editorial: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
From 1938 to 1969, the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to define what was “American” and what was “Un-American.” As if “American” stood for all things virtuous.
Whoever heard of an “Un-French Activities Committee”? Or an “Un-German” or “Un-British” one?
The late S.I. Hayakawa once made an obersation that clearly applies to this situation.
Hayakawa was a professor of semantics (the study of meaning, focusing on the relation between words and what they stand for).
In his bestselling book, Language in Thought and Action, he observed that when a person hears a message, he has four ways of responding to it:
- Accept the speaker and his message.
- Accept the speaker but reject the message.
- Accept the message but reject the speaker.
- Reject the message and the speaker.
Americans might want to consider #3 in the recent case of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, KGB, KIM JONG-UN, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO), NPR, POLITICO, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
THE PRESIDENT FROM PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 15, 2016 at 1:20 amDonald Trump spent five years slandering Barack Obama as “the President from Kenya.”
And now it appears that the United States is on the brink of inaugurating him as “the President from Vladimir Putin.”
On December 14, NBC News reported that “U.S. intelligence officials now believe with ‘a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.”
According to senior Intelligence officials, Putin had several motives:
The CIA believes that Putin wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI isn’t so certain, feeling that Putin might have simply wanted to do as much harm as possible.
Even so, an air of unreality clings to all of this.
The bromance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been well-known for more than a year.
On June 2, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said exactly that to an audience in San Diego, California:
“And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald [Trump’s] bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.
“He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.
“He said, ‘You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit’ for taking over North Korea–something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.
“And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A. Now, I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants,” said Clinton.
To many people, it’s the ultimate odd-couple: The lifelong Communist and former KGB officer (Putin) walking arm-in-arm with the billionaire, publicity-hungry capitalist (Trump).
First Putin:
“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.
“He is saying that he wants to move to a different level of relations with Russia, to a closer, deeper one. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome that.”
Vladimir Putin
Now Trump:
“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
Appearing on the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, [he’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.
And Trump has gone well beyond handing out compliments.
On July 22, 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.
And how did Trump react?
By declaring, at a press conference in Doral, Florida: “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.
Why would Putin want to back Trump?
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 inform them: “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
For Putin, this clearly signaled a reason to prefer Trump to Clinton. The withdrawal of the United States from NATO would instantly render that alliance kaput. Its European members don’t have the armed forces to match Russia’s–nor Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal.
As January 20, 2017, rapidly approaches, America faces a stark choice: Empower a man elected with help from a hostile power–or declare him ineligible as a result.
Share this: