+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11059
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 36 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:

Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 09, 2018, 02:02:10 pm »


China says U.S. should withdraw arrest warrant for Huawei executive


Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s global chief financial officer, was arrested in Canada on Dec. 1 and faces extradition to the United States, which alleges that she covered up her company’s links to a firm that tried to sell equipment to Iran despite sanctions.

The executive is also the daughter of the founder of Huawei.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng told U.S. ambassador Terry Branstad that the United States had made an “unreasonable demand” on Canada to detain Meng while she was passing through Vancouver, China’s Foreign Ministry said.

“The actions of the U.S. seriously violated the lawful and legitimate rights of the Chinese citizen, and by their nature were extremely nasty,”
Le told Branstad, comments similar to those he made to Canada’s ambassador the night before.

China strongly urges the United States to pay attention to China’s solemn and just position and withdraw the arrest warrant on Meng, Le added.

“China will respond further depending on U.S. actions,” he said, without elaborating.

Le also told the Canadian ambassador on Saturday that there would be severe consequences if it did not immediately release Meng.

The United States has been looking since at least 2016 into whether Huawei shipped U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws, Reuters reported in April.

Companies are barred from using the U.S. financial system to funnel goods and services to sanctioned entities.

Read more:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 03, 2018, 09:19:17 pm »

Bernie Sanders: End U.S. Arms Sales to Saudis and Support for its Yemen War

December 3, 2018

Sen. Sanders joins Paul Jay to discuss his Senate resolution to end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. We’re in Burlington 👍, Vermont at the Sanders Institute Gathering. And joining me now is someone who needs no introduction. Senator Bernie Sanders, thanks for joining us.

BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you, Paul, and thank you for the great work The Real News is doing. I appreciate it.

PAUL JAY: Thank you. Right now you’re very focused on your resolution on Yemen. Something verging on genocide going on, the Saudis’ intervention there. Talk about the resolution, and what you hope to achieve.

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, it’s not just me. We’re working with a conservative Republican, Mike Lee of Utah. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has also played a very great, good role.

What we have managed to do, what we did last week, is for the first time use the War Powers Act to move forward to stop a horrible, horrible war. And that war is the Saudi-led intervention in the Yemen civil war. Yemen has always been a poor country. But since the Saudi-led intervention and the bombing and the destruction of that country, what we have seen in the last three years is 85,000 children already starve to death. And what the United Nations tell us, the United Nations is telling us, is that millions more are facing starvation. There are 10,000 outbreaks of cholera, 10,000 new cases of cholera, every single week. So you have a country which is really being destroyed by the Saudi-led intervention in that country. And if we are successful, we will end U.S. involvement in that war. What we then do is move toward demanding peace in that area, and the humanitarian aid that Yemen desperately needs.

PAUL JAY: The U.S.-Saudi alliance, if that’s the word one could call it, is an underpinning of a whole strategy the United States has had since World War II in the region, allying with, essentially, a fascistic dictatorship that gave us al-Qaeda, gave us the Taliban, gave us the Islamic radicalization of Pakistan, on and on–including, perhaps, 9/11, because there’s–including senators who think the Saudis were directly involved in 9/11. If you’re president, what do you do with the relationship with–

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I’m a United States senator. So I … Look, I have been doing my best to make just those points, and to say why are we deeply allied–and you know, and Trump has taken it to a new level. There is an outrage all over the country and in Congress that in the most cold-blooded way imaginable, enticing a dissident to walk into a consulate, a Saudi consulate in Turkey, killing him and then dismembering them. This is, presumably, our wonderful ally. And Trump can’t even acknowledge the reality of what the CIA has told them.

But it’s not just Jamal Khashoggi. What it is is a despotic regime run by one family, where women are treated not as second-class citizens, third-class citizens. It’s a regime that does not tolerate dissent, where there is no democracy. And it is now a regime under Mohammed bin Salman which has a very aggressive military posture which took them into Yemen. And what I fear very much, to pick up on your point, is that if we continue to back them, what you’re going to see is that the United States gets sucked into a neverending war in the Middle East.

Look, we can be very critical of Iran, and we should be. But our job is to try to bring peace to that region, not get sucked into. Their wars. So I think we have got to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

PAUL JAY: Lindsey Graham seems to have given up on MBS and wants to dump him. But Lindsey Graham-

BERNIE SANDERS: That was yesterday.

PAUL JAY: But Graham doesn’t want to break the basic relationship.

BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t want to–look. That’s media stuff. You … look. As you indicated, this is a despotic regime, all right, which is responsible for enormous destruction in the very impoverished country of Yemen. We have got to fundamentally rethink our relationship with that regime, and try to play a level-handed role in what is a very volatile region, obviously, of the world. And do what we can to bring peace to that region.

PAUL JAY: Stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

BERNIE SANDERS: Yeah, absolutely. This should not be–look. These, this should … You know, when you talk about American values, that has nothing to do with what is existing in Saudi Arabia right now.

PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Senator.


PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 13, 2018, 12:46:52 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 22, 2018, 01:39:32 pm »

Assassins for Hire: US Citizens, Israelis, and Palestinians Kill for Money   in Yemen  >:(

October 22, 2018

The US-based mercenary company Spear Group, headed by an Israeli and hired by a Palestinian on behalf of the UAE, conducts extra-judicial killings in Yemen. Antony Loewenstein discusses the details


Proverbs 11 King James Version (KJV)

17 The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 16, 2018, 06:32:44 pm »

Two Koreas Advance Peace Without Trump’s ‘Approval’

October 15, 2018

North and South Korea are moving ahead with plans to build road and rail links as part of their historic peace talks. But the U.S. is standing in the way, as Trump refuses to lift sanctions and claims that the South Koreans “do nothing without our approval.” We speak to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 12, 2018, 03:03:02 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: SEE the question about woods and wild bear habits.

Is the U.S. Complicit in Saudi Journalist’s Disappearance?

October 11, 2018

President Trump says the US is pressing Saudi Arabia for answers on the fate of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But new questions are being raised about the US role after a Washington Post report that U.S. intelligence intercepted communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan to capture and “lay hands on” Khashoggi. We speak to Ali Al-Ahmed, founder and director of The Institute for Gulf Affairs

download mp3

Story Transcript

AARON MATE: It’s The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate.

President Trump says the U.S. is pressing Saudi Arabia for answers on the fate of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

DONALD TRUMP: This is a bad situation. We cannot let this happen to reporters, to anybody. We can’t let this happen. And we’re going to get to the bottom of it, OK? You may want to speak to the First Lady’s office about [inaudible]. I’d rather not say. But in a very high level. The highest level. Let’s say- let me say this. It’s the highest level.

AARON MATE: Khashoggi entered the Saudi embassy in Turkey last Tuesday to obtain a document he needed to get married. He has not been seen since. Turkish officials say they believe he was killed by a team of 15 Saudis- a hit squad, they say, who flew into Turkey for that purpose. According to the New York Times, Turkey believes one team member brought a bone saw to dismember Khashoggi’s body after killing him. Saudi Arabia has denied any involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance, but it has not provided any evidence that shows where else Khashoggi might be.

And although the White House now claims to be demanding answers, new questions are being raised about the U.S. role. The Washington Post reports, “before Khashoggi’s disappearance, U.S. intelligence intercepted communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan to capture him. The Saudis wanted to lure Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia and lay hands on him there.” In Washington today a group of supporters gathered to demand answers on Khashoggi’s disappearance. Among the speakers was Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I knew Jamal, and actually was critical of him for not being more critical of the Saudi government. We had some very wonderful exchanges. And my heart goes out to his family and everybody who knew and loved him. Of course we want to believe he’s still alive, but I don’t believe it. I believe that he is dead. And you know why? Because I know what the Saudi government is capable of. And I want to denounce the Western democracies for their hypocrisy and their enabling of Saudi behavior for so many years now.

AARON MATE: Joining me is Ali Al-Ahmed, founder and director of Institute for Gulf Affairs. Welcome, Ali. First, let me ask you if you could speculate, what is your sense of the fate of Jamal Khashoggi right now? Do you think he is still alive? Or do you think the Saudis have indeed killed him?

ALI AL-AHMED: Until this morning the messages I’ve been getting are that he was alive. But today, and by the end of the day, we have- I’ve heard people have, they have seen a video of him being killed. That video was taken by his Apple watch. And that streamed to his iPhone, which was outside the consulate at the hand of his wife, and the Turkish authorities were able to go unlock the phone and then see the video. The gruesome video. So we have confirmation from people who said they were shown the video by the Turkish police. So [inaudible]

AARON MATE: Ali, this is a, this is a very explosive claim. You’ve spoken to people who say that they have seen video that was beamed from his watch showing his murder? Who are these people you’ve spoken to?

ALI AL-AHMED: This is an editor of Turkish government TV. I have his recorded statement that this is what happened, and that this is confirmation that Khashoggi has been killed. And it shows the actual murder. And it would be [inaudible].

AARON MATE: And you spoke to this editor personally?

ALI AL-AHMED: No, I didn’t speak to this editor personally, but I have his recording. I know that the recording came; he sent it to a group of friends that I am- and one of them sent it to me. So he knows one of my friends who- he sent the broadcast to his friends, and we have a common friend who sent it to me. And I have it in my phone. I would be happy to send it to you. You can check with him, he has a Twitter account.

AARON MATE: OK. Well, until we get confirmation from Turkish authorities, and Saudi Arabia, obviously it’s best to-

ALI AL-AHMED: This is government, government television. This is Arabic TRT station.

AARON MATE: OK. I’ve missed that report on Turkish television. So let me ask you-

ALI AL-AHMED: It’s not a report, yeah. This is, like I said, this by director of Turkish, Arabic TV. And he sent it to his friends. One of them [inaudible] is a friend of mine who sent it to me. And I have it. I’ll be happy to send it to you, and you can talk to the gentleman himself and authenticate it.

AARON MATE: OK. So as we await confirmation, public confirmation, from the Turkish government, let’s just talk about what is going on here. No matter what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, why do you think he was targeted? He was- some people call him a critic of the Saudi government, or a dissident. But that’s not quite accurate. He actually was close to the Saudi royal family, worked for them. He expressed some concerns about freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia. But he was not a harsh critic of the regime, as I understand it. Can you talk about who he- what he did, and why do you think the Saudi government came after him?

ALI AL-AHMED: He- Jamal Khashoggi has been always a loyalist until he came back, he came, ran away and fled to the United States. So he was a loyalist. And even after he left he was speaking on TV and saying that his allegiance is to King Salman. But he was critical of the conditions that Mohammed bin Salman, the son, the Crown Prince, was making the country go through. So he’s a loyalist, and he’s a man who made his career being a loyalist to the Saudi monarchy. So his career was built on that. He was advisor, he supported- he was a diplomat in Washington, and in London. He worked with the Saudi intelligence in the ’80s in organizing and recruiting fighters against the Soviet Union at the time. So he has a long history of loyalty.

That is actually exactly what made it worse for him, because the Saudi monarchy does not accept anything but absolute loyalty, without any shred of hesitation. And because he kind of departed from that- he’s loyal to the King. You know, maybe sometimes in a very awful way, to be honest, because he spoke about what he called a, I have an allegiance, a loyalty to the King, but then he criticized his son for his behavior and policies. Because at this time we are not slaves and masters anymore, so that, that term is kind of abhorrent to me.

Anyway, so because he is from within the ranks of the monarchy, or their proxies, it was important for the Saudi government to send a message to their followers, to their loyalists, that you cannot emulate Khashoggi, you cannot break with us and turn your back against us, because we will punish you harshly. And that is exactly, I think, the plan. The message was clear. There is no need to send 15 people to kill one man. One man could have done it. And you know, even getting rid of the body they’ll need a lot of help. But this was a message. This is executing your opponent in the street so that the population are scared. Exactly. This is what they are doing here. Again, he was not a dissident. He was actually critical of dissidents much more than he was critical of the government. And he was sometimes hostile to dissidents, including myself. But that does not excuse his execution or kidnapping. It is unfortunate, [especially for his family].

AARON MATE: Let’s talk about the message that the U.S. is sending here. So you have this report now in the Washington Post claiming that U.S. intelligence intercepted Saudi Arabian officials talking about a plan to lure him back to Saudi Arabia and lay their hands on him, as the Post says there. Does not seem- there’s no indication that Khashoggi was warned about this by U.S. officials. And then after his disappearance you have initially a very muted response from the White House. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put out a call for the Saudis to investigate it. Sort of a mild call for the alleged kidnappers to investigate their own kidnapping. You had Trump today saying that he’s speaking to Saudi Arabia officials at the highest levels. What do you make of the Trump administration’s response so far?

ALI AL-AHMED: I’m actually surprised that this is- I’ve been here long enough to see this before. This is the highest and the strongest reaction to incidents or crimes committed by the Saudi government ever. And so, and that, when it comes to comparison, this is the, the most widespread from the administration, and from Congress and the media, obviously. Previous violations did not- although they are much more abhorrent, they did not receive such attention under the Obama or the Bush administration. Just look at the war in Yemen a few weeks ago, last month when the Saudis bombed deliberately this bus, 40 Yemeni children. The U.S. administration actually sided with Saudi Arabia, and did not have- so this is a stronger reaction.

And I think there is something here. I have no idea what it is. It has, maybe it has to do with the fact that Mr. Trump is saying you have to pay, you have to pay to the Saudi king. And this may be yet another way of pushing the Saudis- it might not be a genuine escalation on Saudi Arabia to truly improve human rights. After all, the United States has been supporting and protecting the Saudi monarchy for nearly 60 years, and it has ignored totally the violation of human rights, including religious freedom for even Americans in Saudi Arabia; and woman driving, the last country in the world. And the lack of cinemas, and basic freedom, and so on.

So this is, I think it is, it has been the strongest reaction. I know some people don’t see it that way, but that’s the reality.

AARON MATE: Ali, let me go to that clip you mentioned of Trump speaking about the Saudi king. He said this last week at a rally.

DONALD TRUMP: Protect Saudi Arabia. Would you say they’re rich? And I love the king, King Salman. But I said, King, we’re protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us. You have to pay for your military.

AARON MATE: That’s President Trump speaking at a recent rally. So Ali, finally, there is talk now of this incident marking a change in U.S.-Saudi relations. Do you think, if it is officially confirmed that Jamal Khashoggi has been killed, do you think that that change will happen?

ALI AL-AHMED: I doubt it. I hope so, but I doubt it. I don’t think it will happen. Because I think the relationship is dependent on maintaining domination🦕 of the country and its resources by the United States🦖. If Mohammed bin Salman is starting to grow his own wings and refusing to pay, as Mr. Trump put it, maybe then they would be extremely increasing pressure. Let’s remember, the U.S. government overthrew elected secular liberal democrats in Iran in 1953. So this is nothing new. So it’s not about how you treat your people. It’s how good you treat the American regime; what are you, how much you are willing to pay, and spend your money buying weapons, or conducting or supporting U.S. policies in the region. That has been the factor that the U.S. has used to evaluate its allies and foes in the region.

AARON MATE: All right. So we’ll leave it there. I just want to go back to what Ali said at the beginning of this interview, this claim that there is Apple watch footage of the killing. Again, nothing is confirmed yet publicly from the Turkish authorities, so we need to be cautious. There is a report on the Middle East Eye that cites a Turkish source, saying that Turkish police have audio and video evidence of the killing. But it does not name the source or identify what is the nature of that supposed audio and video evidence. And it also- the Middle East Eye also makes reference to Turkish police looking at the Apple watch worn by Khashoggi being synced to his wife’s phone. So we will await confirmation, again, from the Turkish police on the outcome of their investigation, and whether or not these reports of there being audio and video evidence being correct.

My guest has been Ali Al-Ahmed. He is the founder and director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs. I’m Aaron Mate for The Real News.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 12, 2018, 01:24:24 pm »

Will the Disappearance of Journalist Jamal Khashoggi Bring Down the US-Saudi Alliance?

October 12, 2018

Journalist James M. Dorsey says Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) has suffered significant reputational damage on the eve of a major global trade conference known as Vision 2030 or  “Davos in the Desert”

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 12, 2018, 12:48:09 pm »

October 12, 2018

Saudi Arabia likely murdered a WaPo journalist. Here’s what that means.


Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a U.S. resident who wrote for the Washington Post, was just apparently killed on the eve of his wedding — and news reports suggest that the Saudi government was responsible.

We are heartbroken. But we are not surprised.

The Saudi government has a long history of cracking down on dissidents and murdering civilians. Meanwhile, U.S. news outlets have consistently propped up the image of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince as a reformer, giving him a free pass to continue executing activists, bombing Yemeni children in school buses, and using starvation as weapon of war in Yemen.

The New York Times and The Economist just announced they are pulling out of the Saudi government’s upcoming high-powered investment conference in the wake of Khashoggi’s apparent murder. This could be a watershed moment.

We’ve got to jump on this momentum and demand other U.S. media companies also stop legitimizing Saudi government repression and back out of this conference. Add your name now >>

BREAKING: All companies but Fox Business have pulled out. Fox must follow suit!
The man who reportedly masterminded Khashoggi’s death is Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. This isn’t his first violent repression of critics. U.S. news outlets hailed bin Salman as a progressive reformer when he lifted Saudi Arabia’s ban on women driving — but stayed silent about his brutal crackdown on women’s rights activists, including his attempts to use the death penalty against feminist activist Israa al-Ghomgham.

Mohammed bin Salman is also the chief architect of the bloody, brutal, U.S.-backed war in Yemen. Bombing campaigns targeting hospitals, school buses, and weddings that have killed thousands of Yemenis. Deliberately starving millions more. Blocking access to medicine amid the world’s worst recorded cholera epidemic. These murders are on bin Salman’s hands too.


U.S. support of Saudi Arabia has made the war in Yemen possible. And mainstream media’s refusal to sound the alarm has sealed the deal.

That’s why this is SUCH a huge moment. Influential U.S. media outlets like the New York Times and The Economist are drawing a line and refusing to legitimize Saudi government repression any longer.

If we can get the other media companies sponsoring the Saudi government’s fancy, feel-good conference to turn their backs, we will send a powerful signal that upends the United States’ unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia and jams the door wide open to ending the Saudi-led war in Yemen for good.

Add your name: U.S. media companies are complicit in Saudi repression and the slaughter of civilians in Yemen. They must back out of Saudi Arabia’s upcoming investment conference and speak out forcefully to defend freedom of speech and end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

Thank you for working for peace 🕊,

Amy, Sunjeev, Kate, and the Win Without War team

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 11, 2018, 12:06:04 pm »

by Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/11/2018 - 10:29

Agelbert NOTE: These excellent comments tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that Trump and his Wall Street BACKED 🎩 🍌 War Profiteering 🏴‍ ☠️ Wrecking Crew 👹🦍 (AND MOST of the Democrats too!) refuse to admit.

41 minutes ago

Hurting us? 

No sir, if this "arms deal with the Saudi's"  ...

(you know ... those guys who did the WTC false thingy that  MURDERED about 3000, innocent, unsuspecting people in a well planned false flag event that essentially GUTTED what George Bush called 'just a goddamned piece of paper' )

... were blocked, I can assure you it would not impact me in the least! 

Yes, I can see that the Luciferian MIC, their Israeli partners, and the Saudi's wouldn't like it-- not to mention our ISIS proxy army that has a thing for raping children and mounting their heads on fence posts at the playground where they were kidnapped or burning them alive in cages  ... but it would certainly NOT hurt me, or the many, many, common decent people that I happen to know.

But ... that of course ... doesn't matter does it. 

And by the way Mr. Trump, just what did those 15 Saudi's have stuffed in their diplomatic suitcases that day they left the Saudi embassy in Turkey? 

It couldn't have been body parts by any chance, was it??

37 minutes ago


25 minutes ago (Edited)

Totally agree Macroaggression, and I have come to a realization that the Saudi's and the Mossad work hand-in-glove. 

Mohammad Atta as I recall was a Saudi who was also working with the Mossad.  Mo and his crew had some apartments in Florida as I remember and his next door neighbors were all Mossad agents. 

When the embarassing picture emerged in the following weeks the Israelis were asked the obvious questions which they glibly dismissed as something like ... "oh ... yeah ... uhhhhh ... we were investigating Atta regarding .... uhhhhh ... a possible .... uhhhhhh .... terrorist attack on US soil."

Back in those days and before, I was a staunch Israeli supporter. 

I didn't know what a zionist was exactly, but I would have stupidily raised my hand as one if I had been asked.


My eyes were wide shut and I didn't realise it then.   George Bush's comment opened my eyes wide open and when I saw those Israelis (Mossad agents) in the white van cheering,  that did it for me.

I knew people in those buildings and they were better human beings than anyone running the Israeli government, the House of Saud, or Washington D.C. in my opinion.

36 minutes ago

"doing probably better economically than it's ever done before"?

At least Skripal is alive. Imagine if he was dead.

All governments are hypocrites. It's just the degree that varies.

37 minutes ago

Trump 👹 visiting KKK?

40 minutes ago

Trump is just looking out for his BFFs, the Saudis

47 minutes ago

Yeah, not selling bombs to the Saudi Barbarians to bomb children with in Yemen would "hurt us".   

But not selling oil equipment and civilian Boeing airplanes to Iran ... helps Israel.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 21, 2018, 08:09:56 pm »

In Viral Video, Medea Benjamin 🕊   Confronts Trump Official ☠️ on Iran

September 21, 2018

At a public event in Washington, DC, CodePink’s Medea Benjamin confronted Brian Hook , the head of Trump’s Iran Action ☠️ Group , over the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-imposing crippling ☠️ sanctions on the Iranian people. Benjamin joins us to discuss her action, which went viral online

Story Transcript 👍👍👍

AARON MATE: It’s The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has been one of the most consequential decisions of the Trump presidency that has faced relatively little public protest. Well, this week was different, when the administration was confronted directly. Brian Hook, the head of Trump’s so-called Iran Action Group, spoke Wednesday at the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank in Washington. As Hook finished his remarks, he was joined on stage by Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group Code Pink.

BRIAN HOOK: It is time for all nations to join us in holding Iran to a new level of accountability for its destructive behavior; especially its lawless pursuit of ballistic missiles. Thank you.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: That is the most ridiculous thing I have seen. The world community wants to keep the Iran nuclear deal. Our allies. The Germans, the French, the British, they want to keep in this deal. The world community wants to keep the deal. Let’s talk about normal countries. Let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. Is that who our allies are? They are the biggest- to the world community. You’re hurting me. You’re actually hurting me. I want to ask, do you think these sanctions are hurting the regime, or are they hurting the Iranian people? They’re hurting the Iranian people. You’re making the case for war with Iran. How did the war with Iraq turn out? You’re doing exactly the same thing we did in the case of Iraq. We don’t want another war in the Middle East. How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out? We have the people of Syria suffering. And how dare you bring up the issue of Yemen? It’s the Saudi bombing that is killing most people in Yemen. So let’s get real. No more war. Peace with Iran.

AARON MATE: Joining me now is the star of this viral video. Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the peace group Code Pink. Welcome, Medea. Walk us through what you did here, and the message that you tried to bring.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, thanks for having me on, Aaron. You know, it’s very hard to sit through the kind of drivel of Brian Hook talking about missile, missile, missile, Iran threat, danger, not a normal country. And my head was spinning, and I felt like I had to get up and respond to it. And I knew that in the Q&A it was going to be curated. They had passed around cards. They weren’t going to answer the questions that I had asked. And so I felt I better just get up and say my piece.

And so as you can see, I jumped on stage. And I thought it was so important to counter the path that the Trump administration and Brian Hook and Mike Pompeo are taking us down, because it is so dangerous. And I’m old, Aaron. I’ve been through the antiwar movement around Vietnam, Central America, post-9/11. And I was just sitting there feeling this tremendous deja vu about Iraq; that here was yet another administration doing lies, distortions, inventions, whatever it wanted to paint Iran as a demon that had to be addressed militarily. And you know, we’ve got to do something to counter that. We can’t allow them to take us into another war in the Middle East or anywhere.

AARON MATE: You got a lot in in just a few minutes of remarks as they were dragging you away. One of the things you said was talking about the impact of sanctions, how the sanctions do not hurt the government of Iran so much as they hurt the people of Iran. And this is a critical point, as especially now already sanctions are back in place with Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal. But even harsher sanctions from the U.S. are going to be reimposed in November. So can you talk about what you were speaking of in terms of the impact of the U.S. sanctions on Iran?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Yes. I’m in communication with a lot of people in Iran, and hear story after story about how devastating the sanctions already are. And as you said, in early November is the next round of sanctions to try to cut off oil exports from Iran, which is the main source of income, and will be absolutely devastating. And so I thought it was important to bring out the issue that these are ordinary Iranian people who were being hurt by the sanctions.

And the outpouring from Iran that I received after this intervention has been astounding. Yes, there are some people who are extremely nasty and actually doing death threats that I want to report to the FBI, but the majority of them have been really positive and saying how they are their lives are so difficult right now; they can’t get married because they don’t have money. They don’t want to have children because they don’t have the money to support them. They lost their jobs because the job situation is very difficult. A doctor who wrote to me and said he can’t treat his people, give them the kind of health care they deserve because of shortages.

So this is strangling not the higher-ups, not the clerics, not the government people. This is the strangulating the ordinary Iranian people. And it’s designed precisely to do that so they’ll be so angry that they’ll rise up against their government. But I think what is happening is that many people in Iran are becoming united against the outside because of this, instead of focusing on the changes they want to make in their own government. Now they feel they have to hunker down and save themselves against a potential war.

AARON MATE: And you mention that Brian Hook, the head of this new so-called Iran Action Group, was speaking about missiles in Iran. This issue of ballistic missiles. There have been rumblings in the Trump administration they want to try to push through some sort of new agreement with Iran that would limit its ballistic missiles. Can you talk about what is going on there, and what you think the Iranian government’s reaction to that will be, especially in light of the Trump ministration walking away from the Iran nuclear deal?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: We already know the reaction of the Iranian government, which is to say it’s ridiculous to pull out of a deal that was not an agreement between two countries, as Brian Hook said. It was an international agreement approved by the Security Council of the United Nations, by the European Union. If the U.S. pulls out of that it’s just crazy to think that the Iranians would sit down and negotiate another deal with the Trump administration. It makes absolutely no sense.

The rest of the world community, minus a couple of countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, want the deal to be saved. Trying to figure out how to salvage that deal. And we will see a lot of contentious things at the United Nations next week when the issue of Iran comes up, and we find that our allies in Europe are on a very different page than the Trump administration. So I think it is not rational to talk about trying to rein in Iran’s missile system when you have just ripped up a nuclear deal. And also to recognize the most sophisticated military technology in the Middle East is not in the government of Iran, it’s in the hands of Israel and Saudi Arabia, thanks to the United States.

AARON MATE: Medea, finally, I want to ask you just a personal question. You’ve become notorious for your willingness to confront U.S. officials and former U.S. officials at public events like this one. I remember there’s a famous incident where you were there when Donald Rumsfeld was entering a gathering, and you announced to the crowd, here comes the war criminal. And you stood beside him, denouncing him as a war criminal and speaking a bit about his record. I’m wondering, when you put yourself in this situation, are you ever nervous? Is it scary to go up against people, especially powerful people like your targets?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: It’s extremely scary. I don’t do this without sweating it out, and really a lot of shaking and questioning whether I should do it or should I do it. But in the end I think it’s important to do, and I think more people should do it. I wish there were people everywhere these criminals go to be popping up and denouncing them, because we make their lives way too easy when they are destroying the lives of people around the world.

AARON MATE: Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, star of that new viral video confronting the head of the Trump administration’s Iran Action Group. Thank you, Medea.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Thanks for having me on, Aaron.

AARON MATE: And thank you for joining us on The Real News.


Agelbert NOTE: CodePink’s Medea Benjamin 🕊 deservves the Congressional Medal of Honor for her consistent outstanding courage and heroism. 💐

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 13, 2018, 08:46:10 pm »

World BEYOND War info@worldbeyondwar.org

August 13, 2018

(Discussion 11) Nonviolent Civilian-Based Defense / Civilian Peacekeeping Forces🕊

Nonviolent Civilian-Based Defense (CBD) deploys a powerful coercive force that does not require military action and shifts power away from the elite and into the hands of citizens. Unarmed civilian peacekeeping provides an effective, more sustainable, and potentially transformative alternative to militarized peacekeeping.

Learn more:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 23, 2018, 03:00:14 pm »

Pompeo 🦍 Speech Marks Start Of Broader Campaign 😈 👹 💵 🎩  🏴‍☠️  For Iran Regime-Change

by Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/23/2018 - 13:15


It looks like we could be witnessing a repeat of the vast propaganda system that was triggered and inundated the American and Western public in the lead-up to Iraq. Now that the Syrian proxy war appears to be slowly closing, the usual hawks have set their cross hairs on Tehran. 

Full article:



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 22, 2018, 07:07:32 pm »

Is Putin’s Rule a Dictatorship? – RAI with A. Buzgalin (8/12)

July 22, 2018

On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Alexandr Buzgalin says while Putin heads a powerful state, this is not a system of one man rule; more than 100 billionaires and a stratum of top bureaucrats have political power – with host Paul Jay

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to the Real News Network, welcome to Reality Asserts Itself, I’m Paul Jay. As you can see, we’re continuing our discussion in a new studio, but we’re still in New York City with Dr. Alexander Buzgalin.


PAUL JAY: Professor Buzgalin teaches political economy and is director of the Center for Modern Marxist Studies at Moscow State University. So, we’re going to pick up where we left off. You go on vacation for a lovely little August and you get away from it all, and you come back, you’re on the central committee, youngest member, I guess, maybe in history, I don’t know, of the communist party. You’re amongst the most powerful people in the county. And certainly, for decades and decades, the Soviet State looked like it would never go anywhere. And you come back from vacation and there’s no more Soviet Union.

The Communist Party, I think, is probably illegalized at this point. Yeltsin is the president, and so that’s kind of where we left off the story. We went a little bit further, we talked about the story of the next decade and the grab for cash, the emergence of the oligarchs and the many who came from the party itself and from the state bureaucracy. And we get to the end of the ‘90s with a fairly established class of now billionaires or becoming billionaires, and a very chaotic state. And Putin becomes the new leader, and that’s sort of where we left off.

The sort of common narrative of this period after Putin becomes leader is that this is the story of the rise of a one- man dictatorship. And this is what the story of this whole next period of the Russian state is. What do you make of that?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: First of all, we do not have, and we didn’t have from the very beginning, dictatorship of Putin. In the beginning of his epoch, in the beginning of twenty-first century in our country, we had another style of life. It was continuation of the power of oligarchs with top officials. It was partnership and friendship with the West in the beginning, by the way. Partnership with NATO, partnership with the United States, even later, Putin was main advocate for joining to WTO. In Russia, we had very big opposition.

PAUL JAY: World Trade Organization.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, World Trade Organization. Majority of Russian, even business people- not majority as far as money was concerned, but in terms of businessmen. Is concerned. So, majority of even business people we against joining to WTO, to World Trade Organization.

PAUL JAY: So, Putin advocated more of an integration with the Western capitalism.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, Putin advocated, he became- I would say, in the modern sense of this word. Only after crisis, 2007, 2009- before, it was only some elements, some trends, maybe. And about democracy and dictatorship. In that period, we had growth of statism, but mainly in ideology, growth of Russian conservatism, but mainly in ideology, and it was not so strong. It was domination of liberal ideas before crisis, world crisis, 2007-2010. That was the trend. And it was, I want to remind, period when we had enormously high prices on oil and gas. It was up to one hundred fifty dollars per gallon. And Russia had an enormous amount of dollars for really nothing. And it came, it led to the enormous enrichment of oligarchs, but also some resources came to workers in budget sector, education, healthcare, to bureaucracy. It was enormous growth of bureaucracy and a little bit for ordinary workers and peasants.

PAUL JAY: And we talked earlier, in the previous segment, about even most of the oligarchs, as in medieval times, realized there needed to be a king because the competition between the oligarchs would threaten the systems of the oligarchs, and they needed a state to play that kind of role. In terms of Putin and the role of that state, there’s a perception, again, in the West, that it kind of gets used in a way that enhances Putin’s power in a sense that he can favor these oligarchs, and disfavor those, and a sense the state becomes more important than the oligarchs.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: It’s true and not true. If any oligarch, and billionaire- and in Russia, we have hundreds, more than one hundred owners of more than one billion dollars.

PAUL JAY: More than one hundred billionaires.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, and the country is not so rich as the United States or China, it’s ten times, maybe, not less than ten times- many times less than the United States or China. So, if any from these oligarchs will decide to attack rules of the game or personally, president and his team, he will be in prison or he must immigrate, and so on. But that doesn’t mean state became more important than class of oligarchs and top bureaucrats. First of all, it is not even class, it is strata inside class of bourgeoisie. We have very diversified class of bourgeoisie, very different types of bourgeoisie. And inside ruling strata, new nomenklatura is name which Voslenski used for Soviet bureaucrats. And now it’s very similar. A few thousand people with families, kids and so on, who are real rulers who concentrate economic and political power.

PAUL JAY: Because they control ministries, regulation-

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, executive power. They control ruling party, administration of president, and they control main part of wealth of Russia. Seventy percent of Russian wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than one percent of population.

PAUL JAY: We know that number here.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: And key resources in the hands of a few families, one hundred, two hundred families. So, the problem is that they have common interests, but they have clans, like in, I don’t know, court of Louis XIV or XV in France, different clans of aristocracy fighting between themselves. But generally speaking, it is one power, one strata of aristocrats who has power. The same in Russia. We have different clans, regional clans, clans that have connected with military-industrial complex, with oil and gas, with small difference between state gas and oil corporations and private gas and oil corporations. But difference is small because top managers of state corporation are also oligarchs. And the private owners of private corporations are in the control of bureaucracy.

So, in Russia, state and private means not too much. It’s not very big difference, unfortunately. And they have common interests. And these common interests led to stagnation of the economy because the development can be realized only if big money from this capital, oligarchic capital, bureaucratic capital, will be used for investments in high-tech technologies. And it will be redistribution of power, not simply of money, but redistribution of power. It will be new, active class. Class of engineers, creators, business people, but business, productive business people, not speculators and those who take land from the oil. And they will lose their power. So, if we have not simply growth, but development, new quality of development, this strata will lose their power.

That’s why for them, it’s not profitable to change economic, social, tendrils of life, of rules of the game, better to say. And for other population, this is stagnation, and stagnation on the low level with very big social differentiation. During last decade, we had more or less the same. After crisis, 2007-2010, it was ten percent decline of production. Then, we had small growth after five years, more or less the same level as 2007, then minus two percent plus one percent, zero plus two percent, near zero. And then finally, after twenty- I will finish on this. After twenty-five years of transformation from so-called inefficient economy of Soviet Russia inside Soviet Union, we have only plus fifteen percent, twenty-five years and only plus fifteen percent.

PAUL JAY: In productivity.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: In production, yeah, gross national product. Less than one percent per year during twenty-five years, all zig zags. And the quality is another.

PAUL JAY: Well, that’s kind of a dramatic number because, given computerization and such, productivity and gross national product in the West has gone far, far higher than that.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: And if you compare with China, which had similar problems, but China had minimum seven percent per year, and an average eight point five.

PAUL JAY: So, what does this mean in terms of the life of working people and what their expectations were? Remember, in an earlier segment you were saying everyone thought, “Get rid of the Communist Party and socialism,” and everyone was going to have “capitalism without capitalists,” the utopia.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Utopia, unfortunately. So, first of all, as I said, during first years of so-called market reforms, shock without therapy, we had terrible decline of production, incomes, and social differentiation. We received real poverty. And before, it was impossible. And poverty for not only lazy people, liberal dogma, but intelligentsia became extremely poor, workers became extremely poor. After this, high prices on oil, life became a little better. But what we have now- let’s move to modern situation. As I said, twenty million people from one hundred fifty, little less, in Russia, are living under the poverty level. And poverty level is ten thousand rubles. Ten thousand rubles is one hundred-

PAUL JAY: Say that again?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Ten thousand rubles is poverty level.

PAUL JAY: And how many people below that?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: We have twenty million people who has less than ten thousand rubles.

PAUL JAY: At this time?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: At this time. And this is continuation. Before, it was sometimes little less, sometimes little worse, but more or less the same. What is ten thousand rubles? It is one hundred sixty dollars per month. Of course, purchasing power of dollar is high, but if you want to buy normal equipment, you will pay even more than in the United States. If you want to buy bread, it will be a little less. So, that’s why it is poverty. Wage of majority of Russians, working Russians, is less than thirty thousand rubles per month. This is five hundred dollars. This is not poverty, but still, country is rich with oil.

PAUL JAY: The majority of people earning that wage.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Fifty percent has less than five hundred dollars per month. And in the same time, we have one of the best, second or so place as far number of billionaires is concerned. Billions, not of rubles, but billions of dollars. And they are buying football teams, palaces, two hundred thirty meters long yachts, and so on. It is a country with such situation.

PAUL JAY: So, Putin is the face of this system, whether he has as much power as people think he has or not, he’s powerful and the state is powerful. But he’s the face of this system. Why, if in fact he’s running at seventy percent or so popularity, if that’s true, why?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: This is big question.

PAUL JAY: So, we’ll talk about why Putin seems to remain so popular in spite of tremendous inequality of the society. So, please join us for the continuation of Reality Asserts Itself with Professor Buzgalin on The Real News Network.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 16, 2018, 08:07:21 pm »

Growing Up in the USSR – RAI with A. Buzgalin (1/12)

Success and Mutation in the Soviet Union – RAI with A. Buzgalin (2/12)

Communism and Consumerism – RAI with A. Buzgalin (3/12)

Turning Power into Money, the End of the Soviet Union – RAI with A. Buzgalin (4/12)

“I Returned from Vacation to Find the Soviet Union had Collapsed” – RAI with A. Buzgalin (5/12)

July 16, 2018

On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Alexander Buzgalin says that he returned from a vacation in the countryside to find Gorbachev was arrested, Yeltsin was leader and the Soviet Union was no more – with host Paul Jay

Aleksandr Buzgalin is a Professor of Political Economy at Moscow State University. He is also editor of the independent democratic left magazine Alternatives, and is a coordinator of the Russian social movement Alternatives, author of more then 20 books and hundreds of articles, translated into English, German and many other languages.

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, and we’re continuing our discussion with Professor Alexander Buzgalin. Thanks for joining us again.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: I’m glad to be here and to talk with you.

PAUL JAY: I should say, we’re in New York City, this is not our normal studio. One more time, Professor Buzgalin teaches political economy and is Director of the Center for Modern Marxist Studies at Moscow State University. So, we got ourselves up to- you’re now on the Central Committee in your early thirties-

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: And the Soviet Union is nearly collapsed.

PAUL JAY: And they’re blaming you for it. Well, they certainly did blame Gorbachev for it, and we’re talking about, you were saying that there’s a rise within the party and within the party leadership of people who want to get rich, who had kind of given up on the socialist ideals. I guess they either decided it isn’t working or didn’t matter because they want to get rich. And while the internal factors may have been the most important, the Americans are very active in all this. Their dream is to bring down the Soviet Union. Talk about that period, and you have a very unique viewpoint, being on the Central Committee.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: So, first of all, it was really an extremely contradictory situation, because from one hand, we had the growth of social creativity from below. We had the first attempts to build self-management in the enterprises. And the most that did it were people in big scientific production complexes. We had, in Soviet Union, like corporations, where we had research centers, production, social infrastructure, and so on. And typically, these groups, these classic corporations, had very skilled people and they had big intentions. And it was all Soviet Union council of worker’s collectives. A very interesting structure. And the last Congress, with one thousand delegates, where they participated, was very strong and important. And it’s not a well-known part of the story of the Soviet Union.

We had good interest in initiative of the young generation to build, on a cooperative basis, new houses for the life. It was very interesting initiatives in the Green Movement, which appeared from below, and so on and so forth. At the same time, from another hand, we had terrible growth of contradictions because criminal business, which existed in Soviet Union, became stronger because of the whole destruction of the institutional system. Weak institutions led to the growth of shadow economy and criminal business. A lot of former directors of state enterprises were waiting, that it will be privatization, and were trying to steal as much as possible of the resources.

PAUL JAY: This is before-

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Just before collapse of the Soviet Union.

PAUL JAY: People see it coming. What’s Gorbachev doing about this? Or does he want this to-

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, and- he was talking. And this is one of the problems. You know, there is this definition of revolutionary situation by Lenin, and he wrote very important things. Revolution came when those who are on the top cannot be rulers more, according to the old model. So, this is a crisis of the top. And we had crisis.

PAUL JAY: Not fit to rule.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, not fit to rule. And people were trying to find another solution. And what was important, we had a lot of myths created with assistance of the West, but not by the West. One of them was a myth about market. And market, for majority of Soviet people, was associated with supermarket, with a lot of commodities. It was the strikes of the miners, a very interesting initiative from below, who wanted to change the situation. I participated in the Congress and the leader of the miner’s strike said, “We want to have capitalism, the factories will belong to the workers and not the Party and nomenklatura. We want to have capitalism, where we will have resources to buy whatever we want. We want to have capitalism, where everybody will have good apartments, and it will be no privileges of people who are rulers. We want to have capitalism where workers will decide what to do.”

PAUL JAY: They want to have capitalism without capitalists.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, without capitalists, without unemployment, without social stratification, and so on. It was an illusion. And unfortunately, it was created by many contradictions inside Soviet Union, which we discussed before. And main contradiction was interconnected with concentration of the power in the hands of bureaucracy, and the money of social creativity of the masses, and attempts to build consumer society, conformist society. Socialism cannot be conformist, consumer society. Socialism must move in the direction of self-organization, social creativity, anti-conformism, if you want. It should be disalienation, but not conservation of alienation in consumerist form. I’m sorry for this professor’s language, but I cannot express this in any other terms. So, that’s why we had internal contradictions as main factor of self-destruction of this system. And we had chances for the changes, but here, a subjective factor could play a decisive role. 

PAUL JAY: How do you get to a point, after years of bureaucratization- but something new enters the picture, because it’s not just bureaucratized, some mutation, of socialism. Now, people want to get rich and now people within the Party leadership and sections of the enterprises, within the elite, people have said enough, now we just want to cash in. How do you get to that?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: You already gave the answer, so I can say yes, you are right. And it was predictable. In the beginning of the Soviet Union, in writings of different people, from Mensheviks to Leon Trotsky, was made prognosis that if bureaucracy will have more and more power, and the control from below will be weak, social creativity will go down, the transformation of bureaucracy will be inevitable. They will have intention to transform themselves into the class of private owners who has both political power and economic power and no limitations, no frameworks.

Because even in bureaucratic period, in Brezhnev period of the Soviet Union, officials at the top had relatively small privileges. They had a lot of limits for their power and they had strong rules of the game. And so, the new generation who came, they wanted to have the same living standards as billionaires, as presidents and leaders of bourgeois countries. And that was main reason. Plus, as I said, decline, degradation of social creativity, led to the consumerism and conformism of majority of Soviet people. And conformism creates atmosphere where market system, capitalist system, is coming. It’s like a swamp where it’s impossible to have beautiful trees, where there will be only dirty grass and frogs.

PAUL JAY: So, talk about that period, the rise of Yeltsin and the last days of the Soviet Union.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: So, still this is a big question mark. What happens, why we had this artificial coup d’état, what was the role of Gorbachev, who was behind? I am not a person who has secret information, so I will not give special commands.

PAUL JAY: And we’re in 1991?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: It was August, 1991.

PAUL JAY: Where are you, what are you doing?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: I was in the vacation, so unfortunately, I could not participate in this process. I was in the countryside, in the forest, just to relax a little bit. It was my mistake. I didn’t think that it will be so quickly-

PAUL JAY: So, most of our audience doesn’t really know this story at all.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: So, in August, leaders of KGB and some other officials from the top said that Gorbachev is no more president of the Soviet Union. We have a special committee in emergency situations, and Gorbachev was formally arrested in his dacha in Crimea, where he was also on a rest. But then, they did nothing.

PAUL JAY: So, it’s essentially a coup.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: It was coup, but leaders of the military coup must arrest the opposition, after all. But they did nothing. Yeltsin came to the house where there was Parliament of Russian Federation, people were walking in the streets with protests.

PAUL JAY: And who is Yeltsin, why all of a sudden, Yeltsin? What’s the power behind Yeltsin?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Okay, so that’s another story. One year ago, he was elected as president of Russian Federation inside Soviet Union. Soviet Union had like states in the U.S., but with more powerful structure. It was republics, fifteen republics, and Russia was the biggest and in the center. And Yeltsin was elected as president of Russia. So, informally, he has not too big power, because republics inside Federation were not so powerful as central government. But when Gorbachev was arrested, Yeltsin became in Moscow a key person, according to official status. And all opposition came to Yeltsin to protect against coup. And it was both really democratic forces and pro-bourgeois, quasi-democratic forces.

PAUL JAY: To protect against a coup from whom?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: To protect Yeltsin against those who organized the coup d’état. KGB leaders organized-

PAUL JAY: To protect Yeltsin from the KGB?


PAUL JAY: What did the KGB want?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: KGB wanted to stop transformation led by Gorbachev to rebuild Soviet Union. It’s also important to say that in Caucasus and in Baltic states, republics in that period, was growth of nationalism and ideas to become separate states, not states in the Soviet Union. So, the idea was, “we will use military force, we will keep Soviet Union, and all Gorbachev experiments, we will stop.” They said, “we will keep freedom of speech, but with limitations,” these organizers of the coup, “we will continue some market reforms.”

PAUL JAY: And this was mostly driven out of the KGB?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Some military leaders and a few people from- top officials from the Central Committee.

PAUL JAY: And they want to try to retain what’s left of the Soviet state.


PAUL JAY: Yeltsin represents these “let’s get rich” factions inside.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, but these guys did nothing. They didn’t arrest Yeltsin.

PAUL JAY: Why? KGB knows how to arrest people.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yes, but they did nothing. There are different explanations. Again, I cannot explain this phenomenon, myself. One of the explanations was that Gorbachev decided to play a role of the person who is not responsible for this, and then came to power again with the assistance of the KGB, simply to beat Yeltsin, who became leader of opposition in that period. Another explanation was that they did not have a final agreement of what has to be done, these leaders of the coup. But really, nobody knows. It’s a very strange story, very strange.

PAUL JAY: So, this famous photograph and videos of Yeltsin on the tanks, what is that, then, what goes on there?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yes, it was a few tanks and some soldiers in Moscow. But they did nothing. They were standing in the streets and did nothing. And the two guys who were killed-

PAUL JAY: This is outside the parliament buildings?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Outside, yes. And two guys who were dead, officially, because tanks killed them- really nobody knows what happened in reality- but I think the tanks were going back from Moscow and they accidentally were- because it was crowded, and when they decided to move from the square, two persons were really killed. And then they were transformed into heroes.

PAUL JAY: So, the section of the KGB and army that arrested Gorbachev, they allowed Yeltsin to come to power. Why? Did they say, okay, we might as well get rich too?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Really, I don’t have an explanation, as I said. For me, this is still a big question mark, what’s happened. No idea. Only what I can say is it’s a total crisis of the power. And the only person who was decisive and aggressive was Yeltsin.

PAUL JAY: You’re on the Central Committee. Do they have an emergency meeting, or the Party just starts to fall apart?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: I didn’t have time to come back from this village. It’s Russia, it’s not so simple, even for a member of the Central Committee. When I was back, all was solved. And the Party also was paralyzed. It was total paralysis of legislative and executive organs. It was self-destruction of the elite.

PAUL JAY: So, you’re sitting in your cottage, on vacation- this is what, is it playing out for you on T.V.? I mean, do you know what’s going on?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: First of all, I didn’t have any information. On T.V., it was on barely. The whole time only barely and nothing else. When I received- telephone was not working. It was a real village, and it was one telephone three kilometers from this place. So, when I found this telephone, I could not reach anybody in Moscow. So, after one day, I went to the regional center and received, more or less, information. But when I was back in Moscow, it was nothing.

PAUL JAY: Were you surprised or expecting it?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: No, I was very surprised, of course. And I was afraid that something like that can happen, but not coup. I was afraid that it will be coup organized by republican leaders, Yeltsin and leaders of the Baltic Republics, Caucasus Republics, and so on.

PAUL JAY: And you don’t think the KGB was actually in cahoots with Yeltsin?

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: I don’t think so. I think what was real- the only hypothesis which I can propose is the following; it was informal, indirect, not final agreement with Gorbachev, and Gorbachev, it was his personal problem. He was not decisive. He could not make exact decisions, he was changing decisions very often. And he doesn’t know what has to be done. And he was a very weak leader, and for such periods, it’s necessary to have a strong leader, because personality, in the period of revolution, plays a big role, bigger than usual. In a stable system, personality is not important, or nearly not important. In the period of revolutions, strong personality and strong political organization is very important if this personality is on the top.

PAUL JAY: Well, in the next segment, we’ll pick up. You come back from vacation, and it’s not the Soviet Union, it’s Russia.

ALEXANDER BUZGALIN: Yeah, the Soviet Union is absent, the Communist Party is absent, and the whole situation is completely new, yes.

PAUL JAY: All right, so join us for the next segment of our interview with Professor Buzgalin on The Real News Network.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 13, 2018, 09:51:36 pm »

Congressional Progressive Caucus Challenge Party Leadership and Congress on Militarism and Foreign Policy

July 13, 2018

The little known Congressional Progressive Caucus🕊 is the largest caucus within the Democratic Party and has an important track record in calling attention to the highly interventionist and harmful foreign policy of the US, says CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot


Story Transcript

SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.

As president Trump concluded his participation in a NATO summit this week, he called for a doubling of NATO members’ military spending, from a target of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, to 4 percent of GDP. In effect, Trump is proposing even greater militarization of world affairs, both at home and within NATO.There are, however, members of Congress who have recently been pushing back against the militarization and interventionism of US foreign policy. People such as Representatives Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, among many others. They are all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC. This caucus is generally not that well known, but with 78 members, ( including Bernie Sanders in the Senate) it is the largest Democratic Party caucus. It was founded in 1991 and has grown steadily in size since then. It takes positions on both foreign and domestic policy that tend to be significantly to the left of the party as a whole.Joining me to discuss the foreign policy work of Congressional Progressive Caucus and its individual members is Mark Weisbrot. Mark is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and is the author of the book, “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.” Thanks for joining us again, Mark.

MARK WEISBROT: Thanks, Sharmini, and thanks for doing this show. I think it’s a very important institution that hasn’t really gotten much attention.

SHARMINI PERIES: Thanks for that endorsement, Mark. Let’s start off by defining the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Who are they?

MARK WEISBROT: Yes. Well, it’s 70, around 76-77 members of Congress, all from the House except, as you mentioned, Bernie Sanders in the Senate. And they were formed to provide something of an alternative to a lot of the policies, both domestic and foreign policy, of some of the leadership of the Democratic Party, and turn it to the left of that.

SHARMINI PERIES: And Mark, what are the kinds of things that they are engaged in, and their past policy positions that are significant?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, they’ve taken a lot of positions on domestic issues that were always ahead, you know, on the budget, the monetary policy, the Federal Reserve and fiscal policy. What I think is most striking now, because we’re in a period where most of the foreign policy discussion is kind of retrograde, you know, even by U.S. foreign policy discussion standards, and they’ve taken consistently progressive positions on a whole variety of foreign policy issues. And I think that’s really important to see that there is this pull, because, you know, otherwise you could be really discouraged where you look. You know, you turn on the television and you look in the newspapers here, and all the debates are about various enemies around the world. And even, and you have this special period now where I think, because so much of the leadership and a significant part of the base of the Democratic Party, which would normally be taking a less-hawkish position on foreign policy, has become the more aggressive and interventionist part-.

SHARMINI PERIES: Mark, the Caucus has taken some really important positions that we’ve covered here at The Real News, like that of Yemen, and Brazil, and Syria. Give us some of those policy positions that-. You have actually worked on some of them, on the Hill.

MARK WEISBROT: Yes. Well, the issue of Yemen and the war in Yemen led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and supported militarily by the U.S., you know, in terms of refueling Saudi planes and selecting targets. And this is an actual participation of the United States in the war, and it’s unconstitutional. It’s against the law. You know, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to decide on U.S. military intervention. It isn’t just declaring war, as you might, as some people read it. It actually, if you look at the legislative history, it really is any kind of military or paramilitary intervention, for that matter. That’s what the framers of the Constitution were describing when they put that in.

And so the Congress has that power, and it just hasn’t asserted it enough. This is the law of the land. And so this war is unauthorized and illegal under the Constitution. So what the Progressive Caucus and various members of the Progressive Caucus did in November of last year is they invoked the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which didn’t, you know, reinterpret the Constitution, but gave the Congress another way, a procedural way, of enforcing the constitutional power that they have. So it said that they could any member of Congress, when the U.S. was involved in hostilities overseas without the authorization of Congress, they could actually demand a debate and vote on that military involvement, and that the leadership of the House couldn’t block it. And so that’s what they did. And in the House there was some negotiation, but a resolution did pass. And it didn’t say that the U.S. had to withdraw, but it did recognize that the participation of the United States in this war was unauthorized.

And then they came back to the Senate in February. And it was a resolution-. By the way, these resolutions were sponsored not only by progressive members of Congress and Bernie Sanders in the Senate, but also by more conservative legislators who just believe in the Constitution, like Mike Lee of Utah in the Senate, and in the House there was Walter Jones and Thomas Massie. And so in the Senate, that vote was defeated, but they got, they got 44 votes for it. And it was the first time that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which came out of the Vietnam War, was used to force that vote.

And I think this is very important for several reasons. First of all for this war, because this is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. You have a million people who have gotten cholera from the destruction of water supplies in the bombing. And you had thousands of people die from that. And you have 8 million people on the brink of starvation. And so this isn’t over. And in fact, there’s negotiations going on right now with a U.N. envoy, and there’s some hope that there actually will be a settlement. And some more conservative members of Congress like Steny Hoyer and Eliot Engle, more conservative Democrats, they have even moved, and said to the Saudis in a letter recently that, you know, this is enough, and this has to stop, and you should negotiate a solution. And that’s because of this effort, because they use this power that the Congress has always had, but not used, to actually, you know, stop the, to try and stop this U.S. intervention. And they know, these other legislators know that this actually can be done. They can keep coming back with this, and they’re going to. They’re going to come back, and they can get a vote.

And the final thing I’ll say about this, because I think it’s so important, is it’s a structural change that the Progressive Caucus and people like Ro Khanna, Rep. Ro Khanna from Silicon Valley in California, that are leading this effort. Mark Polkan from the Progressive, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. This, if they continue this, down this path, which I’m very certain they will, this will be a structural change. Because this will now, if you look at the whole history of the United States, there are very few wars where the Congress was leading the charge. It’s, you know-. So this will help prevent a lot of wars in the future as the Congress reasserts its constitutional authority. So that’s very, very big.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Mark, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, as it’s known, is currently the largest Democratic Party caucus with 78 members, which includes Bernie Sanders from Senate. Now, however, only about-. This only constitutes 15 percent of all the 535 members of the House and Senate. Now, given the size, just how much impact can they have, how effective can they possibly be?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, the example I gave was very important because they’re changing the rules of the game. They’re actually, they’re just enforcing the rules of the game, and therefore changing, changing them. But also on other issues they have a voice where nobody can really push back against. And so when it gets in the news and it gets in the news in other countries-. So for example, there’s a letter circulating in Congress now from progressive members on Brazil, because of, you know, in Brazil they’ve got the leading presidential candidate, former President Lula da Silva is in jail right now. And it’s become more and more obvious that this is because, not because he committed a crime for which they did not present material evidence at his trial, but also, but really because he’s the leading candidate and he would win in October. And you know, you get very little real information about this in the news. But these kind of letters, they make the news. If the reporters ignore them here, which they don’t always, they make the news in Brazil. So they have an influence there, and it shows that there is this force that really is, is pushing for a different foreign policy.

And they’ve had similar letters, you know, for other countries, as well. A number of letters on Honduras, for example, when they, with the help of the United States and support of the United States, the Honduran government stole the election in November, and they came out with letters and statements about that. If you look at the election of AMLO in Mexico that just happened, the statement on that was very positive, and it went against the, all the punditry and the most of the media coverage by agreeing with AMLO on his foreign policy, where he wants a more peaceful and non-interventionist foreign policy in the hemisphere. In other words, they’re not going to support like they did, they’re not going to support the United States like they did in the Honduran election, where they came out in favor of recognizing their election, then the U.S. pretended to follow them, after the U.S. had already asked them, the U.S. government had already asked them to do that.

Now, those are the kind of things that they’re not going to do. And the Progressive Caucus will be supporting them while everybody, you read all the opinion leaders in the newspaper are worried, and saying bad things about AMLO, because he’s not lining up with U.S. foreign policy in the hemisphere. And I think what they can do is provide a progressive vision, but not just a vision like an intellectual or a professor can do, but a vision that they’re actively implementing. So it’s far outsized in relation to its percentage of the Congress, because this is, after all, these are positions that the vast majority of Americans would agree with and do agree with, and they’re not represented because of the hegemony of this foreign policy establishment, which includes the government and the media. And this is especially true in Latin America where you see almost no dissent at all, so it’s almost monolithic.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Mark. Now, to tie all of this back to my introduction, which was about Trump’s presence at NATO, and calling for more spending on the part of NATO members, just a few weeks ago the U.S. House passed the 2019 Defense Authorization Bill, allocating $717 billion to the Pentagon. What is the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ position regarding military spending, particularly given just yesterday the House actually reinstated their commitment to NATO?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, the caucus members, I mean, the people that are leading this effort, especially in the Progressive Caucus, are definitely for less military spending. Bernie Sanders has, of course, said this publicly, but also Ro Khanna and other members of the Progressive Caucus. So they’re definitely on the record on this issue, and they are also against, you know, what a lot of the military spending is used for, which is regime change. And that’s a very important position that they’ve taken, as well. Even in Venezuela, for example, where you don’t have any, very little dissent at all against the regime change effort that is currently underway led by the U.S. government. You have opposition, again, from the Progressive Caucus.

So yeah, they’re presenting a consistent view of a positive foreign policy. It’s not isolationist, but it’s against the destructive things that our foreign policy is doing around the world.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Mark. Great discussion. I thank you so much for joining us today.


SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 13, 2018, 09:24:59 pm »

Communism and Consumerism – RAI with A. Buzgalin (3/12)

July 13, 2018

On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Alexander Buzgalin says that “market fetishism”, the hunger for commodities, became a major obstacle to building socialism – with host Paul Jay

Aleksandr Buzgalin is a Professor of Political Economy at Moscow State University. He is also editor of the independent democratic left magazine Alternatives, and is a coordinator of the Russian social movement Alternatives, author of more then 20 books and hundreds of articles, translated into English, German and many other languages.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 08:07:09 pm »

Growing Up in the USSR – RAI with A. Buzgalin (1/12)

July 11, 2018

Prof. Alexander Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself; born two years after the death of Stalin, he talks about growing up in the Soviet Union

Related Bios

Aleksandr Buzgalin

Aleksandr Buzgalin is a Professor of Political Economy at Moscow State University. He is also editor of the independent democratic left magazine Alternatives, and is a coordinator of the Russian social movement Alternatives, author of more then 20 books and hundreds of articles, translated into English, German and many other languages.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2018, 09:12:14 pm »

Far-Right 🦀 Wins Presidency in Colombia: ‘A Frightening Result’ 😨

June 18, 2018

Ivan Duque, who is the candidate of former president Alvaro Uribe, won a solid victory for Colombia’s presidency and will probably take Colombia back towards civil war and internal repression, with the help of the US and other conservative governments, argues Manuel Rozental, of PueblosEnCamino.org

Manuel Rozental

Emmanuel Rozental is a Colombian activist, physician, and practicing surgeon with more than 40 years’ involvement in grassroots political organizing with youth, indigenous peoples, and urban and rural movements. He has been exiled several times to Canada for political activities. Academic in social and political sciences, strategist with social movements throughout the Americas and beyond.

SNIPPET from video interview:

So our fear is now that Colombia is the spearhead of the U.S. policy for this continent. And the U.S. policy for this continent in economic terms is this: war actually is not a means to an end. The resources and territories that are needed are not only a means to an end. War is the end in itself.

The Middle Eastern wars have activated the economy and have improved the economy in the U.S. [Inaudible] that Colombia’s role is one of the Israel of Latin America. And what comes here is a model and a new phase, neoliberalism is left behind.

The new phase such as Colombia and Mexico for capital from the U.S., and pushed by, promoted by U.S. corporations and the Pentagon, is actually a, let’s call it a mafia-type capitalism which is, on the one hand, drug trafficking and drug mafias together with governments and corporations, and launching all types of wars constantly.

I am not trying to generate fear. I’m just showing the type of movements we’re seeing developing here.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2018, 07:31:38 pm »

I just took this quiz and did pretty well with it. This quiz is valuable because is shows how little the average American actually knows about why these wars happen and who gets killed in them. What I got right has a "✔" and what I got wrong has a red asterisk *.  The correct answer(s) are in bold.

Quiz: Beyond War 🕊

What tends to be present where war is? (Check all that apply.)

a) resource scarcity

b) human rights violations in need of response

c) raw fossil fuels

d) Islam  * (I picked this one too and should not have  :-[)

See documentation of c here.

See documentation of not a here.

B and D are non-plausible propaganda.


Nations are more likely to wage war if . . . (Check all that apply.) [THIS QUESTION NOT USED IN FACEBOOK VERSION DUE TO HAVING MULTIPLE ANSWERS]

a) they have militaries * (I didn't pick this one  :-[)

b) they spend more than other nations on their militaries ✔

c) their people accept that war is a legitimate tool of public policy

d) they’re great

See documentation of c here.

See evidence for a and b here.


The United States sells weapons to this percentage of the world’s dictatorships.

a) 0%

b) 12%

c) 52%

d) 73%

See documentation of d here.


The majority of those killed in modern wars are . . .

a) members of a military

b) terrorists

c) evil demons

d) civilians

It’s not even close. Some examples are here.


The majority of those killed with missiles from drones have been . . .

a) criminals

b) terrorists

c) suspect profiled individuals

d) unidentified

See documentation of d here.


What percentage of suicide terrorist attacks are aimed at getting a military to cease occupying a foreign country?

a) 4%

b) 27%

c) 39%

d) 95%

See documentation of d here.


What percentage of military bases on foreign soil are U.S. military bases?

a) 49%

b) 68%

c) 81%

d) 96%

See documentation of d here.


What percentage of global military spending could end starvation globally?

a) 1.5%

b) 3% *

c) 18%

d) 62%

See documentation of a here.


What percentage of the top 4 weapons dealers in the world are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council?

a) 0%

b) 25%

c) 50%

d) 100%

They are the United States, Russia, China, France. The U.K. does not always clearly hold fifth place, though it is always in the top 6 or 7. See documentation of d here.


People have signed World BEYOND War’s pledge to help end all war in how many countries?

a) 6

b) 44

c) 107

d) 158

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2018, 06:50:58 pm »


A Concerned Citizens Study & Action Guide for "A Global Security System: An Alternative to War"

(Discussion 7) Transition: From an Offensive to Defensive Posture

Get your copy!  💐

A Global Security System: an Alternative to War

The 2017 edition of A Global Security System: An Alternative to War (AGSS) is now available.

AGSS, World Beyond War’s effort to describe an alternative security system, is the primary resource for STUDY WAR NO MORE.

AGSS describes the “hardware” of creating a peace system, and the “software” — the values and concepts — necessary to operate a peace system and the means to spread these globally.

Read more and view more great videos:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 17, 2018, 09:53:31 pm »



Scapegoating Iran 😠

By Chris Hedges


NEW YORK—Seventeen years of war in the Middle East and what do we have to show for it? Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation is no longer a unified country. Its once modern infrastructure is largely destroyed, and the nation has fractured into warring enclaves. We have lost the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent and has a presence in over 70 percent of the country. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after three years of relentless airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The 500 “moderate” rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million are in retreat after instigating a lawless reign of terror. The military adventurism has cost a staggering $5.6 trillion as our infrastructure crumbles, austerity guts basic services and half the population of the United States lives at or near poverty levels. The endless wars in the Middle East are the biggest strategic blunder in American history and herald the death of the empire.

Someone has to be blamed for debacles that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead, including at least 200,000 civilians, and millions driven from their homes. Someone has to be blamed for the proliferation of radical jihadist groups throughout the Middle East, the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, the wholesale destruction of cities and towns under relentless airstrikes and the abject failure of U.S. and U.S.-backed forces to stanch the insurgencies. You can be sure it won’t be the generals, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the rabid neocons such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton who sold us the wars, the Central Intelligence Agency, the arms contractors who profit from perpetual war or the celebrity pundits on the airwaves and in newspapers who serve as cheerleaders for the mayhem.

“The failed policies, or lack of policies, of the United States, which violate international law, have left the Middle East in total chaos,” the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Gholamali Khoshroo, told me when we met in New York City. “The United States, to cover up these aggressive, reckless and costly policies, blames Iran. Iran is blamed for their failures in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon.”

Full truth filled article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 13, 2018, 05:47:22 pm »

Trump Halts War Games, Floats Troop Pullout in Korea

June 13, 2018   

At the Singapore summit, President Trump announced a halt to U.S. war games on the Korean peninsula and said he wants to withdraw American troops. But if he does, he’ll face stiff resistance from Congress and Pentagon, warns author James Dorsey


Can North Korea Believe Trump’s Promises?

June 12, 2018   

The United States has a history of not keeping its word. U.S. just withdrew from the Iran agreement, so why would the North Koreans believe the U.S. asks Tom Collina of the Ploughshares Fund

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2018, 08:40:59 pm »

Photo taken by Syrian Christian soldier after the liberation of Ghouta


Posted in Miscellaneous and tagged Al Nusra, Al Qaida, Bashar al-Assad, Daesh, ISIS, Israel, Middle East, moderate rebels, Syria, Syrian Christians, U.S. foreign policy, White Helmets on March 30, 2018.

By James Perloff 


“H” was born in Damascus, and legally immigrated to the United States from Syria more than 20 years ago, long before the current war began. She became a U.S. citizen and earned a doctor’s degree from an American university. She is completely fluent in both English and Arabic. She recently returned from a trip back to Syria, where she has many family members and friends who keep her apprised of the situation there. She is also one of the kindest and most devoted Christians I have ever met. I am keeping H’s name confidential, as I do not wish this interview to in any way jeopardize her family’s safety in Syria, or the status of her professional work in the U.S.

I originally anticipated that our discussion would be two-part; first I would give her a short primer on the back story of American politics. When we sat down, I told H that I have been a journalist since 1985. I began to explain that America is run by an oligarchy that conceals itself behind a façade of two-party democracy, that Presidential candidates have long been pre-selected, that Americans have been repeatedly deceived into wars, and that our press is controlled by the same establishment that controls the politicians. H was smiling, and I could swiftly tell that nothing I said was news to her. And so it was affirmed that what famed commentator “Syrian Girl” (whose Facebook and YouTube accounts have been censored) said is true: Syrians are well informed about the New World Order. Indeed, Syrians know more about the realities of American geopolitics than most Americans do. So, after about four minutes, I laughed, and told H that my “lecture” was over. I now asked her to tell me the truth about Syria. My questions are in normal font, her replies in bold. For this post, I have inserted some pictures and video that correlate with her comments.

Full eye opening interview with more pictures and video: 👀

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 04, 2018, 02:58:53 pm »

Agelbert and Palloy, listed alphabetically and not in order of importance  :laugh: ;D ::)

Would any or both of you gents care to comment on the Russian boasting of it's new weapons prowess a short while back.

It seemed like a bold threatening boast that was found believable by me of it's new superiority.

My reason for asking is the subsequent non reporting and totally ignoring of the boast both by the media and the rhetoric and threats from both parties namely Russia and The US as if nothing had even happened or mentioned, and the status quo seems to have remained the same.

It seemed, at least to me, as a massive restart of the nuclear arms race as well as making the new China,Russia alliance a much more potent military force, yet there is nary a word of it mentioned.   

You two gents seem to have an abundance of interest in these matter, Palloy from the political war wary area and AG from his recent revelation of his work in this area and aircraft expertise.

Did I read it wrong, did not Putin state he had the goods we could not intercept and issue a warning??
                                                                                              Thanks, GO

It is FAR crazier than you can imagine. The US and Russia are now in a new NUCLEAR arms race  . Plutonium pits, those deadly little hollow balls of Plutonium that get injected with Tritium nano-seconds before a hydrogen bomb goes off, which we ALREADY have thhousands of sitting in warehouses in TEXAS, are now all the NEW THING to FUND in the Trump adminsitration. The new ones are a nuclear welfare queen operation to save Senator Graham's arse since the Mox making plant he championed has gone so far over budget that it had to be cancelled.

This new cold war is nuts. These are not just weapons of mass destruciton; they are weapons of GLOBAL destruction.

Hear all about it at Radio Echoshock:

Two Dangerous Myths Exposed
Posted on May 23, 2018, by Radio Ecoshock 📢


Did you know about Putin's FABULOUSLY RICH daughters? Perhaps Palloy will do a bit of research and tell us all about them.  ;) Between the Putins and Trumps, the corruption competition is fierce.   

They may have to blow up the planet to see who is the biggest "apex Predator" among these empathy deficit disordered dynastic bunches.

Have a nice nuclear day.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 30, 2018, 01:05:47 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: More of the above brinkmanship stupidity from the Trump 🦀 wrecking crew.

A poster named Jtrillian tells it like it is.

Jtrillian Wed, 05/30/2018 - 11:13 Permalink

Those Islands are China's.  They belonged to China prior to Japan taking them in WWII.  They were returned to China in the terms dictated in the above mentioned agreement as part of Japans unconditional surrender.

But hey, when has any agreement that we signed ever stopped us from making war?

China has a valid claim to the islands.  The US government is trying to provoke the sleeping dragon into a war.  Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.



“We are going out of our way to cooperate with Pacific nations, that’s the way we do business in the world,” Mattis 🦀 told reporters. “But we are also going to confront what we believe is out of step with international law, out of step with international tribunals that have spoken on the issue.”

The above is from the article linked below:

Wed, 05/30/2018 Mattis: US Will Confront China With "Steady Drumbeat" Of American Ships Over Weaponized Islands

Agelbert analysis: Friends, to the too clever by a half Trump wrecking crew, this is not about war.    That's right. sports fans.

THIS is about the silly posturing blustering bravado Trump's ghost writer talked about in the "Art of the Deal". It is no accident that Mattis 🦍 is making all these noises just as the US trade team is scheduled to arrive in China.

The Chinese, who are experts in this sort of thing, are probably laughing all over themselves by this crude and thoroughly pedestrian attempt to get China to swallow some US tariffs without retaliating big time. Trump does absolutely everything he can to insult both the North Koreans and the Chinese so he can get them into the "negotiating position" Trump wants.

Trump totally missed the memo on Face Saving in these cultures. The only thing Trump has accomplished is to strengthen their resolve to RETALIATE economically BECAUSE they have LOST FACE! Trump thinks he has "softened them up" with threats before he turns on the charm (📢 THAT DOES NOT WORK WITH THE CHINESE or the North Koreans!).

Trump is cornered by China on trade. THAT is what this is REALLY all about. The US, due to its trading account imbalance, NEEDS Chinese products more than they need ours. China can EASILY destroy what is left of our asset stripped and impoverished economy while maintaining a market for its products in other countries.

Sure, Turmp knows that. But the only thing Trump understands is winning by intimidation. That DOES NOT WORK with China (or anyone with half a brain when dealing with a country with a reputation for ignoring/breaking treaties like the USA).

China inderstands the USA better than the USA does. The USA is ALL ABOUT MONEY. So, expect China to REALLY put the tariff heat on our exports now (this will negatively impact our economy FAR AND WIDE, not just the grain exports).

This will hit the banksters that run the USA in the wallet, where their god is.

This will severly impact tthe stock market.

This will bring down the Trump wrecking crew.

The problem is that the Trump 🦀 wrecking crew😈🦕👹🦖🦍  is so STUCK on their "(F)Art of the Deal" ideology, that they might just start a shooting war 💣 if they see that their too clever by a half FArt of the Deal intimidation maneuvers resulted in the following:

1) they FAILED to make China back down

2) The USA becoming the economic and military laughing stock of the world

3) Political GOP disaster in the midterms due to a cratering market and economy.

Read the following story between the lines. Please consider what I have written in regard to the Chinese modus operandi. If you work for the Trump wrecking crew, please get your "Art of the Deal" mafia head out of your ass and stop this insane brinkmanship before you end up wishing you had never been born.

War Erupts Between Trump's🦀
Two Top Trade Advisors 😈 👹  Over China

by Tyler Durden

Wed, 05/30/2018 - 10:14

Commenting on the latest, surprise escalation in the US-China trade ceasefire war, in which Trump unexpectedly announced 25% tariffs on up to $50BN in Chinese imports, prompting a fresh round of outrage and confusion in Beijing which was confident it was done with Trump's "flip-flopping", we observed that "the latest move by Trump signals the more hawkish wing of Trump’s trade team is trying to amplify its hard line, after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said this month that any talk of a trade war was suspended for now."

“Mnuchin’s ‘trade war on hold’ comments look to have been repudiated,” said Derek Scissors, a China analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “It may be the administration has shifted somewhat to appease the Congress on the lifting of the ZTE sanctions.”

Which, we concluded, begs the question:

is China trade hawk dragon Peter Navarro back in Trump's good graces, and if so, is the countdown to Mnuchin's resignation officially on?

Then just moments later, none other than Peter Navarro himself confirmed that there may be another major battle behind the scenes, when in a rare public rebuke of Steven Mnuchin, Navarro - who the media recently relegated to D-grade advisor status when he was excluded from China talks after reportedly exploding at Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross two weeks ago - called Mnuchin's claim that the trade war with China was "on hold" an "unfortunate sound bite" and admitting that there’s a dispute that needs to be resolved.

“What we’re having with China is a trade dispute, plain and simple,” Navarro said in an interview broadcast Wednesday with National Public Radio. “We lost the trade war long ago" with deals such as Nafta and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, he said.

"That was an unfortunate sound bite," says WH adviser Peter Navarro of Steven Mnuchin saying a trade war with China is "on hold." It's on hold no longer, though Navarro calls it a "trade dispute." More in this thread.https://t.co/m7oPSJWcTA @MorningEdition @npr

— Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) May 30, 2018
Navarro also said that "we can stop them from putting our high tech companies out of business" and "buying up our crown jewels of technology.... Every time we innovate something new, China comes in and buys it or steals it."

Earlier this month, Mnuchin shocked markets and sent stocks surging after he said in a weekend televised interview that the prospect of a trade war with China was "on hold." It turns out, Mnuchin was merely saying whatever someone had told him to say.

The latest controversial remark from Navarro, who refuses to go gentle into that good night, came just days before U.S.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is scheduled to meet with his counterparts in Beijing to discuss ways to reduce the U.S.’s trade deficit with China, and - as noted earlier - follows Trump's surprise announcement that the U.S. is moving ahead with plans to impose tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and curb investment in sensitive technology.

The renewed tariff threats could stop the planned talks and jeopardize a deal, the WSJ reported on Wednesday, citing sources in both countries. A team of U.S. officials was scheduled to arrive in Beijing on Wednesday. Asked about potential Chinese retaliation, especially on American farm goods, Navarro said “we’re ready for anything.”

As for the implications of this growing trade advisor war in Trump's inner circle, two weeks ago Bill Blain wrote that "Mnuchin’s Name Is Now High On The Trump Deadpool List" and come to think of it, it has been a while since Trump fired anyone...


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 25, 2018, 08:43:03 pm »

Trump-Jong Un Meeting Cancelled, But Can the Talks Survive?


May 24, 2018

Denuclearization, Libyan model, military exercises, and criticism in South Korea, we discuss it all with columnist James Dorsey, in Singapore

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 25, 2018, 02:38:09 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Russia sends Trump a message (while Trump plays finger pointing games in the US).

Russian Defence Ministry

Watch: Russian Nuclear Submarine Rapid-Fires Four Ballistic Missiles

May 23, 2018 by gCaptain

The Russian Defense Ministry has released video of nuclear-powered Borei-class submarine test firing a barrage of four Bulava missiles from below the surface.

The test was conducted on Tuesday from a submerged location in a designated area of the White Sea, located off the northwest coast of Russia. The Ministry said the missiles were launched against targets at the Kura shooting range on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

The test, which was conducted using the nuclear submarine Yuri Dolgorukiy, marked the first-ever salvo fire from this type of submarine, the Ministry said.

The footage published on Wednesday shows some pre-launch activities on board the submarine before it is shown firing four missiles in quick succession.

“The test confirmed combat readiness of the Project-955 Borei SSBN and the Bulava missile system,” the Defence Ministry stated.

The full-length version of the test is below:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 22, 2018, 05:38:09 pm »

What the Pentagon Papers were really all about



You’ve heard about the Pentagon Papers and they were a big deal. But what were the Pentagon Papers really all about?

Assassinations, torture, drug dealing, money laundering – by the CIA.

You never heard that part, did you?

Here’s the story:

While Eisenhower played golf (and recovered from a heart attack), the fledgling CIA grew fangs.

Maybe it was his exposure to the mass slaughter of WW II, but whatever the reason Eisenhower was a big fan of covert – and illegal – operations.

The CIA succeeded in using illegal, covert operations to remove the secular and popularly-elected Mossadegeh from power in Iran in 1953 and did the same thing in Guatemala in 1954.

In 1954, something called NSC 5412 was written to set up to give the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the President oversight over this secret, un-elected new branch of government.

The so called “Pentagon Papers” were the first public look into the operations of the 5412 committee.

But there’s more to the story than that.

Under the conniving of Allen Dulles, the 5412 committee soon calcified into a weak review board and the real action of the CIA was carried out “off the books” and away from the oversight of the 5412 committee.

That’s how the Vietnam war really started. It had little to do with the Pentagon at all.

Confused yet?


Now to go deeper down the rabbit hole…

Who exactly was Daniel Ellsberg?

For starters, he was a war hawk.

Then after proving his bona fides as a Marine Lieutenant he was loaned by the Pentagon to the CIA’s proto-Phoenix Program where he engaged in the “pacification” of the Vietnamese people under the direction of none other than CIA officer/Air Force General and overall maniac Edward Landsdale.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Long story short: The Pentagon Papers were released by a CIA operative who managed to keep the attention OFF the CIA and on the Pentagon.

There is no video on this, but there is this excellent article by Douglas Valentine: Will the real Daniel Ellsberg please stand up.


MARCH 8, 2003

Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg  Please Stand Up!

Political activist Daniel Ellsberg became an icon in 1971 after he leaked The Pentagon Papers. This “act of conscience” helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War, and contributed to the demise of President Richard Nixon, whose felonious minions, the infamous Plumbers, sent CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, and former FBI agent (and self-professed rat-eater) G. Gordon Liddy, to burglarize confidential files from Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. Hunt and Liddy thought they could trump the anti-War movement by showing that Ellsberg was a mentally deranged LSD-abuser, but their slap-happy plan backfired, and instead opened up the Pandora’s box of the CIA inspired dirty tricks the Republican Party relied upon (and still uses today) to wage political warfare.

Starting on March 9th, the Pentagon Papers story will be broadcast as a made-for-TV movie on the popular F/X network. Based partially on Ellsberg’s autobiography, the movie will star quirky James Spader as Ellsberg, and will feature Hayley Lochner as “the wife,” Jonas Chernick as CIA connected New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and Paul Giamatti as Anthony Russo, the man who went to prison on Ellsberg’s behalf.

Be forewarned: nowhere in this revisionist history will be audience be presented with the cast of Corsican drug smugglers and CIA agents that shaped Ellsberg’s sensibilities and sent him on his path to New Left notoriety. But as the reader shall see in this article, somewhere between the official Pentagon Papers story, and the CIA’s involvement in international drug trafficking, is a disturbing clash of facts from which Ellsberg will not emerge with his icon status intact.

Ellsberg And the Quiet American

The first thing the reader needs to know is that Ellsberg was not always a pacifist “dove” intent on ending the Vietnam War. At first he was an aggressive “hawk.” His militant approach to the Cold War ? he was all for nuking the Soviet Union ? was shaped during a tour of duty as a Marine lieutenant, and precisely because of his hard-line attitude, and his ability to articulate it, he was offered a job as a Defense Department analyst.

Then in 1965 he was assigned as a Pentagon observer to the CIA’s Revolutionary Development (RD) Program in South Vietnam. Here Ellsberg came under the influence of his mentor, CIA officer cum Air Force General Edward Lansdale. The mass murderer Graham Greene used as the model for Alden Pyle in “The Quiet American,” Lansdale was the architect of the CIA’s anti-terror strategy for winning the Vietnam War. When not engaged in typical RD Program “Civil Affairs” activities, such as helping the local Vietnamese build perimeter defenses around their villages, Ellsberg and his fellow RD advisors, under the tutelage of Lansdale, dressed in black pajamas and reportedly slipped into enemy areas at midnight to “snatch and snuff” the local Viet Cong cadre, sometimes making it appear as if the VC themselves had done the dirty deed, in what Lansdale euphemistically called “black propaganda” activities.

Functioning as a gruesome “shadow warrior” was not Ellsberg’s only claim to fame in South Vietnam. It will not be addressed in the TV docudrama, but Ellsberg was exceedingly charming and possessed with the uncanny ability to reproduce conversations verbatim–talents that made him a highly prized asset of John Hart, the CIA station chief in Saigon. Hart and the CIA’s foreign intelligence staff wanted to know what influential Vietnamese citizens and officials were privately thinking, and plotting, so they introduced Ellsberg into Saigon’s elite social circles, and he began reporting directly to station chief John Hart on matters of political importance.

And if what his CIA colleagues say is true, Ellsberg was not only as a superb spy, he was also as a swashbuckling swordsman who romanced numerous women, including the exquisite Germaine. One part French and three parts Vietnamese, Germaine was the object of every red-blooded American man’s desire, and when Ellsberg met her at a swinging Saigon party, the hot-blooded cocksman immediately rose to the occasion, heedless of the fact that she was engaged to an opium-addicted Corsican drug smuggler named Michel Seguin.

It is here, with Ellsberg’s love affair with Germaine, that the discrepancy between fact and fiction has its origins. According to Professor McCoy, at the time Ellsberg met Germaine, Ellsberg’s close friend, CIA officer Lucien Conein, was negotiating a “truce” with the Corsican gangsters who supplied South Vietnam’s top military officers and government officials with that most lucrative of black market commodities, heroin.

Ellsberg’s Perilous Peccadilloes

Legendary CIA officer Lou Conein was an Old Vietnam Hand. As a member of Detachment 202 of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Conein had fought with the French Special Forces in Indochina in World War II. After the war he married a Vietnamese woman and remained in Vietnam. He joined the CIA upon its creation and after a tour of duty in Europe, he returned to South Vietnam in 1954, as an aide to the aforementioned Ed Lansdale, to help organize the CIA’s anti-communist forces in North Vietnam. As a measure of his knack for deceit and deception, it is worth noting that one of Conein’s favorite “dirty tricks” was “to stage funerals without a corpse, and bury the coffin filled with weapons for later use by the anti-communists.”1

“Black Luigi” Conein departed South Vietnam in 1958 after Lansdale had safely ensconced his Catholic prot?g?, Ngo Dinh Diem, as President of South Vietnam. Conein spent the next few years in the opium rich outlands of Iran as a military advisor to the Shah’s special forces. In 1962 he returned to Vietnam as a “floating emissary,” reporting directly to the Kennedy White House, while secretly coaching the cabal of generals that murdered President Diem and his opium-addicted brother Nhu on 2 November 1963.

After the bloody coup d’etat, Conein remained in South Vietnam, but not without further controversy. As noted, professor McCoy contends that Ellsberg and Conein formed a fast friendship at the exact same moment Conein was arranging a “truce” between the CIA and unnamed Corsican drug smugglers in Saigon.

Conein, however, adamantly denied the allegation that he arranged a drug-related “truce.” In a 1972 letter to McCoy’s publisher, he insisted that his meeting with the Corsicans, “had to do with ameliorating a tense situation engendered by Daniel Ellsberg’s peccadilloes with the mistress of a Corsican.”

Here we return to enchantress Germaine, her opium-addicted Corsican fianc?, Michel Seguin, and a new character in our passion play, Frank Scotton. In 1965 Scotton was ostensibly employed by the U.S. Information Service, though his undercover job as a CIA officer was forming assassination squads around Saigon in what was the prototype of the CIA’s infamous Phoenix Program. Through this experimental “counter-terror” program, which fell under Lansdale’s RD Program, Scotton and Ellsberg met and became the best of friends. In fact, it was Scotton who invited Ellsberg to the party where the fateful encounter with Germaine occurred.

What happened next is subject to conjecture–and it must be emphasized that in order to understand how the Discrepancy might occur, the reader must need be aware that rumors, whisper campaigns, and half-truths are the preferred weapons of political warriors. CIA dirty tricks and deceptions are meant to misdirect and discredit, so one must examine these statements closely to discover what is being concealed, and why. Complicating the already convoluted situation is the fact that Ellsberg’s closest friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were CIA officers. Which is not meant to cast guilt through association on Ellsberg, but it is intended to warn the reader that one must carefully study their conflicting stories.

Scotton and Conein, in separate interviews with this writer, claimed they warned Ellsberg to sever his relationship with Germaine. But Ellsberg, they said, would not be kept from his lover’s embrace. Scotton and Conein claimed that Michael Seguin hired a Vietnamese assassin to kill Ellsberg, but, they said, they were able to intercept the assassin before he could carry out his contract.

In an interview with this writer, Ellsberg admitted to having had the affair with Germaine, and he confessed that Seguin put a gun to his head and warned him to stay away from the woman they both cherished. But Ellsberg vehemently denied that either Scotton or Conein intervened on his behalf. Their stories, he said, were standard CIA disinformation, designed to make him seem beholden to former CIA comrades, and thus cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers.

Ulterior Motives

Theoretically, it seems logical to conclude that one of the conflicting stories hides an ulterior motive. And in a search of the recorded history of the time, there is only one source that sheds any light on the situation. All we know, according to Professor McCoy, is that CIA agent Lou Conein met with Corsican gangsters to arrange a “truce” regarding drug smuggling in South Vietnam, and that after this “truce” the Corsicans (including, one would presume, Michel Seguin) continued to serve as “contact men” for the CIA in the drug smuggling business.

This is where The Discrepancy reaches critical mass, for Ellsberg denies that his CIA mentor, Edward Lansdale, or his CIA friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were involved with Corsican drug smugglers.

Recapping: McCoy claims that Conein arranged a” truce” with the Corsican gangsters over drug smuggling in South Vietnam; Conein denied the allegation and said the meeting concerned Ellsberg’s affair with Germaine; and Ellsberg denies (1) that Conein and Scotton intervened on his behalf, and (2) that Conein, Lansdale and Scotton were involved with drug smugglers.

Who is telling the truth? Could a CIA officer with a photographic memory not be aware that his colleagues were involved with drug smugglers? Or is McCoy’s research fatally flawed? Did the alleged “truce” occur? Was the good professor, who has prompted so many people to question the CIA’s role in international drug smuggling, misled by dirty trickster Conein. Was the ulterior motive to move McCoy toward the Corsicans and away from the CIA’s unilateral drug smuggling operation? Thinking the Unthinkable

It was 1970 when the mainstream American press first reported the CIA’s involvement in international drug trafficking, and it was 1970 when the U.S. Senate launched a potentially explosive investigation into the CIA’s Phoenix “assassination” Program, a special unit of which was providing security for the CIA’s unilateral drug smuggling operation.

The House of Representatives launched deeper probes into CIA drug smuggling and the CIA’s Phoenix Program in early 1971, and, naturally, the CIA at this critical time took extensive countermeasures in a concerted effort to conceal these facts. What is relevant to the discrepancy is the that in June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the aptly named Pentagon Papers, shifting blame for the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War from the CIA to the military, while distracting public attention from the investigations of the CIA’s Phoenix Program and the CIA’s involvement in drug smuggling.

Ellsberg is aware of the rumor that Conein and Scotton asked him to leak the Pentagon Papers as part of the CIA’s disinformation campaign. But he shrugs off the insidious rumor as yet another instance of ? CIA disinformation designed to cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers.

While it is definitely politically incorrect within what passes nowadays for the New Left to even make the suggestion, is it unthinkable that Ellsberg might have suffered such a whisper campaign in order to prevent his CIA friends from being indicted for drug smuggling and mass murder?

The Politics Of Heroin (And War Crimes) In America

After Ellsberg leaked The Pentagon Papers, the CIA’s plot to cover-up its unilateral drug smuggling operation moved forward with greater gusto. According to the Justice Department’s still classified DeFeo Report, Conein in the spring of 1971 was called out of retirement by CIA officer E. Howard Hunt and asked to become an advisor to President Nixon’s “drug czar” (and Plumber) Egil Krogh, on matters regarding “problems of narcotic control in Southeast Asia and the Pentagon Papers.”

Consider that in 1971 the relationship between the French intelligence service and Corsican drug smugglers in its employ was exposed after a series of spectacular drug busts made in America with the assistance of the CIA. Concurrently, Conein was called out of retirement and immediately, in June 1971, told McCoy about the “truce” with the French-connected Corsicans, one of who put a gun to Ellsberg head.

Consider also that Egil Krogh’s investigators stumbled upon the CIA’s unilateral drug smuggling operation at this time, and that in July 1971, President Nixon declared the burgeoning war on drugs to be a matter of national security. Nixon went after the CIA and quick as a flash, E. Howard Hunt (Conein’s comrade from OSS Detachment 202) bungled the bugging of the Watergate Hotel. Washington Post reporter and former Naval Intelligence officer Bob Woodward, then assigned to cover Nixon’s war on drugs, was approached by the still anonymous Deep Throat, and based on unsubstantiated rumors, incrementally engendered the Watergate scandal and effectively neutralized Nixon, and his war on drugs.

In the summer of 1972 came the publication of McCoy’s book, which implicated the CIA in Corsican drug smuggling operation in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma and Laos. But no CIA officer was ever indicted for drug smuggling. In fact, the CIA boasted that it was actually helping, by infiltrating the Corsican operation, to wage the war on drugs. Amazing as it may sound, McCoy’s exposure in 1972 of the French Connection drug smuggling operation also helped to divert public attention from the CIA’s unilateral drug smuggling operations.

That same summer of 1972, Lou Conein became a consultant to the newly created Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) at the Department of Justice. After the Drug Enforcement Administration was formed in July 1973, Conein became chief of a special operations unit that in 1975 was investigated by the U.S. Senate for the dubious distinction of assassinating drug lords.

The Pentagon Papers, Drugs, and Political Assassinations

Today only questions remain. Why did Conein meet the Corsicans in 1965? Was the rumor of an assassination attempt on Ellsberg concocted to provide Conein with a plausible cover story for his “truce” with the drug smuggling Corsicans? If so, why does Ellsberg deny that his CIA comrades, Lansdale, Conein and Scotton, were involved in drug smuggling, as McCoy contends? And, finally, was McCoy deliberately led by Conein in a wide circle around the CIA’s unilateral drug smuggling operation?

Unless these questions are resolved, the truth about Watergate and the Pentagon Papers will continue to elude historians, and this quiet discrepancy will serve, like the TV movie based on Ellsberg’s autobiography, only to perpetuate the myths, mysteries, and half-truths that define American history–a history that hauntingly reflects standard CIA operating procedures.

DOUGLAS VALENTINE is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, and TDY. His new book The Strength of the Wolf: the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1968 will be published by Verso. Valentine was an investigator for Pepper on the King case in 1998-1999. For information about Valentine and his books and articles, please visit his website at www.douglasvalentine.com.

He can be reached at: redspruce@attbi.com

Valentine’s last article for CounterPunch was: An Act of State: the Assassination of Martin Luther King


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 19, 2018, 08:02:09 pm »

US-North Korea Peace Talks: Trump 🦀 Threatens Kim with Gaddafi’s Fate

May 18, 2018

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Trump’s threats, Bolton’s inexperience, combined with the military exercises in the region is putting the North Korean peace talks at risk. It is inexplicable form of diplomacy, unless you want the talks to fail

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 09, 2018, 02:27:05 pm »

Israel 😈 Threatens Lebanon After Hezbollah Makes Gains in Election

May 8, 2018

After Hezbollah and political allies won seats in Lebanon’s first parliamentary election in 9 years, Israeli minister Naftali Bennett threatened to retaliate against the Lebanese state for Hezbollah’s actions. Journalist Jamal Ghosn says this is the latest in a long string of threats, and Israel violates Lebanese sovereignty every day.


+-Recent Topics

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:51:36 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:34:53 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:30:42 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 07:27:35 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 05:20:56 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 01:20:09 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 02:02:10 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 01:10:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 08:40:27 pm

Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 02:31:42 pm