What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis

Special Report: The Ukrainian crisis partly fomented by U.S. neocons including holdovers at the State Department has soured U.S-Russian relations and disrupted President Obama’s secretive cooperation with Russian President Putin to resolve crises in the Mideast, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

President Barack Obama has been trying, mostly in secret, to craft a new foreign policy that relies heavily on cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to tamp down confrontations in hotspots such as Iran and Syria. But Obama’s timidity about publicly explaining this strategy has left it open to attack from powerful elements of Official Washington, including well-placed neocons and people in his own administration.

The gravest threat to this Obama-Putin collaboration has now emerged in Ukraine, where a coalition of U.S. neocon operatives and neocon holdovers within the State Department fanned the flames of unrest in Ukraine, contributing to the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych and now to a military intervention by Russian troops in the Crimea, a region in southern Ukraine that historically was part of Russia.

President Barack Obama discusses the crisis in Ukraine for 90 minutes on March 1, 2014, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (White House photo/Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama discusses the crisis in Ukraine for 90 minutes on March 1, 2014, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (White House photo/Pete Souza)

Though I’m told the Ukraine crisis caught Obama and Putin by surprise, the neocon determination to drive a wedge between the two leaders has been apparent for months, especially after Putin brokered a deal to head off U.S. military strikes against Syria last summer and helped get Iran to negotiate concessions on its nuclear program, both moves upsetting the neocons who had favored heightened confrontations.

Putin also is reported to have verbally dressed down Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan over what Putin considered their provocative actions regarding the Syrian civil war. So, by disrupting neocon plans and offending Netanyahu and Bandar, the Russian president found himself squarely in the crosshairs of some very powerful people.

If not for Putin, the neocons along with Israel and Saudi Arabia had hoped that Obama would launch military strikes on Syria and Iran that could open the door to more “regime change” across the Middle East, a dream at the center of neocon geopolitical strategy since the 1990s. This neocon strategy took shape after the display of U.S. high-tech warfare against Iraq in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union later that year. U.S. neocons began believing in a new paradigm of a uni-polar world where U.S. edicts were law.

The neocons felt this paradigm shift also meant that Israel would no longer need to put up with frustrating negotiations with the Palestinians. Rather than haggling over a two-state solution, U.S. neocons simply pressed for “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries that were assisting the Palestinians or Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Iraq was first on the neocon hit list, but next came Syria and Iran. The overriding idea was that once the regimes assisting the Palestinians and Hezbollah were removed or neutralized, then Israel could dictate peace terms to the Palestinians who would have no choice but to accept what was on the table.

U.S. neocons working on Netanyahu’s campaign team in 1996, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, even formalized their bold new plan, which they outlined in a strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper argued that only “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary “clean break” from the diplomatic standoffs that had followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In 1998, the neocon Project for the New American Century called for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but President Bill Clinton refused to go along. The situation changed, however, when President George W. Bush took office and after the 9/11 attacks. Suddenly, the neocons had a Commander in Chief who agreed with the need to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — and a stunned and angry U.S. public could be easily persuaded. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

So, Bush invaded Iraq, ousting Hussein but failing to subdue the country. The U.S. death toll of nearly 4,500 soldiers and the staggering costs, estimated to exceed $1 trillion, made the American people and even Bush unwilling to fulfill the full-scale neocon vision, which was expressed in one of their favorite jokes of 2003 about where to attack next, Iran or Syria, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran!”

Though hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney pushed the neocon/Israeli case for having the U.S. military bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities with the hope that the attacks also might spark a “regime change” in Tehran Bush decided that he couldn’t risk the move, especially after the U.S. intelligence community assessed in 2007 that Iran had stopped work on a bomb four years earlier.

The Rise of Obama

The neocons were dealt another setback in 2008 when Barack Obama defeated a neocon favorite, Sen. John McCain. But Obama then made one of the fateful decisions of his presidency, deciding to staff key foreign-policy positions with “a team of rivals,” i.e. keeping Republican operative Robert Gates at the Defense Department and recruiting Hillary Clinton, a neocon-lite, to head the State Department.

Obama also retained Bush’s high command, most significantly the media-darling Gen. David Petraeus. That meant that Obama didn’t take control over his own foreign policy.

Gates and Petraeus were themselves deeply influenced by the neocons, particularly Frederick Kagan, who had been a major advocate for the 2007 “surge” escalation in Iraq, which was hailed by the U.S. mainstream media as a great “success” but never achieved its principal goal of a unified Iraq. At the cost of nearly 1,000 U.S. dead, it only bought time for an orderly withdrawal that spared Bush and the neocons the embarrassment of an obvious defeat.

So, instead of a major personnel shakeup in the wake of the catastrophic Iraq War, Obama presided over what looked more like continuity with the Bush war policies, albeit with a firmer commitment to draw down troops in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan.

From the start, however, Obama was opposed by key elements of his own administration, especially at State and Defense, and by the still-influential neocons of Official Washington. According to various accounts, including Gates’s new memoir Duty, Obama was maneuvered into supporting a troop “surge” in Afghanistan, as advocated by neocon Frederick Kagan and pushed by Gates, Petraeus and Clinton.

Gates wrote that Kagan persuaded him to recommend the Afghan “surge” and that Obama grudgingly went along although Gates concluded that Obama didn’t believe in the “mission” and wanted to reverse course more quickly than Gates, Petraeus and their side wanted.

Faced with this resistance from his own bureaucracy, Obama began to rely on a small inner circle built around Vice President Joe Biden and a few White House advisers with the analytical support of some CIA officials, including CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Obama also found a surprising ally in Putin after he regained the Russian presidency in 2012. A Putin adviser told me that the Russian president personally liked Obama and genuinely wanted to help him resolve dangerous disputes, especially crises with Iran and Syria.

In other words, what evolved out of Obama’s early “team of rivals” misjudgment was an extraordinary presidential foreign policy style, in which Obama developed and implemented much of his approach to the world outside the view of his secretaries of State and Defense (except when Panetta moved briefly to the Pentagon).

Even after the eventual departures of Gates in 2011, Petraeus as CIA director after a sex scandal in late 2012, and Clinton in early 2013, Obama’s peculiar approach didn’t particularly change. I’m told that he has a distant relationship with Secretary of State John Kerry, who never joined Obama’s inner foreign policy circle.

Though Obama’s taciturn protectiveness of his “real” foreign policy may be understandable given the continued neocon “tough-guy-ism” that dominates Official Washington, Obama’s freelancing approach gave space to hawkish elements of his own administration.

For instance, Secretary of State Kerry came close to announcing a U.S. war against Syria in a bellicose speech on Aug. 30, 2013, only to see Obama pull the rug out from under him as the President worked with Putin to defuse the crisis sparked by a disputed chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How War on Syria Lost Its Way.”]

Similarly, Obama and Putin hammered out the structure for an interim deal with Iran on how to constrain its nuclear program. But when Kerry was sent to seal that agreement in Geneva, he instead inserted new demands from the French (who were carrying water for the Saudis) and nearly screwed it all up. After getting called on the carpet by the White House, Kerry returned to Geneva and finalized the arrangements.[See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Saudi-Israel Defeat on Iran Deal.”]

Unorthodox Foreign Policy

Obama’s unorthodox foreign policy essentially working in tandem with the Russian president and sometimes at odds with his own foreign policy bureaucracy has forced Obama into faux outrage when he’s faced with some perceived affront from Russia, such as its agreement to give temporary asylum to National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

For the record, Obama had to express strong disapproval of Snowden’s asylum, though in many ways Putin was doing Obama a favor by sparing Obama from having to prosecute Snowden with the attendant complications for U.S. national security and the damaging political repercussions from Obama’s liberal base.

Putin’s unforced errors also complicated the relationship, such as when he defended Russian hostility toward gays and cracked down on dissent before the Sochi Olympics. Putin became an easy target for U.S. commentators and comedians.

But Obama’s hesitancy to explain the degree of his strategic cooperation with Putin has enabled Official Washington’s still influential neocons, including holdovers within the State Department bureaucracy, to drive more substantive wedges between Obama and Putin. The neocons came to recognize that the Obama-Putin tandem had become a major impediment to their strategic vision.

Without doubt, the neocons’ most dramatic and potentially most dangerous counter-move has been Ukraine, where they have lent their political and financial support to opposition forces who sought to break Ukraine away from its Russian neighbor.

Though this crisis also stems from the historical division of Ukraine between its more European-oriented west and the Russian-ethnic east and south neocon operatives, with financing from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. sources, played key roles in destabilizing and overthrowing the democratically elected president.

NED, a $100 million-a-year agency created by the Reagan administration in 1983 to promote political action and psychological warfare against targeted states, lists 65 projects that it supports financially inside Ukraine, including training activists, supporting “journalists” and promoting business groups, effectively creating a full-service structure primed and ready to destabilize a government in the name of promoting “democracy.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Shadow US Foreign Policy.”]

State Department neocons also put their shoulders into shoving Ukraine away from Russia. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan and the sister-in-law of the Gates-Petraeus adviser Frederick Kagan, advocated strenuously for Ukraine’s reorientation toward Europe.

Last December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves,” by which she meant into the West’s orbit and away from Russia’s.

But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine’s economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych’s decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country’s western and more pro-European region.

Nuland was soon at work planning for “regime change,” encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn’t seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.

By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government.

“Yats is the guy,” Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. “He’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy you know.” By “Yats,” Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister — and who was committed to harsh austerity.

As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera’s anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during World War II.

With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives.

With these neo-Nazis providing “security,” the remaining parliamentarians agreed in a series of unanimous or near unanimous votes to establish a new government and seek Yanukovych’s arrest for mass murder. Nuland’s choice, Yatsenyuk, emerged as interim prime minister.

Yet, the violent ouster of Yanukovych provoked popular resistance to the coup from the Russian-ethnic south and east. After seeking refuge in Russia, Yanukovych appealed to Putin for help. Putin then dispatched Russian troops to secure control of the Crimea. [For more on this history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Cheering a ‘Democratic’ Coup in Ukraine.”]

Separating Obama from Putin

The Ukraine crisis has given Official Washington’s neocons another wedge to drive between Obama and Putin. For instance, the neocon flagship Washington Post editorialized on Saturday that Obama was responding “with phone calls” when something much more threatening than “condemnation” was needed.

It’s always stunning when the Post, which so energetically lobbied for the U.S. invasion of Iraq under the false pretense of eliminating its (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, gets its ire up about another country acting in response to a genuine security threat on its own borders, not half a world away.

But the Post’s editors have never been deterred by their own hypocrisy. They wrote, “Mr. Putin’s likely objective was not difficult to figure. He appears to be responding to Ukraine’s overthrow of a pro-Kremlin government last week with an old and ugly Russian tactic: provoking a separatist rebellion in a neighboring state, using its own troops when necessary.”

The reality, however, appears to have been that neocon elements from within the U.S. government encouraged the overthrow of the elected president of Ukraine via a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi storm troopers who then terrorized lawmakers as the parliament passed draconian laws, including some intended to punish the Russian-oriented regions which favor Yanukovych.

Yet, besides baiting Obama over his tempered words about the crisis, the Post declared that “Mr. Obama and European leaders must act quickly to prevent Ukraine’s dismemberment. Missing from the president’s statement was a necessary first step: a demand that all Russian forces regular and irregular be withdrawn and that Moscow recognize the authority of the new Kiev government. If Mr. Putin does not comply, Western leaders should make clear that Russia will pay a heavy price.”

The Post editors are fond of calling for ultimatums against various countries, especially Syria and Iran, with the implication that if they don’t comply with some U.S. demand that harsh actions, including military reprisals, will follow.

But now the neocons, in their single-minded pursuit of endless “regime change” in countries that get in their way, have taken their ambitions to a dangerous new level, confronting nuclear-armed Russia with ultimatums.

By Sunday, the Post’s neocon editors were “spelling out the consequences” for Putin and Russia, essentially proposing a new Cold War. The Post mocked Obama for alleged softness toward Russia and suggested that the next “regime change” must come in Moscow.

“Many in the West did not believe Mr. Putin would dare attempt a military intervention in Ukraine because of the steep potential consequences,” the Post wrote. “That the Russian ruler plunged ahead shows that he doubts Western leaders will respond forcefully. If he does not quickly retreat, the United States must prove him wrong.”

The madness of the neocons has long been indicated by their extraordinary arrogance and their contempt for other nations’ interests. They assume that U.S. military might and other coercive means must be brought to bear on any nation that doesn’t bow before U.S. ultimatums or that resists U.S.-orchestrated coups.

Whenever the neocons meet resistance, they don’t rethink their strategy; they simply take it to the next level. Angered by Russia’s role in heading off U.S. military attacks against Syria and Iran, the neocons escalated their geopolitical conflict by taking it to Russia’s own border, by egging on the violent ouster of Ukraine’s elected president.

The idea was to give Putin an embarrassing black eye as punishment for his interference in the neocons’ dream of “regime change” across the Middle East. Now, with Putin’s countermove, his dispatch of Russian troops to secure control of the Crimea, the neocons want Obama to further escalate the crisis by going after Putin.

Some leading neocons even see ousting Putin as a crucial step toward reestablishing the preeminence of their agenda. NED president Carl Gershman wrote in the Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.   Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

At minimum, the neocons hope that they can neutralize Putin as Obama’s ally in trying to tamp down tensions with Syria and Iran and thus put American military strikes against those two countries back under active consideration.

As events spin out of control, it appears way past time for President Obama to explain to the American people why he has collaborated with President Putin in trying to resolve some of the world’s thorniest problems.

That, however, would require him to belatedly take control of his own administration, to purge the neocon holdovers who have worked to sabotage his actual foreign policy, and to put an end to neocon-controlled organizations, like the National Endowment for Democracy, that use U.S. taxpayers’ money to stir up trouble abroad. That would require real political courage.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

24 comments for “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis

  1. Stu Piddy
    March 6, 2014 at 14:27

    I think this article by Parry is pure Rubbish.

    Parry is what they call an Obama apologist. Obama is this poor black, well meaning fellow who trusted the neo- cons so he continues or appoints them to strategic positions because he has an “unorthodox” style….or sumpin’.

    The stupidity of this assumption is so outrageous I have to ask who Parry really works for.

    Don’t ever, ever consider the inner motivations of politicians. NEVER! Look at what they do. Then you understand their motivation at it’s deepest level.

    What Obama does, is kill people, create chaos and attack Russia, China and even the EU. He’s involved in meaningless wars or provocations all over the world and where the provocations origin lies or impetus is irrelevant in regards to Obama. He either passively allows them to occur (which means it is his intention to do so) or he actively encourages them to occur (which means it is his intention to do so).

    What actually is occurring reveals his intention. This isn’t like a traffic accident where somebody makes a mistake. This is a long, drawn out, contemplated series of events that have a consistent, long drawn out series of footprints which reveal intention.

    The asinine, disturbing, suggestively racist article by Parry is an offense to anyone who doesn’t lie to themselves 24/7.

    it’s SHIT.

    Obamba is what he is. A world leader, like other world leaders in world history. Someone who trades human sensibility for the meaningless personalized exaltation of masses of people manipulated by the agents of media.

    • Joe Webb
      March 9, 2014 at 06:34

      He might be an “Obama Apologist” but it sounds like you have some real hate for a man you’ve never met. It seems more like you want to play devil’s advocate and say the author’s ideas and assumptions are shit, which is normal for most comment sections of articles like this. Please know that most people interested in reading this article have an interest in the author’s point of view and will look at your comment and completely disregard it as something written by an immature Obama-hater who has watched too many episodes of House of Cards in the past few weeks. Have a great day :)

  2. LucasFoxx
    March 5, 2014 at 14:39

    I wish you would provide more documentation. I can’t find anything anywhere to support this: “The reality, however, appears to have been that neocon elements from within the U.S. government encouraged the overthrow of the elected president of Ukraine via a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi storm troopers who then terrorized lawmakers as the parliament passed draconian laws, including some intended to punish the Russian-oriented regions which favor Yanukovych.”

  3. Richard
    March 5, 2014 at 14:05

    America is a supremely evil country. The so-called ‘neocons’ are the real representatives of the average American who sees his country going down the tubes and knows that the neocons are the only ones to save it. That’s why the Washington Post is quite safe in espousing a neocon agenda. They know perfectly well that they represent mainstream America. And that’s why Obama is so unpopular. He refuses to step out and push America into deadly conflict to regain its power and prestige. (He also happens to be the patsy who presides over the economic endgame of that porr, wretched, God-forsaken country. I’m sorry. Americans are monsters. They all pretend they are shocked at America’s foreign policy and critical of the various wars that it has exploded…BUT ONLY BECAUSE AMERICA KEEPS LOSING THEM. If America had won those wars, the average American would be insufferable in his pride and support of his ‘exceptional’ country. What a ghastly blight is that country on the face of the earth… quite the most dangerous country EVER to have graced the planet in all of history. It WILL be the death of us all as they have precious else to lose so, as Gerald Celente says, they’ll lose it. What a ghastly, grim race of people!

  4. RA
    March 4, 2014 at 01:53

    Great piece. Very informative. It was amazing to see John Kerry a couple of days ago blast the idea that Putin would actually start a war on a “pretext” (!) when Kerry himself voted in October 2002 to give George W. Bush the authority to launch a war against Iraq whenever Bush wished and for whatever excuse Bush could concoct. And, of course, so far zero people have died from the Russian soldiers walking in and meeting no resistance from the mostly Russian local people. About 60,000 Iraqis died in the first 30 days alone of Bush’s bombing of Baghdad. Bush was responsible for more than 400 ,000 total deaths in Iraq over the past 11 years. Yet Kerry, John McCain, McCain’s buddy Lindsay Graham and many others have professed shock at the horror of a country violating the sovereignty of another country! But at Russia only, not at Bush or themselves.

  5. pz5r9n
    March 3, 2014 at 20:34

    Mr Parry, why isn’t anyone discussing classic Russian geography in these conversations? Putin will never put his access to the Black Sea at risk of any kind. the Strait of Ketch is and always will be a top priority for any Russian leader.

  6. March 3, 2014 at 12:09

    Is all part of the current paradigm. To understand the loosh effect, is to understand why planet earth has been at perpetual war with its-self for countless generations; http://www.focusonrecovery.net/mattersoffaith/Holyland.html

  7. Anonymous
    March 3, 2014 at 09:14

    Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, known as “father” of neoconservatism. HIllary brought Nuland into her cabinet initially as State Dept. Press Secretary, while her husband was advising Hillary. Robert Kagan admitted on Q&A with Brian Lamb that he was advising Romney at the same time. See:

    There’s no difference in the foreign policies of “D” or “R.”

    • DanDeMan
      March 9, 2014 at 04:42

      “There’s no difference in the foreign policies of “D” or “R.”

      Yes, that is true. It can also be said that, whatever is perceived as best for Israel is US foreign policy. Kagan and his fellow neocons are all focused on “what is perceived as best for Israel.”

  8. Eddie
    March 2, 2014 at 21:57

    Good analysis Mr Parry! This sounds like the most plausible explanation of Ukranian events that I have yet come across.

    Note: it will be interesting to see what your response will be when Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee (not my preference, but my prediction) in 2016. Will you once again be advocating that we vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’ and throw the lever for Hillary? Will we once again wait on a conservative Democrat to accidentally do the right thing?

  9. Joe Tedesky
    March 2, 2014 at 20:50

    I’m going to throw this out there, and I am interested to what you commenters may think of my theory.

    I think Putin is being punished for interrupting the Neocon plans on Syria.

    Russia will probably settle this thing in the Ukraine, but is this what we should be watching? Should we instead be keeping our eye on Syria? Better yet is there something in store for Iran?

  10. hh
    March 2, 2014 at 18:56

    go go go russia

  11. Jonny James
    March 2, 2014 at 17:42

    I find it supremely disappointing that, especially in light of the events of recent years, that so-many are blinded by ideology and adherence to an identity based on a two-party dichotomy. (This goes for both D and R factions of the representatives of Oligarchy.)

    Rather than debate issues honestly and as objectively as possible, so many are still unconsciously influenced by an emotional attachment to an ideology or political brand. The facts be damned. Facts are merely cherry-picked to fit the brand image. Even the likes of Ed Bernays and Walter Lippmann would be impressed if they were alive.

    At this point, I think some are psychologically unable to deal with the dark and disturbing truth, others may have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome – like affliction, or they are actively cooperating with the D/R dictatorship to defend the status quo, or simply act as sycophants in order to further their own career and financial interests . I cannot believe that it is based on pure ignorance – most know better.

  12. Jonny James
    March 2, 2014 at 15:53

    Those evil neocons again. Did I miss something or is a D in the white house? I’m sure glad that Obama is pres. and not Bush. If Bush would have pulled this, Mr. Parry would not be bending over backwards to apologize and make pathetic excuses for treason and war crimes. The only faction of the Oligarchy that does bad things are red-team members, blue team are good guys with white hats see? They can do no wrong.

    With so-called liberals like Biden, Clinton, Zbiggy B., Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel(?) we don’t need no stinkin “neocons” do we?

    Mr. Parry, why don’t put your apologisms where your mouth is and debate the issues Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Glen Ford, or even Noam Chomsky? I’ll make a sizeable donation to see that.

    • Bill J.
      March 2, 2014 at 16:29

      Won’t happen James. Mr. Parry has long taken the position that Obomber is a prisoner of his own administration and that’s that.

    • Jay
      March 2, 2014 at 17:07


      Both Bush and McCain would be threatening Russia with a shooting war, likely Romney too.

      • Jonny James
        March 2, 2014 at 17:19

        Jay, really? 1. This is pure speculation. 2. The US does not have the capability to challenge Russia in Ukraine (short of thermo-nuclear suicide)
        3. Even the fringe “bad cops” you mention aren’t calling for nuclear suicide.

        Making pathetic excuses for a war criminal regime (whether Bush, Obama or Bushoma, is intellectually disingenuous. Perhaps those who believe in political fairy tales and mythology can believe that, but the facts don’t support it.

        Anyone ever read Howard Zinn? W. Greider? G. Kolko? Sheldon Wolin? Chris Hedges? Stephen Cohen? Francis Boyle…

        It seems authors like this are unheard round here.

        I’m sure glad that Obama is in power and not Bush. If Bush Jr. did this stuff, the liberal elite and their apologists would be in an uproar.

        • Jay
          March 3, 2014 at 02:44


          I remind you that John McCain wanted to start a shooting war with Russia in the fall of 2008 over irresponsible behavior by Georgia.

          So you seem a bit confused in your anger with the behavior of the Obama administration.

          By all means object to Obama’s various wars and the prosecution of Chelsea Manning.

    • Anonymous
      March 3, 2014 at 09:05

      Look up who Victoria Nuland is – also, her husband, Robert Kagan, “father” of neoconservatism – then you’ll see why there’s no difference in U.S. foreignn policy regardless of “D” or “R”. Hillary was being advised by Robert while he was advising Romney, and admitted to it in a book interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span in 2012. http://www.c-span.org/video/?304402-1/qa-robert-kagan

  13. F. G. Sanford
    March 2, 2014 at 15:48

    “… If Mr. Putin does not comply, Western leaders should make clear that Russia will pay a heavy price.”

    Speaking of propaganda, that line reminds me of the joke that went around Germany during the devastating 8th Air Force bombing of Berlin: “If they don’t stop bombing soon, Dr. Goebbels is sure to unleash a devastating speech”.

    The problem is ‘leveling’. Secrecy and deceit have created so many hidden agendas that the whole tapestry of foreign policy lies and nefarious ulterior motives would begin to unravel like an argyle sock. One thing leads to another. If even the slightest crack in the door of honest discourse were allowed to open, leveling would reveal that the interests of the American people are secondary to the interests of a financial and corporate ‘deep state’ whose loyalties reside elsewhere. That ain’t gonna happen. (Reference: Dallas, 1963)

    In the meantime, a recent interview with Hillary Clinton biographers reveals that she wrote a little note to David Petraeus. It said, in effect, “I know a little something about scandal and marital infidelity, and you can overcome this”. Democrats are proudly proclaiming that they’re “Ready for Hillary”. I suppose they’ll also be ready for Secretary of State Petraeus. Real men have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and several other places. I don’t know where “Team Hillary” plans to go, but I do know one thing damn good and well: there’s already a real man in Moscow. Time will tell where real women go.

    • Amanda Matthews
      March 3, 2014 at 03:05

      NO, not all Democrats want Honduras Hils in the White House.

      I am a late middle aged white never-missed-an-election Liberal Democrat. Hillary Clinton is NOT a Democrat. She and her hubby were the first Third Way infiltrators of the Democratic Party. Obama is Third Way as well. Anyone thinking that Hils won’t be as bad if not worse than Obama, what with the dodgy right-wing policies and the support of the MIC and the 1% must have spent the last couple of decades on a deserted island somewhere.

      • Paul G.
        March 3, 2014 at 08:02

        Well put! Bill Clinton is the wanker who went before the Democrat power brokers and told them, convincingly, that since labor in the US was so shrunken; they need not cater their policy to workers(or the middle class) any more. Instead they should cultivate the interests of wealth. The results, NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steagal, have been obvious.

  14. Ray
    March 2, 2014 at 14:39

    Yes it is way past time for all of the neocons to be gathered up and turned over to the UN for crimes against the world.

  15. Ray
    March 2, 2014 at 14:36

    Yes it is way past time for all of the neocons to be gathered up and turned over to the UN for crimes against the world.

Comments are closed.