Democrats Trade Places on War and McCarthyism

Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a “trading places” moment as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling, national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This “trading places” moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.

Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version of Joe McCarthy.

Schiff cited by name a number of Trump’s aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported – were “believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians.” These Americans, whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump’s second campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump’s first national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: “Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated.”

As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.

Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North’s secret Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign’s undermining of President Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980.

For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations were framed.

Going Whole-Hog

By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have provided some help or advice to Trump.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump’s advisers colluded in that process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically and possibly remove him from office.

But those machinations require the Democratic Party’s continued demonization of Russia and implicitly put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the  fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).

The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine’s ethnic Russian minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine. The more complex reality is simply summed up as a “Russian invasion.”

Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force “regime change” on Bashar al-Assad’s secular government even if that risks another military confrontation with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It’s not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it’s just that the Democrats have become all that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.

Questioning War

Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations (although they were far from pacifists).

Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers

Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations for other wars.

Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua’s Sandinistas and other leftists.

The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around Reagan’s Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush’s attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as “weak on defense” – from George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.

But the Democratic Party’s resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War, in which the President rebuffed less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war victory after which Bush declared, “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.”

Fearful of being labeled disloyal to “the troops” and “weak,” national Democrats scrambled to show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.

During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called “smart power” aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting “propaganda.”

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled “soft” in Republican attack ads.

The American public’s revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to Barack Obama’s election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama also became comfortable with continuing Bush’s wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.

By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create “no fly zones” – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump’s hopes to reduce hostilities with Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.”

Ironically, Trump’s shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party’s interest in pushing for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged “softness” toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as prima facie evidence that he is Putin’s “Manchurian candidate.”

Being Joe McCarthy

National Democrats and their media supporters don’t even seem troubled by the parallels between their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy’s guilt-by-association hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from Trump’s election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.

Lawyer Roy Cohn (right) with Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

But it’s not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound to the Democrats’ political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative foreign policy would bring in many “moderate” Republicans opposed to Trump’s criticism of the Bush-Obama wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party’s nominee.

Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party’s new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn’t vote at all for president, although it’s difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.

While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party’s many mistakes and failings, such as:

–Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?

–How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of “super-delegates” to make many rank-and-file voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment’s choice?

–What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump’s populism?

–Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?

Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community – with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump’s impeachment.

Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of “regime change” wars.

At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon” and “Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party.]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

image_pdfimage_print

137 comments for “Democrats Trade Places on War and McCarthyism

  1. Jessejean
    March 23, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    Good history–wonder why Rachel The Mouth Maddow never did it in her time wasting opening segments where she repeats herself over and over to numb our minds and spend her time when she could be saying something insightful. Maybe that’s why. PS. Why does she never invite Robert Parry on to comment? Oh. I see.

    • Brian Setzler
      March 23, 2017 at 6:43 pm

      Because she’s paid $7 million per year to talk about some things, and not others.

      Google “Jill Stein and Russia” and the results will illuminate the Democratic Party Echo Chamber

    • JWalters
      March 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm

      Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of “the establishment media … going whole-hog on these vague suspicions”. That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.

      Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State’s crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it’s not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA. The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, “Follow the money”.

    • Erik G
      March 23, 2017 at 9:11 pm

      Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
      https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

      He may prefer to be independent, but pressure on the NYT to recognize the superior reporting of their opposition is a good thing. I will repeat this post from time to time.

      • Sara
        March 23, 2017 at 10:22 pm

        You really want to use a Soros-funded organization for this? I’m boycotting demons.

        • Erik G
          March 24, 2017 at 8:10 am

          If it is unreliable, another petition can be added later. But interference with a small petition is least likely, and it would be sensible to sign anyway for now.

      • Fred
        March 24, 2017 at 12:44 am

        Why would Robert Parry want to be the senior editor of the NYT?
        NYT is known as an unimportant, unreliable, unintellectual, un-interesting, boring, predictable, zionist, etc., newspaper, all over the world. Nobody in their right mind reads it any longer.

        • Erik G
          March 24, 2017 at 8:11 am

          Agreed, but not many are in their right minds, and signing is a simple direct criticism of the NYT.

      • akech
        March 26, 2017 at 3:14 pm

        Unless he is itching to make some big bucks like Rachel Maddow and push his beliefs and credibility into the gutters, Mr.Robert Parry must build his audience the old fashioned way; He Must Earn It!

        I picked the following quote from a link provided by Joe Tedesky on a previous posting on David Rockefeller :

        Quote
        “He once paid a visit to my friend Paul Weyrich, the conservative political activist. He had donated to Weyrich’s non-profit think tank. That kept Weyrich from being critical of him. It was chump change for Rockefeller, but was a large donation for Weyrich. Weyrich didn’t like his politics, but he figured he might as well keep quiet and get more donations. It was a smart strategy on Rockefeller’s part. He did it with more than one conservative Beltway think tank. He did not buy praise; he bought silence. It was money well spent.”

        Unquote

        This is what has happened to millions of journalists around the world, their consciences have been suffocated with constant coercion, threats of joblessness, jail time or even death(in some countries)! It difficult to fathom how that must feel.

        http://www.garynorth.com/public/16378.cfm

  2. Mark Thomason
    March 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    This should be no real surprise. Hillary and her faction were neo-Republicans. Their liberal interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.

    They kept control of the party. It is not Democratic in the sense of opposing war or McCarthyism or corporate abuses or Wall Street or trade agreements. It is bought and paid for by the people who were the Republicans all along.

    This is the end state of triangulating courtesy of Bill Clinton. We have two Republican parties, one even crazier than the other.

    • Bob In Portland
      March 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you. I understand that Bill’s friends in England just presumed he was CIA. Hillary’s morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI’s number one target back then.

      After JFK’s removal, the Deep State wanted better control of both parties. Nixon wasn’t supposed to be the problem he was for them, so Watergate. But having “moderate” Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right. Perhaps Bill earned his bones with Asa Hutchinson in the 80s by ignoring Mena. Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats.

      The current “Russia hack/Trump traitor” false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn’t give the Deep State.

    • March 23, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians. The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff. There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for his own hanging.

      • Skip Scott
        March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am

        Great post Anna.

      • Kiza
        March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am

        Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for “supplying Taliban” in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that “it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban”. It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US offical gets automatically converted into “Russia did it”. Little kids are more creative when they say “the dog ate my homework”.

        But what this sick and unintelligent bull does to Russia? It appears that the US coup in Ukraine and its support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria have solidified Putin’s popularity rating at around an unimaginable 85%. All this in the middle of a fairly serious economic crisis in Russia. There is and there has been no major country in the World where the leader has had such approval rating, for so long and despite the economy in a bad shape. Read all about it: http://johnhelmer.net/the-us-war-has-been-good-for-president-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-economy-looks-stable-through-the-presidential-election-so-if-you-are-a-us-warfighter-what-is-the-regime-change-opportunity-no/#more-17368

        Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously all on Putin’s payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.

    • Sara
      March 23, 2017 at 10:36 pm

      The Illuminati-Nazi Alliance formed before the end of WWII: “THE POWER ELITE AND THE SECRET NAZI PLAN”. http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis149.htm
      Martin Bormann started investing $180 billion in Nazi loot in 1943, and the 4th Reich-Illuminati alliance planned to return in around two generations.
      http://thulesociety.com/

      They’re fascists, along with the Pharisee rabbinical Talmudists who supported Hitler’s murder of the am-ha’aretz who used the bible rather than the Babylonian Talmud.during WWII.

  3. Bill Bodden
    March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.

    In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle:

    “The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass rally addressed by the American Socialist Party’s mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair’s fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:

    “was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering. The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen – he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as ‘two wings of the same bird of prey” [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power.”

    In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.

    • Tristan
      March 23, 2017 at 2:28 pm

      “[T]wo wings of the same bird of prey” This made me think of “War Pigs” by Black Sabbath, “… Satan laughs and spreads his wings.”

    • Accidental
      March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the early 20th century.

  4. D5-5
    March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties) are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that 69 percent of the people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I’ve been wrong lately on my estimates), but I’m hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert’s article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled by financial interests, not the people’s interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual in my experience of watching Washington.

    Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert’s article from Mike Whitney in today’s counterpunch, titled “Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state”:

    From that article:

    “For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia’s resurgence and China’s explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington’s stranglehold. The Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter of global commerce and industry.”

    • March 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm

      Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the level of unity they will accept.

  5. Sam F
    March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten “donors” to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish “donor.” They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats.

    • J. D.
      March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been “taken over by the zionists” is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu’s Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel’s exaggerated influence in the US. Rather, Israel, as well as Israel’s Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called “globalism,” which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a “unipolar” world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump’s exposure of British Intelligence’s GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain’s “special relationship” is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan.

      • Brad Owen
        March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

        Well said. It’s also time to get rid of the phony “Special Relationship” (between 1%er oligarchs of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease UK’s transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old “Mother Country” need not worry that Her “Four Children” (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its’ members, but without degrading the well-being of the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone’s well-being, Geopolitics & divide & conquer is over, finished.

        • Sam F
          March 23, 2017 at 3:29 pm

          Whatever “JD” thinks he said, and however he said it, it is zionist propaganda.
          Perhaps you will try to challenge the facts of zionist control, or substantiate the ridiculous notion of British control?
          This is propaganda, and greater caution must be urged.

          • Brad Owen
            March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm

            Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes’ RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western Front ASAP).They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via The City’s Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story. Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also. Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You’ll need lots of it.

          • rosemerry
            March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm

            All the talk of “Russian interference” takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.

          • Sam F
            March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm

            Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early, although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct “donations” to Truman’s campaign for the UN pressure.

            No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD’s theory that Brits control US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.

          • Brad Owen
            March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am

            Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering under the same yoke of Empire as are we).

      • Sam F
        March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm

        Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish “donor.” Hillary’s major campaign sponsors are all Jewish.
        http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
        The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
        1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
        2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
        3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
        4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
        5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
        6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
        7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
        8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
        9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
        10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million

        Your suggestion that this is “British empire” policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial connection.

        I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control. US mass media.

        • Sam F
          March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm

          To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60 percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by Jews.

          No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.

          No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.

          Your move.

        • JWalters
          March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm

          In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, “Let’s talk about Russian influence”
          http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

          Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.

          • Sam F
            March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm

            Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites in the US against African-Americans.

      • Bill Bodden
        March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm

        The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been “taken over by the zionists” is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking.

        There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying, in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel’s bidding. I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that “the Democrats have been “taken over by the zionists”” Same thing goes for the Republicans.

      • March 23, 2017 at 6:08 pm
        • Sam F
          March 23, 2017 at 9:55 pm

          Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals. PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II, as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad “intelligence” to incite the war.

      • March 23, 2017 at 6:50 pm

        J. D.,

        “The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been “taken over by the zionists” is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking.”

        Can you share with readers why you used the term “dangerous illusion” and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama’s use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British “special relationship”.

        Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the “Anglo-American financial oligarchy” for the benefit of others who pass this way?

        It’s hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk’s report arrived at very recently – that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?

        Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on “Brunch With Bernie” we redialed the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry facilitated by the world’s most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested response on the suggestion that it was time to “nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve”. Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after the break until show’s end nothing about the Federal Reserve.

        My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a “panic button to break” to be triggered when the live call-in topics became, let’s say, “unmanageable”. That is just a guess,but another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very “risky” news during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders capitulated because he’s fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled goods and unacceptable as America’s new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump’s long-time friends include “Lucky” Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to keep an appointment with his dermatologist.

        Donald Trump, “Lucky Larry” and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.

        ***

        Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author’s internet platform, available at:

        https://richardfalk.wordpress.com

    • Bill Bodden
      March 23, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      The top ten “donors” to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish “donor.”

      In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably making that library the most expensive ever.

      • Sam F
        March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm

        Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides that could easily obscure the feedback.

        You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.

        • JWalters
          March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm

          In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the U.S. Army’s director of assassination training.

          Kay Griggs: “Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other words …”

          Interviewer: “In compromising situations?”

          Kay Griggs: “Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes, whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used.”

          The above is in Part 2 of the whole interview, starting at 48:00 in the video at
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-SEA9W6pmA

          In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.

          Kay Griggs: “I’m talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they’re all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there’s the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don’t want to get too deeply involved in that, but it goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were – he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions for the drugs they’re bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia, which now my husband’s involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire. They’re – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales.”

          The above starts soon after 18:00 in the video at
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ
          (Part 1 of interview)

          Further on the following exchange occurs.

          Interviewer: “And directly under whose instructions to sell these weapons, do you know that?”

          Kay Griggs: “Yeah.”

          Interviewer: “Okay, who would that be?”

          Kay Griggs: “Well, uh, [pause] it’s the Israeli-Zionist group in New York.”

          The above starts at 1:06:45 in the same video at
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ

          Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.

          Kay Griggs: “It’s kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something on Bill. That’s my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because …”

          Interviewer: “And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation.”

          Kay Griggs: “Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by Carl Steiner, who’s in the diary [her husband’s] with my husband. … And he [Steiner] tried to trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag wars. It’s all to sell weapons. It’s all about weapons sales, it’s all about drugs, it’s all about funny money.”

          A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep to American voters, and voting against America’s best interests.

          • backwardsevolution
            March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am

            JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

          • Sam f
            March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm

            That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.

            Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.

  6. Pablo Diablo
    March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    A military buildup=an empire in decline.

    • chuck b
      March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm

      before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.

      what’s remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show and that’s not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary’s DNC coronation and the “U!S!A!” chants from the crowd, i’m under the impression that the majority of americans, that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic germans cheering on goebbels and his total war.

      • Accidental
        March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm

        Actually what’s happening now in the US is more like France in 1848

  7. Pauline Saxon
    March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting Trump

    • D5-5
      March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      I don’t believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute “protecting.” Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance of a multi-polar world are worth considering. Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying to get at the underbrush of what’s really going on behind the headlines.

      Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?

      For myself I’m very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What’s going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander? Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It’s more foolishness in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But this kind of considering doesn’t take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.

      • Hayden Head
        March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm

        Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position. Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.

      • Bill Bodden
        March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm

        Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other contradictory commentary.

      • Ty Walden
        March 31, 2017 at 1:18 am

        This story smacks of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. You think an election that was tampered with and influenced by the president of Russia to get Trump elected is legitimate? Not in the real world. Collusion with Russia is treason, or it used to be back with truth and integrity mattered. Treason used to end at the business end of a firing squad. It is the Democrats’ responsibility to keep doing what they’re doing, anything to get him out of office. He is a menace to the USA and the world. If Hillary would have become president, the Republicans would be acting just like the Democrats are, only worse (remember their Benghazi fantasy fetish?). If she had hired Chelsea for a position in the White House, all of the Republicans’ heads would have exploded in tandem (I’m not saying that like it would be a bad thing).

    • Jake G
      March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm

      What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.

    • JWalters
      March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm

      It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”
      http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

  8. Gina
    March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.

  9. LJ
    March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest, Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found us haven’t they?. ….when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry….. I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God’s sake? The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,, the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.

  10. chuck b
    March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    i think it’s safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the nutcase LBJ didn’t know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the american holocaust. obama let his darling hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by nazis for a very long time. from kissinger to mccain, they are people in power who have collaborated with nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in ukraine or with islamic extremists in syria. the prospect of mccain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.

  11. Tristan
    March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    “[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.” That’s it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s) to benefit private capital.

    I had previously wondered, back in the 90’s when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal economic intervention, why these vultures hadn’t descended upon the United States, being the feted calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and a couple of “opportunities”, such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures here.

    We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being of the majority of the “citizens” ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something even close to “a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    • Tristan
      March 23, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      Please forgive my grammatical errors. Didn’t check well enough before sending. That’s what drinking will do for one’s writing.

  12. ltr
    March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having “sympathies” for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.

    • Tristan
      March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm

      It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.

      • Sheryl
        March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm

        I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I’m a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.

      • Realist
        March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm

        Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat the greatest mistakes of the 1930’s and 40’s, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into a political football.

        • Tristan
          March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm

          The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of “treason” are sown wider and wider against heretics.

    • Kiza
      March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am

      Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes me think of the Declne of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized.

  13. Enquiring Mind
    March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    They have no decency, sir.
    At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.

    • Miranda Keefe
      March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      “At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat.”

      The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.

      When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR’s right hand man, his VP, his chosen future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.

  14. March 23, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    Internet is buzzing with folks commenting on Adam Schiff’s connection to Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Seems Pasternak threw a fundraiser for Schiff at his home in DC and CA based company Aeroscraft is setting up a defense surveillance system in Ukraine (CA Schiff’s state). Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com had an article 2 days ago: “Adam Schiff, Grifter, Racketeer, Warmonger”. Sorry, I can’t copy the link, go to their website. Seems Schiff’s self-righteous posturing is not so ideological, and some people mention Pasternak is linked to Soros.

    • Bill Bodden
      March 23, 2017 at 6:14 pm

      Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com had an article 2 days ago: “Adam Schiff, Grifter, Racketeer, Warmonger”. Sorry, I can’t copy the link, go to their website.

      Thank you for the heads up. This is the link: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/21/adam-schiff-grifter-racketeer-warmonger/

    • March 23, 2017 at 6:23 pm

      From the article, “Adam Schiff: Grifter, Racketeer, Warmonger” http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/21/adam-schiff-grifter-racketeer-warmonger/
      “Pasternak raises thousands for Schiff, and Schiff raises millions for Pasternak. It’s a sweet deal all around.
      Schiff bloviates that his campaign to restart the cold war with Russia is an ideological crusade: “We are involved in a new battle of ideas,” he avers. “Not Communism versus capitalism, but authoritarianism versus democracy.” Yet this is about capitalism – crony capitalism of the sort that enriches both Schiff and Pasternak.”

      Of course, the ranking Democrat on a House intelligence committee Mr. Schiff needs badly the bad relationships with Russia. He has been getting a nice gesheft from the warmongering and he wants more. Sanctity of money for the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff.
      “Follow the money. Pasternak is selling the Ukrainians military hardware, and is doubtless eager to sell them more – paid for by US taxpayers, of course. According to news reports, Pasternak is deeply involved with the Ukrainian government’s military production…”

      • backwardsevolution
        March 24, 2017 at 1:27 am

        Jessica, Bill and Anna – very interesting! Schiff comes across as being absolutely desperate. What you’ve said probably explains why.

  15. John
    March 23, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    I say enough of the bully talk from the USA…..let them take the gloves off and fight. This whole dog and pony show is only about profit and market share, much like street gangs of thugs……let the dogs fight……

  16. mike k
    March 23, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    The Democrats are revealing now how totally bankrupt their ideas and ideals have become over time. It is time to discard the toxic wreck this political party has become. Like most of our core institutions in America, it is way too late to reform these two major parties. We need to begin a whole new ballgame, with completely new personnel, aims, and methods. Can we get a whole new slate? There is no viable alternative: we must.

  17. Bob In Portland
    March 23, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    As time passes the shape of the “Russia hacks/Trump treason” story appears to be, to me at least, a false flag. In June 2016 when the DNC “thought” it was being hacked, it refused the FBI the right to investigate it but instead chose CrowdStrike, a private “cybersecurity” firm with ties to anti-Russian think tanks and reactionary Ukrainian elements around the world. That is, at some level this was a CIA false flag and the DNC/CIA wanted to keep the FBI from inadvertently exposing it. But in June 2016 everyone presumed that Clinton would be President, not Trump. I suspect the original and underlying purpose of this false flag was to give newly-elected President Clinton the public “self-righteousness” to lead a war of some degree against Russia. Democrats, no, all Americans and America’s sacred democracy were undermined by the Russkies, according to the narrative. At least that is how it was supposed to play out. As our intelligence community likes to do, the parallel “scandal” of fake news seems to have similar fingerprints on it, to include PropOrNot’s website using fascist Ukrainian slogans like “Heroyam slava!”

    And what is the one thing that the Deep State wanted that Trump wouldn’t give them that Clinton was falling all over herself to give? A war with Russia, probably through Ukraine.

    I suspect the continuing scandal (with lots of smoke and no fire) is now being used by the Deep State to negotiate a war of sorts against Russia by Trump, or, if that fails, to get Pence into office so that he’ll give them the war.

    The US intelligence community has used Ukrainian fascists for seventy years. It was behind the 2014 coup. Unfortunately, Ukraine’s military forces aside from the fascist battalions are not terribly motivated to fight against their friends and relatives in Donbass, nor does the Ukrainian government have the money for it. I suspect there were plans for yet another false flag somewhere along the Ukrainian-Russian border which would call for NATO/American forces to be called in. How far would the Deep State go to push a war with Russia? Apparently, farther than Trump wants to go.

    • Realist
      March 23, 2017 at 6:15 pm

      I am fascinated by your analysis (both here and at the top of the page). You go deeper than even Robert Parry, whose real talent is as much digging through the slime for facts as it is writing them down in eloquent prose. You must have personal connections and contacts to know so much.

      NATO and American troops to be called in if an incident were to occur at the Ukrainian-Russian border? I was thinking that would be the final straw provoking Putin to send his army in to drain the swamp in Kiev. If NATO then decides to confront Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield, that’s it, game on, game over nearly as fast. Kiss off civilisation. Russia does not go home till it shoots its wad for better or worse. Hillary and her Democrat brownshirts go down in the history scratched on the walls of caves around the world.

      • March 23, 2017 at 6:30 pm

        Russian federation has been strenuously avoiding a war with Ukraine. They will continue the avoidance to the limits. But if the Deep State decides to crush RF, then there will be a global catastrophe. The insulated, averagely educated, and pampered “deciders” are not able to comprehend the reality.

      • John
        March 23, 2017 at 8:48 pm

        Shoots it’s wad, Realist ? How special of you to supply that unusual mental pictorial……However, that pictorial has been approved and supplied with two thumbs up approval…… by bill and Hillary……I’m hungry! pizza anyone?

      • Bob In Portland
        March 24, 2017 at 1:55 am

        No special personal connections. I just have a knack about connecting dots and I really don’t trust the government. I read a lot too.

        • Kiza
          March 24, 2017 at 8:59 am

          Common Bob, this theory is not new. It has been posted in the comments section of moonofalabama at least a week ago. Was that your comment under a different nick?

          But it is a highly plausible conspiracy theory, based on timing of events and based on motivations of players.

      • Bob In Portland
        March 24, 2017 at 2:06 pm

        How a President Clinton would “react” to another false flag pointing at Russia is all speculation now. We know how she reacted to false flags against Iraq in 2002. When Clinton announced her “no fly zone” early in the primary debates she was essentially challenging Russia by ratcheting up the potential level of warfare in Syria. Who would have been Clinton’s target for a “no-fly zone”? Not ISIS, they have no air force. The Russians noticed. When Obama sent home Russian diplomats at Christmas that was a ratcheting up of heat against Russia. Putting NATO tank battalions in the Baltic states along the Russian border is ratcheting up the temperature in the room.

        These current false flags against Russia (all the way to prostitutes peeing in the bed that Obama once slept in) could have other goals that aren’t apparent and we’re not in the room where the generals are making plans, so at some point it’s a guessing game. Plus we don’t know how much antipathy against Russia would eventually be generated in the American public from unprovable “hacks” versus, say, imaginary yellowcake. The false flags are to make the logic of the war option acceptable to the public. The Ukrainian fascists (who are a relatively small number in their own armed forces) are chomping at the bit to go back to war, but even with bigger numbers in their army and better equipment I doubt Ukraine could ever fight a successful war against the breakaway republics. Russia won’t allow it. Judging from the ethnic populations in certain areas I would not doubt that the eventual rump state of Ukraine, without enormous backing from the West, will be a lot smaller and possibly landlocked. In countries so completely devolved economically and socially war becomes the organizing principle of last resort. That means that if the thrust against Russia occurs in Ukraine, they would need NATO (aka, US troops) fighting there. Who would cross that line?

        So the question is how much good money the Nulands of a Clinton State Department would have thrown after bad. I would hope that the Atlantic Council and the Foreign Policy Research Institute were used as threats for Russia to observe and not as sources of advice.

        It was clear during the campaign that H. Clinton was itching for a fight with Russia. The question really is how far they’d go. One thing that can be done is to cut off the natural gas lines running through Ukraine to central and southern Europe, opening Europe to US energy corporations as a new market for all its surplus fracked natural gas. I’ve always wondered why the energy industry was building LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast. While it’s never discussed in the mainstream press Assad of Syria had agreed with Iraq and Iran to a Shiite pipeline taking gas to the Mediterranean. Qatar which wanted a pipeline of its own across Syria, got into the business of supplying weapons to ISIS after Assad turned them down. The problem with cutting off Russian gas is that it could throw the world into another depression, and fracked US gas is a lot more expensive than Russian gas. Right now there’s a billion-dollar LNG terminal in Poland sitting unused and waiting for US tankers to dock.

        The question of how far the US would go against Russia is unknown. A conventional war against Russia on Russia’s border wouldn’t have much chance of success (but perhaps a successful war isn’t the goal). Another civil war along Russia’s Muslim belt like they had in Chechnya in the 90s is not impossible, but less likely to get as big as that one was. Russia was in shambles in the 90s, but not now. Shooting war? Nuclear war? It sounds crazy but consider this about the FPRI:

        “A few years later, the FPRI’s Strausz-Hupe published a deranged attack in the New York Times against Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr. Strangelove, calling it “the most vicious attack to date launched by way of our mass media against the American military profession”. The FPRI’s founding director went further, accusing Kubrick of being, if not a conscious Russian agent of propaganda, then a Soviet dupe undermining American democracy and stability—the same sort of paranoid accusations that FPRI is leveling again today.” (quote from: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/site-behind-washington-posts-mccarthyite-blacklist-appears-to-be-linked-to-ukrainian-fascism-and-cia-spying.html )

        These are the people the Kaganites are listening to. The brand of fascism in Ukraine has a strong religious structure to it, and as we’ve seen with the Salafists fascism and religious zeal generally bring about bad results for the locals.

        In any case, that’s what was packed in H. Clinton’s foreign policy suitcase before the election, and that’s why the Deep State is so unhappy that Trump won.

    • Sam F
      March 24, 2017 at 7:33 am

      I suspect that what “the Deep State wanted that Trump wouldn’t give them” was not actual war with Russia through Ukraine, but excuses to extend the proxy wars in the Mideast for Israeli bribes. There is no benefit for anyone in an actual war with Russia, only a few benefit directly from Ukraine tension, so any “gain” from increasing tension in Ukraine and Eastern Europe would be just diverting Russian forces from the Mideast and funding MIC careers and weapons.

  18. Miranda Keefe
    March 23, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    I hadn’t thought of it before. I always counter my cultural liberal friends’ pleas to impeach Trump with reminding them we’d get Pence. I hadn’t put two and two together and realized it meant we’d get McCain running either State or Defense, either as Secretary or as the puppet master pulling the strings from the Senate.

    That is as frightening as HRC being in full control of things.

    It’s really sad that the only viable route to peace right now is to keep the buffoon Trump in power. It shows how dysfunctional the USA political system is.

    • Bill Bodden
      March 23, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      I always counter my cultural liberal friends’ pleas to impeach Trump with reminding them we’d get Pence.

      If we do get rid of Trump and pay the price of having Pence in the White House, hopefully, the Democrats will regain majorities in the house and senate in 2018 – not that they will be much better, but the thought of Pence and Republican majorities in Congress is too difficult to contemplate.

    • Sheryl
      March 23, 2017 at 5:20 pm

      I’ve said the same thing to liberal friends and was told that Pence would be better because he’s predictable, so you know what to expect. They can’t fathom that it could be worse.

    • Realist
      March 23, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      HRC was never a liberal. She’s been a populist phony and an elitist insider for her entire life. Right now, she’s acting like a petulant child, threatening to destroy the planet through her political intrigues because she wasn’t awarded the presidency by a voting public that never trusted her.

  19. Denis
    March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    I find the Democrats’ line of reasoning regarding the so called Russian connections as absurd. In the ever multi-national world economy, I find it hard for any businessman or diplomat to not have Russian connections as defined by the democrats and the neocons. It would take me 30 mins max on google to connect Russia to any American politician or diplomat regardless of which side of the political isle they stand on. The daily new “revelations” coming from the CNNs and the MSNBCs of the world do in every way look and feel like propaganda. For every “Trump was right” moment there is always a new set of “breaking news”.

    • Bob In Portland
      March 23, 2017 at 4:07 pm

      Bill Clinton pocket that half million from that Russian investment bank for a speech. Or was it an investment?

    • Bill Bodden
      March 23, 2017 at 6:17 pm

      I find the Democrats’ line of reasoning regarding the so called Russian connections as absurd. In the ever multi-national world economy,

      The Dems probably wanted to smear Trump – who does a good job of that himself – without realizing there could be blowback.

  20. Bob In Portland
    March 23, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    In 2004 both presidential candidates Bush and Kerry had been members of Skull and Bones. Boy, what a coincidence! I guess Kerry must have been in the “liberal wing” of Skull and Bones. Heh heh heh.

  21. March 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    Wow, you folks have made some great comments today! The plot is thickening (and sickening). I think I agree with Miranda, have to keep Trump in, or Pence would be a disaster we don’t want. And is it Bob, suggested a false flag? Seems to make sense, or coming. McCain salivating to get Russia is truly vile, how has he hung on for so long? Shakespeare could not have come up with such a cast of characters. Nothing, truly nothing, is accomplished by this government but WAR!

    • LarcoMarco
      March 23, 2017 at 4:57 pm

      Trump’s handlers and homeboys should be reading CN. Do they vaguely comprehend what is happening?

    • Tristan
      March 23, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      Aye. Tis’ war which we seek, and more of that is in the offing. The fact that death pervades many places on the planet and yet plans for more reaping are being implemented continuously and repeatedly demonstrates the desires of those who chose to promote these policies and the measures taken to ensure that the policies and practices are continued. The wind augurs ill tidings if not the stench of death.

      As previously mentioned and discussed those ensconced in the Western capitalist free market religion, which prominently includes the U.S.’s national politicians, recognize that via capitalism as proselytized each prostitute can monetize their position in government for a profit. Isn’t that the American way? Pull up your boot straps, drop your pants or lift your skirt, and make some money!

      Had we a Sun Tzu would he not be confounded by the actions of this government? Try to apply the principles advocated in “The Art of War” to the present circumstances. It doesn’t work from an U.S. perspective. Unless one recognizes that great efforts are being made to prepare for an assault on a pre-designated enemy for no purpose other than aggressive war according to Sun Tzu.

      We have no great thinkers, no great minds, leaders in social justice and civic understanding, in our government or in a position to influence our government. Capitalism has, like a leech, sucked the intelligence (if they had any to begin with) from the minds of these prostitutes who prance about pontificating on the importance of governance, and replaced it with a succubus that demands that all are subject to the whims of profit. Agenda is the protocol. Thus we are left with foolish adherence to political ideology over considered adjudication and a sense of commitment to all citizens and rather a slavish subservience to the corporate John who has paid for a private session and a little sweet back scratch.

    • Gregory Herr
      March 23, 2017 at 8:09 pm

      Yes, while the farce and tragedy continues to outpace the comedy.

  22. Bob In Portland
    March 23, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    I would advise people interested in this to read Yasha Levine’s story in the latest “The Baffler”, “From Russia, With Panic” (which I just read fifteen minutes ago). Aside from the same complaints about CrowdStrike’s shoddy investigating, Levine, who was a reporter in Moscow in 2008 during the South Ossetian war, reveals a similar okeydoke run by the Georgians and US intelligence to blame cybercrimes on the Russians at the time. It was so identical to what is being claimed now that you almost feel that the CIA false flaggers could use someone with a little more imagination.

    Read it. Then go back and read what I wrote here in this thread.

  23. SteveK9
    March 23, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    Schiff is really beyond despicable. At least with McCarthy there were a few actual Communists. With Schiff and his ilk it is all a complete fabrication.

    • March 23, 2017 at 6:42 pm

      Sorry to use the dirty word, by Mr. Adam Schiff is a whore. He loves money more than anything else. One cannot even say that Schiif is a person of easy morals since Schiff has no morals. Here is one of his memorable pronunciations: “It is now conventional wisdom that Americans do not care why we went to war in Iraq, that it is enough that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.” (Schiff was raised in a Jewish family). Currently, Schiff is involved in war-manufacture profiteering.

  24. Bob In Portland
    March 23, 2017 at 5:46 pm
    • D5-5
      March 23, 2017 at 7:22 pm

      This deepens exposure of crowdstrike, including comments (deep into the piece) on Guccifer 2.0, which we talked about at CN about a month ago as a possible US intel false flag, not a Romanian hacker working for Putin. Any update on this idea re Guccifer 2.0 ?

  25. Brad Benson
    March 23, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    This anti-war Progressive and former Sander’s Supporter voted unabashedly for Trump. The guy is doing a good job against tremendous obstacles. He has to drain the swamp quickly and maintain his own personal security people around him at all times. The Secret Service cannot be trusted.

    • SteveK9
      March 23, 2017 at 7:30 pm

      I wrote in Sanders, but regretted it immediately afterward. Just could not decide until the last minute. Clinton, the most sinister candidate for President in my lifetime (and that includes Tricky Dick), was never a consideration. Since the election I’ve only felt more strongly that I should have given him my vote. It’s the nature of those fighting to remove or cripple him as President that makes me feel that way. They are truly disgusting. And they are doing it by attacking the most positive thing about Trump, his desire to make peace.

      • Kiza
        March 24, 2017 at 9:18 am

        The commenters here at CN are truly different from the crowd.

  26. Lois Gagnon
    March 23, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    It is more than a little disturbing that a majority of the US population can be so easily duped into believing yet another psyop manufactured by the Deep State. It makes me wonder if there is even a limit to their gullibility.

  27. John
    March 23, 2017 at 9:11 pm

    This time the propaganda machine of the elite socialist is having a difficult time defining Russia as the “perpetrator”….Their control on indoctrinating the planet with brain GOOOOO is quickly fading….Remember the drama triangle, you know the system used to keep the human brain hypnotized…….alternative news has muddied the water and yet they never stop trying……

  28. March 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    It’s ironic that Rep Schiff is calling out Trump aides for treason as a result of their alleged connections to Russia during the election when he, by vote of the Knesset in 1953, became a de facto traitor by virtue of his eligibility as a Jew to automatically become an Israeli citizen (on the theory that one cannot be loyal to two sovereign entities concurrently). The legal fiction of “dual loyalty” became possible in the late sixties by Act of Congress following “coincidentally” the 1965 Immigration Act. It was signed off on by Abe Fortas (appointed by LB Johnson, the famous president who refused to send help to the mortally wounded USS Liberty, which had been the subject of a perfidious Israeli attack, because he didn’t want to embarrass his Jewish friends) in a SC case shortly thereafter in a 5-4 decision. This law should be abrogated, by the way.

  29. Joe Tedesky
    March 23, 2017 at 11:03 pm

    While we Americans are busy chasing waterfalls with our Russian witch hunt King Bibi is stoking the flames of war by attacking Assad’s forces who are fighting ISIS. Now would Netanyahu and his Zionist stooges be so clever as to rustle up such a serious conflict whereas Russia and the U.S. might need to pick corners and come out swinging against each other? Poor Bibi wants to continue to be friends with Putin, but something has got to be done with Vladimir’s kicking so much ISIS ass…oh what to do!

    Some of the comments here identify how Hillary’s demonization of Russia would work to agitate our American relations enough with the Big Bear that win or lose no matter what Russia would be a target for regime change. Come on we who have been around this country long enough have seen plenty of this demonizing theater to know where this is all heading. It’s always the same, except with Trump in the White House we are watching the plan B version put to the test.

    Trump and or any of his people may have had some relationship with a Russian or even lots of Russians, but as a comment stated earlier so has Bill, and Hillary. Just ask majority Russian owned Uranium One who took their money for uranium rights in Nevada. The problem Trump has, is Hillary side owns the vast corporate media. Trump in my estimation should quit tweeting ‘Obama bugged me’, but I shouldn’t question the Donald’s methods since he seems to be the Energizer Bunny on steroids.

    Getting back to this Russian thing, wasn’t it before the election when Michael Morell went on Charle Rose pontificating on how we should put the scare into Putin? Now how many Russian Diplomates and one Putin chauffeur has died since then? Remember Morell’s public threat was made months before the election, so would this qualify as evidence to how this Russian bashing has been long in the making. Our oligarchs don’t like Putin’s oligarchs and there in lies the true battle….you and I are mere audience members.

    • Sam F
      March 24, 2017 at 8:03 am

      Indeed Israel is “stoking the flames of war” and sees Russia as the guarantor of the “Shiite crescent” supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon, to be weakened by bribing the US to confront Russia on all fronts. That is the reason that “our oligarchs don’t like Putin’s oligarchs” who would otherwise have little interaction. The “demonizing theater” of mass media is indeed due to Israel’s control of both the Dems and the mass media.

      • Joe Tedesky
        March 24, 2017 at 9:35 am

        When Putin aided in saving Obama from his doing something about Syria crossing the ‘red line’, and Putin convinced Assasd to hand over all of Syria’s chemical weapons, Putin by doing so made some real enemies in DC. If you recall it wasn’t long after we spotted Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in the Maiden Square.

        I’m also of the opinion that the defense industry has made enough money over this last sixteen years making drones, and other weapons to fight the jihadist, but now the defense industry needs bigger and better markets to profit from, say like nuclear weaponry markets. Russia, and China would seem to be perfect candidates to put in the dog house, and thusly we have a nuclear weapon market. I wouldn’t doubt there are those who never intend to use these weapons of mass destruction, because they just want to make them…it’s only business you know. I may not have it perfectly right, but it sure looks that way to me…what about you?

        • Sam F
          March 24, 2017 at 7:27 pm

          Yes, any big MIC program has its own promoters regardless of any military utility. But politicians don’t see equal value in equal investment in foreign aid (vs. MIC), because there are smaller bribes. Perhaps they plan to “lose” more nuclear weapons that mysteriously end up in Israel.

          • Joe Tedesky
            March 25, 2017 at 1:30 am

            I might add Sam F how what comes from having a military budget big enough to blanket the world with operational platforms comes keeping the troops well trained and maneuvered. This comes at a heavy cost, but if throwing the well trained troops into the fray of battle only helps the troops become hardened with the experience, it’s money well spent. Our leaders are so narrow and high minded though, that they leave little of that huge defense budget to help comfort our veterans many pains they received from fighting these endless missions, and with that we continue to vote these callus sociopathic monsters back into office….gerrymandering anyone? And to think that a government by the people for the people can accept that Citizens United is Constitutional is extremely bothering.

            About stray nukes ending up in Israel…Operation NUMEC Or the Apollo Affair are histories that most Americans know nothing of, but should of this episode where skimming off the top of an operation run by Israeli’s with a U.S. government contract to handle uranium happened. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, but what happened in Apollo was nothing short of a huge bond fire, but who knew? Grant Smith received this under the FOIA…

            http://irmep.org/cfp/CIA/02132015_CIA_foia_complaint_plus_exhibits_15-cv-00224.pdf

            I encourage you to try Grant Smith’s website which is…..irmep.org

  30. March 23, 2017 at 11:32 pm

    “Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.”

    It would do nothing but evil, and that’s not hard to fathom.

  31. March 24, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Democrats and Republicans alike, they lie when the truth could save them.

  32. Wm. Boyce
    March 24, 2017 at 12:18 am

    Fine, except we don’t know anything about the Trump’s entourages’ connections with Russia. Maybe the FBI will get the facts, maybe not. This is the most scary administration that one’s nightmare could not imagine.

  33. Kalen
    March 24, 2017 at 12:24 am

    Remember that Democratic party was a party of Jim Crow.

    There is one Unified Oligarchic Business Party in the US.
    Case closed.

  34. Claude Thomas
    March 24, 2017 at 6:34 am

    As a non American, I read this and can only sigh, & watch. Time & history march on. Reflection always comes too late.

  35. March 24, 2017 at 6:56 am

    And who even made the decision that Russia is an enemy? That ball was passed round and round, snowballed into this monstrosity! A lot of damage was done in the last days of Obama and by the Clinton campaign. If a thorough investigation of careers of these (un)Democrat screamers about “Russia, Russia, Russia” were done, there would likely be much damning information in their own closets, mostly showing corrupt crony capitalism. They are doing tremendous damage in an age when really serious problems need addressing and enlisting thinkers from Russia, known for brilliant scientists, is necessary. Puny minds taking us to an unnecessary fate.

  36. goedelite
    March 24, 2017 at 7:51 am

    Mr Parry still looks to the Democrats for the future. He describes the self-analysis and change they must make to return to their prior image as a peace-party in contrast to the Republicans. Sadly, the Democrats offer no hope for the future, if detente with Russia is the goal. The Democrats, including Sen. Sanders, are a party that is woven into the MIC in every state and precinct. If there is to be a pivot away from war and militarism, it must come from outside the two major parties. This could happen from grass-roots movements that create new local parties or from the success of a charismatic leader of the left. There is very little chance of the the first possibility and no emergence of a great leader in view.

  37. Don Nadeau
    March 24, 2017 at 8:40 am

    I was a “lifelong labor union Democrat”. My wife and I both left the party after the last primary season debacles. The Dem party is dead, thanks to investigative journalism and reporting like yours and thanks to AN OPEN INTERNET. Once the neocons ENCLOSE the internet commons, as the “lords” of old Enclosed and taxed the people’s agricultural commons, we become slaves again to their wars to support their obscene luxuries – to the detriment of all. Folks are waking up.

  38. Liam
    March 24, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Ukrainian Nazis Suffer Devastating Blow – Largest Ukrainian Ammo Storage Depot Blown Sky High

    Sabotage and explosion of depot occurred on March 23, 2017. Western media silent as Ukraine’s largets ammo supply depot is wiped from the face of the Earth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQLXGWNjkdY&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904ve339IN4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiGHVsMQA0

    Nice to see these bombs blasted sky high, as they would have been dropped onto the innocent civilian ethnic Russian population in East Ukraine otherwise. This was the Ukrainian Nazis main ammo depot in the east.

    Live leak has over a dozen other videos of the bombs going off.

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=38a_1490309173

  39. Adrian Engler
    March 24, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Especially from Europe, it usually looks as if among the two parties in the United States, the Democrats are a more moderate right-wing party and the Republicans are even further to the right. On that basis, it might surprise that Democrats have changed places and now more consistently advocate militarism, military aggressions (regime change wars) and stoking up international tensions.

    But these two large parties are mainly a product of the purely majoritarian election system. When we look at what these parties are composed of, this is perhaps not so surprising.

    The main reason why it surprises many people that the Democratic party is becoming the more consistent war party (and certainly Hillary Clinton as a candidate fit this development very well) is that it has a progressive wing, within which traditionally many people are critical of militaristic warmongering policies (although even progressives are not always consistent and sometimes readily accept humanitarian excuses for military aggressions of the United states and then time after time ignore it when the outcome does not have anything to do with the stated humaitarian goals). But the progressive wing of the Democratic party is relatively weak. Most of the Democratic party (often, the term “centrist” is used) is “liberal” in the European sense, which primarily means pro-business. It may be surprising that this pro-business attitude leads to supporting frequent wars – after all, wars are expensive -, but the United States sometimes also profits to some degree economically from military domination, and even though, a lot of taxpayers’ money goes to military expenses, this benefits the military-industrial complex, and in a party whose main ideological basis is being pro-business, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex find it easy to gain influence.

    The Republican party, of course, has some of the most extreme warmongers like John McCain and Lindsey Graham whose main agenda is the neoconservative ideology. It also has its “centrists” who are similar to the Democrats’ centrists and who are also very friendly to the business interests of the military-industrial complex. But the Republican party also includes other elements, mainly traditional conservatives and libertarians. Traditional conservatives are by no means pacifists, but many of them are more aligned with so-called “realist” foreign policy, and many of them think that it is not in the interest of the United States to start wars in too many places. Libertarians are often critical of the military-industrial complex because war leads to a strong state and strengthens crony capitalism. Although they have very different positions in areas like the welfare state, in foreign policy, there is some common ground between progressives and libertarians – and libertarians are perhaps less marginal among Republicans than progressives in the Democratic party.

    Therefore, perhaps, it should not be so surprising that the bipartisan war party now has a stronger basis in the Democratic party than in the Republican party.

  40. Abe
    March 24, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    Under the Democratic party administration of Barack Obama, aided by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Al-Qaeda forces in the Middle East and North Africa expanded as Western proxies operating in Libya, Syria and Iraq.

    Notwithstanding “trading places” and the exuberant political theater of Democratic party opposition to the new Republican administration, Western proxies Al-Qaeda and ISIS are redeploying in preparation for expanded terrorist violence under Trump’s watch:

    “Al Qaeda has participated in NATO operations in the Balkans, across the Middle East and North Africa, and even as far as Asia. The group operates as both a casus belli for Western intervention globally, and as a proxy force able to wage war against governments Western military forces are unable to confront directly as was the case in Libya and currently in Syria.

    Al Qaeda and its various subsidiaries and affiliates – including the Islamic State – also serve in an auxiliary capacity such as in Yemen where they hold territory taken by mechanized forces from Persian Gulf invaders.

    “While Western narratives attempt to portray these militant fronts as independent terrorist organizations operating beyond both international law and the reach of superior Western military and intelligence capabilities, in reality, this narrative is cover for what is obvious state sponsored proxy terrorism and militancy.

    “The United States has all but admitted its role in the creation of these organizations as well as their ongoing role in their perpetuation. The use of US allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to launder money, weapons, training, and other forms of political and material support through has also been extensively documented […]

    “With US-NATO-GCC plans frustrated in Syria by a formidable military coalition, the special interests driving this axis will inevitably seek to deploy their proxy forces where such coalitions cannot reach. Current efforts to divide and disrupt socioeconomic and political stability across all of Asia would be served well by the inclusion of veteran terrorists and militants escaping from Syrian-Russian-Iranian forces in the Middle East.”

    Keeping the Myth and the Islamic State Alive
    By Tony Cartalucci
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/03/keeping-myth-and-islamic-state-alive.html

    • Gregory Herr
      March 24, 2017 at 7:41 pm

      “While Western narratives attempt to portray these militant fronts as independent terrorist organizations operating beyond both international law and the reach of superior Western military and intelligence capabilities, in reality, this narrative is cover for what is obvious state sponsored proxy terrorism and militancy.”

      It’s certainly obvious to even many somewhat closed and wrong-notioned minds that, however one frames the intentions, the American occupation of Iraq continues to show what only politely could be called messy results. The “mess” of Iraq, strictly as a matter of fact, as has the “mess” of Libya (and the “convenience of Turkish & Saudi interests), served as fertile staging for the stated goal of “removing” Assad. It’s also certainly obvious that, had “superior Western military and intelligence capabilities” truly desired resistance to the growth of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq which then spread its reach into Syria, said “capabilities” would have done so in resoundingly effective fashion. And the “rise” of this barbarous militant terrorist faction coincided with actual, or not so actual, terrorist threats at home….so the urgent rationale for using said capabilities in resoundingly effective fashion was also “evident”.
      The preponderance of evidence to enforce the truth of Cartalucci’s statement is here just touched upon and it is already weighty.

    • Sam F
      March 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm

      Abe, you may know more than I on the US-911 connection. There is much documentation that

      1. The US grew AlQaeda to fight against the USSR in AfPak, supplying them 3-4 billion in arms via Pakistan;
      2. The large BinLaden (Sr.) construction company in Saudi Arabia had longstanding connections with GW Bush, who saw to it that several BinLaden family members were flown out of the country after 911 despite the grounding of most flights;
      3. Some of the Saudi royal family and top officials directly aided the actual attackers of 911 while they were training in the US;
      4. PNAC and Israel were spoiling for a new Pearl Harbor to draw the US into wars for Israel in the Mideast, and promptly used the excuse to invade Iraq although never connected with AlQaeda, PNAC’s Wolfowitz installed Israeli operatives Perls/Feith/Wurmser in offices at CIA/DIA/NSA to get discredited info to sell the idea of WMDs there. They had previously worked together seeking cooperation with Netanyahu to trick the US into fighting Mideast wars for Israel.

      So is it not very likely that many in the US plotted with KSA and BinLaden to provide the new Pearl Harbor on 911?

      [I ignore unnecessary distraction theories that the WTC buildings were coincidentally downed by explosives at the same time.]

      • PDF
        March 25, 2017 at 10:50 pm

        America was attacked on 9/11/2001 by Saudi Arabia with some help from their allies in Britain and within our intelligence community.

        The FBI has documentation on this crime but are withholding it.

        The families of the 9/11 victims have been organizing to sue Saudi Arabia and others involved and both the Bush and the Obama administration have done everything possible to frustrate those efforts and to continue the cover-up of who really attacked us on 9/11.

        We were not attacked by Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan or any other country we have waged war against since 9/11 and in the name of 9/11.

        Both the Bush and the Obama administration have committed treason, in my humble opinion, for obstructing justice, continuing to protect our true enemies, and giving aid and comfort to those enemies.

        For more information, check out the following:

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/20/families-911-victims-file-lawsuit-blaming-saudi-arabia/99421816/ Families of 9/11 victims suing Saudi Arabia for role in attacks

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-21/800-families-file-lawsuit-against-saudi-arabia-over-911 800 Families File Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Over 9/11

        http://www.911truth.org/category/legal-action/ Official website for the lawsuit accomplishing what our national security establishment refuses to do, i.e. provide for the national defense.

  41. anthony
    March 25, 2017 at 1:53 am

    Here is Democratic Party stooge, Michael Moore…

    “What part of ‘vacate you Russian traitor’ don’t you understand? We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment),” he later added. (quote taken from The Independent)

    These Hollywood DP doting clowns are now all so pathetic. ‘Lesser of 2 Evils’ voting is very debasing….

  42. Dieter Heymann
    March 25, 2017 at 8:33 am

    What is getting lost in Russiagate and Tapgate and Trumpcare is that there are significant problems developing between the military policies of the Russians and our administration. There is our accusation about the Taliban in Afghanistan which the Russians call ridiculous. There is trouble brewing in Libya (Russia is accused to have troops not only in Libya but also in Egypt). There is trouble brewing in Syria (Assad or no Assad and safe zones), Yemen, and Somalia. The notion that everything is honky-dorio between Russia and US is sticking your head in the sand. Our administration/military and the Russians are big players in the Middle East and Africa. They will never trust one another. The laughing power of our increased military involvement there? China.

  43. Robert Charleson
    March 25, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Have you forgotten Americans for Democratic Action? They were ‘liberal’ Democrats’, they were founded in 1947 and they were fearsome red-baiters from 1948-54. McCarthy didn’t start till 1950 and for the next four years till McCarthy fell they either silently backed McCarthy or tried to outdo him by, for example , a Bill to ban the Communist Party that passed both Houses but was vetoed by Eisenhower. That doesn’t include their vigorous activity at State level. The Democratic Party now seems to have been captured by the ‘Scoop’ Jackson Democrats who were always supposed to be ‘liberals’ but were neocon extremists on foreign policy.

    • Rufus T. Firefly
      March 25, 2017 at 3:23 pm

      Exactly. The dems and their media sycophants always hide the real history.

  44. Rufus T. Firefly
    March 25, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    “…national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war,..”

    From the time of Andrew Jackson till now the democrats never were a party relatively supportive of peace. They have always been a party of wars of global capitalist expansion. They were the party of manifest destiny [now known as american exceptionalism or humanitarian intervention] that produced the genocidal wars against the indigenous peoples, the war against Mexico, WWI, the wars against the leftist labor movement, the deportation of leftist labor leaders, the 1st surveillance state, the first wave of anti immigration laws, selling arms, technology, and fuel to the axis powers as part of their war against communism, WWII, the NSA, the CIA, the late 1940s post WWII communist witch hunts, the new surveillance state, the wars against Korea and Viet Nam, the destruction of Yugoslavia, endless coups and revolutions,massive arms sales, etc., etc.,etc.

    What they are is being better bullshitters than the coarse republicans. They embraced the deceptive practices of Bernays and Goebbels to the nth degree scamming the ‘merican public into believing the opposite of who they really are. However, smooth talk is not peace. The sooner both parties are flushed down the toilet the better off will be the world

  45. Michael Kenny
    March 25, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    Why didn’t Putin just restore Yanukovych to power? He was alive and well, and under Russian protection. Yanukovych is from the Donbass. Why didn’t Putin simply return him to Donetsk, from whence he could re-assert his authority over the whole country? We’re told there is an “independent” state in Donetsk-Lugansk. Why isn’t Yanukovych the president of it today? If Putin had simply restored Yanukovych to power, he would have been the hero of European democracy. By not doing so, he made himself into the international pariah he has now become. Moreover, if Yanukovych was the legitimate president, by what right did Putin occupy Crimea, organise a “referendum” there and then annex the territory without Yanukovych’s consent? Ditto for the “rebellion” in Donetsk and Lugansk. You can’t have it both ways, Mr Parry! You can’t have a legitimate president on one side and, on the other, a foreign power organising referenda in his country and annexing part of its teritory without the consent of that legitimate president! Only Yanukovych had the legal right to organise those referenda. He didn’t do it. Only Yanukovych had the legal right to cede Crimea to Russia. He didn’t do it. Thus, by Mr Parry’s own logic, the referenda and the annexation in question were all totally illegal under Ukrainian law and international law!

    • PDF
      March 25, 2017 at 10:40 pm

      Actually Russia had both a treaty with Ukraine and a lease giving them jurisdiction over large parts of Crimea. There was no occupation. Most of the Russian troops were already in Crimea when the crisis broke out. Other Russian “volunteers”, believe that or not, came in only after a successful multi-million dollar covert operation by Obama’s CIA run by Hillary Clinton aide Victoria Nuland and Obama’s national security advisory, Susan Rice to install the far-right, anti-Russian government in Kiev. When self-described “Nazi” militia’s from this CIA installed government began attacking the Russian population in the East and South of Ukraine, the Russians rushed to their defense. All objective international reporters and observers know this is the reality of Ukraine crisis, not the CIA party line being published in the corrupt American press. Read a variety of foreign papers and news outlets and you will see a different narrative than what is reported inside America.

  46. PDF
    March 25, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    Excellent article. But you might remember that Democratic party Russophobia is more the norm for the post-WWII “liberals” than any restraint that party showed during the ascension of the post-Nixon Republicans. Both McCarthyism and the Cold War were started by Truman Democrats before the eulogies for the Great FDR were finished. It took a Republican war hero, Eisenhower, to temper down the fever to divide the world into two armed camps. True, JFK eventually tried to further temper down the world’s rush to war but look what happened to him. And it was Democrats who concocted the Big Lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident which formerly committed us to that villainous adventure. I don’t think we should believe that the Democrats were at any time since WWII afflicted with anti-war feelings. More likely, the Democrats simply did not have to flex their war muscles because the Republicans were doing it for them. Now with the ascendance, for practical reasons nor moral ones, of anti-war (and protectionist) tendencies with the Republican camp by both the Libertarians (such as Paul) and the Paleo-conservatives (such as Trump), the war chiefs of the Democratic Party are once again fueling a hysterical era of hunting Russians behind every tree and encouraging aggression against Moscow and its allies. The Democrats have always been the party of war hiding under a thin veneer of progressive “bread and circuses”. Just my humble opinion.

  47. Ted Blodgett
    March 26, 2017 at 7:47 am

    The American Democratic Party has been extremely pro-war for decades. This isn’t something that just happened over the past year. Hell it’s even been over a decade since the Democratic Party flat out refused to prosecute War of Aggression, which is the most serious crime in the US legal code.

  48. Stephen Mason
    March 26, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    With regard to this article, I think the author underplays the significance of the possible treason related to collusion between Trump and Russia. It also downplays the significance of the security breaches and the attacks on our electoral process by the Russians.

    Where there’s smoke there is fire. Given Trump’s history of business with Russian oligarchs, there are serious conflict of interest concerns. There is really no excusing the danger this represents.

    If there is truly no ‘there’ there, then why is Trump not releasing his tax returns and why so much dissembling. If there is truly nothing to hide then allow investigations to proceed apace. Allow for an independent investigation, etc.

    I think the author’s contention that the Democrats are now the hawk party is a bit of a dodge even if true, because his contention is sensationalism designed to distract and gloss over the real issues at hand in my humble opinion. Besides, Steve Bannon is the one who wants us to gear up for the “inevitable” war with China. Seems like neither side has a monopoly on war talk.

    • PDF
      March 27, 2017 at 8:23 pm

      Even if the worst fantasies of Russophobes and Trump-haters were actually true, there could not possibly be any charge of “treason” related to collusion between Trump and Russia. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 requires that the United States be at war with an “enemy”. Russia is not an enemy. It may be an adversary on some issues and in the eyes of many, but that is not a legal designation. You should check yourself before you allow your rhetoric to grow hysterical. Also, there were no attacks on the electoral system. That turned out to be “fake news”. As for the wikileaks information on Hillary from the DNC, those involved continue to insist this was a leak from insiders and not a “hack”. You may have something, however, with the Podesta emails as they seem to have been the result of “social engineering”, i.e., someone tricked Podesta into releasing his password. So this would classify as a hack. However, the private internet security company the FBI is relying upon as identifying a Russian connection has recently been accused of fudging data in other cybersecurity cases. Certainly there will be more on this story and I think we all should keep hold our shots until we know more. We should not fly off the handle with churlish shouts of “treason”.

  49. March 29, 2017 at 9:30 am

    Another “both sides do it” piece? Belittling the serious issues of potential collusion between candidate Trump and a hostile foreign power as an emollient for the clearly unhealed wounds from the primary failures, is more than a bit desperate. Also, short-sighted and self-defeating. I’m a Bernie voter myself, but the opening line of “Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling…” is an embarrassment (or should be) to the author. Grow up and focus on the issue at hand rather than whining about perceived slights of the past. Or not. Your option.

  50. carol Pinson
    March 29, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    Your articles are a breath of fresh air. I don’t know how to reach Dennis Bernstein, Ray McGovern or Colleen Crowley to get their analysis of the article WHY FBI CAN’T TELL ALL ON TRUMP, RUSSIA. Perhaps you could shed light on it. Is it simply allegations and guilt by association without proof? http://whowhatwhy.org/2017/03/27/fbi-cant-tell-trump-russia/ Thank you so much for all you do to help us through these dangerous times

Comments are closed.