U.S. Establishment: Nixing Arms Control

Trump’s new National Security Adviser John Bolton has been instrumental in launching wars and scrapping arms control treaties – just the man for the job as the U.S. embarks on a new arms race with Russia, Ray McGovern sardonically observes.

By Ray McGovern

John Bolton’s appointment as national security adviser to President Donald Trump is the latest blow to hopes for a less confrontational U.S.-Russia relationship that would include new talks on arms control. Mutual trust is now hanging by a very thin thread.

George W. Bush announces his appointment of John Bolton to UN ambassador post on August 1, 2005.

One wag suggested to me that the Bolton appointment should not really come as a surprise, since it fits the recent Washington pattern — if White House chaos can be considered a pattern. For Kremlin leaders, though, White House zig-zags are no laughing matter. Let’s try to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine how the unfolding of recent events may have looked to them.

On March 1 in his state-of-the-nation address, President Putin revealed several new strategic weapons systems that Russia developed after the Bush/Cheney/Bolton administration abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had been the cornerstone of strategic stability for the previous 30 years. (John Bolton is included in that august company because, as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, he was Vice President Dick Cheney’s enforcer to put the kibosh on the ABM Treaty.)

You would not know it from the “mainstream media,” but in that same speech Putin offered to “sit down at the negotiating table” and “work together … to ensure global security” — taking into account the strategic parity Moscow claims.

Referring to what he called “our duty to inform our partners” about Russia’s claimed ability to render ABM systems “useless,” Putin added: “When the time comes, foreign and defense ministry experts will have many opportunities to discuss all these matters with them, if of course our partners so desire.”

One “Partner” So Desires

On March 20, two days after Putin was re-elected President of Russia, President Trump decided to congratulate the winner — as is the custom — without insulting him. For this he was excoriated by mainstream media for squandering the chance to point his finger, once again, at alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Sitting atop Mark Landler’s New York Times article that day was this headline: “Trump Congratulates Putin, but Doesn’t Mention Meddling in U.S.”

That was not Trump’s only offense. He also disregarded instructions to berate Putin with the evidence-and-logic-free accusation that Moscow poisoned, for no apparent reason, a former Russian spy and his daughter living in the UK. Landler lamented, “Instead, Mr. Trump kept the focus of the call on what the White House said were ‘shared interests’ — among them, North Korea and Ukraine — overruling his national security advisers …”

Parsing the NYT

The Times’ initial report included “arms control” in the headline and quoted Trump: “We had a very good call … We will probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control.” It was not long, however, before the NYT pared down that last sentence to “We will probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future.”

Landler did include (buried in paragraph 25 of 29) the following: “During their call on Tuesday, a senior official said, Mr. Trump told Mr. Putin he had been concerned by a recent speech in which Mr. Putin talked about Russia developing an “invincible” intercontinental cruise missile and a nuclear torpedo that could outsmart all American defenses.”  But Landler (or his editors) took pains to omit any mention of Trump’s actual reaction in suggesting an early summit to discuss arms control.

Parsing what is allowed to appear in the NYT (sometimes in altered iterations) is not very different from the “Kremlinology” tools that we analysts used to apply, back in the day, to eke insights out of the turgid prose in Pravda, Izvestiya, and other Soviet media. 

Moreimportant, how the NYT played Trump’s reaction to Putin’s re-election — specifically, his swiftly excised suggestion of an arms control summit, probably did not escape notice among present-day Russians who do analysis of U.S. media. It requires little imagination to conclude that for the U.S. Establishment, for which the NYT is a mouthpiece, arms control is off the table, despite anything the President may have said.

Lots of $ For Arms Dealers

There are a lot of powerful people making a lot of money profiteering from arms manufacture and sales, with a portion of the profits going to senators and representatives in Congress, who get re-elected and then oblige by appropriating still more funding for what Pope Francis warned Congress are the “blood-drenched arms traders.”

On March 26 President Trump ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats the U.S. identified as intelligence agents and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, in response to Russia’s alleged role in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the former Russian spy now living in England. Russia responded tit for tat, expelling 60 U.S. diplomats and closing the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg. Russian culpability for the poisoning is far from proven.

Doesn’t Make Sense

Writing on March 28, Gary Leupp, history professor at Tufts University, put it this way: “Why follow up that cordial call [the congratulatory one] to Putin with the expulsion of so many diplomats? What the hell. Doesn’t make sense.” Leupp worries that as President Trumps political situation deteriorates, “he will be more prone to lean on his generals … while also heeding the horrific Bolton. This is a very bad situation.”

Another encomium came this week from author Daniel Lazare who pretty much summed it up:

“John Bolton is without doubt a dangerous man. Not only did he champion the war against Saddam Hussein, but, even before U.S. troops had set foot in Iraq, he told Israeli leaders that the next step would be to take out Syria, Iran, and North Korea, a goal he has pursued with single-minded consistency ever since. For Bolton, the aim is to create a growing cascade of Third World wars so as to propel the U.S. into a position as unchallenged military dictator of the entire globe.  The more numerous the conflicts, the more he’s convinced that the U.S. will come up on top.”

Bolton’s Return

There is great — and justified — concern that John Bolton will have the President’s ear and reinforce Trump’s worst inclinations. A Yale law school graduate, Bolton has not shown much respect for the law. His record places him toward the top of the list of “crazies,” the sobriquet we all used for those who later became known as neoconservatives. I discussed this background in a recent interview on Intercepted. (See 16-minute segment beginning at minute 35.)

Back in the day, I recalled, when I was working at CIA in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, we didn’t talk about neocons, we talked about “crazies.” We noted that George H.W. Bush was careful in keeping “the crazies” in check, giving them positions in government with prestigious job titles but where they couldn’t do great harm to the country.

When George Bush, Jr. came in, he put the crazies in positions of power. Under John Bolton’s influence, George W. Bush took the extreme step of scrapping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was the bedrock for strategic stability since 1972 when it was signed. Bolton was also one of the prime movers behind the Iraq invasion.

Despite Trump calling the Iraq war “a big fat mistake,” apparently he now admires Bolton for his many Fox News appearances, and he is, of course, the darling of the “blood-soaked arms traders.”

Negotiating Style

Let me add one new vignette regarding his negotiating style: A senior U.S. diplomat recently shared with me that, when Bolton was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, a colleague diplomat provided a rather revealing insight into Bolton’s attitude toward international treaties.

That colleague had just returned home from arms control talks between Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov, and described how surreal and embarrassing it had been to hear Bolton lecture Mamedov about how international treaties are worthless, with the Russian arguing strongly that treaties are important and should be taken seriously.

Just the guy for the job. Strap yourself in.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief.  He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

55 comments for “U.S. Establishment: Nixing Arms Control

  1. Tom
    April 3, 2018 at 21:58

    All sane and rational people know the answer to this. But what’s one of Boltons’ biggest guiding principles? The never ending war between the neocons and the left wing. It’s not just a disagreement on ideas. It’s a full out war. How many times have we heard the phrase “The War Room” put out? Actual facts don’t matter. All that matters is putting out endless propaganda to maintain your power. Control key people in positions of power, and eventually people will believe whatever you say.

    Today a woman shooter in You Tube’s headquarters shot 40 people, and then killed herself. It’s now 8:56 p.m. CST, and NOT ONE cable news outlet is covering it. Instead, it’s wall-to-wall Trump gossip and hype. And yes, I am really pissed off.

  2. anastasia
    April 2, 2018 at 22:00

    Trump says one thing and does another. In regard to Syria, one day before the so-called chemical attack, he said, “no regime change in Syria.” Within 48 hours, he was bombing Syria, on a statement made within 24 hours after the alleged event, “there can be no dispute that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.” “There can be no dispute”, an odd choice of words, I thought. Even by him?

    Today, we hear he is withdrawing from Syria, but in March he sent more than 1400 troops there.

    He congratulates Putin on his election, and days later sends home diplomats because of the alleged poisoning. Why would he congratulate a man he believes did that, or is it that he doesn’t believe it, but said it anyway.

    Trump said that his “tax cut” was the biggest tax cut on the middle class and small businesses in the history of the country. I am firmly in the middle class, and my accountant just told me I will be paying thousands more in taxes. Thousands? In fact, it is the biggest tax hike I ever experienced.

    He’s a liar. A no good damnable liar who cheats on his wives with whores.

  3. Bob Van Noy
    April 1, 2018 at 15:44

    Perfect link and association Pacheesi. Many Thanks…

  4. Pacheesi
    April 1, 2018 at 10:52

    “Why follow up that cordial call [the congratulatory one] to Putin with the expulsion of so many diplomats? What the hell. Doesn’t make sense.”

    Why follow up the Eisenhower/Herter disarmament initiative by crashing a U2 in Russia? It makes perfect sense. The CIA regime has a vital interest in preventing peace. CIA trips up their presidential puppets whenever statecraft might pose a threat to war.


  5. Bart Hansen
    April 1, 2018 at 07:34

    The New York Times is hopeless regarding its bias against Russia. This morning an op-ed piece by ex-ambassador Wm. Burns begins with this statement:

    “Last week, following the brazen attempt by Russia to assassinate one of its former spies and his daughter in Britain with a chemical weapon…”

    As usual with the stable of the NYT’s Russian bashers, comments to this piece are not enabled.

  6. March 31, 2018 at 15:24

    article of interest at link below.
    Russia ‘Novichok’ Hysteria Proves Politicians and Media Haven’t Learned The Lessons of Iraq
    March 31, 2018 By 21wire
    Patrick Henningsen
    21st Century Wire

    • Bob Van Noy
      April 1, 2018 at 16:01

      Really perfect Stephen J. Thank you very much. Please see Pacheesi’s link below it perfectly explains what I was thinking, but much better…

  7. Abbybwood
    March 31, 2018 at 14:52

    I was a little shocked when I came here today only to find NO articles on the Israeli IDF murdering 16 Palestinians then admitting it on Twitter then deleting the post.

    I found this screenshot at The Intercept placed by a commenter:


    Hopefully tomorrow Consortiumnews.com will have some coverage of this.

  8. Hank
    March 31, 2018 at 14:01

    Imagine the conundrum for the MICC if North & South Korea made Peace, The Russians and Trump reached an agreement, Iran was recognized for what it is-No threat to US interests and China settled the claims surrounding the sea it shares. I would guess some target would have to be invented.

  9. Abe
    March 31, 2018 at 13:16

    John Bolton, a leading pro-Israel Lobby figure, also directly lobbied for the Israel-backed Mujahadeen-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization.

    A number of Israeli terrorists were members of the MEK, who are paid by Israel to do targeted killings of Iranian nationals. Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism, has publicly stated “The MEK is being used as the assassination arm of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service” and that the MEK is in charge of executing “the motor attacks on Iranian targets chosen by Israel. They go to Israel for training, and Israel pays them.”

    The MEK, paid by Israel, have assassinated Iran’s nuclear scientists and help sabotage the Natanz nuclear facility. In October 2010, Iran’s intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, said an unspecified number of “nuclear spies” were arrested in connection with the Stuxnet.33 virus.

    Pro-Israel Lobby “regime change” think tanks like the Brookings Institution advocated use of MEK terrorists as proxy forces against the Islamic Republic of Iran:

    “the organization was delisted not because it has fully given up armed terrorism, but because the US has planned since at least as early as 2009 – according to Washington’s own policy papers – to use MEK as armed proxies against the nation of Iran. […]

    “A National Security Council that includes lobbyists representing terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands constitutes not only a dire threat to actual US national security, but global security as well.

    “MEK terrorists backed by a nation possessing nuclear weapons and a history of provoking wars through fabricated evidence and staged incidents ensures that America’s foreign policy will continue to pursue destructive wars abroad at the cost of US treasure and blood and the resources and lives of nations the US sets its industrialized military aggression upon.

    “John Bolton – however – is not the architect of the policy he has advocated for well over a decade. He is simply fulfilling what US policymakers themselves have meted out in the pages of US policy papers for just as long. These policymakers – in turn – are funded by American arms manufacturers, energy conglomerates, financial institutions, and other immense corporate-financier special interests.

    “The Brookings Institution whose 2009 paper, ‘Which Path to Persia?’ spelled out verbatim the steps Bolton has since undertaken with his lobbying efforts, has a long list of such corporate-financier interests underwriting and directing its work.

    “Understanding that efforts to remove MEK from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list and prepare them for their role as armed proxies against Iran transcended the administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump exposes the continuity of agenda – regardless of who occupies the White House or US Congress – advanced by these unelected corporate-financier interests.”

    US National Security Advisor John Bolton Backs Terrorists
    By Tony Cartalucci

  10. March 31, 2018 at 12:51

    interesting article at link below.
    Brian CLOUGHLEY | 31.03.2018 | FEATURED STORY
    “The Dangerous Combination of Bolton and Boris”

    • Bob Van Noy
      March 31, 2018 at 12:58

      Thank you Stephan J. As always.
      Do you remember this:
      The collapse of the May 1960 summit meeting was a crushing blow to those in the Soviet Union and the United States who believed that a period of “peaceful coexistence” between the two superpowers was on the horizon. During the previous few years, both Eisenhower and Khrushchev had publicly indicated their desire for an easing of Cold War tensions, but the spy plane incident put an end to such talk, at least for the time being.” history.com

      Frances Gary Powers was another American Hero thrown into the trash bin by the no international peace ever crowd. Lee Harvey Oswald likely was too, each working for the CIA and Alan Dulles. Gary Powers believed he was set-up to die in order to wreck the peace conference but refused to take his cyanide tablet. The Media assured that his story was never widely circulated.

      Two of my favorite JFK researchers believed this, Fletcher Prouty and Mae Brussell whom I will link later.

  11. Deniz
    March 31, 2018 at 12:34

    If Bolton was loved so much by the Zionists and our real rulers, shouldn’t there be a new article every 5 minutes in WaPo & NYT, about how great the man is? Instead, they are branding him as the most dangerous man in the world.

    • Zachary Smith
      March 31, 2018 at 13:49

      I believe you ought to get into the habit of providing some sources for your claims. I took a brief look at what the Bezos Post has been saying, and it was a useful experience. On March 23 and 24th were some “negative” articles about Bolton.

      John Bolton’s extremism could lead the country to catastrophe

      John Bolton will probably be fine, and I will sleep well (sarcasm)

      John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him

      A few days later the tone had changed. There was more “he said”/”she said” and “both sides” stuff. In one piece I counted 4 paragraphs about Bolton’s views on North Korea, and only one short one regarding Iran. IMO that’s an indication “somebody” thinks he isn’t properly concerned about what Holy Israel wants. By March the 31st, we have this from the Bezos Post:

      McMaster and Tillerson are on their way out, however, with Pompeo nominated for State and John Bolton selected as the president’s third national security adviser.

      Bolton comes to the job with many critics, who see him as too far too hawkish at such a dangerous time internationally. But he is no novice when it comes to the issues, nor is he a stranger to the inner workings of government and the bureaucracy. For Pompeo’s replacement, Trump has picked CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel, a career intelligence official. She could face a challenging confirmation process, but nonetheless has strong support from former intelligence community officials for her capabilities and experience.

      Nutcase Bolton and Torturer Haspel are hardly trashed in this one.

      EDIT – weird software issue – my post didn’t put the “space” between ’24’ and ‘th’, and it also didn’t have a double “space” between ’31’ and ‘st’.

      BTW, the reason I can edit again is because I’m using an obscure browser which isn’t blocked by that software – assuming it’s the software doing it.

      • Zachary Smith
        March 31, 2018 at 14:16

        Time to have an “Emily Litella” moment and say Never Mind regarding the earlier weirdness. None of my other browsers show it that way. But for the ability to regain “editing” I’ll accept the trade-off.


      • Deniz
        March 31, 2018 at 15:49

        Bolton (aka The Most Dangerous Man in the World) gets appointedthen today’s headline s that Trump is freezing funds for the Syrian war. There appears to be an inconsistency.

  12. Steve
    March 31, 2018 at 12:15

    Ray McGovern a sane light in an asylum off the rails. Can the US be saved from itself? and what effect will the end of the petrodollar have on collapsing the US economy? Or how long can the US fool investors into buying US paper backed by nothing more than a bloated military machine.Breton Woods seems headed for the scrap heap but what will the new financial order look like? Much food for thought

  13. Deniz
    March 31, 2018 at 12:15

    For an entirely different perspective on Bolton and the current game, see Theirry Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article200375.html:

  14. Charles goldberg
    March 31, 2018 at 11:49

    Thank god that are people like ray McGovern in this dangerous world.

  15. March 31, 2018 at 09:29

    Among all the saber rattling this brief article sent a chill down my spine…a reminder of how “they” tend to deal with policy dissenters.

    • Bob Van Noy
      March 31, 2018 at 09:58

      These are scary times Bob H but there is hope still, thanks to alert researchers like you. Keep up the good work.

      • March 31, 2018 at 10:07

        Thanks Bob V,…this is a website where we have learned a lot from one another. Your many contributions are much appreciated!

  16. Joe Tedesky
    March 31, 2018 at 08:35

    The Zionist have finally taken full control. Putin is targeted for his banishing greedy Zio-Oligarchs from ripping off more of the Russian people’s assets, and for this he must be gone. America’s Zio-MSM controls the news, and by doing so helps the National Security Deep State to keep politicos in place by airing scandalous investigation news. Now the Zionist seem to be pushing for all out war. Where does any of this keep America safe?

      • Sam F
        March 31, 2018 at 10:13

        The US suppression of discussion of Novichoks shows fear of their production from common chemicals; as was soon done by Iran, and that therefore the US, UK, Israel, and others have done so, due to their motive to stage false-flag assassinations to impugn Russia. The new evidence-free accusation of Russia almost exonerates Russia and implicates the US/UK/Israel.

        The zionist motive to push Russia out of Syria and the Mideast works with the zio-oligarchs’ motive against Putin. We need to know the extent to which zionists control factions and operations within US/UK secret agencies, doubtless a priority of theirs as longstanding as their control of US mass media. Of course they have their own operations and Mossad as well.

        • WC
          March 31, 2018 at 18:47

          Well said. And if all of this is right, what is the ultimate objective? If they can neutralize Putin and Russia, and somehow coerce the Chinese into their pork barrel, how do they wrap the whole package up to preserve their wealth, power and influence?

          • Joe Tedesky
            March 31, 2018 at 21:39

            WC & Skip, it was revealed that Lt General Flynn was wooing Russia in order to gain Russia’s support, and then we could invade Iran, and also minimize China to a lesser degree. Also now that Hillary is under investigation (if she still is as of this writing) and we all know about Trump’s Russian collusion allegations, that by having a Zio-controlled MSM to keep these politicos at arms reach the former presidential candidate and this sitting president are as of now being compromised to no end as their talents and charisma are most definitely Zio-owned. No matter how you parse this travesty all roads lead back to Tel Aviv, or is it Jerusalem?

          • WC
            April 1, 2018 at 02:46

            Joe. What I am trying to get at is the End Game. If “all roads lead back to Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem” as you say, what do they have in mind beyond the middle east? If I am hearing everyone on this site correctly, it is the Zionist .01%ers who are orchestrating all of this. If so, is the middle east just a regional issue or is there some global strategy at work here? Zionist Jews are not the only .01%ers. This, what Carlin calls the “Big Club” and others call the “Deep State”, is comprised of all the big money people from all over the world. Trump’s wealth is not even in their league, which is why he is just the errand boy. It, therefore, stands to reason that if Zionist .01%ers want REAL and TOTAL control of the middle east, they need to convince their pals to stabilize the rest of the world’s problems as well. And I don’t mean “stabilize” in any altruistic sense that benefits the people.

            I don’t know what the End Game is. I’m hoping Abe will be able to tell me, given his obvious expertise. If not him then maybe someone else. But I have a hard time believing there is no end game or that there is no small elite group that pulls the strings from behind the curtain. Nor do I believe this rich and powerful elitist group is so stupid and incompetent not to have an End Game in mind that solves all of their problems collectively. :)

          • Zachary Smith
            April 1, 2018 at 19:32

            Joe, I’d suggest you re-read the zionist troll’s gloating at the old link. He knows perfectly well what the “end game” is, and is daring anybody to spell it out. Presumably that would serve the Hasbara propaganda, and might even be a step in getting this site discredited. Or drastically altered in nature. Or worse.


            Recently I learned that despite what I was taught in Sunday School, Yahweh’s Old Testament rules apply only to His Favorite People. That’s why the ongoing slaughters in Gaza and elsewhere don’t violate any commandments. Anything done to outsiders, and I do mean anything, is ok with those Favorite People and their Jealous Tribal God.

            So their murder of the sailors on the USS Liberty was merely a routine day’s work in expanding Holy Israel. And the likely sacrifice of the US soldiers and airmen stationed in 2018 Israel will be the same. Just like what their ancestors would do to a calf, or a lamb, or a fat dove. Land Grab #3 must proceed, and WILL proceed no matter how many two-legged animals from outside the Clan happen to be used as a Burnt Offering.

            On that note, one wonders if their use of napalm against the USS Liberty in 1967 had more than one justification.

          • CitizenOne
            April 1, 2018 at 22:37

            The Money Powers:


            It is evident that the winners of the last wars have become the chief narrators of history. They have conspired to profit mightily from the bloodshed and are still today yielding their enormous wealth to gain even more riches by manipulating our daily news forming it into a narrative which seeks to create a new hostile enemy in the search for a new war where they can once again become insanely wealthy.

          • Gregory Herr
            April 2, 2018 at 18:15

            Zachary– we sure need to continue referencing the Liberty as needed until we can get a broader acknowledgement, explanation or apology for the Israeli intention by whatever means available to sink the ship and leave no survivors. And it would be good if we could nail down what Johnson knew and when he knew it.

      • April 1, 2018 at 13:26


        Thank you for sharing that truly extraordinary and devastating article by Moon of Alabama (MOA). To MOA’s great credit, he thanked another source who discovered the explosive WikiLeaks emails regarding Novichok, prompting MOA to produce the article. Hillary Clinton is in extremely hot water (of world record proportion) after this information has become public and widely disseminated, and faces an inescapable, blistering interrogation on the world stage by way of explanation.

        Old-school true journalists would look at Moon of Alabama’s jaw-dropping article and observe: “There’s some real reporting right there…” We might add that Donald Trump and Barack Obama are equally in extremely hot water with regard to this supremely damning information – facing, like Hillary Clinton, a rapidly growing international demand for explanation. At certain points in history secreted scandals become so widely known it becomes impossible to hide them any longer. This volcano has erupted big-time and cannot be stopped.

      • Skip Scott
        March 31, 2018 at 10:38

        Bolton is a real scumbag. Also very disturbing is the list of Brooking’s corporate sponsors. It is almost impossible to live your any other way than as a hermit in the woods to avoid doing business with such a large and diverse array of sponsors.

        • Joe Tedesky
          March 31, 2018 at 21:45

          Imagine if Bernie had won and hired such a evil Neocon, why the walls would have come crashing down. That is unless Bernie were to be taking us to war. I mean Skip ‘war’ in the DC Beltway is like the magic word if you want to get to be popular with that over anxious warmongering crowd. To many arms dealers and manufacturers is the problem, but there again you already knew this. The best we can hope for is that with the installment of Bolton, Haspel, and Pompeo, is that we are at this moment in time presenting to the world a giant bluff…but dare I say we are preparing for war. I just don’t know Skip, I just don’t know. Joe

    • Bob Van Noy
      March 31, 2018 at 09:02

      Thank you for those links Joe. I’m thinking that the internal War is on and that one will have to choose sides soon. Foe me it’s all about Korea. If a peace deal is arranged between the Koreas; it will represent the greatest step in the correct direction in my lifetime. No matter where one stands; the actual lessening of tensions, is always the side to be on.

      Also, please review the article on MLK for updates. For a later discussion…

      • Joe Tedesky
        March 31, 2018 at 09:23

        Bob glad you enjoyed the links. On the subject of Korea I have been watching Moon Jae in from even before his taking office as president of S Korea. Moon Jae in is the real deal apparently, and I’m hoping he doesn’t get run over by the American war machine. Especially since it would appear that Kim Jung un is ready to talk of solutions to ending this overdue peace settlement between the two Koreas.

        What MLK article are you referring to Bob? Joe

      • Gregory Herr
        March 31, 2018 at 10:33

        Bob– good that you and Greg Maybury are promoting Engdahl’s latest book. “The Lost Hegemon” and “Gods of Money” by Engdahl plus his contributions at New Eastern Outlook make him one of my favorite writers going today. I’ll post a link to his website:


        • Bob Van Noy
          March 31, 2018 at 11:43

          Thanks Gregory Herr, it’s very important

    • Sam F
      March 31, 2018 at 10:47

      Yes, the US has no security issue with Russia and China, and can only disrupt business and create opponents by threatening them. This is the strategy of the classical tyrant in creating foreign enemies so as to pose with the flag and demand power as protector. But the mere tyrant wants a small enemy easily defeated, so one must look for motives against a proposed enemy like Russia or China. Only the zionists oppose Russia in the Mideast, and it has made only defensive moves elsewhere.

      • Bob Van Noy
        March 31, 2018 at 11:50

        Thank you Sam F. I’m so pleased that you recognize and point that out. It really is the key. Peace IS the object… Instead of seeking enemies under every rock; let’s fool the Neocons of both parties and find Peace for a change…

      • Joe Tedesky
        March 31, 2018 at 21:54

        Sam I’ve been trying but I still need to learn more about the oligarchs Putin threw out of Russia. Sounds like a request for Abe. The more I do learn the more I find Zionist under every rock so far which Putin has lifted to expose. If Putin is doing what I believe he is doing, well then I can only hope the U.S. gets lucky, and we Americans can someday elect our own Putin. I say this, because this whole affair which has gone on for way to long and has been hiding under the umbrella of public apathy needs to come to an end. Joe

  17. Bob Van Noy
    March 31, 2018 at 08:25

    Thank you Ray. I certainly agree that John Bolton is in a special category! I keep imagining the antique photos of the Nazis in the docks during the Nuremberg Tribunals, and he’s right up there in front! The irony is that the contemporaries I’m thinking about fit the image…

  18. Skip Scott
    March 31, 2018 at 08:01


    Thanks for another great article.

    I have an answer for Gary Leupp: “Why follow up that cordial call [the congratulatory one] to Putin with the expulsion of so many diplomats? What the hell. Doesn’t make sense.”

    It makes perfect sense if you insert a “trip to the woodshed” between the “cordial call” and the “expulsion of so many diplomats”. Trump speaks off the cuff again and again, and then has to be reminded of who is really in charge.

    • Joe Tedesky
      March 31, 2018 at 08:55

      What’s even more disconcerting is why reprimand the president so publicly? You are right Skip they took the president to the woodshed. Is it me, that I can’t recall such an event of correcting the president ever being done from right within the public square, to be mocked and demeaned for all to see? Will this be the new norm for every sitting president? Probably not since every president isn’t the bombastic Trump, but for now this public flogging of the president moves the ratings levels up at the pleasure of our Zio-controlled-MSM. While this helps the MSM for ad revenue it also helps the MSM to truly turn our government into a ongoing tv reality show. Here is where I hear John Lennon singing, ‘and nothing is real’. This is how we American citizens are being played Skip, and I agree with your analysis. Joe

  19. Babyl-on
    March 31, 2018 at 07:29

    Bless McGovern and all the contributors here at consortiumnews.

    Still, can we please stop using outdated and meaningless terms to analyze our current circumstances? There is no *new cold war* nor is there an *new arms race* these terms applied in 1950 but not to today’s geopolitical conditions.

    If Russia is spending less than 15% of the US military budget on its weapons and has sufficient technological expertise to produce weapons which will protect Russia against current US weapons that is not an “arms race” US wars of aggression in the Middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere, its encirclement of both China and Russia its constant provocations against those states and others – everything one sided, only the US is aggressive, China Russia Syria and the rest are just trying to find common ground – that is not a “cold war” it is a strategy of aggression by the US.

    • Rob Roy
      April 2, 2018 at 00:55

      Good grief, Bably-on, try to sort out your last “sentence” so it makes sense. It’s not really a sentence, nor a paragraph, but a bunch of fragments and run-ons thrown together. I think you have something smart to say and need to slow down and state your points clearly.
      I agree, Ray McGovern [w/consortiumnews] bring us much needed facts and information; i.e., truth.

  20. john wilson
    March 31, 2018 at 04:54

    I am beginning to think that Trump is completely owned by the deep state. Only a frightened man are one who is insane would have anything to do with a lunatic like Bolton. Actually, I think Trump is the sanest person in the whole sordid swamp which means there is a swamp of snakes criminals and nutters in and around the US Government.

    • Piotr Berman
      April 1, 2018 at 21:22

      I think Trump is the sanest person in the whole sordid swamp — john wilson

      Superficially, it looks that Trump has his lucid moments, while Bolton does not. But another view is that Bolton has some deluded beliefs and operates consistently, with some logic. Trump could not care less if he is logical or not, which is an equally dangerous disorder.

  21. geeyp
    March 31, 2018 at 04:53

    Ray- Thank you for your work. I just wanted to mention your repeating paragraph 10 and 11; might want to eliminate one or the other.

Comments are closed.