The crème de la U.S. foreign policy establishment gathered in Texas last week, reaffirming at a friendly conclave the need for their skillful stewardship of the national security state, as Michael Brenner witnessed.
Donald Trump’s recent attempts to show more restraint and look presidential unraveled in his debate with Hillary Clinton like Roger Rabbit unable to resist a goofy sight gag, says Michael Winship.
Donald Trump missed chances in the first debate, including failure to exploit a U.S. intelligence report that cited U.S. support for an Islamic State forerunner, part of Hillary Clinton’s scheme for Syrian “regime change,” notes Joe Lauria.
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s strongest point in Monday’s debate may have been what she didn’t say, as she avoided a return to her hawkish rhetoric that has alienated many anti-war Democrats, writes Robert Parry.
Though global warming represents a grave danger, it received only passing notice in the first presidential debate, in part, because the politics of climate change are challenging, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains.
When House Speaker John Boehner quit, he acted like he was done with Washington’s toxicity, but the big dollars of the lobbying world have lured him back through the golden revolving door, writes Michael Winship.
Since NATO’s 1999 war on Serbia, U.S. officials have followed a script demonizing targeted foreign leaders, calling ultimatums “diplomacy,” lying about “war as a last resort” and selling aggression as humanitarianism, says Nicolas J S Davies.
U.S. enthusiasts for the New Cold War with Russia appear to be ignoring less-belligerent orders from President Obama and pushing for a dangerous escalation of tensions, reports ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.
Exclusive: Direct and indirect dangers from global warming are so grave that the issue should be near the top of the U.S. campaign agenda, instead of being downplayed or denied, writes Jonathan Marshall.
The neocon Washington Post wants an even bigger U.S. military intervention in Syria, ignoring the tenets of international law and assuming that more bombing will somehow make things better, observes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
