Best of the Web:


Target

Best of the Web: Yemeni insurgents successfully target two Saudi oil plants with multiple drone strikes


Comment: This story SHOULD have rattled the markets and sent the price of oil sky high. But because the media largely airbrushes out Yemeni successes against Saudi targets, the illusion of stability on the Arabian Peninsula is maintained...


houthis yemen drones
© Hussam Al-Sanabani/TwitterHouthi leader Saleh Alsmad unveils a Qasef-1 drone, an indigenous hi-tech development, on February 26, 2017
Aramco oil stations targeted as Houthi-run media says military operation a response to 'continued aggression'.

Armed drones attacked two oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday in what Riyadh called a "cowardly" act by Yemen's Houthi rebels, two days after Saudi oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

The drone strikes caused minor damage to one of the stations supplying a pipeline running from its oil-rich Eastern Province to the Yanbu Port on the Red Sea, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said in a statement carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency.

"These attacks prove again that it is important for us to face terrorist entities, including the Houthi militias in Yemen that are backed by Iran," Falih said.

A fire that broke out was later brought under control, but the country's state-run oil giant Aramco stopped pumping oil through the pipeline.

Comment: Hurrah for the Yemenis in their efforts to liberate their country from the Saudi-Western yoke.


Yoda

Best of the Web: Assange gets handwritten letter out from Belmarsh prison: "I am defenseless. Everyone else must take my place"

assange extradition protest
© Reuters/Henry Nicholls
In a handwritten letter from Belmarsh prison, WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange says he is being denied a chance to defend himself and that elements in the US that "hate truth, liberty and justice" want him extradited and dead.

The letter was sent to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack. It was dated May 13 - ten days before the US announced 17 additional charges under the Espionage Act against the jailed whistleblower.

In light of the new indictment, Dimmack read out the letter in a YouTube video. A photo of the handwritten note was soon posted online as well.

Comment: Journalist Cassandra Fairbanks charges that the US seeks to intimidate reporters by indicting Assange:
The US is apparently seeking to lock Assange away for the rest of his life as an example for all other journalists around the world to see, Fairbanks said, commenting on the latest indictment against the whistleblower announced by a federal grand jury. Each of the 17 additional charges introduced under the Espionage Act carries a 10-year prison sentence, meaning that the Wikileaks founder could face up to 175 years in jail in total.

Fairbanks believes Assange might actually face a much more gruesome fate.

"I am not even convinced that they will not give him the death penalty. There are other espionage act charges that carry the death penalty," she told RT, adding that the US is likely to "throw everything they can at him."

Assange's prosecution goes beyond simply seeking to punish a man who exposed US atrocities, including the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Iraq as well as torture and mistreatment of prisoners, according to the journalist.

"They are sending a message that if you publish some leaks or something that the [US] government does not like, that is going to ruin your whole life. You can potentially go to jail forever."

The US government basically wants the people to give up hope that they will have any future at all if they ever dare to go against Washington, Fairbanks said.

"If there was something so important that you felt you needed to leak it, you could know that you would still have some of your life left afterwards. Now they are sending the message that you won't," she told RT.

The entire campaign against Assange is "a huge threat to the First Amendment, especially for the national security reporters," as it severely limits journalistic freedoms and puts reporters under indirect pressure from the US authorities.

"They are criminalizing journalism. That is exactly what they are doing and there is no way around it."

The fact that Assange is not even a US citizen and that he never committed any crime on US territory is particularly worrying, Fairbanks notes. She explained that this situation shows that pretty much any journalist from any country can become a victim of the US persecution and face extradition to America.

Fairbanks took particular issue with the indictment's claim that Assange endangered individuals working for the US government by publishing the classified government documents.

"To claim that the leaks harmed someone now would be ridiculous," she told RT.

During the 2010 trial of Chelsea Manning, the US Army intelligence analyst who provided Assange with the documents, the Pentagon itself confirmed that nobody was killed because of the leaks and nobody even had to be moved because of the leaks.

"I find it hard to believe that it would suddenly change, because the Pentagon had no interest in protecting Manning at that time," Fairbanks said.
There is little hope that Assange will be given a fair trial in the US justice system, former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou, whose case was handled by the same District Court in Virginia, told RT.

According to Kiriakou, Assange should not count on the court's impartiality in his case: "They are going to try to make an example of Julian. He's been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia. His judge was also my judge and ex-Snowden's judge and [CIA whistleblower] Jeffry Sterling's judge who reserves every national security case for herself."

See also:


Attention

Best of the Web: Where's MSM outrage over Julian Assange's persecution?

assange video conference
© Getty Images / David RamosJulian Assange holds a video conference with Catalan students outside the University of Barcelona on September 26, 2017
The news that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has been indicted on 17 additional charges under the US Espionage Act and could be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison should concern all journalists, the world over.

Some, to their credit, have spoken out against the relentless persecution of the white-haired Australian truth-teller.

But it's nothing compared to the outrage that could and should be stirred. Most journalists in the west have stayed as silent as Trappist monks with sore throats, or actually taken the side of the authorities acting against Assange.

Just imagine, as I discussed here if Julian was a Russian dissident, being treated in the same way by the Russian authorities. Then we'd be seeing column after column in 'serious newspapers' urging people to join the 'Free Assange' campaign. Celebrities would be falling over themselves to show their support. There'd be calls for yet more sanctions to be imposed on Russia, and to be maintained until the 'political prisoner' was released. But who so far has come out in defense of Assange, save for Pamela Anderson and Roger Waters? Where are the great 'human rights defenders'?

Comment: The MSM has remained silent for years in the face of Assange's persecution. Now they are waking up to the implications of cheering when a voice they despise is silenced.


Biohazard

Best of the Web: 'Not even the White Helmets confirm it': Russian MoD rubbishes Washington's Syria chemical attack claims

A man rides on a motorbike in a crowded souk at the city of Idlib, Syria May 24, 2019
© Reuters / Khalil AshawiA man rides on a motorbike in a crowded souk at the city of Idlib, Syria May 24, 2019.
Moscow has blasted the US State Department's claims about an alleged chemical attack in Syria's Idlib province, saying the allegations totally lack proof and haven't even been confirmed by Western-backed groups on the ground.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that Washington's attempts to "impose another lie on this world" about the situation in Syria were "not even surprising anymore" as it denied that any such attack in Idlib took place.

The military also called out the US over the lack of evidence. When the State Department first reported an alleged attack on Tuesday it limited itself to saying that the US saw some "signs" it might have happened while failing to provide any details about the incident, except for the date on which it supposedly took place.

Comment: Also see:


Stormtrooper

Best of the Web: Trump approves deploying 1,500 additional US troops to Persian Gulf - Iran warns it can sink ships with 'new secret weapons'

Trump
© Shealah Craighead/White HouseUS President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks to troops at Yokota Air Base on November 5, 2017, in Tokyo, Japan.
U.S. President Donald Trump has approved plans to deploy around 1,500 U.S. forces to the Middle East, along with Patriot missile batteries and other assets in a bid to counter Iran in the Persian Gulf region.

Trump confirmed the move on Friday, May 24, telling reporters at the White House that he would send 1,500 troops to the region in a "mostly protective" role. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said in a Friday statement:
"I approved the combatant commander's request for the deployment of additional resources and capabilities to the Middle East to improve our force protection and safeguard U.S. forces given the ongoing threat posed by Iranian forces, including the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and its proxies.

"The deployment will include approximately 1,500 U.S. military personnel and consist of a Patriot battalion to defend against missile threats; additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft; an engineer element to provide force protection improvements throughout the region; and a fighter aircraft squadron to provide additional deterrence and depth to our aviation response options."
There was no word on the location of additional forces or a timeline for the deployment, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Shanahan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford and White House officials agreed to the deployment on Thursday, according to the report.

Comment: To which Iran responded:
Iran is prepared to deploy 'secret weapons' against American warships, a military official in Tehran said, after the Pentagon sent three destroyers to the Persian Gulf amid a wave of increased tensions between the two states.

Without mincing words, General Morteza Qorbani, an adviser to Iran's military command, cautioned that should Washington "commit the slightest stupidity, we will send these ships to the bottom of the sea along with their crew and planes."

Iran, he promised, would do so "using two missiles or two new secret weapons." He did not specify what type of "secret weapons" he was referring to. [...]

In February, Tehran unveiled and successfully tested its new Hoveizeh long-range cruise missile, which is said to have a range of over 1,350 kilometers.

In the same month, Tehran launched the massive Velayat 97 naval drill, with maneuvers spanning from the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman to the northern Indian Ocean. During the drill, a midget Ghadir-class submarine fired an anti-ship cruise missile for the first time.
Meanwhile, Iran is confident this is all bluster on the US' part:
Cooler heads among the US population and the army will not allow hardliners to steer the country into an open war with Iran, a senior military official in Tehran said amid growing tensions in the Persian Gulf.

"We believe rational Americans and their experienced commanders will not let their radical elements lead them into a situation from which it would be very difficult to get out, and that is why they will not enter a war," Brigadier General Hassan Seifi, an assistant to the nation's army chief, told Mehr News Agency on Saturday.
They may be right:
An open letter signed by 76 retired generals, admirals, and ambassadors calls on US President Donald Trump to stop stoking fears of war with Iran and ditch "ineffective" sanctions and threats in favor of "aggressive diplomacy."

In a letter published on Friday by 'War on the Rocks', which specializes in reports on national security and defense issues, former US military top brass made an urgent plea to Trump to avoid further escalation with Iran and turn to diplomacy, rather than setting the stage for confrontation with military reinforcements.



War Whore

Best of the Web: Meddling 101: US Army research center publishes strategy to destabilize Russia

US army soldiers
© Reuters / Ints KalninsUS army soldiers take part in NATO training exercises in Lithuania
The US could use a variety of economic, military and ideological strategies to "overextend and unbalance" Russia, a new report sponsored by the US Army glaringly suggests, offering blueprints to divide and destabilize the country.

The study examines "nonviolent, cost-imposing options" that the US and its allies could employ to weaken Russia's economy, military and government structures - and was conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center - the US Army's federally funded research arm.

While US officials and mainstream media fret constantly about vague and unverified claims of Russian "meddling," "interference" and efforts to "sow discord" in US society, the RAND report openly details a shameless plot to drum up social discontent and societal divisions - in Russia.

The report says Russia suffers from "deep seated" but "exaggerated" anxieties about the possibility of "Western-inspired regime change." Evidently the authors didn't recognize the irony of calling those concerns "exaggerated" in a document dedicated to describing specific ways to do just that.

Comment: The CIA is already doing all these things, and more, inside Russia (and elsewhere).


Violin

Best of the Web: 'Brexit' claims its second scalp: Theresa May announces resignation as UK PM

theresa may resignation brexit
Theresa May has confirmed that she will resign as leader of the Conservative Party on 7 June in order for a leadership election to take place this summer.

Following a widespread revolt over her 'new Brexit deal', the Prime Minister has finally caved to growing calls from her MPs to step down. Her decision follows a meeting with Sir Graham Brady, the leader of backbench Tories, in Downing Street this morning.

Mrs May said that the process of electing her successor would begin the week after she finally stepped down as Conservative leader. She said she had informed the Queen that she would continue to serve as Prime Minister until that process was complete.

In an emotional statement on the steps of Downing Street, she said she had "done my best" to get her Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament but acknowledged she had failed to do so.


Comment: Here's her full statement:


Despite the tears, few in the UK feel sorry for her.

She may feel contrition for 'failing to deliver Brexit', but the real mission since she took over from Cameron three years ago has been - first and foremost - to reinstate parliament as the arbiter of whether or not the UK leaves the EU. In that respect, she has been successful. The 'dictatorship of the parliamentariat' has been preserved, and for now the entrenched political class remains relevant...

Meanwhile, real issues that urgently require government intervention are piling up in the UK:


Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has, of course, seized the opportunity to again call for a general election:


After three years of fecklessness by the entire political class over Brexit, Corbyn's chances of returning the Labour Party to power have likely also taken a hit. Why would people - a substantial majority of whom seem to support Brexit - vote Labour when that party offers no real alternative to the Conservative strategy of keeping the UK in the EU?

Nigel Farage has weighed in:


You'll never believe who the UK media is proposing as May's successor...


boris johnson

And where is BoJo at this crucial time? In Switzerland, promising bankers that:
"We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal. The way to get a good deal is to prepare for a no deal."
...which is EXACTLY what the Tories were saying about the March 31st deadline.

European leaders suspect, correctly, that May's resignation forms part of the UK permanent govt's strategy for managing Brexit while holding onto power. All the Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov had to say about it was:
"Regrettably, I cannot recall offhand any landmarks that might somehow illustrate a contribution to the development of bilateral relations between Russia and Britain. It is rather the other way round."
Indeed, apart from 'not-Brexit', what else will May be recorded in history for... the 'not-nerve agent' Skripal Saga?


Bad Guys

Best of the Web: A new low in campaign hit pieces: Efforts to sandbag Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are crude repeats of 2016 election tactics

Tulsi Gabbard
© Marco Garcia/AP/REX/ShutterstockU.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) speaks during a campaign rally announcing her candidacy for president in Waikiki.
Last week, the Daily Beast ran this headline: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists"

That was followed by the sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."

The Gabbard campaign has received 75,000 individual donations. This crazy Beast article is based on (maybe) three of them.

The three names are professor Stephen Cohen, activist Sharon Tennison and someone using the name "Goofy Grapes," who may or may not have once worked for comedian Lee Camp, currently employed by Russia Today.

This vicious little article might have died a quiet death, except ABC's George Stephanopoulos regurgitated it in an interview with Gabbard days later. The This Week host put up the Beast headline in a question about whether or not Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than other candidates.

Gabbard responded: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of fake news."

Comment: The Democrats are desperate to make sure the 'right' candidate (of their choosing) gets elected this time - and desperate people are dangerous. We can expect much worse from their media vassals in the coming months.


Attention

Best of the Web: Here we go AGAIN! US sez Syria 'may be using chemical weapons' - threatens 'retaliation'

OPCW inspectors chemical weapons
© Yousef Albostany/Local Committee of Arbeen/Associated PressOPCW inspectors
The United States sees signs the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack on Sunday in northwest Syria, the State Department said on Tuesday, warning that Washington and its allies would respond "quickly and appropriately" if this were proven.

"Unfortunately, we continue to see signs that the Assad regime may be renewing its use of chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack in northwest Syria on the morning of May 19," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.

"We are still gathering information on this incident, but we repeat our warning that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, the United States and our allies will respond quickly and appropriately," she said.

Comment: This comes less than 36 hours after a leaked OPCW report confirmed that the Douma 'chemical weapons attack' that 'justified' F.UK.US. airstrikes against Syrian military and state targets fighting ISIS/Al-Qaeda last year was STAGED.

The reason, as always, why they're launching another chemical attack propaganda blitz now is because the Syrian government forces are moving in on the concentrated pocket of terrorists remaining in Idlib province...


Stock Down

Best of the Web: Oddly enough, study says the US has become LESS racist under Trump - Anti-black, anti-Hispanic prejudice declining

Mission Imposs
© YouTubePresident Donald Trump
The election of Donald Trump has, of course, unleashed the latent racist which lurks within millions of Americans. We know this because enlightened opinion keeps telling us so. The New Yorker, for example, ran a piece in November 2016 declaring 'Hate on rise since Trump's election', and quoting a list of incidents collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center - including the experience of a girl in Colorado who was allegedly told by a white man: 'Now that Trump is president I am going to shoot you and all the blacks I can find'. TIME magazine, too, ran a story in the same month announcing 'Racist incidents are up since Donald Trump's election'. In March 2017 the Nation asserted 'Donald Trump's rise has coincided with an explosion in hate groups', claiming that 100 racist organizations had been founded since Trump began his presidential campaign.

And so it goes on. Just as with Britain's vote for Brexit, Trump's strident language and his concentration on issues such as migration is supposed to have coarsened political discourse - legitimizing racist and xenophobic opinions in people who might otherwise have been shamed into silence. By this narrative, even slightly immoderate speeches, posters and campaigns by politicians become magnified through the lens of public opinion into something much more sinister. A speech on migration, goes the theory, can all too easily erupt into bar room arguments and end with a Muslim or a black man having his head kicked in.

It sounds vaguely plausible, but is it true?

Comment: Or maybe Obama was just a sh*t president who was a vacuous yes-man for the deep state, whereas Trump has integrity and is popular.

See also: