Puppet Masters
"As you may know, this question should be addressed to the Foreign Ministry. Apparently it would be not appropriate for us to comment on a Foreign Ministry statement," Peskov explained.
"That the United States has a rich tradition of meddling in the internal affairs and electoral processes in many countries throughout the world, including our country, is not a secret for anyone. This was acknowledged by the Americans themselves."
"I regret my health has become an ongoing challenge," the Senate Committee on Appropriations chairman. "I intend to fulfill my responsibilities and commitments to the people of Mississippi and the Senate through the completion of the 2018 appropriations cycle, after which I will formally retire from the U.S. Senate."
A war with Iran, he said, could "perhaps terminate the experiment that is Israel and do irreparable damage to the empire that America has become."
But Israeli leaders want a war, and they are pushing one with the support of their American political friends, including Democrats like Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, whose overheated rhetoric about Iran recalls Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, Wilkerson said. Another pro-war faction are "warmed-over neoconservatives" who got us into the Iraq war.
"I've been there, done that; I don't need the tour," he said.
Wilkerson, a retired army colonel who now teaches government at Washington-area universities, served Powell during the runup to the Iraq war. He spoke last Friday at the annual Israel lobby conference at the National Press Club, sponsored by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and Institute for Research: Middle East Policy. The conference aired on C-SPAN.
I have transcribed his speech below. Wilkerson's remarks are important because his analysis of the tail wagging the dog is so cogent and frightening at a time when the premier Israel lobby group AIPAC is pushing for action against Iran in Syria. Also for Wilkerson's respectful take on Vladimir Putin; for his unvarnished opinion of the Israel lobby, so different from the tame piece he published in The New York Times a month ago; and for his comments about Israel attacking the USS Liberty in 1967 and stealing US uranium to build a nuclear weapon with LBJ's knowledge.
Comment: Here is the recent piece Lawrence Wilkerson wrote for the New York Times in which he also warned against a war on Iran:
Lawrence Wilkerson helped sell America on Iraq war but is now warning that war party wants Iran next
We've seen pundits on television hawking their version of the near future. Many of them represent organizations who have political and financial agendas.
For example, Globalist forces and their mouthpieces would have you believe that laying tariffs on imports will sink the stock market.
However, since the stock market is a rigged game for insiders, here is a proper translation of the above paragraph: "If tariffs are laid on, Globalist insiders will MAKE the stock market sink, and characterize that as a natural consequence of the new tariffs."
In turn, then, a diving stock market will be PROMOTED (by the Globalist press) as a sign that the overall economy is in big trouble.
Back then if you were a 'Liberal', you probably supported both of these men. Kennedy described himself in the following way:
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal."That sounds reasonable to me. The trouble, however, with identifying one's politics, is that, as time goes by, the meanings of words change. For example, during the 1930s, 'fascist' applied to someone who supported the nationalistic ideology of that era. Today the term can mean a far-right or far left supporter, or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The meaning of terms today also vary from person to person, so one word can have multiple meanings, even if they tend to aggregate around one 'common sense' meaning. A psychopath, you can imagine, has a totally different conception of the word 'freedom' than you have.
When Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States, it soon became clear that we had moved into an era of culture wars, and that the 'left' or 'liberal' ideology had undergone a very strange metamorphosis:
How the heck did we end up here?
In the name of human rights these organizations have actually worsened the crisis in Syria. They have never dealt honestly with its primary cause, the determination of the US and its allies seven years ago to destroy the government in Damascus, as part of a bigger plan to destroy the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah strategic axis across the Middle East. Democracy, human rights and the best interests of the Syrian people were never on the agenda of these governments. They were cold-blooded and remorseless in what they wanted and the means by which they sought to get it.
By calling violent armed groups 'rebels' and 'the opposition', these 'human rights' organizations conceal their true nature. By calling the Syrian government a 'regime', instead of the legitimate government of Syria, representing Syria at the UN and representing the interests of the Syrian people, they seek to demean it. By accusing it of carrying out indiscriminate attacks on its own civilian population, on the basis of what they are being told by their tainted sources, they seek to demonize it. By accusing it of carrying out chemical weapons attacks, without having any proof, they perpetuate the lies and fabrications of the armed groups and the governments that support them.
The prominent Republican hawk criticized Trump's recently-stated policy of defeating Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and getting out of the many-sided war in Syria.
"If you leave Syria in the hands of Russia and the Iranians this war never ends. And our friends in Israel and the world are hurt." Graham told CBS News' Face the Nation on Sunday, following his return from a tour of Middle East nations including Israel and Jordan.
Prompted with a question by interviewer Margaret Brennan on "chemical weapons which the Assad regime continues to use," Graham repeated claims taken up by the White House earlier that day, that Russian jets were bombing civilians in eastern Ghouta, a Damascus suburb occupied by Al-Nusra terrorists.
Comment: Lindsey Graham - after booster indoctrination visit to Israel for a biased tour of 'situational awareness.'
Comment: Hobsbawm. A lifelong supporter of the Soviet Union. Marxist, leftist intellectual.
In the 1970s and 1980s something new and threatening to human solidarity and well-being was wresting itself free of service to the common good and undermining the "principle of oneness." Its name was Neo-liberalism, the mighty Moloch to whom all must surrender.
Comment: So, the problem wasn't that Communism was alive and well, it was ... neo-liberalism? That's not really even a thing.
It also became undeniable that the "global nature" of the crisis was being uneasily recognized. One part of the world-the USSR and E. Europe-had collapsed entirely. And in Africa, West Asia, Latin America the growth of the GDP ceased as a severe depression settled in the lands like an unwanted damp fog. But from the corporate elite's towering vantage-point, western economies seemed to be thriving even if millions of individuals weren't.
Comment: Ahh, the leftist throw-n-go. Notice the envy generating, injustice tweaking "even if millions of individuals weren't".
Comment: What else would you expect from a Neo-Marxist. Basically they ignore reality and then create paper tiger bad guys that they can pew-pew in their screeds.
Now we have to endure Brian Whitaker, the Guardian's former Middle East editor, using every ploy in the misdirection and circular logic playbook to discredit those who commit thought crimes on Syria, by raising questions both about what is really happening there and about whether we can trust the corporate media consensus banging the regime-change drum.
Whitaker's arguments and assumptions may be preposterous but sadly, like Carver's, they are to be found everywhere in the mainstream - they have become so commonplace through repetition that they have gained a kind of implicit credibility. So let's unpack what Whitaker and his ilk are claiming.
Whitaker's latest outburst is directed against the impudence of a handful of British academics, including experts in the study of propaganda, in setting up a panel - the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media - to "provide a source of reliable, informed and timely analysis for journalists, publics and policymakers" on Syria. The researchers include Tim Hayward of Edinburgh University and Piers Robinson of Sheffield University.
Comment: Logic built upon illogic is still illogical and truth cannot be built upon a lie. Journalism has a duty to discern these differences.
Anchor: A reaction from Gilbert Doctorow, he's an independent political analyst , good afternoon Gilbert thanks for coming on. Mourad ended his piece there by saying it's we wait and see how the West will react to what President Putin said today how do you think they will react?
Doctorow: Well I think that this is a speech of enormous importance and it will be discussed extensively in all world medium particularly in the States for coming days. Of course there'll be a great deal of attention to the military hardware that he described, but I'd like to put his speech into two contexts. One is part of an electoral campaign because we are in the midst of that, and yesterday on the 28th of February, the seven other candidates had their debates on the PRV Canal [sic Channel], and to what was he saying to the West - besides showing off in a non bluff way what Russia has achieved in military hardware - and coming back to the first point the electoral campaign, he made their other candidates look like a kindergarten.
Comment: Speaks to Putin's openness to lay out Russia's capabilities and terms. Unlikely the US would be as generous.















Comment: Russia, as well as every other country, has the right to protect itself from covert US imperialism.