President Bill Clinton appeared as a call-in guest on NPR this morning and his remarks regarding pay-for-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation were fairly surprising. When asked directly whether donors gave money to gain favor with the Secretary of State, Clinton brazenly admitted that "since we had more 300,000 donors, it would be unusual if nobody did."

That said, Clinton was dismissive of the relevance of the pay-for-play allegations saying it was just "natural for people who had been our political allies and personal friends to call and ask for things." Clinton's comments seemed to echo those of DNC chair, Donna Brazile, who recently told ABC that it was natural for donors to seek access, saying that any questions over the impropriety of such behavior was just an attempt to "criminalize behavior that is normal."

This new approach to addressing allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation (i.e. admitting to improper behavior while simultaneously dismissing the seriousness of the charges) seems to be a coordinated strategy between the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary campaign. Just last week, Clinton Foundation CEO, Donna Shalala, admitted that there was "no question" that Foundation donors received "courtesy appointments" but simultaneously dismissed the behavior as completely normal in Washington politics.

The most exciting revelation in the Colin Powell emails, broken by Eli Clifton after the emails were hacked and published by people calling themselves DCLeaks, is that the former secretary of state chatted openly about the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons pointed directly at Iran to socialite/financier Jeffrey Leeds.

Powell, who is surely richly rewarded to sit on the board of Leeds's financial firm, gabbed about the nukes last year after Leeds prodded him, "Did you see Netanyahu's speech [to Congress]?" and said the speech was "strong... stuff." Powell didn't buy that:

Negotiators can't get what he wants. Anyway, Iranians can't use one if they finally make one. The boys in Tehran know Israel has 200, all targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. As Akmdinijad (sp) "What would we do with one, polish it?" I have spoken publicly about both nK and Iran. We'll blow up the only thing they care about—regime survival. Where, how would they even test one?

Our day job is to read about Russia-related stuff and then write about it. So imagine our surprise when we learned that "a NATO air chief says he's concerned by Russia's increasing deployment of surface-to-air missile systems in and around Europe."

That's huge! Russia deployed the S-400 to Prague? When did this happen? And what is Russia hoping to gain by deploying surface-to-air systems into the heart of NATO-controlled Europe? We had so many questions in need of answers.

Thankfully the folks at Military.com cleared up any misunderstandings about what they meant by "in and around Europe":

In recent years, the Russian military has deployed S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems not only within Russia and Kaliningrad, the Russian city in a territory between Poland and Lithuania, but Crimea and areas encircling the Ukraine, and even Latakia, Syria.

A lot of redundant information here. Let's help our friends at Military.com:
After editing out the decorative bullshit, we get:

In recent years, the Russian military has deployed S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems not only within Russia and Russia, but Russia and Russia, and even Latakia, Syria.

See? Much more succinct, and infinitely less manipulative.

We understand why NATO is worried, and we hope that Moscow will soon abandon this reckless, aggressive policy of deploying surface-to-air systems within its own borders.

Enough already. Russia must be stopped.

Just in case you didn't understand why the US government loves war so much, why it loves killing civilians so much, CNN's Wolf Blitzer is stupid enough to state it openly to Senator Rand Paul.

America makes a lot of bombs. But bombs have to be used to keep generating a demand for them and keep US taxpayer's money flowing to 'defense contractors'. American corporate and political psychopaths need war to keep making more money than they can count. So they lie to justify wars. They lied about 9/11, they lied about Saddam, they lied about 'al-qaeda', they lied about Qaddafi, they lie about Assad, they lie about Russia and they lie about 'ISIS'.

Whatever they need to say to keep war ticking over, they'll say it.

Here's Wolfie:

US' benevolent claims on security, peace, compromise and friendship are false if not intentionally misleading.

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of United States foreign assistance since World War II. And this week it received the largest US military aid package ever signed between two countries. This begs the question: why does Israel, whose per capita income is among the world's top 20, receive tens of billions of dollars in military support each decade?

The official justifications and reactions by the pundits have come mostly in ready phrases and cliches constricted to the ideological confines of the US-Israel "special relationship". The deal is a "win-win" for both the US and Israel.

It benefits both countries: it's a "compromise" between what Israel asked for, $45bn, and what it settled for in the previous decade $30bn-plus; and it is indispensable for "Israel's security" in a "dangerous neighborhood".

Two recent attacks against the Syrian Arab Army in east-Syria point to a U.S. plan to eliminate all Syrian government presence east of Palmyra. This would enable the U.S. and its allies to create a "Sunni entity" in east-Syria and west-Iraq which would be a permanent thorn in side of Syria and its allies.

A 2012 analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency said:

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ...

Note that the described plan mentions exactly two cities - Hasakah and Deir Ezzor.On August 18 Kurdish YPK units suddenly attacked Syrian government positions in the center of Hasakah in the north-east of Syria. Before this incident the relations between the two entities had been decent despite some earlier, small clashes. The attacking Kurds were under advice from U.S. special operators. When the Syrian air force intervened the U.S. threatened to down its planes. The Syrian forces had to eventually retreat from populated areas in Hasakah and are now confined to an airport next to the city. They are cut off from supplies and will eventually have to give up.

Kerry wants ceasefire, Syria/Russia say no, resume attacks on jihadists

The current situation in Syria may look like a confusing mess, but we think there are enough clues to make some sense of it. It all comes down to a statement UN ambassador Churkin made after his close encounter with Samantha "Kill 'em to save 'em" Power: "Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the White House or the Pentagon?" The Pentagon and CIA are rabidly anti-Assad; they don't want a ceasefire. Kerry and the State Department appear - at least on the surface - to want the ceasefire to succeed, despite their continued anti-Assad rhetoric. That doesn't necessarily mean their aims and objectives are the same as Russia's when it comes to Syria, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least they aren't completely insane like Ash Carter and the rest of the war hawks. What makes us think that?

Unless Kerry and the rest of the negotiating team are complete idiots, they must have known that a simple repeat of the February ceasefire would not work, for the simple reason that the February ceasefire did not work. The lengthy negotiations and the U.S.-requested secrecy of the specific details suggest that the U.S. made major concessions. They could have refused to go forward, blaming Russia for unrealistic demands or some other such nonsense. But they didn't. And the publicly known goals of the agreement are all agreeable to Syria and Russia and align with their intentions throughout the course of the war for the past year or so: cooperation in the fight against Nusra and Daesh, separation of "moderate" and Nusra elements (i.e., a face-saving way for the U.S. to save some of its Nusra proxies), and humanitarian aid.

These haven't been U.S. goals in the war, but by agreeing to them, the U.S. can appear to be on the right side of history and morality. What the U.S. really needed was a face-saving way of scaling back their failed strategy without being totally discredited. For the saner factions in Washington, this apparently means scaling back the demands for regime change (Assad's future was not even mentioned in the agreement), saving some of their proxies (by rebranding some as moderates and hanging others out to dry in joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes), and perhaps leaving open an eventual plan B later down the line in the political process utilizing the remaining "opposition". Bottom line: the "military" solution isn't working; the Syrians are steadily winning against all brand of anti-government jihadists. (The real moderates sign truce agreements with the government.)

There are several sound reasons for concluding that the US-led air strike on the Syrian army base near Deir Ezzor last weekend was a deliberate act of murderous sabotage. One compelling reason is that the Pentagon and CIA knew they had to act in order to kill the ceasefire plan worked out by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The compulsion to wreck the already shaky truce was due to the unbearable exposure that the ceasefire plan was shedding on American systematic involvement in the terrorist proxy war on Syria.

Not only that, but the tentative ceasefire was also exposing the elements within the US government responsible for driving the war effort. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter - the head of the Pentagon - reportedly fought tooth and nail with Obama's top diplomat John Kerry while the latter was trying to finalize the ceasefire plan with Russia's Lavrov on the previous weekend of September 9 in Geneva.

While Sergey Lavrov and media reporters were reportedly kept waiting several hours for Kerry to finally emerge to sign off on the deal, the American foreign secretary was delayed by intense haggling in conference calls with Carter and other military chiefs back in Washington. Even days before Kerry's diplomatic shuttle to Geneva, Carter was disparaging any prospective deal with Russia on a Syrian ceasefire.

It is well documented that both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been running clandestine programs for arming and training anti-government militants in Syria since the outset of the war in March 2011. Officially, Washington claims to be only supporting «moderate, vetted opposition». However, on occasion, Western media reports allude to the deeper sinister connections between the US military and terrorist groups when it has been reported that American weaponry «accidentally» finds its way into the hands of extremist jihadist networks.

As was widely expected, the main event during today's John Stumpf hearing before the Senate Banking Committee was the moments when anti-bank crusader, Elizabeth Warren would get to the mic. She did not hold back, and immediately launched into a full-blown attack on the one topic Americans find most disturbing: the utter lack of accountability, despite Stumpf's repeaeted protestations to the contrary.

"Since this massive year's long scam came to light you have said 'I am accountable', but what have you done to hold yourself accountable? Have you resigned? Have you returned one nickel of the money you earned while this scandal was going on?" After Stumpf failed to respond, Warren replied in his stead: "I will take that as a no."

When Stumpf confirmed that he has not fired a single senior executives, Warren slammed what she called "gutless leadership."

Ministry of Defence confirms British involvement in US-led airstrike that killed at least 62 Syrian government troops

RAF Reaper drones were involved in the weekend airstrike that killed at least 62 Syrian government troops and threatened the fragile truce in the country, the Ministry of Defence has said.

An unspecified number of weapons were fired from the drones capable of firing 500lb laser guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, it added.

The British military said it was cooperating fully with an investigation by the US-led coalition into the incident, which led to dozens of soldiers being killed and injured, according to Syrian government reports.

Australian, Danish and US air forces were also involved in the raid.