Seymour Hersh investigates "gas attack" at Khan Sheikhoun

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 11:13am

It appears that Trump "shot from the hip" in his response to the so-called gas attack, overriding the advice of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Possibly this is one of the reasons the US military has basically taken over the authority of the President as "Commander in Chief". Trump is much too volatile, pig headed and uninformed to be in charge of the world's largest and most powerful military. The Pentagon mostly likely were the ones who insisted that Russia be forewarned about Trump's temper tantrum.

Trump‘s Red Line
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
...
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“
...
Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. “It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked,” the senior adviser told me. “Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – “had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They’re skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman.” The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.
...
At this point, the adviser said, the president’s national security planners were more than a little rattled: “No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn’t know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun.” The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. “The president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity,” the senior adviser said. “It’s typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts do not argue with a president. They’re not going to tell the president, ‘if you interpret the data this way, I quit.’”
...

Tags:

Seymour Hersch

sarin

Khan Sheikhoun

Trump

Vote

Comments

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 11:32am

Of course Team B jumped in

to help fudge the intelligence, and persuade the doubters. They provide support and smooth the way for the takfiri terrorists.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 11:54am

It all depends on who puts the worm in the president's ear

@dervish
Team B has an inside man with Jared Kushner, husband of daughter Ivanka. It is well known that it was Ivanka who pushed Trump into the senseless missile attack against Syria.

I believe the Syrian situation is going to get schizophrenic as the CIA teams square off against each other with their counterparts in the Pentagon. I can't see Trump having much ability to control and mediate the factions. Team B was always deeply inside the pockets of the neocons and they will still have solid connections with Her.

There's been a coup in all but name in the US when it comes to foreign policy.

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 12:07pm

I don't know about a coup

@CB Team B has more or less been in control for a very long time. As Putin says, our Presidents change, but our foreign policy never does.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 12:27pm

At least Obama was the nominal head and was capable

@dervish
of mediating to a certain extent. Remember his "Red Line" debacle where he held back on an outright invasion of Syria? He was also capable of pushing through the Iran deal.

Team B has now become immensely empowered with the anti-Russian rhetoric steam rolling over every foreign policy decision. Trump is just along for the ride.

I don't think the country has ever been more Strangelovian in it's history.

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 12:35pm

We stopped that invasion in 2013

@CB by lighting up the phone lines, and it was somewhat bipartisan. We may have to do the same again, as the warhawks are heavily in control of both parties.

They are going to keep pushing for war until they get it. Maybe it's best if they get it, at least it will be over... our lives, their lives, and this interminable weaselish rat-fucking.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:05pm

Who are we going to call? The US government has ceased

@dervish
to be democratic other than in name only. We now have a president who has close to zero influence over the deep state.

Of course there is the plan for 10 women for each man. I'm sure Trump would approve.

Submitted by jim p on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:36pm

The coup hapened

@CB on November 22, 1963. And it never went away.

—

Orwell: Where's the omelette?

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 3:42pm

But it was never as flagrant as it is now.

@jim p
The carcass has split open from its internal decay and the media is walking around pretending it doesn't stink.

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 5:04pm

Yes. Better hidden with Warren commission and our trust

@CB When are they going to declassify the rest of the documents

And how many were destroyed?

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 12:46pm

Did anyone see the pictures of rescue workers not wearing

any protective clothing when they went in to collect the bodies?

Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample.

It is not only easy to detect, it is very deadly for any rescue workers to die from getting it on their bare hands. In the photos I saw, the women had no gloves on or any other personal protective attire. If sarin had been on those bodies, that women would be dead. Typical of a false flag attack to mess up on the details.
Hersh also wrote about the sarin gas that Obama used for his red line attack that Russia stepped in to help him out of.
Hersh tied the sarin to either coming from the Benghazi embassy with the help from the CIA and Hillary's state department. In addition to the sarin gas, they transferred Gaddafi's weapons to the so called moderate Syrian rebels. Cough Al Qaida cough.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by jim p on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:18pm

The moderate rebels

@snoopydawg (though one wonders how thousands of foreigners are 'rebels') want to commit genocide in orderly fashion. Example: First the Alawi, then the Christians, and like that. The radicals just want to kill all the wrong believers right off.

—

Orwell: Where's the omelette?

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:04pm

Having a hard time making sense of this.

It makes it sound like Trump made the decision solely based on the emotion of seeing the alleged dead children without listening to the advice of his advisors. He's made it clear how much he likes to rely on experts, particularly foreign policy. He knew that Syria had gotten rid of it's chemical weapons. This would assume he doesn't know a thing about the plan to take down Syria as early as 1986 as verified by the Wikileaks cables. This makes it look like our government is operating in Syria as described by our government and lying corporate media, i.e., to fight ISIS, and that Syria was attacked simply because Trump is stupid.

"That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact ... It’s very, very possible ... that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”"

"The crisis slid into the background by the end of April, as Russia, Syria and the United States remained focused on annihilating ISIS and the militias of al-Qaida." Really?

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:17pm

I don't think Trump has any knowledge or understanding

@Big Al
of the history of American foreign policy and interventions other than what he currently gets from the media. Unfortunately, this has set up a feedback loop that could lead the country into oblivion. If you watched him during the elections he responded like Pavlov's dog to the media's positive/negative reinforcement.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:33pm

Trump has been giving his opinions on foreign policies for

@CB decades and he's definitely had access to alternative information from the likes of Alex Jones, Brietbart/Bannon, etc.
He's not as naïve as this article makes it sound. I'm not buying this, I think Hersh got punk'd.
But that's just me.
I'm not saying he knows about the 86 plan or even the Wikileaks cables, but he has to know why the U.S. is in Syria and what the geopolitical implications are. If not, we're worse off than I thought in electing a fifth grader as president.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 3:39pm

Trump knows shit about Syrian background

@Big Al
and neocon involvement in the MENA. I doubt if he even understands the word "geopolitics". Just like Obama, Trump would not have truly 'understood' the ME until his first AIPAC conference as a presidential hopeful on March 21, 2016.

Putin was tweeting about staying out of Syria since June 2013. It was obvious he knew absolutely nothing about the geopolitics of the region at that time. His recent sword dance with the Saudis proves it. You can be damn sure that he had no time for history lessons in the interim.

Donald Trump urged Obama to stay out of Syria, now blames him for chemical attack

The CIA and Pentagon are of two minds of what to do in Syria. There are also conflicts within each agency. Even the current "Russia hacked the election" is from cherry picking within the agencies.

We saw the same thing in the run-up to the Iraq war. If you followed Knight Ridder you would have realized from the very beginning that the Bush administration was cherry picking. Many in the military and intelligence agencies did not agree with their assessment.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backg...
...
It is now well-known that Walcott and two especially tenacious reporters operating as a formidable, closely-knit trio, were the only journalists out of hundreds of American reporters and editors across the nation working on pre-invasion stories who "got it right." That is, producing solid stories – starting a year before the invasion began – reporting that the administration was manipulating intelligence to conceal dire forecasts that the Iraq invasion was headed into a morass to rival the Vietnam war disaster.
...
Walcott has said that as he sees it, two key institutions "fell down on the job" on the road to war in Iraq—“the Congress and the press." Speaking to a foreign policy group last February when the presidential primaries were under way, he said, "What we hear from some Democratic presidential candidates and others is, 'if I had known then what I know today I would never have gone to war."

His blunt reply, Walcott said, was, "If you had done your homework you would have known that the real experts in the government, in the CIA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), the State Department, the uniformed military, the Energy Department, and so on, had grave doubts of this part or that part of the administration's case for war."

"How do I know that?" asked Walcott “Very simple...We knew that in what was then the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, and we wrote stories about it over and over again..." (The Knight Ridder chain was sold to the McClatchy Company in 2006. Walcott is now its Washington bureau chief, with many of the same reporters.)

I'm not ready to throw Hersch under the bus.

Submitted by Arrow on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:15pm

Dr. Ted Postol of MIT

I think conclusively proved the attack was staged.

I don't have a link to his actual report buy the mighty Google machine can lead you to it.

Sy knows people and I'm sure they were pissed when that report was issued.

—

I want a Pony!

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:31pm

"NONE of the Cited Forensic Evidence Supports the Claims"

@Arrow thanks, here is a link found by DuckDuckGo : Postol: The New York Times Video Analysis of the Events in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017: NONE of the Cited Forensic Evidence Supports the Claims

Summary

On April 26, 2017 the New York Times released a video titled How Syria and Russia Spun a Chemical Strike. This video provides extensive forensic evidence that the New York Times used to develop its conclusions about an alleged nerve agent attack in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017. In this report, I show that NONE of the forensic evidence in the New York Times video and a follow-on Times news article supports the conclusions reported by the New York Times.

The forensic evidence and analytical claims in all of these reports can be traced back to a single source, an organization called Bellingcat. This organization represents itself as “specializing in analyzing information posted online.” As will be shown in what follows, not a single claim made by Bellingcat is supported by the forensic evidence it used to reach its conclusions.

The particular evidence of concern in this report are claims made by Bellingcat about three sites that were attacked by air on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun with general-purpose bombs. Bellingcat’s claims about forensic evidence of an alleged sarin release in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017 are addressed in my previous report, The Human Rights Watch Report of May 1,2017 Cites Evidence that Disaffirms Its Own Conclusions About the Alleged Nerve Agent Attack at Khan Sheikhoun in Syria on April 4,2017, issued on May 8, 2017. This earlier report shows that Bellingcat’s claims of forensic proof for the sarin release site is based on evidence that does not exist.
...

peace

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:09pm

You can read the first of Dr Postol's responses

@Arrow

Here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/an-assessment-of-the-white-house...

Trump has claimed this is the intelligence he relied on. It was released by the White House. Does he know it has been debunked? Then he knows he's the fool on the hill.

Either way, the White House had been taken over by the Neocons and their military network. It's essentially a military coup and resistance to war is futile, which means domestic programs must be slashed.

This is how Dr. Postol ended his cover letter:

I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

I am available to expand on these comments substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.

This is a very serious matter.

President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.”

The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report.

The Congress and the public have been given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all would not trust as evidence.

I stand ready to provide the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.

Sincerely yours,
Theodore A. Postol
Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A few days later, samples from the bombing site were taken to Turkey and they tested positive for Sarin. No one in the world has accepted those findings, of course, not even the UN. That test went down the memory hole.

Trump is the least of your problems. He has no power. In fact, the more you focus on him, the less you understand about what has happened and what's likely to happen next.

Hersh merely muddied the water (or his German editors did).

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 5:22pm

Did you read the entire article?

@Pluto's Republic

The available intelligence was not relevant. The most experienced man at the table was Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who had the president’s respect and understood, perhaps, how quickly that could evaporate. Mike Pompeo, the CIA director whose agency had consistently reported that it had no evidence of a Syrian chemical bomb, was not present. Secretary of State Tillerson was admired on the inside for his willingness to work long hours and his avid reading of diplomatic cables and reports, but he knew little about waging war and the management of a bombing raid. Those present were in a bind, the adviser said. “The president was emotionally energized by the disaster and he wanted options.” He got four of them, in order of extremity. Option one was to do nothing. All involved, the adviser said, understood that was a non-starter. Option two was a slap on the wrist: to bomb an airfield in Syria, but only after alerting the Russians and, through them, the Syrians, to avoid too many casualties. A few of the planners called this the “gorilla option”: America would glower and beat its chest to provoke fear and demonstrate resolve, but cause little significant damage. The third option was to adopt the strike package that had been presented to Obama in 2013, and which he ultimately chose not to pursue. The plan called for the massive bombing of the main Syrian airfields and command and control centers using B1 and B52 aircraft launched from their bases in the U.S. Option four was “decapitation”: to remove Assad by bombing his palace in Damascus, as well as his command and control network and all of the underground bunkers he could possibly retreat to in a crisis.

“Trump ruled out option one off the bat,” the senior adviser said, and the assassination of Assad was never considered. “But he said, in essence: ‘You’re the military and I want military action.’” The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advance warning before the strike, but reluctantly accepted it. “We gave him the Goldilocks option – not too hot, not too cold, but just right.” The discussion had its bizarre moments. Tillerson wondered at the Mar-a-Lago meeting why the president could not simply call in the B52 bombers and pulverize the air base. He was told that B52s were very vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the area and using such planes would require suppression fire that could kill some Russian defenders. “What is that?” Tillerson asked. Well, sir, he was told, that means we would have to destroy the upgraded SAM sites along the B52 flight path, and those are manned by Russians, and we possibly would be confronted with a much more difficult situation. “The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting,” the adviser said. "They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been made."

#4

Here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/an-assessment-of-the-white-house...

Trump has claimed this is the intelligence he relied on. It was released by the White House. Does he know it has been debunked? Then he knows he's the fool on the hill.

Either way, the White House had been taken over by the Neocons and their military network. It's essentially a military coup and resistance to war is futile, which means domestic programs must be slashed.

This is how Dr. Postol ended his cover letter:

I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

I am available to expand on these comments substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.

This is a very serious matter.

President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.”

The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report.

The Congress and the public have been given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all would not trust as evidence.

I stand ready to provide the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.

Sincerely yours,
Theodore A. Postol
Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A few days later, samples from the bombing site were taken to Turkey and they tested positive for Sarin. No one in the world has accepted those findings, of course, not even the UN. That test went down the memory hole.

Trump is the least of your problems. He has no power. In fact, the more you focus on him, the less you understand about what has happened and what's likely to happen next.

Hersh merely muddied the water (or his German editors did).

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 8:41pm

I did read that.

@CB

The military had already decided which bombs Trump would allow to explode, and where.

I agree with the [wink-wink] advisor here.

“The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting,” the adviser said. "They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been made."

They made sure Trump was crammed in the right toy box.

As for the way it came down, with four choices…. Why not. They used some psychology. That's why we pay them the big bucks. Trump got to think it was his decision. Everybody was happy. Except for a few credible sacrifices, they got everything cleared out while the man played with his bombs.

The available intelligence was not relevant.

There was no intelligence. No one was willing to go in there because of the alleged sarin gas. There definitely was no intel pinning it on Assad. But Trump wanted to prove he was bombing someone based on something. So they had to fake up a Report he could believe in.

But Trump thought Report was the real thing! That it proved something.

And his White House released it to the first reporter that challenged them.

And serious people had a good laugh (or cry).

Then they had to fake up a lab test in Turkey, that no one but Trump believed in.

All things considered, I believe the Neocons are happier with an imbecile at the helm than they would be with someone who had two neurons to rub together.

#4.2

The available intelligence was not relevant. The most experienced man at the table was Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who had the president’s respect and understood, perhaps, how quickly that could evaporate. Mike Pompeo, the CIA director whose agency had consistently reported that it had no evidence of a Syrian chemical bomb, was not present. Secretary of State Tillerson was admired on the inside for his willingness to work long hours and his avid reading of diplomatic cables and reports, but he knew little about waging war and the management of a bombing raid. Those present were in a bind, the adviser said. “The president was emotionally energized by the disaster and he wanted options.” He got four of them, in order of extremity. Option one was to do nothing. All involved, the adviser said, understood that was a non-starter. Option two was a slap on the wrist: to bomb an airfield in Syria, but only after alerting the Russians and, through them, the Syrians, to avoid too many casualties. A few of the planners called this the “gorilla option”: America would glower and beat its chest to provoke fear and demonstrate resolve, but cause little significant damage. The third option was to adopt the strike package that had been presented to Obama in 2013, and which he ultimately chose not to pursue. The plan called for the massive bombing of the main Syrian airfields and command and control centers using B1 and B52 aircraft launched from their bases in the U.S. Option four was “decapitation”: to remove Assad by bombing his palace in Damascus, as well as his command and control network and all of the underground bunkers he could possibly retreat to in a crisis.

“Trump ruled out option one off the bat,” the senior adviser said, and the assassination of Assad was never considered. “But he said, in essence: ‘You’re the military and I want military action.’” The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advance warning before the strike, but reluctantly accepted it. “We gave him the Goldilocks option – not too hot, not too cold, but just right.” The discussion had its bizarre moments. Tillerson wondered at the Mar-a-Lago meeting why the president could not simply call in the B52 bombers and pulverize the air base. He was told that B52s were very vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the area and using such planes would require suppression fire that could kill some Russian defenders. “What is that?” Tillerson asked. Well, sir, he was told, that means we would have to destroy the upgraded SAM sites along the B52 flight path, and those are manned by Russians, and we possibly would be confronted with a much more difficult situation. “The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting,” the adviser said. "They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been made."

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 9:09pm

Obama wasn't adverse to allowing his SoS

@Pluto's Republic
to move the neocons into the back bedrooms of the White House. The basement crazies eventually took full control of US foreign policy. Now the problem is how to stop them from creeping into Trump's bedroom late at night and whispering their desires in his ear.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 11:18pm

Well, it can't be done through impeachment.

@CB

But if he is ever impeached, it will be the Republicans impeaching him to get Ayatollah Pense in place, at some critical point.

So that's not a fix under any scenario.

I cannot think of a political solution, can you? The Neocons own the place and everything is classified.

The best hope lies with the world kicking the legs out from under the dollar. A lot of bad actors, Israel and the Saudis, for example, benefit from US destruction. In the end, the Americans will be paying for it, one way or the other, so why should they care. China already teeters above the US, But they are playing yin to the US yang, like Lao Tzu told them to. They're hiding their light under a bushel for as long as they can. And the US is so vain-glorious, they don't know they've been left behind — in science, innovation, business, diplomacy, finance, technology.

Russia's job is to hold Cujo back while China consolidates the Eastern hemisphere with overland trade. South America is sick of the US and Japan and Australia are sidling toward Greater Asia. I don't know who is watching out for the American people at this point. One too many war crimes under the bridge.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:26pm

It is hard for me to understand

how this country got so fucked up.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:49pm

Money took over

@dkmich and the people allowed or were duped into letting it happen. Take your pick.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:33pm

While we were busy fighting boogymen

@Dr. John Carpenter

A Radical Capitalist Caliphate took over America.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by cj51 on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 7:15pm

@dkmich I think the USA, and

@dkmich I think the USA, and indeed the world, was more fucked up back in 1929, 1932, 1938 etc. Eventually we all got WWII. Nobody had ICBM's back then, so human civilization did not end with WWII, although the USA obtained the dubious distinction of being the only country to ever deploy a nuclear weapon (or two) in 1945. I do not think economic conditions are worse than 1932 today, but who cares? I assess the volatility of the world socioeconomic order is higher than 1932 - 1940. So my claim that the world was more fucked up in 1940 or whatever doesn't matter. This time around, the consequences will be much more severe. The Dr. Strangelove analogies appear quite appropriate.

Submitted by lotlizard on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 6:48am

Can’t help but think that the “Operation Mockingbird” strategy

@dkmich
had something to do with it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=operation+mockingbird&t=ffsb&ia=videos

The international Deep State discovered how easy it was to use media to shape public perceptions — and therefore, political outcomes — regarding just about any issue under the sun.

But having the power to run things is, of course, different from having sufficient wisdom and humility to run things well.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 1:40pm

If the Democrats in Congress were not also war mongers

they could use the US military actions in Syria as grounds for impeachment.

A Baseless Justification for War in Syria
June 25, 2017
By Dennis J Bernstein

U.S. government officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claim the current U.S. authority to mount military operations in Iraq and Syria is legally based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] declaration to go after Al Qaeda and related terror groups after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But how does that cover the recent U.S. attacks on Syrian government forces that have been battling both Al Qaeda and its spinoff, Islamic State?
...
Clearly the U.S. invasion, which we have done, and now repeated military attacks against Syria constitutes a Nuremberg crime against peace, and in violation of the Nuremberg charter, judgment and principles, and, of course, a violation of the United Nations’ charter. [It is] an act of aggression as defined by, oh even the new element of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court that is not yet in force. But it has a definition based upon the 1974 definition of aggression which the World Court found to be customary international law in the very famous Nicaraguan case when it applied it against Nicaragua.

Indeed, it’s very interesting, you know, if you go back and read the Nicaragua case, and change Syria for Nicaragua, pretty much the law, the illegalities remain the same. Likewise, the United States Congress has never authorized any act of war against Syria.

So, this violates the War Powers clause of the United States Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and is clearly an impeachable act against President Trump. This is a slam dunk. We don’t have time to go through all the other arguments being made on impeachment here, but for the most part, all those are being made by these totally hypocritical Democratic lawyers who never applied the same impeachable arguments against President Obama. So, I’m not going to waste time with them.

And, finally, this is existentially dangerous, what is going on right now in Syria. But Russia is there with the consent of the legitimate government of Syria. They’re not violating international law. The United States is in clear cut violation, as I have explained. And, now, Russia … has said that they are going to begin to target U.S. planes and drones. And, the problem is, of course, when you target planes, that triggers their radar and they fire back. So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia.

And given the massive war mongering campaign we’re seeing being waged against Russia by almost all the mainstream news media, the Democrats, the whole Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton people, etc. and sort of neo-McCarthyism against Russia, Putin and everyone else, I shudder to think what would happen if Russia were to shoot down an American pilot under these circumstances. In my lifetime, Dennis, my political lifetime, I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
...

Submitted by irishking on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:02pm

Now, don't be such a gloomy Gus.

@CB

So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia.

I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

they could use the US military actions in Syria as grounds for impeachment. A Baseless Justification for War in Syria June 25, 2017 By Dennis J Bernstein U.S. government officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claim the current U.S. authority to mount military operations in Iraq and Syria is legally based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] declaration to go after Al Qaeda and related terror groups after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But how does that cover the recent U.S. attacks on Syrian government forces that have been battling both Al Qaeda and its spinoff, Islamic State? ... Clearly the U.S. invasion, which we have done, and now repeated military attacks against Syria constitutes a Nuremberg crime against peace, and in violation of the Nuremberg charter, judgment and principles, and, of course, a violation of the United Nations’ charter. [It is] an act of aggression as defined by, oh even the new element of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court that is not yet in force. But it has a definition based upon the 1974 definition of aggression which the World Court found to be customary international law in the very famous Nicaraguan case when it applied it against Nicaragua. Indeed, it’s very interesting, you know, if you go back and read the Nicaragua case, and change Syria for Nicaragua, pretty much the law, the illegalities remain the same. Likewise, the United States Congress has never authorized any act of war against Syria. So, this violates the War Powers clause of the United States Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and is clearly an impeachable act against President Trump. This is a slam dunk. We don’t have time to go through all the other arguments being made on impeachment here, but for the most part, all those are being made by these totally hypocritical Democratic lawyers who never applied the same impeachable arguments against President Obama. So, I’m not going to waste time with them. And, finally, this is existentially dangerous, what is going on right now in Syria. But Russia is there with the consent of the legitimate government of Syria. They’re not violating international law. The United States is in clear cut violation, as I have explained. And, now, Russia … has said that they are going to begin to target U.S. planes and drones. And, the problem is, of course, when you target planes, that triggers their radar and they fire back. So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia. And given the massive war mongering campaign we’re seeing being waged against Russia by almost all the mainstream news media, the Democrats, the whole Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton people, etc. and sort of neo-McCarthyism against Russia, Putin and everyone else, I shudder to think what would happen if Russia were to shoot down an American pilot under these circumstances. In my lifetime, Dennis, my political lifetime, I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. ...

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:14pm

"This is a slam dunk." Ds are on it!

@CB thanks and wow I miss Dennis Bernstein, forget too much lately.

Brad Sherman, an L.A.-area congressman, is standing alone on impeaching Trump
Pretty long article, this part stood out:

Sherman’s move puts him at odds with House Democratic leaders, who have tried to quell talk of impeachment to keep the focus on the economy, healthcare and the investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election.

? I don't get it. I mean if Ds impeach Trump on legal grounds, because he broke the law, wouldn't that be a good "law and order" thingy to run on next year? A real tangible asset, so to speak. A backbone, not some corporate sponsored value focus. Economy, healthcare, Russia. Okay, start by getting rid of Trump, then fight your asses off for us against the next. Yeah right. Good luck.

Edit: Subject are/or freudian typo.

they could use the US military actions in Syria as grounds for impeachment. A Baseless Justification for War in Syria June 25, 2017 By Dennis J Bernstein U.S. government officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claim the current U.S. authority to mount military operations in Iraq and Syria is legally based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] declaration to go after Al Qaeda and related terror groups after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But how does that cover the recent U.S. attacks on Syrian government forces that have been battling both Al Qaeda and its spinoff, Islamic State? ... Clearly the U.S. invasion, which we have done, and now repeated military attacks against Syria constitutes a Nuremberg crime against peace, and in violation of the Nuremberg charter, judgment and principles, and, of course, a violation of the United Nations’ charter. [It is] an act of aggression as defined by, oh even the new element of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court that is not yet in force. But it has a definition based upon the 1974 definition of aggression which the World Court found to be customary international law in the very famous Nicaraguan case when it applied it against Nicaragua. Indeed, it’s very interesting, you know, if you go back and read the Nicaragua case, and change Syria for Nicaragua, pretty much the law, the illegalities remain the same. Likewise, the United States Congress has never authorized any act of war against Syria. So, this violates the War Powers clause of the United States Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and is clearly an impeachable act against President Trump. This is a slam dunk. We don’t have time to go through all the other arguments being made on impeachment here, but for the most part, all those are being made by these totally hypocritical Democratic lawyers who never applied the same impeachable arguments against President Obama. So, I’m not going to waste time with them. And, finally, this is existentially dangerous, what is going on right now in Syria. But Russia is there with the consent of the legitimate government of Syria. They’re not violating international law. The United States is in clear cut violation, as I have explained. And, now, Russia … has said that they are going to begin to target U.S. planes and drones. And, the problem is, of course, when you target planes, that triggers their radar and they fire back. So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia. And given the massive war mongering campaign we’re seeing being waged against Russia by almost all the mainstream news media, the Democrats, the whole Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton people, etc. and sort of neo-McCarthyism against Russia, Putin and everyone else, I shudder to think what would happen if Russia were to shoot down an American pilot under these circumstances. In my lifetime, Dennis, my political lifetime, I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. ...

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:42pm

How . . .

@eyo
do the Democrats accomplish this impeachment with the Republicans in he majority. And then there's the senate.

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:58pm

The same way Bernie wins a national election? /rimshot

@FuturePassed yeah the article counts all the ways Ds can't do shit about anything. So values, why not. "Vote for us, we don't even try if there's no chance of winning" ** Lobbyists excluded. lol

peace

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:59pm

That and the blowback.

@FuturePassed @FuturePassed I've really begun to see impeachment talk as nothing more than politics as team sport brinksmanship. Since the Clinton impeachment, both sides like to throw it around as red meat for the base. But both sides honestly have more in common with regard to being ok with these kind of impeachable offenses because they both do it or want to leave that option open. Also, neither party wants to disrupt the status quo with regards to foreign policy. I think it's still possible that one party could try it again for real on an inconsequential morality related, but anything that risks putting unwanted attention on the MIC is off the table permanently.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by eyo on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 6:33am

Pelosi thinks Trump will "self-impeach"

@Dr. John Carpenter I should have quoted more from the article, I guess it's hard to follow links there are so many.

Oh Nancy Pelosi, sing along why not. Can you hear me now? How 'bout now? Hello? LOL

In a closed-door meeting of House Democrats, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said it was “a big deal to talk about impeachment,” and she believed Trump would “self-impeach,” according to a person with knowledge of the meeting.

Wow

As House speaker, Pelosi fought the failed efforts to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney during their second terms.

Only two presidents have been impeached — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — and none have been removed. Democrats used Clinton’s impeachment to fire up their base and made record gains in the House in 1998.

Ding! Won't risk the blowback, might slow the gravy train. Disgusting defender of "We tortured some folks" GWB, Cheney, Obama. For money, ultimately. Not leadership material, to say the least. Please retire immediately if not sooner. Please. Jimmy Dore and crew had a funny segment to call her office with the same request I think. Good one.

peace

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:55pm

I have been saying this since Obama was elected

@CB
and he started using drones in Pakistan and then went from there to the other countries he was using drones against the Nuremberg laws.
He insisted that the original AUMF gave him the permission to do that.
In what world does invading Libya and overthrowing Gaddafi connect to 9/11? None, but no one held him accountable for his war crimes. Or Hillary and Kerry's crimes or the generals who were following illegal orders.
People actually believe that he stopped using torture on the people he arrested in Afghanistan. Bagram air base is a CIA black site.

they could use the US military actions in Syria as grounds for impeachment. A Baseless Justification for War in Syria June 25, 2017 By Dennis J Bernstein U.S. government officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claim the current U.S. authority to mount military operations in Iraq and Syria is legally based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] declaration to go after Al Qaeda and related terror groups after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But how does that cover the recent U.S. attacks on Syrian government forces that have been battling both Al Qaeda and its spinoff, Islamic State? ... Clearly the U.S. invasion, which we have done, and now repeated military attacks against Syria constitutes a Nuremberg crime against peace, and in violation of the Nuremberg charter, judgment and principles, and, of course, a violation of the United Nations’ charter. [It is] an act of aggression as defined by, oh even the new element of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court that is not yet in force. But it has a definition based upon the 1974 definition of aggression which the World Court found to be customary international law in the very famous Nicaraguan case when it applied it against Nicaragua. Indeed, it’s very interesting, you know, if you go back and read the Nicaragua case, and change Syria for Nicaragua, pretty much the law, the illegalities remain the same. Likewise, the United States Congress has never authorized any act of war against Syria. So, this violates the War Powers clause of the United States Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and is clearly an impeachable act against President Trump. This is a slam dunk. We don’t have time to go through all the other arguments being made on impeachment here, but for the most part, all those are being made by these totally hypocritical Democratic lawyers who never applied the same impeachable arguments against President Obama. So, I’m not going to waste time with them. And, finally, this is existentially dangerous, what is going on right now in Syria. But Russia is there with the consent of the legitimate government of Syria. They’re not violating international law. The United States is in clear cut violation, as I have explained. And, now, Russia … has said that they are going to begin to target U.S. planes and drones. And, the problem is, of course, when you target planes, that triggers their radar and they fire back. So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia. And given the massive war mongering campaign we’re seeing being waged against Russia by almost all the mainstream news media, the Democrats, the whole Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton people, etc. and sort of neo-McCarthyism against Russia, Putin and everyone else, I shudder to think what would happen if Russia were to shoot down an American pilot under these circumstances. In my lifetime, Dennis, my political lifetime, I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. ...

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:13pm

I just discovered this very informative article at The Saker

Is the US military testing Putin to see how close to the wall they can push him? This playing the game 'chicken' should have ended when they left high school.

The Latest Escalation in Syria – What Is Really Going On?

By now most of you have heard the latest bad news of out Syria: on June 18th a US F/A-18E Super Hornet (1999) used a AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991) to shoot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 (1970). Two days later, June 20th, a US F-15E Strike Eagle shot down an Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 drone. The excuse used each time was that there was a threat to US and US supported forces. The reality is, of course, that the US are simply trying to stop the advance of the Syrian army. This was thus a typical American “show of force”. Except that, of course, shooting a 47 year old Soviet era Su-22 fighter-bomber is hardly an impressive feat. Neither is shooting a unmanned drone. There is a pattern here, however, and that pattern is that all US actions so far have been solely for show: the basically failed bombing of the Syria military airbase, the bombing of the Syrian army column, the shooting down of the Syrian fighter-bomber and of the Iranian drone – all these actions have no real military value. They do, however, have a provocative value as each time all the eyes turn to Russia to see if the Russians will respond or not.
...
A quick look from the US Neoconistan and the quest for a “tepid war”

The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country. They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed. Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and, especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences. Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a “firm” “reaction” to the Russian “aggression” and a “defense” of the US “allies” in the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a “tepid” war with Russia: an escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not a full-scale “hot” WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at least some kind of purpose (to protect “our European friends and allies” from the “Russian threat”): the already terminally spineless EU politicians would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he made “America” “great” again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would *finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn’t – but the Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).
...
Does the Russian strategy work?

To reply to this, don’t look at what the Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation. Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term. Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct strategy.

I submit that to evaluate whether Putin’s policies are effective or not, to see whether he has “sold out” or “caved in” you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and come back to re-visit it in 6 months.
...
The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages” and they firmly believe that doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the appearance of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don’t think that way. They don’t care about instant gratification, they care only about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From a Russian perspective, sending “messages” or taking symbolic actions (like all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don’t like to use force which they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets them closer to a specific goal.
...

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:43pm

No. That's not how it was.

I analyzed the utterly phony sarin gas report (with photos) that was given Trump by the Neocons. It was amateurish and was completely debunked in open source intelligence circles. This was discussed at the UN. Trump relied on this bogus report to start shooting.

That was the week of the April Fools Coup. Every one of Trumps positions reversed 180 degrees. Just two days earlier he had announced that Assad could stay and the US was moving on. Hence, the MIC & friends staged the chemical attack.

These are the same Neocons who are setting Russia up with the phony data that "proves" Russia hacked the 2016 election. Trump has turned 180 degrees on Russia, too.

Years from now, the only people who will believe any of this crap are 99 percent of the American people, shuffling off to dystopia.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:27pm

I'm confused. Why the "No"? Your comments mesh

@Pluto's Republic
completely with Hersch's article.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 3:03pm

The opening paragraph is pure propaganda syrup

@CB

It appears that Trump "shot from the hip" in his response to the so-called gas attack, overriding the advice of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Possibly this is one of the reasons the US military has basically taken over the authority of the President as "Commander in Chief". Trump is much too volatile, pig headed and uninformed to be in charge of the world's largest and most powerful military. The Pentagon mostly likely were the ones who insisted that Russia be forewarned about Trump's temper tantrum.

That is one hundred percent backwards. Trump derangement syndrome. The "military" presented Trump with intelligence (a complete concocted lie) that compelled him to react. They planned the attack and gave him missiles to blow up in the desert to trigger a reorder. Now, we have escalated shooting down the planes of the sovereign nation we are attacking. See how that works?

Intellectual dishonesty will be the death of us all — and it provides cover for the heinous actions of the Neocons. They are hiding behind Trump because they know the American people are so filled with crazed hate and madness toward him, that he will take the flack and they will remain invisible.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 3:16pm

"Intellectual dishonesty will be the death of us all"

@Pluto's Republic "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is such an intellectually honest phrase there can absolutely be no disagreement with what you say. You are so completely right I must now look at how dishonest I have been all these years too, despising Donald Trump. He is the epitome of the shit we're in, oh wait dishonest me better stfu now. Dunce cap awaits.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 4:00pm

I don't think is was the military that gave the

@Pluto's Republic
'intelligence' report to Trump. It was the neocons through Jared Kushner to Ivanaka to Daddy.

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s White House power could erode democracy

Much attention has been focused recently on President Trump’s “new” foreign policy.

This policy change is symbolized by the U.S. missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat airfield, which followed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged chemical weapon attack on rebels in that country’s Idlib province.
...
However this rivalry plays out, what has been clear during the “honeymoon phase” of the Trump presidency is that influential individuals have created an incoherent, impulsive style of governance, dominated by personal decision-making processes, such as the overnight decision to bomb Syria. This spasmodic style, ignoring interagency reviews, is new in the modern presidency, even among presidents like Kennedy and Clinton, who involved family members in their administrations. Trump relies on personal relationships, rather than the institutions of democracy.

As a comparative political scientist who studies different types of governments, I’m interested in how personal rule linked to family can erode democratic institutions in favor of authoritarianism. Academics call this “sultanism.”
...
What makes Trump different

Most modern American presidents have risen through the institutions of U.S. democracy — state political parties, Capitol Hill, the military. They have been vetted and embedded in institutional rules, attitudes and relationships. Someone like Trump, coming in “from the cold,” in contrast, brings his family and close associates and makes decisions outside of those formal and informal institutions.

Having masterminded his unexpected victory based on an unconventional campaign, Trump has already shown a tendency to trust his instincts on major decisions of governance, creating impulsive, unpredictable decisions. His past record as CEO and his outsider status make Trump self-reliant and assured that most of the world is misguided and only he and his few trusted advisers, including his family, have the answers.

...

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 5:01pm

That makes sense in a strange way.

@CB

I figured Kushner was being run by AIPAC, and that makes him the Neocon's boy. He's the ideal conduit to the President and an asset to the deep state.

Trump turned all decision making about military matters over to the "Generals" just like Bush did. So, I don't think he has mcuh of a role to play, there, except for hauling out faked-up intelligence reports.

That family business…. Structurally, the Trump entourage looks a lot like a Saudi ruling family.

#8.1.1 'intelligence' report to Trump. It was the neocons through Jared Kushner to Ivanaka to Daddy. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s White House power could erode democracy Much attention has been focused recently on President Trump’s “new” foreign policy. This policy change is symbolized by the U.S. missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat airfield, which followed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged chemical weapon attack on rebels in that country’s Idlib province. ... However this rivalry plays out, what has been clear during the “honeymoon phase” of the Trump presidency is that influential individuals have created an incoherent, impulsive style of governance, dominated by personal decision-making processes, such as the overnight decision to bomb Syria. This spasmodic style, ignoring interagency reviews, is new in the modern presidency, even among presidents like Kennedy and Clinton, who involved family members in their administrations. Trump relies on personal relationships, rather than the institutions of democracy. As a comparative political scientist who studies different types of governments, I’m interested in how personal rule linked to family can erode democratic institutions in favor of authoritarianism. Academics call this “sultanism.” ... What makes Trump different Most modern American presidents have risen through the institutions of U.S. democracy — state political parties, Capitol Hill, the military. They have been vetted and embedded in institutional rules, attitudes and relationships. Someone like Trump, coming in “from the cold,” in contrast, brings his family and close associates and makes decisions outside of those formal and informal institutions. Having masterminded his unexpected victory based on an unconventional campaign, Trump has already shown a tendency to trust his instincts on major decisions of governance, creating impulsive, unpredictable decisions. His past record as CEO and his outsider status make Trump self-reliant and assured that most of the world is misguided and only he and his few trusted advisers, including his family, have the answers. ...

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 5:54pm

That is probably why he excelled at sword dancing.

@Pluto's Republic
Maybe Melania can organize one in the East Room as an annual event.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 7:25pm

@CB

@CB

May I suggest that, in this case, sword swallowing be substituted for the sword dance? He can't make disastrous suggestions with his mouth full and it would probably help if someone advising Trump spoke more carefully...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 2:40pm

Haley and Tillerson had also said the U.S. was changing

@Pluto's Republic focus from removing Assad just prior to that also. They weren't turned. Perhaps it as all a setup for this false flag and the subsequent excuse to escalate. Make it sound like they were going to focus on ISIS but Assad keeps forcing their hand.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 5:31pm

Removal of Assad and neutering Syria is still the end game

@Big Al
But Putin and Assad keep changing the playing field.

Locked Into Al-Tanf U.S. Military Concedes It Lost The Race To Occupy South-East Syria

The U.S. military has, for now, given up on occupying south-east Syria. Recent remarks at the Department of Defense press conference concede the defeat of its original plans.
...
NEWSFLASH: The Pentagon and, even more important, the U.S. commanders in the Middle East, have finally recognized the basic facts of life.

There is no way the Syrian government and its allies will let the U.S. have south-east Syria or let it occupy the country including the Syrian army garrison in Deir Ezzor which is currently surrounded by Islamic State forces. The Syrian army and its allies will liberate Deir Ezzor and the whole Euphrates valley. The U.S. military has now conceded that. There will be some huffing and puffing from the neoconservative corners but I doubt very much that this that this decision will be overturned or that this is a ruse. There is simply no strategic value for the U.S. in occupying south-east Syria and no will to defend it against determined resistance of capable opposing forces.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 8:29pm

„We got a fuckin‘ problem“

https://www.welt.de/img/politik/ausland/mobile165904081/0612500697-ci102...

April 6, 2017

American Soldier: We got a fuckin‘ problem

Security-Adviser: What happened? Is it the Trump ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians? And that we’re pissing on the Russians?

Anzeige
AS: This is bad...Things are spooling up.

SA: You may not have seen trumps press conference yesterday. He's bought into the media story without asking to see the Intel. We are likely to get our asses kicked by the Russians. Fucking dangerous. Where are the godamn adults? The failure of the chain of command to tell the President the truth, whether he wants to hear it or not, will go down in history as one of our worst moments.

AS: I don't know. None of this makes any sense. We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military target) and there was collateral damage. That's it. They did not conduct any sort of a chemical attack.

AS: And now we’re shoving a shit load of TLAMs (tomahawks) up their ass.

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905618/We-got-a-fuckin-pro...

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 10:28pm

Glad you got that. I hit a paywall.

@Amanda Matthews

It's a translation, of course. We are not really pissing on the Russians. More likely we're pissing them off. Still, it is a relief that the people on the ground at least understand the risk that comes with bullshitting the president into war — after they lied and told him that Assad launched a chemical attack.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 11:09pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic

Sorta like when Trump first got into office and immediately killed innocents/kids in an attack on a compound and possibly actually believed that the purpose was to collect evidence and it kinda looked like a booby-trap to make him look worse than Obama - where the psychopaths naturally had no problem with the slaughter of innocents/kids? No wonder Trump publicized outrage and reacted on auto to pictures of those murdered kids in Syria, without verifying the unlikely claims or thinking about the actual facts running unthinkingly right into what I supposed was hoped to be WW3, if Putin wasn't both intelligent and restrained.

Honestly, (despite a bunch of stuff, including Pussy Riot - who were at least not pepper-sprayed and beaten during arrest for their musical protest, as far as I recall - my respect for Putin continues to grow.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 06/26/2017 - 2:14am

They told Trump it was Assad who attacked with sarin

I'm sure all "17 Intelligence agencies" agreed.

@Ellen North

Sorta like when Trump first got into office and immediately killed innocents/kids in an attack on a compound...

Three days in, they had Obama slaughter an entire wedding party.

It must be a tradition.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by irishking on Mon, 06/26/2017 - 5:11am

gets blood on their hands.

@Pluto's Republic

now you're one of us.

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 06/26/2017 - 12:56pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic

As in a Skull and Bones-type initiation to high office? One hopes that they didn't have to have sex with the murdered corpses...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 06/26/2017 - 4:15pm

Don't give them any ideas.

@Ellen North

My cynicism can hardly keep up with reality these days.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 06/26/2017 - 8:58pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic

Good point... probably too late, though.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by GreatLakeSailor on Sun, 06/25/2017 - 9:46pm

Sent to my PINO Dem Senator...

"Good" Senator Baldwin,

On multiple occasions you stated as fact that the Syrian government used poison gas on 2017 April 04 at Khan Sheikhoun as a way of shirking your responsibility to hold the current administration to account for the American missile strikes on Syria a few days later. I have repeatedly asked you to identify any evidence for your claim of a Syrian government gas attack and of course you never have. I offered MIT professor Postol's review of the White House's "evidence" and again as expected you never responded. I'll now offer the below link to Seymour M. Hersh's (exposed My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1968, uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, many other stories about war and politics) article at Welt yet again debunking the White House and your lies.

https[colonslashslash]www[dot]welt[dot]de[slash]politik[slash]ausland[slash]article165905578[slash]Trump-s-Red-Line[dot]html

Think about that for a minute - you're peddling the same lies as President Trump and that SHOULD give you pause, but my guess it won't. My guess is you figure not enough people will notice and that you can pretend to be "concerned" but at the end of the day you and your BribeMasters are pushing war - just like Trump lied that he wouldn't, just like Clinton has done and promised to do, just like Bush Jr and Obama did - and pleasing your MIC/NeoCon owners is all that matters to you. You and the other Very Serious Beltway Democratic Elite are exactly why we have President Trump. You're pathetic.

GLS

—

Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.

Submitted by lotlizard on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 7:53am

Infuriatingly, even my Green-left-alternative German daily paper

@GreatLakeSailor
“taz.de” / die Tageszeitung seems bent on marching to war against Assad, right alongside the Trump administration they otherwise never miss a chance to condemn.

https://www.taz.de/Zweifel-an-Giftgasangriff-in-Syrien/!5421159/

The op-ed writer’s argument against Seymour Hersh: if mainstream U.S. media isn’t printing his articles and he is “forced to turn to” the London Review of Books, doesn’t that alone kind of prove he’s just a conspiracy nut? Because, you know, mainstream U.S. media are and always have been such totally open and reliable sources for truth, especially involving wars and covert ops in the Middle East . . .

And Hersh only cites anonymous sources! As if all the breathless reporting on Russia-related anti-Trump intelligence leaks, echoing around in the mainstream media and picked up uncritically by the Taz, was any better.

The cooperative-owned Taz was originally founded in the early 1980s to challenge the German establishment’s narratives and give the activist and dissident counterculture a voice. Talk about straying from one’s roots, or turning into the very thing one originally opposed.

That’s how sad things are this German election season. There are actually some extremely important issues concerning which, in the German-language sphere, if you want a balanced view, you’ll only get it by including populist New Right sources — indeed, even some decried as “neo-Nazi lite” — in one’s regular routine.

Submitted by native on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 11:10am

It's an odd, disorienting phenomenon

@lotlizard
that many traditionally "liberal" media (eg The Guardian) are clearly distorting the news to fit a pro-war narrative, while some nominally "conservative" outlets (eg The American Conservative) present more balanced, more diverse, and more accurate accounts. Many publications that were once regarded as authoritative and relatively objective, have adopted the practice of routinely pushing a particular line of propaganda, with little or no regard for its accuracy. The mechanics of how and why this is happening are somewhat obscure to me, but there does seem to be a widespread and somewhat coordinated campaign of disinformation.

—

native