have been alerted that this may not be a genuine Facebook page.
I will leave this item up – but be warned.
I have been alerted that this may not be a genuine Facebook page.
However, I will leave this item up – but be warned.
Loretta Lynch, Attorney General says “HILLARY WILL NOT BE INDICTED”
a recent Facebook post by Loretta Lynch. QUOTE:
WILL NOT BE INDICTED OR PROSECUTED.
Your Attorney General and your
president had a closed meeting today. You can be sure Hillary’s run
for president will not be marred by any indictment or prosecution.
HILLARY WILL NOT BE INDICTED OR PROSECUTED. Your Attorney General and your president had a closed meeting today. You can be sure Hillary’s run for president will not be marred by any indictment or prosecution.
General Breedlove Hunts For a Job With Team Clinton - Foreign Affairs Magazine Is Glad to Help
campaign for the presidency has now entered its conclusive phase with
Hillary Clinton standing as the putative candidate of the Democrats
and Donald Trump as the putative candidate of the Republicans.
this stage in the electoral cycle, Foreign Affairs magazine is doing
what it traditionally does, showcasing on its pages candidates for
appointive office in the cabinet of the next president whom the
magazine’s editorial board would like to see installed.
the current, July-August issue carries an article by Philip B.
Breedlove, till recently Commander of the U.S. European Command and
NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. His piece, entitled
“NATO’s Next Act” might more honestly be called “Why I Have
Earned My Next Job as Secretary of Defense in the Administration of
his service in Europe, General Breedlove was never bashful about
being a politicking military officer who was keen to pick a fight
with Russia. He met with the press often, making newsworthy
pronouncements about Russia’s malevolent intentions and illegal
actions that were unsupported by facts. Our European allies objected
to Breedlove, stating openly that various of his allegations
regarding Russian operations in Ukraine contradicted what their own
intelligence services were reporting. Indeed, on 6 March 2015, the
Spiegel Online carried a story under a headline that says it all:
“Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO
Stance on Ukraine.”
the time, it was believed that Breedlove was trying to sabotage the
recently instituted cease-fire in Donbas and overturn the Minsk-2
Accords in favor of resumed fighting in which the US would provide
Kiev with lethal weapons. By this scenario, a full-blown proxy war
with Russia would follow.
purpose of the new essay in FA is, as I say, to spread the word on
what Breedlove achieved in his three years on duty in Europe by
turning NATO around and giving it a new/old calling. When he arrived,
NATO was busy extricating itself from its failed campaigns out of
region, in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it had faced unfamiliar
challenges for which it was ill-equipped: insurgencies and irregular
troops. On his watch, a new threat was seen emerging in Eastern
Europe. In Breedlove’s words, this took the form of a revitalized
and aggressive Russia, seeking to reclaim its great power status and
sphere of influence in post-Soviet space.
its takeover of Crimea in March 2014 and involvement in the Donbas on
behalf of Russian-speaking forces rebelling against the new Maidan
government in Kiev, Russia, demonstrated both defiance of the
American-controlled New World Order and breath-taking military
prowess. It thereby became a threat worthy of NATO’s finest
traditions as defender of law and order on the European home front.
more recent Russian action in Syria awakened Breedlove to the fact
that Russia's ambitions are global. In this context he now declares
Russia, with its nuclear arsenal, to be an “existential threat”
to the United States which must be met by superior force. After all,
Breedlove tells us, force is all that the Kremlin understands.
going through this pre-history, Breedlove explains exactly what we
are doing now to strengthen NATO in Poland, the Baltic States and
Romania/the Black Sea so as to be prepared to resist Russian
aggression and deter its existential threat.
everything is wrong with what Breedlove tells us in his article. It
is a perfect illustration of the consequences of the monopoly control
of our media and both Houses of Congress by the ideologists of the
Neoconservative and Liberal Interventionist school: we see a stunning
lack of rigor in argumentation in Breedlove’s article coming from
absence of debate and his talking only to yes-me.
the biggest mistakes are conceptual: urging military means to resolve
what are fundamentally political issues over the proper place of
Russia in the European and global security architecture. Whereas for
Clausewitz war was ‘a continuation of politics by other means,’
for Breedlove politics, or diplomacy, do not exist, only war. In this
respect, Breedlove is merely perpetuating the stone deafness of
American politicians dating back to Dmitry Medvedev’s proposal in
2010 to negotiate an international convention bringing Russia in from
the cold. The earnest offer of Russia’s most Westernizing head of
state in a hundred years was left without response.
entire recounting of what NATO is doing to stop a Russian threat to
the Baltics, to Poland through additional NATO boots on the ground
and pre-positioned American heavy equipment fails to mention, let
alone explain what possible reason there might be for a Russian
attack. I contend that no realistic assessment of Russian national
interest could justify their taking over the territories in question.
The net result of any occupation could only be heavily negative due
to hostile local populations even without considering its
geopolitical consequences or retaliatory military and other action by
the logic behind the assumption of Russian aggressive designs is
illogic: the assumption of an insane Russian leadership. Such a line
of thinking would be the direct fruit of the demonization of Putin
and of Russia more generally that the US media has disseminated
gleefully, with encouragement from the Obama administration.
Breedlove’s would-be boss in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton, has
likened the Russian ruler to Hitler. That obviates the need to
examine rational calculations of your adversary.
there is Breedlove’s totally wrong-headed conceptualization of what
constitutes the world order that he says is under threat. In his
understanding, the USA is by definition the sole supplier of public
goods to the world and everything that it initiates is selfless and
begins with history, with the sequencing of who did what to whom, who
honored and who violated international obligations, who is the
aggressor and who is the victim. This all comes down to one
question: when did history start.
Breedlove’s reading of history, the narrative that counts and is
relevant to where we are today all started with the Russian
“invasion” of Crimea. The controversial overthrow of the
legitimate elected President of Ukraine on 22 February 2014 the day
after France and Germany brokered an agreement between the government
and opposition does not exist in his version of history. Nor, of
course, does any other prior Western intervention in the
intra-Ukrainian power struggle going back to the start of the Maidan
demonstrations in December 2013. This leaves us with the whole
series of Russian (re-)actions he gives us without any reference to
the missing ‘actions’ by the US-led West.
are other holes in Breedlove’s logic through which you could drive
a tank, if I may use metaphors from his domain of expertise.
is in a way refreshing to see Breedlove recognize (within limits) the
newfound capabilities of the Russian military, which just several
years ago were mocked by Western commentators, even by the occupant
of the Oval Office. He chooses to underestimate the skills and
equipment of the Russian air force. And he insists on the underlying
military superiority of the US and its NATO allies in the European
theater. But, on balance, he asserts that today Russia poses an
existential threat to the United States. It would be nice if he
finished the thought, explained exactly how and why, and confirmed
that Russia is the only state in the world that poses such a threat.
any case, what is the appropriate response to an existential threat?
Do you recommend the continued rapid build-up of NATO forces
precisely at Russia’s Baltic and Black Sea borders to counter a
perceived (though nonexistent) localized threat or do you address the
existential threat? To date, and into the next five years, all of
the US and NATO measures which Breedlove describes and for which he
takes credit have only unnerved the Russians and caused them to
respond with equally provocative and dangerous counter-measures of a
localized nature without in any way compromising their nuclear
capability to wipe the United States off the map in any hot war. Does
this baiting the Russians near their borders make any sense? This was
precisely the point that German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank
Walter Steinmeier has just called out in an interview published in
Bild am Sonntag in which he speaks against any further saber rattling
by NATO in Poland or the Baltic States.
seeming parallels between stepping up to the line today, and stepping
up to the line in Berlin during the Cold War are illusory. The
present line is not in a distant buffer zone which Joseph Stalin had
created precisely for this purpose, to remove conflict from Russia’s
borders. It is so threatening to Russia’s survival that the
Kremlin is now moving vast military resources from Central Russia
into the Leningrad Oblast, within a very few miles of the new NATO
presence just across the border in the Baltics. The time for either
side to react to local military incidents has been shortened
immensely compared to the past. This is a formula for Doomsday which
Breedlove willfully ignores.
3.4 billion dollars which President Obama has allocated to bring
forward depots of American heavy equipment and key personnel to
Poland, Romania and the Baltic States recognizes the logistical
disadvantage of NATO forces under the remote defense perimeter that
extends to Russia’s Western and Southern frontiers. But it cannot
resolve this intractable disadvantage.
has been argued that a major factor that worked against Russian
forces in World War I was logistical – the length of time it took
Russia to move its men and equipment from the centers of population
of the country hundreds if not thousands of kilometers away to its
Western borders where the fight against Germany was going on. Today,
the US and NATO have placed themselves in exactly the same
disadvantage by seeking to fight Russia in a conventional war right
where the Russians are concentrating the bulk of their strength and
where NATO can at best only position ‘trip wire’ forces having
symbolic, not actual military defensive value.
best that NATO can propose, it would seem, is to snatch the Russian
enclave of Kaliningrad (the clear mission of the Anakonda-16 games
now going on in Poland) in case the Russians occupied the Baltic
States within the 60 hours or so that a recent Rand Institute study
suggests is feasible. However, as President Putin has stated clearly,
such encroachment on Russian soil will unleash a nuclear response
from Russia that will include missile attacks on the mainland USA,
i.e. not limited to the European theater.
let’s consider another absurdity in General Breedlove’s letter
setting out his candidacy for a cabinet position. He repeats, parrot
like, the position of the Obama Administration and of putative
Democratic candidate for President Hillary Clinton that we can
selectively cooperate with Russia on issues of common interest like
counter-terrorism, Pacific fishing rights (!) and the like even as we
remain engaged in a life-or-death scramble for position on the ground
fact, the US effort to totally isolate Russia by cutting off many,
perhaps most of its bilateral programs of cooperation with the
country have worked precisely to defeat cooperation, none more
grievously so than in the area of fighting terrorism. Meanwhile,
American encouragement of ISIL in Syria for the sake of overthrowing
the Russian-backed regime of Bashar Assad continues to this day under
the guise of protecting the moderate opposition that happens to be
embedded with the ‘’bad guys.’’ These fairy tales coming from
Washington do not fool anyone, and Breedlove passes them along to his
readers in the smug expectation that they will accept whatever he
lending its valuable ‘real estate’ to the campaign for office of
one of most outspoken Cold Warriors within the military, General
Breedlove, the editorial board of Foreign Affairs magazine has shown
yet again that it is incapable of guarding its own neutrality or
balance, incapable of hedging its bets against a Trump victory in
Doctorow is the European Coordinator of The American Committee for
East West Accord Ltd. His most recent book, Does Russia Have a
Future?, was published in August 2015.
Hillary Clinton Just 'Explained' ISIS Was Grown by Assad, Iran and Russia
Unfortunately for America's nutty aunt being part of this contest means being asked mildly inconvenient questions that don't begin to scratch the surface of her insane, brain-dead and blood-soaked exploits so far.
Thus she has recently been reminded the last time she was helping steer the bodies-sowing American empire she handed over an area the size of Britain to a head-chopping lunatic cult. CNN with the goodies:
The Democratic front-runner -- who has suffered a spate of losses in recent primaries but maintains a firm pledged delegate lead over Sanders -- did, however, fire back after his campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Clinton supported a foreign policy that gave rise to ISIS.
"That is beyond absurd," Clinton said. "They're saying a lot of things these days and I'm going to let them say whatever they choose to say. But ISIS was primarily the result of the vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost. Aided and abetted by Iran and Russia, so I think that let's put responsibility where it belongs."
Things are beginning to clear up. So it's not that Hillary Clinton sent ISIS arms. It's that Russia helped Assad create a vacuum in Syria for ISIS to step in.
Left unsaid is why would Assad want to create an Assad-free vacuum in Syria, but doubtlessly it was to make Hillary Clinton look bad and spoil her chances for winning the Pop Idols 2016.
Trouble is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton herself in one of her uncharacteristically sane moments said otherwise. Asked in February 2012 why the US wasn't doing more to arm Syrian rebels she explained it was because they were embedded with a bunch of US-hating jihadis:
"What are we going to arm them with and against what? We're not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan," Clinton said.
"We know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?" Clinton said.
"If you're a military planner or if you're a secretary of state and you're trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, that we don't see. We see immense human suffering that is heartbreaking."
Of course she then turned around and launched exactly the policy she advised against. The biggest beneficiary of this? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In 2011 Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which by now was calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq (albeit it controlled no territory), decided to became a part of the nascent Syrian rebellion. It dispatched its Syrian fighters led by one Abu Mohammad al-Golani to establish an ISI franchise in Syria, which they did, naming it Jabhat al-Nusra.
Soon, however, Baghdadi realized Western, Qatari and Saudi policies were making Syria into such fertile ground for salafist jihad that core ISI with its Iraqi fighters also crossed over into Syria.
Foreign powers including the US were pouring vast quantities of weapons into the Syrian rebellion and large quantities of these weapons were finding their way to ISI, either by way of Jabhat al-Nusra or directly from other rebels who also shared trenches with ISI.
In April 2013 ISI (now calling itself ISIS since it was also laying claim to Syria) announced it was time for Jabhat al-Nusra to be fully reincorporated back under al-Baghdadi's direct leadership but al-Golani refused citing a technicality. However, many of Golani's fighters did answer Baghdadi's call and crossed over to ISIS, bringing their weapons with them.
What followed was nine months during which there was tension and antagonism between al-Nusra and ISIS but during which they and the rest of the rebels continued to cooperate against loyalist forces.
It was during this period that ISIS acquired a 'capital city' by monopolizing control of Raqqa which the rebels had jointly taken over in March 2013, as the first Syrian provincial capital to fall to them.
At the start of 2014, however, ISIS having firmly established itself in Syria, broke rank with the rest of the rebellion and pounced on the "disloyal" al-Nusra.
The complex inter-factional war that followed involved real slaughter and fighting but just as often ISIS expanded, not in battle, but due to defections, as one would expect seeing there were no ideological differences between ISIS and al-Nusra whatsoever, only a Baghdadi-Golani spat over who will hold the reins.
US might not have cared about ISIS taking over eastern Syria but for one fact. Having grown in power in Syria and having been bulked up by all those munitions Saudis, Qataris and Americans fed into the anti-Assad rebellion ISIS turned south and humiliated the US by taking over vast swathes of Iraq it had contested with Americans as Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2003-2011.
Didn't ISIS realize the weapons Hillary had sent were meant exclusively for fighting Assad!?