Stephen Cohen on McCarthyite hearings in Congress

Eve of the Trump & Russia hearings in Congress

Stephen F. Cohen, @nyu @princeton University EastWestAccord.com

"...More than three months after the committee announced that it had agreed on the scope of the investigation, the panel has not begun substantially investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, three individuals with ties to the committee told The Daily Beast.

The investigation does not have a single staffer dedicated to it full-time, and those staff members working on it part-time do not have significant investigative experience. The probe currently appears to be moving at a pace slower than prior Senate Intelligence Committee investigations, such as the CIA torture inquiry, which took years to accomplish.

No interviews have been conducted with key individuals suspected of being in the Trump-Russia orbit: not Michael Flynn, not Roger Stone, not Carter Page, not Paul Manafort, and not Jared Kushner, according to two sources familiar with the committee’s procedures...."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/25/the-gops-russia-investigation-is-a-joke-and-americans-know-it/?utm_term=.7d16defeebf1

McCarthyism in Britain

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border

Glenn Greenwald

the Intercept,

16 January, 2017

THE LEADER OF the UK’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, called for a “de-escalation” of tensions between NATO and Russia, adding in a BBC interview on Thursday: “I want to see a de-militarisation of the border between them.” Along with the U.S., the UK has been rapidly building up its military presence in the Baltic region, including states which border Russia, and is now about to send another 800 troops to Estonia, 500 of which will be permanently based.

In response, Russia has moved its own troops within its country near those borders, causing serious military tensions to rise among multiple nuclear-armed powers. Throughout 2016, the Russian and U.S. militaries have engaged in increasingly provocative and aggressive maneuvers against one another. This week, the U.S. began deploying 4,000 troops to Poland, “the biggest deployment of US troops in Europe since the end of the cold war.”

It was in this context that Corbyn said it is “unfortunate that troops have gone up to the border on both sides,” adding that “he wanted to see better relations between Russia, NATO and the EU.” The Labour leader explained that while Russia has engaged in serious human rights abuses both domestically and in Syria, there must be a “better relationships between both sides . . .  there cannot be a return to a Cold War mentality.”

The response to Corbyn’s call for better relations and de-escalation of tensions with Moscow was swift and predictable. The armed forces minister for Britain’s right-wing government, Mike Penning, accused Corbyn of being a collaborator with the Kremlin:

“These comments suggest that the Labour leader would rather collaborate with Russian aggression than mutually support Britain’s Nato allies. As with Trident, everything Labour says and does shows that they cannot be trusted with Britain’s national security.”

This is the same propagandistic formulation that has been used for decades in the west to equate opposition to militarism with some form of disloyalty or treason: if you oppose military confrontation with a foreign adversary or advocate better relations with it, then you are accused of harboring secret sympathy and even support for those foreign leaders, and are often suspected of being an active “collaborator” with (or “stooge” for) them.

This lowly smear tactic was, of course, deployed over and over during the Cold War with regard to those who argued for improved relations or a reduction of conflict with Moscow, but it has been repeatedly used since then as well every time it comes time to confront a new Foreign Villain (those opposed to the invasion of Iraq were pro-Saddam, those who opposed intervention in Libya were Gaddafi apologists, those who objected to War on Terror programs are terrorist-sympathizers, etc. etc.).

But this template has recently become super-charged, more widely invoked than ever, as a result of the starring role Russia now plays in U.S. domestic politics, where many Democrats blame them for Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Putin now occupies the role of Prime Villain in western discourse, and this Cold War rhetorical template – anyone opposing confrontation is a Kremlin operative or stooge – has thus been resurrected with extraordinary speed and ease.

The compelling justifications for Corbyn’s concerns about NATO/Russia tensions are self-evident. The U.S. and Russia have massive arsenals of nuclear weapons. As Lawrence Krauss detailed in the New Yorker in October, the two countries have come horrendously close to full-on, earth-destroying nuclear war on several occasions in the past, and the systems they still maintain are conducive to apocalyptic error through miscommunication and misperception, let alone direct military confrontation. As Krauss noted:

“In general, during the Obama Presidency, we have only deepened our dangerous embrace of nuclear weapons. At the moment, around a thousand nuclear weapons are still on a hair-trigger alert; as they were during the Cold War, they are ready to be launched in minutes in response to a warning of imminent attack.”

It is not hyperbole to say that perhaps nothing is more reckless,more dangerous, than ratcheting up tensions between these two countries. That’s what makes it so repellent and toxic to demonize those such as Corbyn as “collaborators” or traitors merely because they oppose this escalation and belligerence. But this is the script that – once again – is quickly becoming mainstream orthodoxy in both Washington and London.

Let us, for a moment, imagine if this framework were applied consistently rather than manipulatively. Democrats have been alarmed – rightfully so – by the preliminary belligerence of Trump and his top aides toward nuclear-armed China: accepting a call from Taiwan’s president, openly questioningthe decades-old “One China” policy, suggesting the U.S. would militarily intervene to prevent Chinese control over nearby uninhabited islands (the latter was also suggested by the current head of the U.S. Pacific fleet).

But applying the prevailing Russia logic to these concerns, should one not accuse these Democrats objecting to confrontation with China of being “collaborators” with and apologists for the dictatorial regime in Beijing, which imprisons dissidents and tortures ethnic and religious minorities? Should we publicly ponder whether the liberal writers demanding that Trump cease his aggressive posture are being clandestinely paid by the Chinese Politburo or merely acting as “useful idiots” for it? Should those objecting to Trump’s belligerent policies be accused of siding with a dictatorial regime over their own President and country?

Of course none of those things should happen, because it is not only rational but morally compulsory to be deeply wary of those who seek to escalate tensions between countries with large nuclear arsenals. At the very least, one should be free to debate these policies without being smeared as a traitor. That applies to China, and it applies to Russia. And those who voice such concerns should not, as Corbyn just was, have their loyalties and integrity be impugned by our new Cold Warriors.

* * * * *

For the crucial context on NATO/Russia tension that is very rarely heard in the western press, I highly recommend these two items:

(1) This Foreign Affairs article by University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer on the west’s relentless, aggressive march eastward up to Russian borders and its consequences;

(2) The passage of this interview with Noam Chomsky by German journalist Tilo Jung – beginning at 40:30 – that explains the crucial historical context of NATO’s march eastward toward Russia, how that is perceived in Moscow, and, most important of all, why the dangers this behavior creates are incomparable:

The new McCarthyism in America

Red Scare 2016: As Green Party Power Grows, Jill Stein Accused Of Ties To Putin

During his speech to the Green Party National Convention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange warned that attacks against Jill Stein ‘are going to go through the roof.’

By Kit O'Connell

Mint Press News,

10 August, 2016

AUSTIN, Texas — As the popularity of the Green Party continues to rise during this divisive election, attacks and smear campaigns against the Greens, and their presidential nominee, Jill Stein, are ramping up.

The latest rumor suggests Stein is under the control of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and it’s based on a deliberately misleading tweet about a video she recorded during a trip to Russia over the winter.

On Saturday, economist Andrew Weiss tweeted a link to a video of Stein posted on Dec. 20. The video, “Anti-War Message in Moscow: Jill Stein, 2016 US-Presidential Candidate (Green Party),” was assembled from various sources — notably, a video posted on Stein’s Facebook page — by German anti-war site AntiKrieg

 

Andrew S. Weiss‏@andrewsweiss

Creepy @DrJillStein video from Moscow gushing over Russian support for human rights, dinner w Putin, RT anniv party

• RETWEETS1,250
• LIKES893
• 

7:17 AM - 7 Aug 2016

1,250 retweets893 likes

Weiss describes the video as “creepy,” and claims that it features Stein “gushing over Russian support for human rights.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald refuted Weiss’ statement a day later in a tweet of his own, calling Weiss’ claims about the Stein video “100% false.”

 

Glenn GreenwaldVerified account‏@ggreenwald

Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Andrew S. Weiss

Was only a matter of time before Jill Stein was smeared as a disloyal Kremlin-sympathizer (tweet is 100% false)

Glenn Greenwald added,

Andrew S. Weiss @andrewsweiss

Creepy @DrJillStein video from Moscow gushing over Russian support for human rights, dinner w Putin, RT anniv party http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Qhx2ON8RE&sns=tw …

• RETWEETS737
• LIKES961
• 

1:02 AM - 8 Aug 201

In the video, Stein briefly thanks the donors and supporters who helped make her travel possible, then praises the other attendees of the RT Anniversary Conference, the event which prompted her visit to Russia. 


Those attendees included foreign dignitaries like British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Cyril Svoboda, former deputy prime minister, minister of foreign affairs, and interior minister of the Czech Republic, as well as Patricia Villegas, president of pan-Latin American news network teleSUR, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.

As the title of the video suggests, the video’s message is primarily anti-war and a criticism of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, which many have compared to a new Cold War. Describing discussions at the conference, Stein says:

“It’s been so inspiring to see, rising up at this very critical and perilous moment that we’re in — a moment of grave militarism, potential nuclear confrontation, climate meltdown, and expanding war. It’s been so wonderful to see people come together from across all borders and from the across the political spectrum, really, come together around basic human values, around human rights, around the need for international law, including the need to reign in U.S. exceptionalism and totally reform and revise our foreign policy so that it is based on international law, human rights, and diplomacy.”

Following her brief comments, the remainder of the video by AntiKrieg consists of photos and press clippings from Stein’s appearance at the conference, emphasizing her anti-war message. At no point does she praise the human rights records of Russia or Putin.

Assange: Attacks on Stein are ‘going to go through the roof’

During an appearance at the Green Party National Convention on Saturday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange warned Stein to anticipate more attacks of this nature as her political power rises. He appeared by video conference from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has lived on asylum for the past four years, fearing extradition to the United States.

Watch WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: Attacks Against Jill Stein Are “Going to Go Through the Roof”:

Assange said:

“[L]et me tell you that I’ve just seen that the attacks have started to ramp up on Jill Stein. They are going to go through the roof. I’ve had attacks from what is effectively the Clinton threat machine. They’re now post-convention. You guys are going to be post-convention. Those attacks are going to be ferocious.”

Assange, too, has been forced to defend himself against accusations that he has ties to Russia in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of 20,000 leaked internal Democratic National Committee emails that has forced the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the party’s chair, and other key DNC staff. The Clinton campaign suggested the emails were leaked by Russian hackers to boost Donald Trump’s prospects in the election, but those claims arebased on suspect evidence provided by “experts” with known ties to the NSA.




“Ultimately, there’s no conclusive proof that the hackers in either instance [including another hacking incident in June] were Russian or even tied to the Russian government,” wrote Mnar Muhawesh, MintPress’ founder and editor-in-chief, on July 25. “The entire case is built upon circumstantial evidence.

And it’s not a far-fetched notion to suggest that Weiss, the major source of the smear campaign targeting Stein as pro-Putin, could have a pro-Clinton agenda or even a vested interest in her anti-Russian platform. 

Weiss is a senior advisor to the Albright Stonebridge Group, a global business strategy firm chaired by Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under President Bill Clinton. Weiss has also worked with the Clinton Global Initiative to provide clean water in Haiti.

Stein responds to the smear campaign with a call for peace

Speaking to Kwame Rose, a reporter for The Real News Network, Stein responded directly to the smear campaign after she received her party’s nomination on Saturday.

Stein reiterated that her main message during her visit to Russia was to speak out against war:

“My contribution to that panel was to tell Putin and everybody else that it was time for a peace initiative in the Middle East and we needed to stop the war in Syria. We needed to stop the bombing, we need a weapons embargo, and to freeze the funding of those countries that continued to fund terrorism.”

She said Putin seemed to respond favorably to her message of peace, adding:

“And interestingly, Putin watched our conference and our panel, and his remarks that night at that dinner was that he had heard the foreign politicians and he was shocked to find that he agreed with us on the need to create a peaceful path forward on Syria.”

During the interview, Stein reiterated her core anti-war message:

“The problem is that U.S. foreign policy is too often representing the war properties and the weapons industry. They’’re the only ones who are making out like bandits in this policy in the Middle East. We need a peace offensive. We need to stop having a foreign policy that is essentially a public relations campaign for the weapons industry. These problems are not so difficult to solve if we sit down as human beings.”

She also called on Hillary Clinton and the U.S. government to stop provoking Russia through a military buildup in Eastern Europe.

“Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has been very busy just provoking Russia and not moving forward to a dialogue and solutions that serve us all,” she lamented.

Watch “Jill Stein Defends Her Decision to Meet with Putin” from The Real News Network: