US Politics Thread

[mrzz]

No, editorial is opinion and should be read as such. Anyone who doesn't is irresponsibly reading the news. And I agree that reaching for more than one source is valuable, because one or the other will have a slant. I really like The Economist for no slant other than an economics-bent. As to Wikileaks...no commentary, but they chose what to leak and what not to. You have to admit that. That's a slant in itself.

Of course Wikileaks chose what to leak, as a person chooses what to speak, a news outlet chooses what to publish and a company chooses what to produce. What people want? Tell them how to do their job (that they actually kind of invented)?

The problem with that kind of commentary is that it instantly implies that they had a pile of documents that they chose not to leak given their "agenda", even if they had stated continuously that they don´t, and people do not have a shred of evidence, not even a reasonable theory, to back it up.

The idea that Wikileaks blocks data at will is quite illogical. If some source presents them data which they chose to block, this same source would present it somewhere else... and also accuse WL of blocking it. We would have a good number of alternative Wikileaks now making a living out of it.

I am not saying that WL is the sacred holder of the truth, but you are applying a standard to them that, if applied to everyone, makes conversation impossible. What matters is the data they publish, not the intentions we suppose they have. What is hidden in Trump´s mailbox? We don´t know... because maybe there are no "liberal" hackers out there, because maybe he is better at keeping his e-mails safe, or he does not have anything to hide (gasp). All these assertions are more credible (well, not the last one) than "Wikileaks have such material but chose not to leak it".

 

[Federberg]

Maybe, but which is more important?

Obviously disinterest in how may innocent Libyans are killed due to US intervention is far worse, but forgive me... that is an utterly bizarre response to a valid point raised about Trump's mocking of disabled people. I repeat.. one has nothing to do with the other

 

[Federberg]

Of course Wikileaks chose what to leak, as a person chooses what to speak, a news outlet chooses what to publish and a company chooses what to produce. What people want? Tell them how to do their job (that they actually kind of invented)?

The problem with that kind of commentary is that it instantly implies that they had a pile of documents that they chose not to leak given their "agenda", even if they had stated continuously that they don´t, and people do not have a shred of evidence, not even a reasonable theory, to back it up.

The idea that Wikileaks blocks data at will is quite illogical. If some source presents them data which they chose to block, this same source would present it somewhere else... and also accuse WL of blocking it. We would have a good number of alternative Wikileaks now making a living out of it.

I am not saying that WL is the sacred holder of the truth, but you are applying a standard to them that, if applied to everyone, makes conversation impossible. What matters is the data they publish, not the intentions we suppose they have. What is hidden in Trump´s mailbox? We don´t know... because maybe there are no "liberal" hackers out there, because maybe he is better at keeping his e-mails safe, or he does not have anything to hide (gasp). All these assertions are more credible (well, not the last one) than "Wikileaks have such material but chose not to leak it".

That's an interesting point. And on it's face could be correct. Sadly we know for a fact that there are many things that weren't revealed about Trump. Not least his racist and misogynist comments on The Apprentice, which I have no doubt could have been hacked. And I'm not even going to bother mentioning his taxes which could also have been hacked. But the reality is that, Assange was quite open about his determination to damage Clinton's election chances so it's all redundant. You can't claim objectivity if you are willing to consume information from a source that is explicitly biased. It just doesn't make sense

 

[britbox]

Obviously disinterest in how may innocent Libyans are killed due to US intervention is far worse, but forgive me... that is an utterly bizarre response to a valid point raised about Trump's mocking of disabled people. I repeat.. one has nothing to do with the other

It does when you consider the level of coverage.... but in any case, this is the same Meryl Streep who gave child rapist Roman Polanski a standing ovation at the 2003 Oscars... and Trump has used the exactly the same body language to mock able-bodied reporters... It's the body language of dithering idiotic dimwit. It looks bad when you have CNN headline under the footage... take that away and you wouldn't think he was doing that at all.

 

[britbox]

That's an interesting point. And on it's face could be correct. Sadly we know for a fact that there are many things that weren't revealed about Trump. Not least his racist and misogynist comments on The Apprentice, which I have no doubt could have been hacked. And I'm not even going to bother mentioning his taxes which could also have been hacked. But the reality is that, Assange was quite open about his determination to damage Clinton's election chances so it's all redundant. You can't claim objectivity if you are willing to consume information from a source that is explicitly biased. It just doesn't make sense

Do you consume information from CNN, MSNBC?... who openly backed Clinton... Yes... based on the previous post you put up. Where is the sense in that based on your commentary above?

 

[Federberg]

Do you consume information from CNN, MSNBC?... who openly backed Clinton... Yes... based on the previous post you put up. Where is the sense in that based on your commentary above?

I consume information from a host of sources. To date, I haven't found anything topical enough to post from other sources. If I do, obviously I would post it. I think you are confusing posting something with promoting an agenda. I thought others would find it interesting. I'm not teddy!

 

[mrzz]

I consume information from a host of sources. To date, I haven't found anything topical enough to post from other sources. If I do, obviously I would post it. I think you are confusing posting something with promoting an agenda. I thought others would find it interesting. I'm not teddy!

As I posted before, I really understand the kind of concern you have, but Wikileaks could paraphrase you:

"I consume information from a host of sources. To date, I haven't found anything topical enough to leak from other sources. If I do, obviously I would leak it. I think you are confusing leaking something with promoting an agenda. I thought others would find it interesting.I am not Fox News!"

 

[Federberg]

As I posted before, I really understand the kind of concern you have, but Wikileaks could paraphrase you:

"I consume information from a host of sources. To date, I haven't found anything topical enough to leak from other sources. If I do, obviously I would leak it. I think you are confusing leaking something with promoting an agenda. I thought others would find it interesting.I am not Fox News!"

Lol! Well said. Although.. and I repeat.. Assange clearly stated his determination to target Clinton. BB might accuse CNN and MSNBC of doing the same, but it's not quite equivalent. Both of those companies actually published news that wasn't helpful to Clinton, in fact Clinton was trying to get one of the MSNBC presenters fired behind the scenes. There might have been editorial bias, but there was also just plain vanilla journalism

 

[britbox]

Lol! Well said. Although.. and I repeat.. Assange clearly stated his determination to target Clinton. BB might accuse CNN and MSNBC of doing the same, but it's not quite equivalent. Both of those companies actually published news that wasn't helpful to Clinton, in fact Clinton was trying to get one of the MSNBC presenters fired behind the scenes. There might have been editorial bias, but there was also just plain vanilla journalism

Wikileaks also published 800,000 Russian cables... which considering the narrative the mainstream press are pursuing doesn't add up either.

 

[teddytennisfan]

Wikileaks also published 800,000 Russian cables... which considering the narrative the mainstream press are pursuing doesn't add up either.

this is a good reminder.

the fact is WIKILEAKS which started inthe EARLY 2000s. WAS highly, highly touted and celebrated by the US establishment..maybe people weren't ;aying attention then -- but clinton HERSELF used to have a ''high opinion" of that --

WHEN WIKILEAKS FIRST had material about AFRICAN , ASIAN and other ''noneuropean" countries...focusing on corporations, corruptions, kickbacks, etc...

and THEN it started to capture more connections to american corporations - and on it went..

and NOW -- that it focuses on AMERICA -- ooooooo no good...
what is at play and always has been is the same thing -- american foreign policy DOUBLE STANDARDS.

"we can JUDGE anyone -- but WE reserve the right to be ABOVE the law".

 

[teddytennisfan]

as can be said -- TRUMP has his chance to show what kind of leader he will be. hopefully someone more reasonable and realistic than obama has been -- and THAT alone will be a vast improvement.

---=================
in the meantime -- below is america's idea of ''global leadership"

sputniknews.com
Obama's Attempts to Blame Putin for His Failures 'More Than Just Score-Settling'
Sputnik
Politics
18:01 09.01.2017(updated 20:46 09.01.2017) Get short URL

In 1991, the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the global socialist bloc were expected to end the standoff between the West and the East.

Kosachev stressed that at the time Russia was the only country to realize that the "Cold War became a thing of the past" and tried to "get rid of the standoff logic."

"Obama’s desperate attempts to write off his failures on Russian President [Vladimir Putin] are more than just score-settling. The point is that Americanism has suffered a more serious defeat. Moreover, there are considerable shifts in global politics," Kosachev wrote.

Europe Divided

According to the lawmaker, the West continued to follow the old logic and then committed three "fatal mistakes" on that path.

"The first one is dividing international security, including privileges for the West and its allies, military and political support for loyal regimes, and the lack of support and assistance for the rest. The West decided not to rely on collective security mechanisms, but on NATO and its eastward expansion," the article read.

© AP Photo/ Virginia Mayo

Kosachev noted that as a result a group of "Washington’s true allies" established in Europe, including Britain, Poland and the Baltic states.

"They began imposing their anti-Russian phobias both on NATO and the European Union," he added.

At the same time, according to the author, traditional European leaders, including Germany, France and Italy, could not withstand that strategy. As a result, the EU has lost "sovereignty" and become a "prisoner of prejudices and false decisions."

"The sphere of security and cooperation was torn apart. Now, global powers cannot work together," Kosachev wrote.

The second mistake is interference with domestic affairs of other countries "under the banners of global and national security," he added.

Collapse of Legal Norms

The third mistake is denigration of the role of global institutions, first of all the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

"Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria were examples of unjustified use of military force by the US and NATO. We are witnessing a collapse of the system of international law, which was expected to promote cooperation and prevent confrontation," Kosachev wrote.

As a result, the world has plunged into unprecedented instability and faces increased terrorist threats, migrant crises and threats to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.

"This is not only Obama to blame. Its predecessors – George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – could not resist the temptation to promote American leadership and impose Washington’s will on the rest of the world while there were different ways to cooperate with its former adversaries," the article read.

The World Still Has a Chance

According to Kosachev, Washington and its allies has repeatedly made these "fatal mistakes," resulting in an increasing number of "dangerous global scenarios."

"But the world cannot be forever a prisoner of American mistakes. The American conception of Western leadership has ended up in a fiasco. In this context, Obama is not just a president who lost. He symbolizes the end of a two-and-a-half decade-long post-Cold War epoch," Kosachev wrote.

The lawmaker noted that "another era of confrontation is nearing its end, but it could have been not like that."

"We hope that [US President-elect Donald] Trump understands that the logic of winners and losers makes no sense. The world still has a chance to make collective decisions in the interests of all. Neither the US and Europe nor Russia should miss that chance," he concluded.

=================================================================

obama uncle sam -- to world:

"KNEEL or shall BOMB YOU".

https://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/102412/28/1024122848.jpg

 

[teddytennisfan]

THE EMPEROR OF HORSE-SHIT

================

zerohedge.com
Ron Paul Sums Up Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winning President Obama In One Short Sentence

Following our discussion of the unprecedented bombing-fest that has been undertaken during President Obama's reign...

Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having been in office for less than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.

According to an analysis of Defense Department data from the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think tank, the majority of Obama's 2016 bombs were dropped on Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, Afghanistan, a country President Obama vowed U.S. troops would evacuate completely by the end of his Presidency, was also bombed over 1,300 times, a 40% increase over 2015. Per McClatchy DC:

The U.S. dropped 79 percent of the anti-Islamic State group coalition bombs in Syria and Iraq, totaling 24,287. That figure, along with others analyzed by CFR, is likely lower than the actual number dropped because one airstrike can involved multiple bombs.

Obama did authorize a troop surge in Afghanistan — a conflict he pledged to end during his campaign — where the U.S. dropped 1,337 bombs in 2016. There are currently 8,400 U.S. troops left in the country, more than Obama initially wanted to keep there at the end of his term. The U.S. only dropped 947 bombs in Afghanistan in 2015.

The U.S. also dropped more bombs in Libya in 2016 than it did in 2015. Nearly 500 bombs were dropped in the North African country that has essentially been ungoverned since the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. He was captured and killed during the Libyan Civil War, kicked off by the Arab Spring protests that also began the Syrian conflict.

Ron Paul opined on the farce via his Facebook page...

Barack Obama started with a Nobel Peace Prize and is ending his presidency with the Pentagon's Distinguished Public Service Medal.



Sounds about right for a president who bombed 7 nations and became the first in U.S. history to be at war every single day of his eight year administration.

Just remember America, as Obama signs 'The Ministry of Truth' act into reality, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength."

Trending Articles

 

[teddytennisfan]

Do you consume information from CNN, MSNBC?... who openly backed Clinton... Yes... based on the previous post you put up. Where is the sense in that based on your commentary above?

zerohedge.com
Wikileaks Press Conference Post Mortem: The CIA "Issued A Press Release, Not An Intelligence Report"

Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

Wikileaks announced a 9AM press conference on Monday morning to, quote, “respond to the CIA report on the US election”. Wikileaks readers were asked to tweet questions using the #AskWL hashtag on Twitter.

The press conference was streamed live from the Ecaudorian embassy in London, via an audio feed on Periscope.

Julian Assange slammed the recent report as a “press release”, stating that only about five pages of the report could be considered substantial content.

“The real question is whether the Russians hacked the Democratic party with the intention of favoring Donald Trump,” Said Assange [Paraphrase].

“Even if you accept that Russia hackers were involved, even if no evidence was presented in the report, what was the intent of those Russian attacks and do they connect to Wikileaks.”

Assange went on to confirm once again that the DNC emails and the Podesta emails were not provided by state actors.

He accuses that the report “deliberately obscures” the timeline of the email leak in regard to the timeframe in which Donald Trump became a serious contender for President. He notes that DNI director James Clapper himself has confirmed that the intelligence community does not know when Wikileaks obtained any of the emails.

Assange also took issue with the conflation of direct vote hacking and the possibility of information which caused a change in public opinion. He asserts that Donna Brazile and other DNC and Hillary campaign officials lied to the public by stating that the emails were “fake” and noted Wikileaks’ ten year accuracy record.

The conference then moved on to answering questions from the Twitter hashtag.

“On a scale of one to ten, how fabricated was the CIA report?” Assange states that this is an interesting question, since by nature of the report, there is very little accusatory information and most of the content is speculative.

“Your whole premise has been that you don’t know sources and therefore can’t endanger them. Now you say you don’t know your source.” Assange denies that this statement was made, and asserted that the source is not a state party. He clarifies that Wikileaks treats their source information with care and wants to keep that record. He says that depending on the case, they can give more or less information without compromising their safety.

“Is Wikileaks sure that the go-between didn’t get the information from the Russians or a private hacking group on order from the Russians?” Assange stated that “we can’t play 20 questions with sources, for obvious reasons.”

In regards to many questions about “proof of life”, Assange states that it has been a difficult time for him with pressure from many sides, and that he will address the proof of life issue in a Reddit AMA tomorrow morning.

“What is the most important thing we can do before obama leaves office?” Assange states his level of concern with destruction of records across agencies, and states that both Democrat and Republican governments have been guilty of destroying vital information. He asserts that destroying historical documents is a crime against humanity and our shared history. He asks whistleblowers to get ahold of data now and protect it.

“Julian, how are you doing? How is your health? How much longer will you survive in the embassy?” Assange states that “It’s a difficult environment to be in for six years without trial,” and that “On the other hand, I am committed to this work and it gives me engery to continue.”

“What would you say to people who see Wikileaks’ recent activity as an open endorsement of trump?” Assange states that before the election, he released an editorial (presumably this one) on behalf of Wikileaks which answered some of these concerns. He admits they all assumed Hillary was going to win, and goes on to explain that the conflict was mainly against the elite power class. He also asserts that he has concerns about Trump’s administration and calls many of his cabinet choices “poor” with “some interesting ones”. Trump will “loosen up” DC, he says – both positively and negatively.

“Do you think the intelligence report released by the CIA undermines the leak, or is this just growing pains of a major leak like this?” Assange states that Wikileaks like any publisher likes the attention on their materials, and the fact that the DNI report concluded the veracity and accuracy of their documents adds weight to the strength of the leaks. He states the content was what had the biggest impact.

“Is there a future for the FOIA in the present ‘fake news’ attack on the press and freedom of speech?” Assange calls the Freedom of Information Act a “formalized leak system” and states that there is a “hoover dam of information” that is being withheld due to Wikileaks being under investigation by the DOJ.

“Why don’t you explain why it would be hard for Russia to hack the votes. Explain the security, and how easy it would be.” Assange states that the media has put out a lot of misinformation leading people to believe the vote machines and vote counting infrastructure were breached. Though Assange criticizes electronic voting as not secure, he also states that the intelligence community has stated that this sort of hack did not occur.

“Why is there more focus on those who exposed the corruption instead of on the offenders?” Assange specifically notes Fox as one of the few mainstream outlets who actually covered the content – but gives the initial credit to the citizen journalists who found the most important information that was picked up later by broader media.

“Is there any truth to the rumour that W ikileaks had access to rnc data and chose not to leak?” “No, that’s false. Absolutely false.”

“How do you feel about trump cabinet picks that called for the death penalty for Wikileaks whistleblowers?” Assange states that many Republicans and Republican supporters were opportunists, but they were also mislead by the media and specifically the Obama administration that the Wikileaks releases led to the deaths of US soldiers. Assange states that this was proven to be false.

“Why do you think the US media is recieving intelligence before President Elect Trump?” Assange states that this was a strategic move to ensure the American public was only receiving one narrative, and to make it more difficult for Donald Trump and Wikileaks to respond to the allegations. He states that had they released it on a Friday afternoon themselves, it wouldn’t have had the same effect. Particularly since by releasing it on a Thursday afternoon, including some classified information that was not later released to the public, they were able to further their own narrative. He slams the report once again stating that “This report is not really about facts, it’s about producing something that is not falsifiable and is intellectually bankrupt.”

“Do you believe whistleblowers will be safer in the upcoming administration, or will they continue to be persecuted?” Assange states that he believes they will continue to be persecuted, and that though there are some anti-DC elements of the upcoming administration, Trump will form his own establishment.

“No system of authority likes those who undermine it’s authority.” Said Assange.

 

[Billie]

Wikileaks also published 800,000 Russian cables... which considering the narrative the mainstream press are pursuing doesn't add up either.

Exactly. They publish what they can get their hands on. And most of their stuff has come from leaks.

This is all is just noise to disguise the real issue: the essence of these emails. They are proven to be genuine, so nobody is concerned what was in the emails, but who hacked/leaked them.

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. They publish what they can get their hands on. And most of their stuff has come from leaks.

This is all is just noise to disguise the real issue: the essence of these emails. They are proven to be genuine, so nobody is concerned what was in the emails, but who hacked/leaked them.

Actually, what is in the emails is the point. And basically none of it is of an interest...high security, or otherwise. But as to high security, there is basically none. The worst thing the committee really had to say was that, while the server was being used within hostile territory, there was a possibility, though none detected, that it could have been breached. Where it was breached was by Wikileaks. But, again, there wasn't any top secret information contained. A massive campaign was launched against Clinton because of her choice to use a private server. That's it.

Now, the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community has determined that Putin, himself, was involved in hacking the US elections. Tell me which is worse.

 

[britbox]

Actually, what is in the emails is the point. And basically none of it is of an interest...high security, or otherwise. But as to high security, there is basically none. The worst thing the committee really had to say was that, while the server was being used within hostile territory, there was a possibility, though none detected, that it could have been breached. Where it was breached was by Wikileaks. But, again, there wasn't any top secret information contained. A massive campaign was launched against Clinton because of her choice to use a private server. That's it.

Now, the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community has determined that Putin, himself, was involved in hacking the US elections. Tell me which is worse.

Wikileaks didn't breach it - the cables were given to Wikileaks. The private server thing was really a separate incident and Clinton had rode most of that fallout out already. Most of the leaks just before the election came via Podesta's account.... Podesta who had the password... "pa55word" and succumbed to a basic phishing hack which most of us get confronted with weekly, if not daily. This was not an elaborate hack. The recent reporting that Putin "personally" was involved might not even be as silly as first suggested. A 12 year child who was "in the know" could actually perform that hack (I'm not joking).. so heck, even the president of Russia could have done it while he was eating lunch.

 

[teddytennisfan]

as Britbox - Billie and mrzz had already numerously pointed out in various ways --

there is a difference between hacking and leaking.

to hack is to ''break into" -- to leak is to ''reveal and expose" ..

and lastly -- reminder to obama and company -- ACCUSATION without proof remains an accusation .

it can not be substituted for proof.
an accusation without proof is another definition for making an ASSERTION , a MERE STATEMENT that does NOT carry proof that THAT assertion is true or correct.


ANYBODY can say 1+1 == ELEVEN -- but if they can not PROVE that 1+1=11

no matter how many times they say that fallacy -- it is just an assertion that has not proven itself.

the same with saying

|RUSSIA ''influenced the election to make trump president"
HOW/ ? where is the proof?

''RUSSIA INFLUENCED THE ELECTION" repeated over and over again IS NOT PROOF.

|HOW DID russia do that? influence the election towards trump?
"RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC" repeated over and over again -- does not MAKE it prrof..

show proof -- to substantiate an assertion or an accusation -- .

OBAMA , CIA, DNI, NSA, FBI, THE ENTIRE AMERICAN SPY NETWORK CAN NOT PROVE IT - and say things ANY IDIOT can say -- which makes the USA 'SPY NETWORK" OF EMPIRE THAT KNOWS - so they say -- and even brag about their 'systems' -- just about what they want --


THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD -- AND EXPOSE THEM AS THE DEMONIC MONUMENTAL LYING CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY ACTUALLY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN -- THE WORLD'S TOTALITARIANS caught with their pants down -- like the ''wizaard of oz" and his fake magic show to be nothing more than a FRIGHTENED LITTLE MAN pulling levers and buttons inside a great machine to produce the frightening effects to FOOL people of OZ into believing he is the great Wizard --

THATS what this is about.

incidentally -- a PRO CLINTON GUY -- hill? something -- very close to PODESTA couldnt help beliving in their own lies -- he made the BIG mistake of gtweeting or creating a POLL -- that can reach a vast audience -- a simple question (which was his big mistake) ...

asking americans :

"DO YOU TRUST THE CIA/FBI,NSA,HOMELAND SECURITY, DNI -- AMERICAN SECURITY INSITUTIONS ?: :

YES OR NO?

the resounding answer -- 80 PERCENT -- NO.

one would wonder who those 20 percent YES are..............maybe those who believe ACCUSATION - REPEAT IT ENOUGH -- TURNS THE ACCUSATION itself into PROOF?

roflmao.

such people need to go back to basic grammar. GEORGE ORWELL THE GREAT WOULD BE HORRIFIED at such misuse of the beautiful english language. ..by such entities as the CIA, FBI, NSA, DNI -- OBAMA AND THEIR FANCY LAWYERS.......AND THE MSM that are their ECHO CHAMBERS OF BAD ENGLISH AND GRAMMAR.

ROFLMAO

 

[teddytennisfan]

Exactly. They publish what they can get their hands on. And most of their stuff has come from leaks.

This is all is just noise to disguise the real issue: the essence of these emails. They are proven to be genuine, so nobody is concerned what was in the emails, but who hacked/leaked them.

THANK YOU Billie!

you just summed it up elegantly.

deflect , draw attention away from the CRIMINALITY of clinton. by shouting about that criminality BEING EXPOSED..and then try to convince people the EXPOSURE ACT is the CRIME...and voila -- they SHIFTED the attention FROM CLINTON'S criminal acts TO the act of exposing her as a CRIMINAL.

THE ONLY PROOF IN FACT IS IN THE E MAILS -- AND HER OWN ACTIONS AS WELL AS HER AIDES LIKE BRAZILE etc..adn those that shredded the machines..and obama , justice department,FBI, CIA, NSA, etc..all of them CIRCLING THE WAGONS like the criminals that they are. all of them.

 

[teddytennisfan]

two popular questions worldwide:

1_) WHY ARE THERE NO COUPS IN THE USA?
"BECAUSE there is no american embassy in washington, dc">

2) WHY DID GOD MAKE RUSSIA SO BIG?
''SO THAT AMERICANS CAN FIND IT ON THE MAP".

===============================================


journal-neo.org
Barack Obama’s World is Collapsing | New Eastern Outlook
Author: Grete Mautner
Looking at Obama’s last days in office one could not help but remember the famous line written by William Shakespeare: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

It seems that only now the Obama administration has gotten hold of the fact that the Democrats have lost the election and they won’t be around in the next four years to boss people around. At the same time, the next administration is not simply planning to adjust the policies that were pursued by Barack Obama, it’s going to radically change them. Against this backdrop, the still sitting US President has changed the approach to his successor so radically that it looks like he’s in a static of panic.

The most striking example is the recent UN Security Council, where the United States, much to everyone’s surprise, failed to veto a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. At this point, a Former Congressman and radio talk show host Joe Walsh said that Barack Obama must be a secret Muslim, since it’s the only reasonable explanation of the unexpected hard stance that Washington has taken on Israel.

However, it didn’t take long for a total of 342 congressmen of the US House of Representatives to rebuke the United Nations for passing a resolution that condemned Israeli settlement construction, a bipartisan slap that also targets the Obama administration. Some Republicans even threatened to introduce a bill that would force Washington to stop financing the UN.

Further still, the position that the Obama administration has taken on the alleged Russia’s inference in the US presidential election was equally unbalanced. After all, even the sitting CIA director, John Brennan in his interview for PBS noted that there’s a real chance that a totally different state was trying to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s curious that all US intelligence agencies have been searching for evidence that a hat a country which has had its economy “being torn to shreds” was able to rig the election in the US day in, day out. Nevertheless, all that they could provide was empty allegations with not a single piece of evidence being provided, which is getting a little old now. Even the fact that US intelligence agencies are spying on pretty much every single political leader in this world, going as far as tapping the cell phones of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, was of little help.

However, the Obama camp is far from being being unanimous. Just the other day Defense Secretary Ash Carter told The Wall Street Journal that Russia has done nothing to help defeat Islamic State forces in Syria. It seems that this “politician” never reads newspapers, while preferring to get all the news and instructions from Barack Obama directly. However, on the next day, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated the complete opposite, noting that Russia and Iran opposed ISIS in their effort to support Damascus and have even achieved significant progress in this domain.

This is not the first time that the State Department and Pentagon provide completely different assessments of certain situations, thereby displaying the chaos that reigns in the Obama administration. It’s curious that it was Syria that became a sort of bone of contention for State Department and Pentagon, since those bodies were eager to demonstrate “their own success”, which resulted in Washington being left with no say whatsoever on the Syrian reconciliation negotiations that are taking place in Astana.

In a bid to somehow sweeten the bitter pill that Barack Obama is about to take, the Department of Defense decided to pull a trick out of the old USSR gamebook by awarding Obama with a medal “Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service”. A stirring ceremony that would definitely be a treat for some crazed Soviet leader was conducted Ashton Carter, General Joseph Dunford, and a number of members of the presidential cabinet. Among the achievements of the sitting US president that were announced at the ceremony one could spot something so utterly delusional as the commitment to modernization of the armed forces and the fight against terrorism.

However, none of those present dared to recall that during Obama’s two terms in office hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance were dropped on the Middle East and Africa, killing thousands of civilians. Last year alone the United States dropped more than 26 thousand tons of bombs on such states as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, says the latest report of the US Council on Foreign Relations,

No one dared to mention the failures of that plagued the most advanced US military projects, like the notoriously bad F-35 and new warships, which fail with a remarkable level of consistency.

Finally, the Pentagon has found its hero to honor, its Nobel Peace Prize to glorify. We now wait for an international court, which will have to uncover the real “achievements” of this “hero”.

Therefore, Obama is more nervous these days than ever, while trying to cover up the traces of his disastrous reign. He hurries to the “pardon” the hostages of the Guantanamo prison before Donald Trump gets inaugurated, sending at least four prisoners to Saudi Arabia, as it’s been noted by the Fox News. It got to the point where experts of the Wikileaks portal publicly announce their fears that the White House is planning erase some of its electronic archives in a bid to evade prosecution.

Yes, Obama’s agony, just like the collapse of the “system” he created, is entering the terminal phase.

Grete Mautner is an indepenent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

9

 

[teddytennisfan]

BY THE WAY -- -


RUSSIA TODAY -- IS VERY GRATEFUL TO THE CIA, USA MAINSTREAM NEWS, CONGRESS, POLITICIANS, US ''national security" Complex, PENTAGON, SOROS, DNC, HILLARY -- OBAMA --

VERY GRATEFUL is what issaid -- and having champagne bottles uncorking (yes they DO drink wine in russia, always have in fact,, and CRIMEA has long had one of the best wine-making traditions before recent events disturbed it - but no matter -- it's on a huge comeback) -

GRATEFUL FOR THE FREE ADVERTISING AND PUTTING RUSSIA TODAY AND SPUTNIK FRONT AND CENTER IN AMERICAN PEOPLE'S CONSCIOUSNESS EVEN MORE THAN IT ALREADY WAS BECOMING FOR PROVIDING REAL NEWS...

u know the news that the AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT NEVER WANTED ANYONE TO KNOW, READ AND SEE AND TALK ABOUT?

u know? ROFLMAO...