RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Donald Trump Is Fulfilling All of Those Obama Conspiracy Theories Print
Tuesday, 17 July 2018 13:20

Bouie writes: "Ever since Donald Trump won the presidency, critics and commentators have played a regular game of What if Obama did that?, in which they contrast conservative outrage with the former president to the complacency toward the current one."

President Obama with Vladimir Putin. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
President Obama with Vladimir Putin. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)


Donald Trump Is Fulfilling All of Those Obama Conspiracy Theories

By Jamelle Bouie, Slate

17 July 18

 

ver since Donald Trump won the presidency, critics and commentators have played a regular game of What if Obama did that?, in which they contrast conservative outrage with the former president to the complacency toward the current one. “If Obama had fired the FBI director who was leading an investigation into his campaign, Republican Party leadership would have accused him of obstructing justice,” wrote Dean Obeidallah for CNN, in one typical example.

The comparison was particularly resonant on Monday, when Trump took to the podium at a press conference in Helsinki. For the better part of his presidency, conservative commentators and provocateurs dogged Barack Obama with accusations of disloyalty and subversion, questioning his commitment to American exceptionalism and accusing him of being a secret agent for foreign powers. But Obama never did anything remotely as damning as Trump’s inexplicable defense of Vladimir Putin on Monday, when the sitting president publicly sided with his Russian counterpart over the findings of American intelligence.

Asked if he held Russia responsible for any part of its deteriorating relationship with the United States, Trump said yes, before disparaging the FBI probe into his campaign and denying “collusion” with the Russian government. Asked about Russian interference in the election, Trump dismissed his own intelligence agencies and deferred to Vladimir Putin. “I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Then he attacked his 2016 opponent and praised Putin’s denial. He called the FBI investigation a “witch hunt” and denounced Peter Strzok, an agent who recently testified, credibly, in front of Congress to refute accusations of political bias.

At no point did Trump criticize Putin for his anti-democratic behavior—from killing journalists, critics, and opposition politicians to raiding the country’s wealth with impunity. At no point did Trump offer even a mild challenge to Putin, deferring to the Russian president at every opportunity. There’s a reason observers were appalled at his performance: President Trump behaved as a supplicant, absolving Russia of any responsibility for the documented attacks on American election infrastructure.

Trump’s performance was shocking enough to make mild-mannered lawmakers like Virginia Sen. Mark Warner furious with indignation. “For the President of the United States to stand next to Vladimir Putin—who personally ordered one of the largest state-sponsored cyber-attacks in our history—and side with Putin over America’s military and intelligence leaders is a breach of his duty to defend our country against its adversaries,” said Warner in a statement.

Compare that with the rabid conspiracy theories that greeted Obama from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who devoted show after show to wide-eyed attacks on the former president. Even mainstream Republican figures, like Kevin Hassett, now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in a 2009 column that Obama was a “Manchurian candidate” giving the United States a “war on business” that could destroy the economy. Norman Podhoretz wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “[a]s a left-wing radical, Mr.
Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs.” There’s also Dinesh D’Souza, recently pardoned by President Trump, who pegged Obama as an “anticolonialist” raging against “Western dominance,” and who sought to undermine the United States from within. Newt Gingrich endorsed this theory; as did David Koch, the conservative billionaire.

Where elites went, voters followed. In 2009, just 17 percent of Republicans said “Obama is a Muslim.” By 2010, it was 31 percent. As late as 2015, 43 percent of Republicans said Obama was a Muslim. An endless number of chain emails accused Obama of actively subverting the country, while a lucrative cottage industry of anti-Obama books and documentaries imagined elaborate conspiracies and detailed the president’s supposed plots against America.

None of this was true, and Obama ended his presidency without incident. Except, of course, for the election of Donald Trump, who has publicly questioned American exceptionalism and given legitimate voices reason to question whether he’s in thrall to a foreign power.

Even before Helsinki, there was Trump’s clear effort to dismantle the Atlantic alliance, his vocal contempt for America’s traditional allies, his solicitousness and praise for dictators and authoritarians, from North Korea to the Philippines, and his undermining of American cybersecurity and indifference to hostile state actions like those from Russia. But for all the investigations into Obama’s supposed scandals, Trump has endured little questioning from much of the Republican Party. Even critics like Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and retiring Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee have chosen not to punish or reprimand the president for his breaches and transgressions. Flake issued a strong statement against Trump’s performance in Helsinki, and it will remain just that, a statement.

The anti-Obama animus had one obvious root: racial resentment. For millions of Americans, a black man in the White House was so upending—so destabilizing to their expectations of what America was—that they responded with primal anger, willing to believe anything about the man who sat in the Oval Office. Donald Trump powered his way to the White House on the strength of that anger, running as the savior of America’s racial status quo, and a promise to turn back that tide.

Many of those Americans surely believed that Obama was a Manchurian candidate of sorts. Now, faced with a president who is eager to please a hostile foreign power, they actively support the effort.

If you’re white, it seems, you really are all right.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7517"><span class="small">Nick Turse, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 17 July 2018 11:54

Turse writes: "Early last month, at a tiny military post near the tumbledown town of Jamaame in Somalia, small arms fire began to ring out as mortar shells crashed down. When the attack was over, one Somali soldier had been wounded - and had that been the extent of the casualties, you undoubtedly would never have heard about it."

An American Special Forces soldier training Nigerien troops during an exercise in April outside Agadez, Niger. (photo: Tara Todras-Whitehill/NYT)
An American Special Forces soldier training Nigerien troops during an exercise in April outside Agadez, Niger. (photo: Tara Todras-Whitehill/NYT)


Commandos Sans Frontières, the Global Growth of US Special Operations Forces

By Nick Turse, TomDispatch

17 July 18

 


[Note for TomDispatch Readers: A small reminder that, for a donation of $100 ($125 if you live outside the U.S.) to this website, signed, personalized copies of former New York Times sports columnist (and TD jock culture correspondent) Robert Lipsyte’s SportsWorld: An American Dreamland are still available. The Nation magazine’s sports columnist Dave Zirin calls that 1975 work, just reissued with a new introduction, Lipsyte’s “underappreciated masterpiece. Ahead of its time in every way. Nothing less than the most important sports book ever written.” Check out our donation page for the details.]

Give them credit. As TomDispatch’s Nick Turse has so vividly reported over the last decade, America’s previously “elite” Special Operations forces -- once small, specially trained units in a large military -- have now essentially become a military in their own right, all 70,000 of them (larger, in fact, than many national armed forces). And they are more or less everywhere, more or less all the time. They aren’t just “elite” forces anymore; they’re America’s secret military, which, as Turse has shown, is increasingly deployed to something startlingly close to all the countries on the planet (aside from a few obvious ones like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea). They are raiding and fighting from Syria to Afghanistan, Somalia to Niger. They are training allied special ops types and other forces across the globe. It’s increasingly hard to think of places where they don’t show up, even, for instance, in a rain-soaked cave that recently trapped 12 Thai soccer players and their coach. And here’s the good news: if a bill sponsored by Congressman Richard Hudson, whose North Carolina district includes Fort Bragg (home of U.S. Army Special Operations Command), passes in Congress, the more America’s special operators deploy in combat-like ways to places that the IRS doesn’t consider war zones (but indeed are), the more likely that they and their families will... yep, get a special tax break for their efforts! (War, what is it good for?)

And they aren’t just “operators” anymore. They’re path-breakers in the “science” of war. As they fight terrorists around the globe, for instance, they’re developing “loitering munitions” in their Maritime Precision Engagement program that will act as “suicide drones” (operated from speedboats). Hey, if ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the rest of that crew have their version of suicide drones -- humans with explosives strapped to them, not to speak of off-the-shelf drones -- why shouldn’t the U.S. military have the technological equivalent? Or what about the “talking paper” for which the special ops group that focuses on “psychological operations” already has a prototype? That paper, somewhat thicker than the usual kind and embedded with micro-circuitry, dropped into the jungles or backlands of the planet, should prove a perfect way to deliver a 30-second recorded message to illiterate enemy troops in some embattled country about how to defect or surrender.

But let Turse take over the story now and, in his latest update on the spread of Washington’s special operators and the wars that seem to accompany them, fill you in on their latest doings on a planet increasingly made for (and by) them.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


 

Commandos Sans Frontières
The Global Growth of U.S. Special Operations Forces

arly last month, at a tiny military post near the tumbledown town of Jamaame in Somalia, small arms fire began to ring out as mortar shells crashed down. When the attack was over, one Somali soldier had been wounded -- and had that been the extent of the casualties, you undoubtedly would never have heard about it.

As it happened, however, American commandos were also operating from that outpost and four of them were wounded, three badly enough to be evacuated for further medical care. Another special operator, Staff Sergeant Alexander Conrad, a member of the U.S. Army’s Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets), was killed.

If the story sounds vaguely familiar -- combat by U.S. commandos in African wars that America is technically not fighting -- it should. Last December, Green Berets operating alongside local forces in Niger killed 11 Islamic State militants in a firefight. Two months earlier, in October, an ambush by an Islamic State terror group in that same country, where few Americans (including members of Congress) even knew U.S. special operators were stationed, left four U.S. soldiers dead -- Green Berets among them. (The military first described that mission as providing “advice and assistance” to local forces, then as a “reconnaissance patrol” as part of a broader “train, advise, and assist” mission, before it was finally exposed as a kill or capture operation.) Last May, a Navy SEAL was killed and two other U.S. personnel were wounded in a raid in Somalia that the Pentagon described as an “advise, assist, and accompany” mission. And a month earlier, a U.S. commando reportedly killed a member of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a brutal militia that has terrorized parts of Central Africa for decades.

And there had been, as the New York Times noted in March, at least 10 other previously unreported attacks on American troops in West Africa between 2015 and 2017. Little wonder since, for at least five years, as Politico recently reported, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and other commandos, operating under a little-understood legal authority known as Section 127e, have been involved in reconnaissance and “direct action” combat raids with African special operators in Somalia, Cameroon, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Tunisia.

None of this should be surprising, since in Africa and across the rest of the planet America’s Special Operations forces (SOF) are regularly engaged in a wide-ranging set of missions including special reconnaissance and small-scale offensive actions, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and security force assistance (that is, organizing, training, equipping, and advising foreign troops). And every day, almost everywhere, U.S. commandos are involved in various kinds of training.

Unless they end in disaster, most missions remain in the shadows, unknown to all but a few Americans. And yet last year alone, U.S. commandos deployed to 149 countries -- about 75% of the nations on the planet. At the halfway mark of this year, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America’s most elite troops have already carried out missions in 133 countries. That’s nearly as many deployments as occurred during the last year of the Obama administration and more than double those of the final days of George W. Bush’s White House.

Going Commando

“USSOCOM plays an integral role in opposing today’s threats to our nation, to protecting the American people, to securing our homeland, and in maintaining favorable regional balances of power,” General Raymond Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, told members of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. “However, as we focus on today’s operations we must be equally focused on required future transformation. SOF must adapt, develop, procure, and field new capabilities in the interest of continuing to be a unique, lethal, and agile part of the Joint Force of tomorrow.”

Special Operations forces have actually been in a state of transformation ever since September 11, 2001. In the years since, they have grown in every possible way -- from their budget to their size, to their pace of operations, to the geographic sweep of their missions. In 2001, for example, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number has now soared to 8,300, according to SOCOM spokesman Ken McGraw. At the same time, the number of “authorized military positions” -- the active-duty troops, reservists, and National Guardsmen that are part of SOCOM -- has jumped from 42,800 in 2001 to 63,500 today. While each of the military service branches -- the so-called parent services -- provides funding, including pay, benefits, and some equipment to their elite forces, “Special Operations-specific funding,” at $3.1 billion in 2001, is now at $12.3 billion. (The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also provide their special operations units with about $8 billion annually.)

All this means that, on any given day, more than 8,000 exceptionally well-equipped and well-funded special operators from a command numbering roughly 70,000 active-duty personnel, reservists, and National Guardsmen as well as civilians are deployed in approximately 90 countries. Most of those troops are Green Berets, Rangers, or other Army Special Operations personnel. According to Lieutenant General Kenneth Tovo, head of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command until his retirement last month, that branch provides more than 51% of all Special Operations forces and accounts for more than 60% of their overseas deployments. On any given day, just the Army’s elite soldiers are operating in around 70 countries.

In February, for instance, Army Rangers carried out several weeks of winter warfare training in Germany, while Green Berets practiced missions involving snowmobiles in Sweden. In April, Green Berets took part in the annual Flintlock multinational Special Operations forces training exercise conducted in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Senegal that involved Nigerien, Burkinabe, Malian, Polish, Spanish, and Portuguese troops, among others.

While most missions involve training, instruction, or war games, Special Forces soldiers are also regularly involved in combat operations across America’s expansive global war zones. A month after Flintlock, for example, Green Berets accompanied local commandos on a nighttime air assault raid in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, during which a senior ISIS operative was reportedly “eliminated.” In May, a post-deployment awards ceremony for members of the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, who had just returned from six months advising and assisting Afghan commandos, offered some indication of the kinds of missions being undertaken in that country. Those Green Berets received more than 60 decorations for valor -- including 20 Bronze Star Medals and four Silver Star Medals (the third-highest military combat decoration).

For its part, the Navy, according to Rear Admiral Tim Szymanski, chief of Naval Special Warfare Command, has about 1,000 SEALs or other personnel deployed to more than 35 countries each day. In February, Naval Special Warfare forces and soldiers from Army Special Operations Aviation Command conducted training aboard a French amphibious assault ship in the Arabian Gulf. That same month, Navy SEALs joined elite U.S. Air Force personnel in training alongside Royal Thai Naval Special Warfare operators during Cobra Gold, an annual exercise in Thailand.

The troops from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, deploy primarily to the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific regions on six-month rotations. At any time, on average, about 400 “Raiders” are engaged in missions across 18 countries.

Air Force Special Operations Command, which fields a force of 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel, conducted 78 joint-training exercises and events with partner nations in 2017, according to Lieutenant General Marshall Webb, chief of Air Force Special Operations Command. In February, for example, Air Force commandos conducted Arctic training -- ski maneuvers and free-fall air operations -- in Sweden, but such training missions are only part of the story. Air Force special operators were, for instance, recently deployed to aid the attempt to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped deep inside a cave in Thailand. The Air Force also has three active duty special operations wings assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command, including the 24th Special Operations Wing, a “special tactics” unit that integrates air and ground forces for “precision-strike” and personnel-recovery missions. At a change of command ceremony in March, it was noted that its personnel had conducted almost 2,900 combat missions over the last two years.

Addition Through Subtraction

For years, U.S. Special Operations forces have been in a state of seemingly unrestrained expansion. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Africa. In 2006, just 1% of all American commandos deployed overseas were operating on that continent. By 2016, that number had jumped above 17%. By then, there were more special operations personnel devoted to Africa -- 1,700 special operators spread out across 20 countries -- than anywhere else except the Middle East.

Recently, however, the New York Times reported that a “sweeping Pentagon review” of special ops missions on that continent may soon result in drastic cuts in the number of commandos operating there. (“We do not comment on what tasks the secretary of defense or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may or may not have given USSOCOM,” spokesman Ken McGraw told me when I inquired about the review.) U.S. Africa Command has apparently been asked to consider what effect cutting commandos there by 25% over 18 months and 50% over three years would have on its counterterrorism missions. In the end, only about 700 elite troops -- roughly the same number as were stationed in Africa in 2014 -- would be left there.

Coming on the heels of the October 2017 debacle in Niger that left those four Americans dead and apparent orders from the commander of United States Special Operations forces in Africa that its commandos “plan missions to stay out of direct combat or do not go,” a number of experts suggested that such a review signaled a reappraisal of military engagement on the continent. The proposed cuts also seemed to fit with the Pentagon’s latest national defense strategy that highlighted a coming shift from a focus on counterterrorism to the threats of near-peer competitors like Russia and China. “We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists,” said Secretary of Defense James Mattis in January, “but great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”

A wide range of analysts questioned or criticized the proposed troop reduction. Mu Xiaoming, from China’s National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army, likened such a reduction in elite U.S. forces to the Obama administration’s drawdown of troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and noted the possibility of “terrorism making a comeback in Africa.” A former chief of U.S. commandos on the continent, Donald Bolduc, unsurprisingly echoed these same fears. “Without the presence that we have there now,” he told Voice of America, “we're just going to increase the effectiveness of the violent extremist organizations over time and we are going to lose trust and credibility in this area and destabilize it even further.” David Meijer, a security analyst based in Amsterdam, lamented that, as Africa was growing in geostrategic importance and China is strengthening its ties there, “it’s ironic that Washington is set to reduce its already minimal engagement on the continent.”

This is hardly a foregone conclusion, however. For years, members of SOCOM, as well as supporters in Congress, at think tanks, and elsewhere, have been loudly complaining about the soaring operations tempo for America’s elite troops and the resulting strains on them. “Most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit,” General Thomas, the SOCOM chief, told members of Congress last spring. “Despite growing demand for SOF, we must prioritize the sourcing of these demands as we face a rapidly changing security environment.” Given how much clout SOCOM wields, such incessant gripes were certain to lead to changes in policy.

Last year, in fact, Secretary of Defense Mattis noted that the lines between U.S. Special Operations forces and conventional troops were blurring and that the latter would likely be taking on missions previously shouldered by the commandos, particularly in Africa. “So the general purpose forces can do a lot of the kind of work that you see going on and, in fact, are now,” he said. “By and large, for example in Trans-Sahel [in northwest Africa], many of those forces down there supporting the French-led effort are not Special Forces. So we'll continue to expand the general purpose forces where it's appropriate. I would… anticipate more use of them.”

Earlier this year, Owen West, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, referred to Mattis’s comments while telling members of the House Armed Services Committee about the “need to look at the line that separates conventional operating forces from SOF and seek to take greater advantage of the ‘common capabilities’ of our exceptional conventional forces.” He particularly highlighted the Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigades, recently created to conduct advise-and-assist missions. This spring, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that one of those units be dedicated to Africa.

Substituting forces in this way is precisely what Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, an Iraq War veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, has also been advocating. Late last year, in fact, her press secretary, Leigh Claffey, told TomDispatch that the senator believed “instead of such heavy reliance on Special Forces, we should also be engaging our conventional forces to take over missions when appropriate, as well as turning over operations to capable indigenous forces.” Chances are that U.S. commandos will continue carrying out their shadowy Section 127e raids alongside local forces across the African continent while leaving more conventional training and advising tasks to rank-and-file troops. In other words, the number of commandos in Africa may be cut, but the total number of American troops may not -- with covert combat operations possibly continuing at the present pace.

If anything, U.S. Special Operations forces are likely to expand, not contract, next year. SOCOM’s 2019 budget request calls for adding about 1,000 personnel to what would then be a force of 71,000. In April, at a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities chaired by Ernst, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that SOCOM was on track to “grow by approximately 2,000 personnel” in the coming years. The command is also poised to make 2018 another historic year in global reach. If Washington’s special operators deploy to just 17 more countries by the end of the fiscal year, they will exceed last year’s record-breaking total.

“USSOCOM continues to recruit, assess, and select the very best. We then train and empower our teammates to solve the most daunting national security problems,” SOCOM commander General Thomas told the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities earlier this year. Why Green Berets and Navy SEALs need to solve national security problems -- strategic issues that ought to be addressed by policymakers -- is a question that has long gone unanswered. It may be one of the reasons why, since Green Berets “liberated” Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has been involved in combat there and, as the years have passed, a plethora of other forever-war fronts including Cameroon, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.

“The creativity, initiative and spirit of the people who comprise the Special Operations Force cannot be overstated. They are our greatest asset,” said Thomas. And it’s likely that such assets will grow in 2019.



e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: At the Trumputin Mob Summit, Fredo Kisses Much More Than Don Corleone's Ring Print
Tuesday, 17 July 2018 10:51

Wasserman writes: "The Manchurian Money-Launderer has just kissed every inch of his mafia don's anatomy."

Trump greets Putin with a shake of the hand. (photo: NBC News)
Trump greets Putin with a shake of the hand. (photo: NBC News)


At the Trumputin Mob Summit,
Fredo Kisses Much More Than Don Corleone's Ring

By Harvey "Sluggo" Wasserman, Reader Supported News

17 July 18

 

he Manchurian Money-Launderer has just kissed every inch of his mafia don’s anatomy.

The Donald has been washing Russia’s mob cash since the 1980s. The constant stream of ruble injections has funded his many bankruptcies.

In 2016, GOP election thieves like Kris Kobach, Jon Husted, Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott (state secretaries of Kansas and Ohio, governors of Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida) and so many more turned Trump’s 3-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton into a victory for the Russian mob and America’s corporate 0.01%. They’re set to do it again in 2018 and 2020.

The brutal, ruthless Putin is orders of magnitude more savvy and capable than the orange American. Globally, he is the mob boss Don Corleone, lording it over his addled son Fredo.

Amidst Trump’s Helsinki rant storm against US intelligence, Putin admitted he favored Trump in the 2016 election.

In light of Trump’s invitation to hack the Democrats, Putin magnanimously hinted he might allow American legal representatives to listen in while his KGB consiglieres “question” operatives indicted by Robert Mueller for doing what Trump asked them to do.

Trump’s Helsinki treason raises two questions: Will it wobble his base? Will the brain-dead Corporate Democrats get out of the way?

Nationwide, Trump continues to maintain poll support between 35% and 45%.

But at the top, the right-wing response borders on the astonishing. The spectacle of an American president trashing US intelligence agencies in the presence of a foreign dictator was too much for many of even the most loyal.

Former far-right Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, now a radio shock jock, said: “Trump was a traitor to this country today.” Donald “made it clear” he favors Russia over the US. “What you saw was ‘collusion’ on the world stage.”

Trump was guilty of “high crimes & misdemeanors,” tweeted former CIA chief John O. Brennan in a call to “Republican Patriots.” Donald’s remarks were “imbecilic” and “nothing short of treasonous.”

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called Trump’s performance “the most serious mistake of his presidency.”

Arizona Republican John McCain added: “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse said every senator “should be disgusted by what happened in Helsinki today.”

Lame duck House speaker Paul Ryan, the Ayn Rand cultist who would kill Social Security and Medicare, said, “there is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world.”

But will all that uproar shake Trump’s fascist grassroots/corporatist support? The New York Times reports he’s already raised $88 million for a 2020 re-election campaign. His ceaseless outrages seem to bounce off the armor of an iron-clad constituency. Having “joked” he could kill someone in public and not drop in the polls, he now seems set to prove the same thing about stabbing the whole country in the back.

On the left, the Times ran a rare full-banner page one headline: “Trump, at Putin’s Side, Questions U.S. Intelligence on 2016 Election.”

Liberal columnist Charles Blow wrote, “Trump is a traitor.”

Even the milquetoasty columnist Thomas L. Friedman accused Trump of “treasonous behavior.”

More importantly, a recent open letter in The Nation, signed by an all-star cast of progressive notables, rightly warns against increased hostility between Russia and the US. Had Helsinki been a meet-up between Putin and Hillary Clinton, we might well be on the brink of nuclear war.

But the Putin-Trump mafioso bromance is less about geopolitical rivalries than the foreign ownership of an incompetent interloper by a master manipulator, and the overall vulnerability of our rickety, corrupted electoral system, no matter who is on the attack.

Predictably, the Corporate Democrat money machine has seized on the image of a wig-wearing Benedict Arnold trashing US intelligence in the presence of a foreign dictator. The endless flow of outraged fundraising emails now features this latest Trump infamy.

But the party itself remains as visionless as ever. It’s yet to endorse Medicare for All, a real push to end poverty, a moratorium on student loan payments, a genuine effort to regulate Wall Street, an end to Empire, real resistance to the Koch/Putin fossil/nuke juggernaut, a Solartopian vision for a green-powered earth, a genuine attempt to protect our elections from being stripped and flipped by domestic operatives, or much of anything else.

The NY Congressional victory of 28-year-old democratic socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has sent shockwaves through the party elite. Progressive California Assembly president Kevin de León has just won the state party’s endorsement for US Senate over the corporatist incumbent Diane Feinstein. Feinstein won the recent primary and has a huge financial advantage. But a de León victory has become more of a possibility.

There’s much more. The Progressive left has never stopped resisting Trump, and this latest treason can only deepen the effort.

Ultimately, it won’t be enough to merely show how terrible this mafia underling really is. It also will take an alternative vision, which the Corporate Democrats seem incapable of presenting.

The likes of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Diane Feinstein need to step aside if we are ever to be rid of Trump, Putin, and their fascist Russo-American mob.



Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman’s Life & Death Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to the Trumpocalypse will soon be at www.solartopia.org. His California Solartopia is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica 90.7 FM Los Angeles; Green Power & Wellness is podcast at prn.fm.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump, Treasonous Traitor Print
Tuesday, 17 July 2018 08:28

Blow writes: "Put aside whatever suspicions you may have about whether Donald Trump will be directly implicated in the Russia investigation. Trump is right now, before our eyes and those of the world, committing an unbelievable and unforgivable crime against this country."

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. (photo: Reuters)
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. (photo: Reuters)


Trump, Treasonous Traitor

By Charles M. Blow, The New York Times

17 July 18


The president fails to protect the country from an ongoing attack.

ut aside whatever suspicions you may have about whether Donald Trump will be directly implicated in the Russia investigation.

Trump is right now, before our eyes and those of the world, committing an unbelievable and unforgivable crime against this country. It is his failure to defend.

The intelligence community long ago concluded that Russia attacked our election in 2016 with the express intention of damaging Hillary Clinton and assisting Trump.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Triumph of Nothing Over Everyone Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46742"><span class="small">Masha Gessen, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 16 July 2018 13:12

Gessen writes: "Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are about to hold a meeting that will reflect their shared understanding of power: the triumph of nothing over everyone."

The Trump-Putin summit, a meeting without an agenda, is the latest example of the ultimate innovation of the Trump Presidency: the deliberately empty gesture. (photo: Jorge Silva/AP)
The Trump-Putin summit, a meeting without an agenda, is the latest example of the ultimate innovation of the Trump Presidency: the deliberately empty gesture. (photo: Jorge Silva/AP)


Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Triumph of Nothing Over Everyone

By Masha Gessen, The New Yorker

16 July 18

 

onald Trump and Vladimir Putin are about to hold a meeting that will reflect their shared understanding of power: the triumph of nothing over everyone. American journalists have been trying to guess what the two Presidents might discuss when they meet in Helsinki on Monday. The special counsel Robert Mueller apparently tried to create a topic they would not be able to avoid, by announcing the indictment of twelve Russian military-intelligence officers on Friday for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. election.

The Russian media barely acknowledged the indictments but mostly continued to report on the bare facts of the meeting: it may last three hours; there will be a press conference; the two Presidents will answer four questions; the Russian President’s limousine has been delivered to Helsinki, and it is a new model. In other words, in Russia, the only thing that matters about the summit is the bare fact of it. It is the hollow power gesture taken to its world-stage extreme.

The deliberately empty gesture is the ultimate innovation of the Trump Presidency. Beginning with his transition-era announcement of saving American jobs at a Carrier plant—an accomplishment of no consequence for the country as a whole and little, if any, consequence for many Carrier employees—Trump has trafficked in hollow symbols. Each gesture is designed to affirm his image as a dealmaker, even though the deals are devoid of substance at best and costly at worst. In this context, the Trump-Putin summit, a meeting without an agenda, appears entirely logical.

For his part, Putin has spent nearly two decades hollowing out Russian politics, media, and public language. His system rests on rituals devoid of content: elections in which voters have no meaningful choice, court and administrative procedures whose outcomes are preordained, and media that speak with a single, vacant voice. For the last several weeks, these media have been trumpeting the looming summit.

Kremlin-dominated media—which is to say, nearly all media—have published pieces aimed at discouraging overly enthusiastic summit expectations. Although Trump has suggested that he is open to recognizing the Russian occupation of Crimea, Russian analysts have warned compatriots against expecting that Helsinki would lead to the recognition of Russian expansion or to the lifting of sanctions against Russia. For Putin, the summit itself is a triumph—filling it with content would be unnecessary and possibly even undesirable.

Putin’s power and legitimacy in Russia rest on two pillars: mobilization at home and perceived fear abroad. Russians see themselves fighting two wars against the United States–one in Ukraine and one in Syria. The ongoing economic pressure exerted by sanctions serves as a constant reminder that Russians need to stick together in the face of a powerful enemy. That Putin has been able to bring the enemy to the negotiating table testifies to the Russian President’s fearsome power.

For Putin, less discussion in Helsinki is more. His power will be manifested in things not discussed: Russian interference in the election, which Trump is clearly loath to bring up, and human-rights issues that an American leader would traditionally broach at such a meeting. A political prisoner, the Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov, who is serving a twenty-year sentence in a Russian prison colony on trumped-up terrorism charges, is in the second month of his hunger strike. He is trying to draw attention to the fate of more than sixty other Ukrainian political prisoners held in Russia. American and international human-rights activists have been waging a hopeless fight to get the issue on the summit agenda—or on the White House radar at all.

The mere fact of the meeting, followed by a joint press conference with the American President, will be a demonstration of power for Putin. He needs to deliver nothing else. If, however, he is also able to nudge Trump toward a verbal acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Russia’s interests in its old sphere of influence—something that Putin will almost certainly bring up in conversation, making Trump likely to parrot an attitude he instinctively understands—Russians will perceive it as Putin restoring Russia’s superpower status. Putin may also suggest a deal whereby the United States pulls out of Syria. Being able to make such an announcement would make Trump feel like the dealmaker he longs to be. To Russians, it would look like they had won the war. If any deal happens, though, it will be merely an accidental substantive bonus attached to a performance designed to be empty.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 Next > End >>

Page 1192 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN