Special Offer for Addicted to Profits ends tonight. To grab it now click here.

Feed aggregator

Video: Inflation Bubbling Under the Surface…?

TheDailyGold - Tue, 09/20/2016 - 15:44

In this video we look at the CPI and the strength in the core CPI and sticky CPI. A rise in commodity prices could push inflation up to 3-4%. 

The post Video: Inflation Bubbling Under the Surface…? appeared first on The Daily Gold.

Interview with Joe Mazumdar at Precious Metals Summit

TheDailyGold - Sat, 09/17/2016 - 18:21

Joe Mazumdar, the co-editor of Brent Cook’s Exploration Insights newsletter, joins us at the Precious Metals Summit in Beaver Creek to share his current thoughts on the junior sector.

The post Interview with Joe Mazumdar at Precious Metals Summit appeared first on The Daily Gold.

This Day in Wikileaks – Understanding Julian Assange and the US Media

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 09/12/2016 - 15:22

Computer programmer and activist Julian Assange created WikiLeaks in 2006, but he did not begin to receive media attention until December 2007, when he posted the US Army manual detailing the preferred treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The next year, WikiLeaks garnered further press coverage when it published Church of Scientology documents, e-mails from Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account and a list of name and addresses of the members of the British National party.

Reaching a whole new level, Assange awoke the wrath of the United States government on April 5, 2010, when the 2007 video of a US Apache helicopter shooting and killing two Reuters’ journalists and nearly a dozen Iraqi citizens streamed on WikiLeaks. This started a chain reaction when the U.S. military detained Pfc. Bradley Manning and accused him of leaking the video and thousands of other classified State Department records. On July 6, official charges were filed against Manning, and over the next year, WikiLeaks released nearly 1,000,000 classified state department documents. These included the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, more information on Guantanamo Bay, and thousands of unredacted U.S. diplomatic and State Department cables.

Here is Julian Assange giving a Ted Talk.

Now almost immediately, WikiLeaks created a quandary for U.S. Media outlets. Both Republicans and Democrats furiously condemned Assange and Manning. Then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (D), specified that these disclosures were an act of terrorism that was “not just an attack on America’s foreign policy.” It was “an attack on the international community.” Representative Peter King (R), the inbound chairperson of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that WikiLeaks presented “a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States,” and it met “the legal criteria” of a terrorist organization. John Kerry (D), Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairperson, alleged that WikiLeaks’ “reckless” actions jeopardized “lives by exposing raw, contemporaneous intelligence.” Moreover, Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said he agreed “with the Pentagon’s assessment that the people at WikiLeaks could have blood on their hands.”

The reaction and coverage of WikiLeaks by the United States media varied tremendously, and support or opposition depended on the presupposed answers to three specific questions. The first was whether or not Assange was a journalist, and if he should be treated as one? The second was whether WikiLeaks’ actions was irresponsible and caused harm to individuals? The third had to do with Assange’s underlying motives behind the actions of WikiLeaks. This article will examine each of these questions in detail.

Is Julian Assange a Journalist?

Those in support of WikiLeaks claimed that that the mainstream media had not been doing its job of challenging the abuses of power. The news was no longer a “loss leader” for networks, and 90% of American media were owned by six mega-corporations in an iron triangle of corruption that formed a key component of a system of political system of inverted totalitarianism. This is why, under the pretext of national security, the U.S. government denounced Assange and attempted to restrain his activities.

Julian Assange contended that WikiLeaks was a journalistic organization and deserved the same protection and respect given to others. Toward that end, the WikiLeaks about us page contains a list of its journalism awards, and in a 2011 60 Minutes interview Assange claimed to be “acting in the spirit of America’s founding fathers.” He operated WikiLeaks “like any other publisher” who exposes government wrongdoing.

Assange claimed he was a traditional journalist of “the fourth estate,” and his aim was to check the power and abuses of the state. He argued that “transparency should be proportional to the power that one has,” and “the more power one has, the greater the dangers generated by that power, and the more need for transparency.”

Further, WikiLeaks supporters agreed with social theorist Jürgen Habermas who taught that the strength of a democracy was directly related to the strength of the public sphere. In today’s world, this was no longer limited to newspapers and town halls. The Internet was the new public sphere, and it should be utilized to further democracy and to promote open communication. Moreover, traditional media sources were now bought and paid for by the same corporations that controlled politicians with a close connection to the Washington DC bureaucracy. They no longer had the incentive to uncover state secrets and corruption as they did by releasing the Pentagon Papers (1971), or in the coverage of Watergate (1972 – 1976).

Are Comparisons of WikiLeaks to the Pentagon Papers and Watergate Applicable?

Writing for CBS News, David Martin said people often ask him about how WikiLeaks compares to the release of the Pentagon Papers. Therefore, he e-mailed Sanford Ungar, who covered the Pentagon Papers for The Washington Post and asked him to comment. Ungar acknowledged the similarities, but said the primary difference was that WikiLeaks had not produced any actual “news.” The Pentagon Papers “took the blinders off” and revealed the U.S. government had been misleading the American people, WikiLeaks only revealed the day-to-day operations of the war in Afghanistan. It did not “radically alter our understanding of the war.”

Similarly, Steven Aftergood, Director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, implied that WikiLeaks was not reporting anything. It was merely posting data. He added, “the fact that something is written down and even classified does not make it necessarily interesting or true. Documents can mislead as well as inform.”

Correspondingly, both Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post Watergate reporters, both commented on WikiLeaks. Speaking at University of Connecticut School of Law, Woodward alleged that the WikiLeaks information was interesting “but not necessarily earth-shattering.” The information was “important, but it’s not going to go down in the history books.” It is simply, “background music.” Woodward said the real story was that someone with a clearance as low as Manning had access to this abundance of information. Further, Woodward commented that real reporting needs to “peel the onion to get at what happened.”

Going one step further, Carl Bernstein commented that “real reporting” was difficult. It is “about the best attainable version of the truth.” Respectable journalism is possible, but “it’s about talking to a lot of people,” and “getting sources.” The problem today is that too few news organizations are willing to spend the money necessary to do it. On top of that, “too many people are not interested in the best attainable version of the truth. They’re really interested in information that will buttress what they already believe. Ammunition for their political beliefs that they already hold.” He said that WikiLeaks had “done some very useful things,” but it was also “reckless at times by putting information out without trying to protect individuals who work in intelligence.”

Has WikiLeaks Caused Death or Harm to Any Individuals?

According to the Pentagon’s review of Bradly Manning’s leaked material, “no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.” However, in an open letter to Julian Assange, Reporters Without Borders claimed that the WikiLeaks article “Afghan War Diary 2004 – 2010” disclosed “the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.”This jeopardized these people’s lives. Additionally, they alleged that there was “a real problem” with the “methodology” and “credibility” of WikiLeaks, and it should be “subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.”

Additional charges of harm stemmed from the outrage caused by the release of the so-called “Erdogan Emails.” These 294,548 emails were searchable and contained the home addresses and phone numbers of politically active Turkish women voters. According to University of North Carolina professor Zeynep Tufekci, this info dump was a “potential danger to millions of ordinary, innocent people, especially millions of women in Turkey.”

Ironically, it appeared that Assange fueled a fire of backlash against the freedom of information. Pro-government forces used WikiLeaks’ actions to argue for a less open Internet. This alone causes several to question the actual motives behind Assange’s actions.

What Are the Motives Behind Julian Assange’s Actions?

CNN’s Kaj Larsen points out that Assange has not written a “definitive manifesto,” and there is no doubt that WikiLeaks is a “shifting organization” that is “inextricably linked” to its “enigmatic leader.” Larsen says that Assange uses information as a “tactical weapon,” and his “strategic objective” is to redistribute power. WikiLeaks has already received credit for political changes in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, and one has to wonder who may be his next targets?

In an interview with Spiegel, Michael Sontheimer asked Assange if transparency was enough to obtain his goal of justice? Assange responded that he did not like the word transparency. “Cold dead glass is transparent,” and he preferred “education or understanding, which are more human.” Sontheimer remarked that it appeared the work of WikiLeaks had changed. Previously it only published private documents, but now it attempted to provide context for them. Assange argued that nothing had changed.

Former WikiLeaks employee, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who is writing a “tell-all” book about Assange, says that WikiLeaks is becoming more and more autocratic, and Assange’s distrust of his colleagues has threatened the organization’s mission. He says that Assange is “not living up to his own standards.” This causes one to ponder whether so much power should be in the hands of one man? Since WikiLeaks relies on anonymous submissions, should someone vet these sources? Should a team be in place to determine if certain documents are untruthful or forgeries?

The Federalist’s Tom Nichols claims that Assange is “not a freedom fighter.” Instead, he is a “Russian Front-Man.” The dissemination of secret documents has “nothing to do with democracy and transparency, and everything to do with the sordid underworld of international espionage.” Nichols says WikiLeaks has become “a functional subsidiary of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence services.” However, according to the New York Times, there are no “direct ties” with WikiLeaks to the Kremlin, but their agendas sometimes dovetail.

Nevertheless, exacerbating the speculation of Russia’s involvement with WikiLeaks, recent reports claim that the Russian government hacked the computer system of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Indicating political espionage, these hackers apparently only targeted the “internal communications and opposition research” of the DNC and not the “personal and financial information on donors.”

All of this caused Wired to claim that “WikiLeaks has officially lost the moral high ground.” The fact that the DNC documents appeared on WikiLeaks strongly suggest collusion with the Russian government and its own military-industrial complex. The article’s author, Emma Grey Ellis, wrote that it seems apparent that “a foreign government is trying to influence the US presidential election.” Ellis quotes University of Florida’s Levin College of Law’s Mark Fenster, as saying “WikiLeaks’ initial self-presentation was as merely a conduit, simply neutral, like any technology.” However, “the ideal of WikiLeaks as an information conduit that is stateless and can serve as a neutral technology isn’t working. States fight back.” To keep the “moral high ground,” WikiLeaks has to be “an honest conduit” of information, and right now its reputation is damaged.

Now, Assange promises that WikiLeaks has a lot more material that will come out soon and that it would “add further controversy” to the 2016 Presidential election. Assange refuses to confirm or deny whether Russia was the source of WikiLeaks’ information. Instead, he claims that the Clinton campaign is attempting to sway “the public’s attention on the ‘Russian trail’ as a means to avoid addressing” their plot “against Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.” Nonetheless, “the FBI suspects that Russian government hackers breached the networks” of the DNC “to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.”

Finally, regardless of Trump’s continued praise of Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin’s Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia did not hack the DNC and that this accusation is “absurd.” Nevertheless, fueling this possible conspiracy, Roger Stone, the provocative political consultant of the Trump campaign, says that he has been in communication with Assange and that WikiLeaks’ “October surprise” for the Clinton campaign could be one of any number of things. Perhaps the contents of these revelations will shed more light upon Assange’s actual journalistic ambitions.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Leading Progressives See Hillary Clinton as a Tool of Empire and Corruption

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 09/05/2016 - 08:36

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State pushed for the worst policies that turned into total disasters. She was always in the lead pushing for interventions that simply created more and more misery.

This is explained in this video by activist Abby Martin she did after putting together a documentary about Clinton’s corruption.

Now Clinton says she is a progressive for the people. “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive that likes to get things done.” So said Hillary Clinton to Anderson Cooper at a CNN Democratic debate in late 2015, as Sam Levine wrote in The Huffington Post. She paints herself as a ‘progressive,’ only to make a statement that implies that, for the most part, progressives don’t actually get things done. Otherwise, why make the distinction? They’re words stupefying in their arrogance, and could only be said by a woman whose progressive credentials are nothing more than tokenism. And that’s the problem with Hillary Clinton – she’s about as progressive as Donald Trump is quiet and unassuming.

There is no denying it: Hillary Clinton’s track record on war and militaristic interventionism has been stoic enough to make a moderate Republican blush. Jeffrey Sachs, a noted progressive Columbia University economics professor, encapsulates the ‘Hillary Doctrine’ best by saying that, “There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA”.

Bill Scher wrote in Politico how, “Clinton’s 2002 vote in the Senate to authorize an invasion of Iraq was the first big crack in her bond with the Democratic base” . By 2003, Hillary was a staunch supporter of that war in (read: invasion of) Iraq, which even at that time many progressives viewed as a sham war that was in blatant contravention of international law. As Sachs wrote in The Huffington Post that, “Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history”. He continues by saying that, “Hilary [sic] was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria” .

Many leftwing liberals/progressives are in agreement: Hillary Clinton is a warmonger funded by defense contractors who is tool of the power elite. Paul Craig Roberts wrote in Counterpunch about how outspoken progressive, Glenn Greenwald, has accused Clinton of being “the presidential candidate of the banksters and warmongers” . In a podcast on Infowars Margaret Howell and Lee Ann Mcadoo stated how, ‘“If you are big on foreign wars, arming our enemies against us, or arming our enemies against each other, Hillary Clinton is your candidate for president”. That’s pretty damning stuff from some very respected progressive voices. Sachs is resoundingly unforgiving of her when he states that, “Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger”.

Too much of Clinton’s foreign policy is cause for concern for many progressives. Roberts warns how she forms an integral part of the Washington establishment and national security state bureaucracy that is hell-bent on targeting countries like Russia and China as potential enemies and ‘threats’ to American security. This is madness. These are hugely influential and powerful countries with strong military capabilities and, heaven help us all, formidable nuclear arsenals. What lunatic game of brinkmanship is this, and why are so many supposed liberals and her fervent supporters so willing to look the other way? Roberts has said how, “The hardening anti-Russian rhetoric issuing from Washington and its punk EU puppet states places the world on the road to extinction” . For Roberts, this is how bad she is: “Hillary as president would mean war with Russia. With neocon nazis such as Robert Kagan and Max Boot running her war policy and with Hillary’s comparison of Russia’s president Putin to Adolf Hitler, war would be a certainty” . And Hillary Clinton is head cheerleader for all this infantile, positively dangerous pro-war, neocon posturing. She and her campaign team have even gone into overdrive about Donald Trump’s supposed links to Russia and Vladimir Putin himself. It has been strongly suggested by the Clinton camp that Trump’s campaign has been financed and even influenced by Moscow. To what end, Hillary?

Naomi Klein, an acclaimed author and social activist with impeccable progressive credentials, points out that a Clinton win would be very bad news for America’s commitment to combating climate change. For Klein, it’s all about the enormous conflicts of interest that will almost certainly impede (not to mention heavily influence) Clinton and her actions on climate change. As Klein observes, “one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country. Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the (Clinton) foundation” . As Klein rightly notes, “taking on powerful corporations goes against (Hillary’s) entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology.” She is at the top of the system of inverted totalitarianism representing the iron triangle marriage of corporations, political leaders, and officialdom.

It is interesting to note that there has been a vicious and acrimonious split during this presidential cycle between those progressives and left-wing liberals who support a vote for Clinton and those who do not. Andy Smolski lambastes the likes of Noam Chomsky for stating that progressives must vote for Clinton, even if they hate her, if only to keep Trump out of power. He states how, “Hillary Clinton is a living refutation of the logic of lesser-evilism, since her candidacy as the most rightwing Democratic nominee since Harry “A Bomb” Truman is the inevitable consequence of decades of lesser-evil voting”. When Chomsky, a quasi-patron saint for progressive intellectualism, gets attacked for essentially being a sellout, then you know that Clinton is highly divisive amongst progressives. Agitprop filmmaker and author Michael Moore has admitted that he will vote for Clinton, even though he vowed never to vote for her again after she voted in favour of the war in Iraq – and he’ll only do so to make sure Trump doesn’t get in . It’s exactly this logic of compromise that unnerves many fellow progressives.

There is a saying to the effect that one should judge others by the friends they keep. That may be a tall order in a world as duplicitous and often morally bankrupt as politics, and one in which compromise and the strangest of bedfellows are often the norm. But there is truth to this when one notes the people who’ve seen fit to gravitate to the Clinton campaign in recent weeks. These are proven warmongers who are the very antithesis of progressive beliefs and politics and yet they have openly and happily endorsed Hillary Clinton. As Howell and Mcadoo wrily note, “Neocons, like Iraq War architect under George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, announced he is a Hillary Clinton supporter. Wolfowitz joins a chorus of neoconservatives who have offered Clinton their endorsement” . Political expediency by Washington D.C. insiders in light of the ‘threat’ that is a Donald Trump presidency? Or the comfort and knowledge by an elitist neoconservative establishment that the endorsement of Clinton is the endorsing of one of their own? This writer will pick the latter as the far more likely.

Jodi Jacobson wrote how, “The selection of [Tim] Kaine would be the first signal that Clinton intends to seek progressive votes but ignore progressive values and goals…Clinton will signal that she values progressives in name and vote only”. And we all know who she picked as her VP choice. That’s how much she cares about progressives. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist of note. And we need to stop with the cliché that she’s a highly intelligent woman. No, she’s not. Her disastrous foreign policy stances to date make that very clear. She genuflects to the highest bidder and she knows how to play the establishment game. Her recent excuses regarding her laxity with top security e-mails are laughable and make a fool of her, not us. Brilliant she is not. As Napoleon Bonaparte himself said, “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap”. Everyone needs to remember that.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who has had a front row seat to the unmitigated disaster of Iraq, the quagmire that Afghanistan continues to be and the failed state that is post-Qaddafi Libya. Yet she remains resolutely a hawk through and through. She continues to support the ongoing fiasco that is regime change for Syria, and she delights in being openly confrontational with Russia. How could any progressive or true liberal be comfortable in supporting such a dangerously hawkish neocon-in-disguise, even if by means of tired, weak compromise?

Here is the fully Abby Martin documentary.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Key Events in the Development of the Military-Industrial Complex – The WakeUpCall Podcast with with Mike Swanson (08/11/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Thu, 08/11/2016 - 01:06

I did this interview on the www.wakeupcallpodcast.com about my book The War State.

For the show notes for this interview go here.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

The Ochelli Effect w/JP Sottile on the Fallacy of Bringing Back Jobs From China

Newsvandal.com - Wed, 08/10/2016 - 15:05
On August 9, Ochelli & Sottile unpacked the long-term, irreversible decline of the US manufacturing economy and Trump’s fallacious promise to “bring back” jobs from China. JP explains why Trump’s retrograde economic plan will not revive an economy long based on debt, financialization and military Keynesianism. LISTEN HERE to the SECOND HOUR (JP BEGINS at... 0

The Story of Richard Case Nagell – JFK Assassination – 50 Reasons For 50 years – Episode 07 – Mike Swanson (08/09/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Tue, 08/09/2016 - 01:01

This is episode seven in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.

In this episode researcher Richard Russell, and author of The Man Who Knew Too Much: Hired to Kill Oswald and Prevent the Assassination of JFK talks about the story of Richard Case Nagell.

Richard Case Nagell who walked into a bank and got arrested for bank robbery weeks before the assassination with direct information on his hands with links to Oswald

The story is not in the WC.

I will post an episode every Tuesday.

There is something new always happening in the JFK case. Jefferson Morley just released a new book a few days ago detailing several CIA people who knew of Oswald BEFORE the assassination took place. To find out more about this book and see an interview he did about it go here.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Is Donald Trump a Savior or a Fascist? – Mike Swanson (08/08/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 08/08/2016 - 08:29

Can Donald Trump save the nation or is he a bad guy fascist?

That was basically the question debated at this event at FreedomFest in July at Las Vegas.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

The Neocon Project for a New Democratic Party

Newsvandal.com - Sun, 08/07/2016 - 21:56
What’s a Neocon to do? Bill Kristol is downright despondent after his failed search for an alternative to Donald Trump. Max Boot is indignant about his “stupid” party’s willingness to ride a bragging bull into a delicate China policy shop. And the leading light of the first family of military interventionism — Robert Kagan —... 0

The Ochelli Effect w/JP Sottile on the Corrosive Cognitive Dissonance of the 2016 Campaign

Newsvandal.com - Wed, 08/03/2016 - 14:58
On August 2, Ochelli & Sottile delved into the cognitive dissonance and counter-messaging now turning the 2016 Presidential campaign into a matrix of confusion and compliance. At issue is whether or not Trump’s candidacy has become a Hindenburg of conspiracy conflation that, when it explodes, will take important truths down with it. LISTEN HERE (JP... 0

Neocons Flock to Clinton as War Hawk – Mike Swanson (08/01/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 08/01/2016 - 07:50

It’s a fact that the biggest proponents for an aggressive interventionist nation building US foreign policy and lobbyists for the defense contractors are flocking to Hillary Clinton. This fact alone doesn’t make Donald Trump a great candidate, but it does make Clinton a disturbing one, because these policies only bring death, disaster, and chaos.

In this interview on the Scott Horton show James Carden, a contributing writer for The Nation and former advisor on Russia at the US State Department, discusses Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team of neocons and liberal hawks that is shaping up to be the most belligerent in a generation; and the “reverse domino theory” currently in vogue that advocates regime-changing Georgia and Ukraine to foment a Russian revolution against Putin.

To listen to this mp3 go here.

To read Carden’s article on Consortiumnews.com go here: The Fear of Hillary’s Foreign Policy.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Hillary Clinton’s DNC Convention Speech for Campaign 2016 – Mike Swanson (07/29/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Fri, 07/29/2016 - 09:38

How we have grown up loving our TV propaganda. The actual content of what is said is vapid and meaningless and as citizens of two TV parties funded by corporations our job is to sit, pick from one of two choices given to us by the money masters, and comment on Facebook about the quality of the show, but the show is so wonderful. Just watch the first 3 minutes to get the wonder feeling. The words said afterwards are mostly boring and meaningless and after 10 minutes the show is no longer fun to watch and gets boring. And then after 30 minutes its all one sentence yelling. I guess she learned that from watching George Bush.

Categories: The War State

The Ochelli Effect w/JP Sottile on the Showmanship Showdown Between Republicans and Democrats

Newsvandal.com - Wed, 07/27/2016 - 11:39
On July 26, Ochelli & Sottile compared the WWE-style convention staged by showman Trump with the Daytime Drama theater directed by the Clinton political machine. Plus, the prescience of Ross Perot in 1992. LISTEN HERE (JP begins at 1:00:00). And tune-in every week for more Newsvandal on The Ochelli Effect. 1

Oswald and the Sylvia Odio Incident – JFK Assassination: 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 06 – Mike Swanson (07/19/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Tue, 07/19/2016 - 07:01

This is episode six in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.

In this episode researcher James DiEugenio, and author of Destiny Betrayed talks about the strange visit Sylvia Odio received by two anti-Castro Cubans and their buddy named “Leon Oswald.”

The Mexico City Oswald story is the heart of the JFK assassination and this visit took placed during Oswald’s supposed trip to Mexico City.

The story is in the WC.

I will post an episode every Tuesday.

There is something new always happening in the JFK case. Jefferson Morley just released a new book a few days ago detailing several CIA people who knew of Oswald BEFORE the assassination took place. To find out more about this book and see an interview he did about it go here.

Categories: The War State

Why the Pentagon Does Not Want Putin and Obama to Team Up Against ISIS: Gareth Porter on the Scott Horton Show (07/17/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Sat, 07/16/2016 - 21:40

This is an excellent interview by Scott Horton of Gareth Porter, an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. They discussed President Obama’s proposed cooperation with Russia in a combined air campaign against the Al Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front jihadist forces in Syria – and the strong opposition to such a plan within Obama’s own national security bureaucracy. Porter wrote an article on this you can read at Consortiumnews.com.

To download MP3 click here.

Interview transcript below:

00:31 Scott Horton: …..Alright, introducing our good friend, Gareth Porter. He’s more than 200 of those 4000 interviews, jeez, maybe 300 by now, I don’t know. And for very good reason, he’s my most very favorite reporter out of everybody, and I’ve got a lot of favorite reporters. But Gareth Porter, he’s the author of the book on the Iranian nuclear program. It’s called “Manufactured Crisis: The Truth about the Iranian Nuclear Scare.” And boy, he’s written a ton of great articles all about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now focusing on Syria. This one is a new fight over Syria war strategy. It’s at consortiumnews.com and also at antiwar.com, a very important piece. Welcome back to the show here, Gareth.

01:35 Gareth Porter: Thanks so much, Scott. Glad to be back on the show.

01:37 SH: Very happy to have you here. Very complicated war there in Syria. I guess the listeners of this show more or less understand the breakdown that it’s the Assad government, and his army, the State army of Syria, aligned with Hezbollah, allied with Iran and allied with Russia and they’re fighting against a, basically, Al Qaeda and ISIS led Sunni-based insurgency which is backed by the United States, Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and Israel. To some degrees over time this fluctuates, I’ll let you clarify. And then of course also, America and Russia are backing the Kurds and are attacking the Islamic State and have been bombing the Islamic State for the last two years since they declared their caliphate based out of Raqqa in Eastern Syria and Mosul in Western Iraq. So now, we’re trying to figure out how to end this war short of one side declaring a complete and total victory because apparently that’s not in the cards. We need some kind of negotiated piece here or we need some kind of change in strategy by I don’t know America, Russia, or some of the major powers, to change the game on the ground to get this thing over with one way or the other before it turns into a 15-year Lebanon length civil war here Gareth, so tell us please, what is going on?

03:06 GP: Well yeah, I think you’re absolutely right in your overall summary except for sort of the distinction between ISIS and Al Qaeda were Al-Nusra Front of course is not simply that they’re two variants of the Al Qaeda based theme, but rather that they are on different sides of the war in the sense that ISIS and Al-Nusra Front are rivals for the ultimate prize of gaining power in Syria, rather than allies in the struggle against Assad. So in other words, there are really three sides to the war, or maybe four sides if you include the Kurds, and that does indeed make it a very complicated conflict, and makes it more difficult to figure out what the end game is gonna look like. I would say, however, that if there’s one possibly hopeful sign on the horizon, it is that the Turkish government of President Erdogan is now rethinking its policy towards Syria. It’s not ready to give up its support from Al-Nusra Front clearly at this point.

04:26 GP: On the other hand, there is this distinct possibility, although perhaps a small possibility, that Turkey could approach the Russians, and I think they probably already have approached the Russians, about the possibility of a deal under which Assad would remain in power but would have to take away… That is to say the Russians putting pressure on Assad and using their own military power, would have to force the Kurds to give up their demand for autonomy in the area along the Turkish-Syrian border, the Northern border of Syria, next to Turkey. And that’s a long shot, but that is one possibility that is beginning to be discussed as a solution that could provide the basis for Turkey to say, “Okay, we’ll shut down the lifeline to the Al-Nusra Front and it’s allies.” So I just wanted to throw that in there.

05:37 SH: Well, and they’ve already cut off ISIS, right? There was a time where the Turks were happy to let ISIS raise money there, were happy to leave their border wide open to them, were happy to buy black market oil from them.

05:47 GP: I think that’s right. At this point, the Turks have cut off ISIS and therefore, ISIS has turned on them and of course, started to carry out terrorist bombings of the terrible nature against Turkey.

06:08 SH: So I’m trying to keep my scorecards straight here. So now, in this article, now you’re talking about a proposal that the Russians offered to the Americans, somewhat along these same lines, is what you’re talking about, maybe this deal between the Russians and the Turks.

06:28 GP: Well, what the Russians were proposing to the United States was that, “Yeah, let’s the two of us get together and carry out an air campaign against Al-Nusra Front that would really weaken it significantly.” And the premise of it would be that the non-jihadist parts of the factions, if you will, of the armed opposition to his side, would retreat from or would separate themselves physically and organizationally from Al-Nusra Front, would cease the close military cooperation including direct participation in the military planning with Al-Nusra Front that they have been carrying out in the past. And that would then allow both United States and the Russian Air Forces to cooperate in carrying out a more effective campaign against Al-Nusra Front.

07:36 GP: Now the US has, as I understand it, never said simply no to that but they’ve always wanted to have some further conditions imposed on the arrangement. And that’s what we now see covered in my story about the Obama Administration’s response diplomatically to the Russian plan, and that was provided or given to the Russians on June 27th. And in that proposal according to both The Washington Post article, as well as other news media coverage of it, the Obama Administration wants the Russians to essentially, as one source put it, not my source, but a publish source put it, they want to ground the Air Force of the Assad regime.

08:32 GP: And that’s obviously putting it in the strongest terms, it would mean that the Assad regime would not be carrying out further bombing. Now, I don’t think that’s gonna be acceptable to, and clearly, that’s not gonna be acceptable to the Russians. But more explicitly, what my understanding is that the Obama Administration was demanding that the Russians agree that there would be no further bombing of the areas controlled by the US clients, is the way I’m gonna put it, the armed clients of the CIA in Syria after this agreement would go into effect.

09:21 GP: So that leaves a lot of questions unanswered obviously, and this was really where my article sets out to try to discern what it is that’s really going on here. So my article basically says that the folks who have the hard line in the Obama Administration on Syria, who want the Obama Administration to either use military force against Assad or carry out a much more aggressive program of military assistance to the armed opposition or both are very much opposed to this and that includes the Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who has made it known that he doesn’t like this proposal.

10:10 GP: But clearly, factions within the CIA and I think it’s clearly those folks who are responsible for the covert operation in Syria, or the so-called covert operation of aiding the armed opposition in Syria, they’re opposed to this because it carries them further away from where they wanna be, which is in a much more aggressive program. So we know that there are factions within the Obama Administration who are opposing this, but I further raised the question of how serious is the Obama Administration about really wanting to go ahead with this kind of program. I have serious questions about that.

10:52 SH: Alright. Now, so Gareth, the other thing is, well okay so the CIA backs these different groups, but to what degree can they really tell them what to do? In other words, if America, say Obama instructed the CIA to instruct the mythical moderates to, “Yeah. No. Now, we really mean it. Separate yourself from Al-Nusra, ’cause we’re about to bomb Al-Nusra.” Can he even get them to do that? Or are they just gonna say, “No. We’re down with Al-Nusra and not with you ’cause you’re gonna end up stabbing us in the back anyway,” and this has been the problem all along, or really they haven’t tried to separate them out from Al-Nusra like in the deal from a few months ago.

11:32 GP: Yeah. I think the point here is that, if the United States is not willing to tell its allies, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, no more arming of the opposition groups if they’re not going to cooperate with the ceasefire, then those groups are not going to pay attention to what the United States says. And I think that’s exactly what has happened in the past, that the US sort of parrots the line that yes, we support a ceasefire and we expect all groups who have signed up for the ceasefire, meaning the groups that are our clients, to participate in this and to separate themselves from the Al-Nusra Front. But in fact, John Kerry knows very well that they’re not gonna do it as long as they can count on the external regional allies to continue their policy of providing a lifeline from across the Turkish border, and of course as long as their able to get though against the Russian and Syrian bombing. But I think that’s correct that the US clients are not going to comply with that because they don’t see it as in their interest, and they believe that they can continue on the present course because they have the support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

13:02 SH: Yeah. So where even they really do have some strings to pull. CIA actually probably could boss them around, but they would have to crack down on their allies and have their allies crack down on the mythical moderates, and they’re just not willing to do that is what you’re telling me.

13:16 GP: That’s exactly right and this has been the crux of the matter ever since this program began in 2013, or even earlier depending on how you date it. The United States has been part of a coalition and it has valued it’s alliances with the regional allies more than it does peace in Syria or any other interest. And that in my view is the real problem with US Middle east policy, that the US does not really care about… Can I use the A-S-S word? It does not give a rat’s ass about the Syrian people or about peace in Syria. It values primarily being able to have access to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, and access to the Bahrain Naval Base which is controlled by Saudi Arabia, and access to the crucial land and air bases in Qatar. So this is…

14:24 SH: So what you’re saying is when Obama finally decides to stop deliberately backing terrorists, he can’t because all of our satellite tails are wagging the imperial dog.

14:36 GP: Well, I don’t think that terrorism has really been the primary interest here for many years, in fact. But yeah, the point is that we…

14:45 SH: Well, the Al-Nusra guys target civilians with suicide attacks and that kind of thing, right? And the Ahrar Al-Sham massacres people for having the wrong religion, what am I missing?

14:56 GP: Well, we are de facto using the terrorists in Al-Nusra Front as a basis for the policy in Syria have been since 2012 or 2013. And therefore, I would argue and have argued that the terrorism/counter terrorism is not the reason the United States is doing anything in Syria.

15:25 SH: Oh, I understand what you mean. I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by that, but I understand. You’re saying our war on terrorism is not what’s relevant, but that’s not what I was talking about either. I was talking about our war for terrorism, for Christ’s sake.

15:41 GP: Neither counter terrorism nor the concern about civilians in Syria, nor the concern about stability in the Middle East have anything to do with, or are governing concerns about US Policy. It is continuing to maintain the United States as a regional hegemon, a regional super power, and that demands access to these bases, it demands the continuation of the military status quo, in that sense. So I continue to believe that that is what controls the US Policy in the Middle East and again, Obama is merely a kind of steward of that continuous policy rather than someone who ever intended to really upset the apple cart.

16:33 SH: Right. Well, and I hope I didn’t sound like some kind of Trumpian birther saying that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist or whatever. He obviously is pursuing these interests for… Doing the very same thing Ronald Reagan did which is backing these guys in order to accomplish American goals.

16:49 GP: Yeah, except that in fact, Reagan was more “progressive” in the sense of recognizing reality and being upset about, in the case of Reagan’s policy, what the Israelis were doing and was willing to say publicly, “Hey, we got to stop that, the Israelis have got to stop this.” He was in fact more reality-oriented in his own way, at least during the early 1980s than Obama has proven to be and that’s I think a very telling point about the nature of US National Security policy over these decades.

17:26 SH: Yeah, I saw a clip of Ronald Reagan talking about how the Israelis ought to get out of the West Bank, I couldn’t believe it. And that was par for the course for a Republican president back in the 80s, wow.

17:36 GP: Last night, I saw a screening of a new film on the occupation of the American mind.

17:42 SH: That’s where I saw the clip. Exactly, yeah.

17:44 GP: Okay. Yeah, yeah. So we saw the same clip then. Okay, yeah.

17:49 SH: Hey all, Scott Horton here, it’s always safe to say that once you keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation, and if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet. Since 1977, Roberts & Roberts Brokerage Inc has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and they do it well. They’re fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years, and they take Bitcoin. Call Roberts & Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.com.

18:20 SH: Yeah, I was just a kid then, I didn’t remember that, but I didn’t know anything about it. Yeah, that was really something else to see him and being so frank about it, the way he was being too. This was serious business. He wasn’t making a soft suggestion or something.

18:34 GP: Various memoirs record the fact that Reagan really was personally very upset about what the Israelis did. He did not understand. He had simply not understood what was really going on there, and when he understood it, he was quite upset. And that was an interesting moment, shall we say, in US National Security policy [chuckle] that took place.

18:53 SH: Yeah, absolutely. Alright now, so let me get back to Ash Carter for a minute here. This guy was sold when they got rid of Chuck Hagel and they brought in Ash Carter to be the Secretary of Defense. They basically sold him as a wonk, like he’s a mathematician, and he’s a physicist, and he’s a technocrat, and he’s gonna… Nobody knows his name, but he’s gonna be the place holder until the next administration, basically. We’re not gonna have any more stars. We’re promoting this guy from inside the Pentagon. And there was the story that he had advocated an attack on North Korea and a couple other things that made people wonder maybe there was a bit of an ideology here. But from where I’m sitting, it seems like, and I know I’m over-simplifying, but I’m doing so, so that you can clarify, it seems like there’s a real split between the CIA and the DOD about whether we wanna back Al-Qaeda in, more or less, back Al-Qaeda through our allies and all those caveats in Syria.

19:54 SH: And the DOD, I don’t know if they take it personally, the attack on the Pentagon back 16 years ago, still or exactly what their problem is, but they still seem to not be over their hatred of Al-Qaeda. Maybe it was 4,500 of them that got killed fighting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq war two. The CIA apparently doesn’t give a damn. But then, both sides cry to Nancy Youssef at The Daily Beast about it and say, “Nancy, those guys are backing our enemies and we want them to stop.” And yet Carter seems like he’s on the side of the CIA, not the DOD. So what’s going on there?

20:27 GP: Okay. Good question, good question, good point. Two things. One, first of all, Ash Carter’s real interest here has nothing to do with Syria. Again, it has to do with DOD’s interest, and what’s the primary interest that DOD has in Russia? It is continuing the New Cold War. So what Ash Carter is concerned about is that if the Obama administration were to sign up to a real joint military effort with the Russians, that would be a big blow to the New Cold War. And so he’s simply not gonna buy into that at all. So I think that’s the primary concern. Now, the secondary question here or a second question, let me put it that way, is this consideration of what’s going on with regard to US military cooperation with the Kurds? And that has to do with not just Al-Nusra Front but even more so with cooperation with the Kurds against ISIS. The Kurds have become the primary military force, apart from Assad against ISIS.

21:42 SH: In Syria anyway, yeah.

21:43 GP: In Syria, right. And so that’s where the… Particularly, this is not so much Ash Carter, but the military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military who are carrying out the war against ISIS are, of course, very close to the Kurds in that regard. And that’s why, I think, you get this military versus CIA conflict.

22:09 SH: Well, and I always hear different versions, Gareth, of just how separate JSOC’s chain of command is from the rest of the military, and I guess it changes back and forth, whether they’re really under the Chiefs or whether they’re the President’s private army on their own chain of command, or how exactly that works.

22:26 GP: I think it depends on the location of where they’re involved. In the case of Syria, I think they’re probably much more closely linked into the chain of command, the military chain of command, than they would have been in Afghanistan, for example.

22:45 SH: But you’re still saying that the split between them and the Secretary of Defense can still be pretty great when they’re in the middle of a mission like this?

22:52 GP: Absolutely, yeah. I think so. In other words, particularly if the Secretary of Defense is talking about avoiding cooperation with the Russians to go against Al-Nusra Front and inevitably against ISIS as well. In other words, there would be a combination of cooperation against Al-Nusra Front as well as against ISIS. And so definitely that would be a conflict.

23:25 SH: And remind me one more time, Gareth, Al-Nusra Front and their leadership are sworn, loyal to the person and the goals of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, the butcher of New York City hiding out in Pakistan somewhere right now.

23:39 GP: Yeah. In Al-Qaeda’s political culture, there is such a thing as, I think it’s called bayat, allegiance is a very important concept, and you either have it or your don’t. If you don’t, then it’s a very serious matter. If you break off, this is a big deal. And so there have been efforts within Al-Nusra Front supposedly, reportedly there is a faction that has tried to get al-Julani, the head of Al-Nusra Front, to agree to cut off his relationship to Al-Qaeda or to seize his loyalty, his allegiance to al-Zawahiri. And that’s failed. Clearly, he has never been interested in that. He has never been willing to seize to pledge his allegiance to the head of Al-Qaeda. So that’s a key fact here. It’s just not gonna happen.

24:46 SH: Yeah, I don’t know. The fly on the wall thing seems like it would be a lot of fun, but I wanna really crawl inside the mind of Ashton Carter for a minute here and try to figure out how picking a fight with Russia is a higher priority, is such a high priority that never mind that we’re backing everyone who’s backing the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda in Syria. Isn’t that high treason?

25:20 GP: [chuckle] Well…

25:22 SH: Isn’t it?

25:24 GP: It’s not treason within the system of course, as you know very well. You and I agree that many of the things that have been done in the name of national security should be considered treasonous. I mean, I hold no…

25:40 SH: Again, no secret Muslim conspiracy here, but they’re still backing our enemies, our enemies, yours and mine, the civilians of the land between Mexico and Canada. They made these enemies for us and they just keep making them and making them. When they’re fighting them, they’re making them, and when they’re backing them, they’re making them even more than that.

25:57 GP: Well, but then it’s not just Ashton Carter, of course, it’s the entire national security bureaucracy that signed on to the strategy of cooperating with our regional allies in backing the army of conquest in Idlib province, which was the reigning US strategy in Syria from 2014 up ’til relatively recently. And to some extent, there’s at best ambiguity about it today. That’s still as far as I can see a de facto US policy in Syria. So again, this is the way they have decided to pursue US interests in Syria for a variety of bureaucratic and domestic political interests that have produced the result. But I think that if you’re looking for a reason for this, for Ashton Carter to take that position, it’s very simple. That’s where the money is, in the military budget. The military budget is such that you have to have what they call near-appear rivals to justify the kind of spending that we have been indulging and continue to indulge in in the military budget. It’s China and Russia that provide the rationale for backing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of spending well into the future, and that’s…

27:36 SH: What would they ever do if they got their regime changed? What would they ever do if they’d put another Yeltsin in charge in Russia, did some kind of color-coded thing in China and put their sock puppets in charge of these last two independent powers on Earth, then who are they gonna target? India?

27:54 GP: No. Then they’re in the soup. Then you see what happened after the end of the Cold War. They had to suffer a very severe loss of budget. And that’s what they’re determined not to have happen again. That was a very serious problem for them for many, many years. They were in the darkness as it were. They were out in the desert suffering from lack of military budget. And so when they saw the possibility when Putin began to respond to an aggressive NATO stance in Europe, they saw the rationale for a new Cold War and I think that’s what we’re seeing in practice here. And they’re determined not to let go of that. And that’s the primary motivation for Ashton Carter and the staff of the office of the Secretary of Defense at this point, and to a considerably stand of course Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the same place. But they also have a war to fight in Syria and that provides a counter weight to some extent to that consideration.

29:10 SH: So now wait a minute. If we rewind it all back to the ’92 defense planning guidance in rebuilding America’s defenses and this and that and the other thing, is it fair to say then that the whole Middle East war, Iraq War two and everything since then is all part of a proxy war with Russia? Still just like the days of the USSR?

29:31 GP: No. I think you have to distinguish between what was going on in the planning, the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003 as well of course as the first Gulf War. These were wars that were fought for different reasons but to a considerable extent in the knowledge that this was a way of ensuring two things. One, that you would have a sort of permanent war state that would justify much higher levels of military budget than would otherwise be the case. In both the first Gulf War and the Iraq War, this was a huge part of the rationale within the military and within the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld specifically, that’s what he had mind. I’ve never written about this but I have a lot of information which I someday will write about how Rumsfeld’s position on the invasion of Iraq was very strongly shaped by the need for a fix on how to be able to fund a whole new generation or generations to come of high-tech weaponry while at the same time having a way of carrying out regime change in Iraq. And he was offered that opportunity to accomplish both those things by the Air Force strategy of shock and awe. Basically, the Air Force strategy of carrying out regime change by air power without having any significant ground force footprint in the country. So that was a military budget problem that he had. And he was solving that by the invasion of Iraq.

31:25 SH: Alright. So we know now that when Richard Perle says, “Real men go to Tehran,” that yeah, he’s speaking for Ariel Sharon there. But well, wait a minute now. Assuming, I think you agree, that was initially part of the plan they thought they were gonna be able to get away with is going straight to Syria and Iran too, and they weren’t thinking about Putin and breaking Iran away from Russia at that point? That was just, they were really just thinking about Israel? Or thinking about overall weapons…

31:55 GP: At that point, I don’t think that they were consciously thinking about the relationship between Iran and Russia. No, absolutely not. No.

32:02 SH: Okay. ‘Cause Iran is one of Russia’s last kind of dependent sort of allied states, right?

32:09 GP: Yeah, you can’t really use an ally or alliance in talking about Iran and Russia, that’s not gonna work because they’ve never trusted one another at any moment. [chuckle] It’s been a…

32:20 SH: Yeah, there’s a lot of bad blood there I understand too.

32:23 GP: Yeah. Very, very shaky relationship. So you really can’t use alliance at all for that.

32:27 SH: Yeah. But it wouldn’t make sense if I was Douglas, well, forget him, if I was Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz to say, “Yeah, it would weaken Russia’s position a bit if we had our guy back in power in Tehran.”

32:39 GP: Yeah, sure. That could be thrown into the mix, in the discussion in the National Security Council, but that’s not the primary thought at all. That’s not the primary thrust of the planning for the war in Iraq.

32:53 SH: Sure. Alright. Well, good deal, man. Thank you very much for doing the show as always, Gareth. I really appreciate it.

32:58 GP: My pleasure as always, Scott.

33:00 SH: And I know the audience really appreciates it too ’cause they tell me. That’s the great Gareth Porter everybody. This is one is at consortiumnews.com and at antiwar.com. It’s called, “The New Fight Over Syria War Strategy.” It’s a really important piece. I hope you’ll go and look at it. Again, it’s at antiwar.com right now. And that’s the Scott Horton Show. Check out the archives at scotthorton.org, sign up for the podcast feed there, help support at scotthorton.org/donate and follow me on Twitter@scotthortonshow.

Categories: The War State