(Readers may want to pass along this post to others.)
I like Joe Biden. He'd make a good president. Most liberal readers of Confront and Conceal will come away with a much better impression of Biden than of Hillary.
But this man must not run for president.
He has a secret which very few people know. Quite by accident, I became one of the few.
The New York Times -- which has used both fair and foul means (often foul) to disrupt Hillary's ambitions -- has published a piece which indicates that Biden is considering a run. Maureen Dowd (whom I despise) followed up with a piece which spewed the usual anti-Clinton spew and then pushed for a Biden candidacy. (I'm sure that many of my readers will recall the things that Bob Somerby has had to say about Dowd.)
In that column, Dowd gives a detailed account of a private dialogue between the dying Beau Biden and his father. William Kristol (a man who is so damned despicable that he makes Dowd look lovable) rightly asks: Who was Dowd's source? Either she made up the whole thing, or a member of the Biden family confided in her.
Put all the clues together, and one message becomes clear: The neocons want Biden to run. At least, the NYT wants Biden to run -- and the NYT has become the journal of "liberal" neoconservatism.
But why? Biden is not a war guy. He's not a "We're an empire now" guy. I cannot believe that neoconservative interests would be better served by Joe Biden than by Hillary Clinton, who counts Robert Kagan among her friends and supporters.
No. The neocons are pushing Joe Biden to run for only one reason: He will be easier to defeat.
This is not your cue to make the usual jokes about Biden's propensity for gaffes. I'm talking about something different. Something you don't know. Something secret.
I've been sitting on this secret since 2008. I found out about it purely by accident from a source I trust. This post may offer a clue. (The post references "a man whose name you would know." That man was Dick Clark; the poor guy was in terrible shape.)
It was an odd feeling, sitting on this information throughout two election cycles, knowing that one well-timed post might have changed history. Despite my antipathy for Obama, I kept quiet.
Why? Because I like Joe Biden. That is to say: He takes the right stances on many issues, and he conveys the impression that he is usually a man of great integrity. Elections should be about policy, not about the personal piffle that seems to fascinate so many Americans.
In 2012, I disclosed the secret to someone who might be considered a Democratic insider. Don't get the wrong impression: I'm a D-level blogger and happy to be such; it's not as though I'm on friendly terms with many, or any, political insiders. Nevertheless, I wrote this particular "party man" a letter which revealed the potential problem, and -- somewhat to my surprise, and perhaps to his regret -- he replied. He said that, even if the truth came out, it probably would not hurt Obama in the election, because the secret did not concern Obama directly.
This blog will not discuss the secret in greater detail, although anyone with half a brain should be able to hazard a reasonable guess. Nobody asked me to write this post. I decided to write it because I have come to suspect that certain neocons already know the secret. That is why they are so desperate for Biden to run.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query hillary biden 2012. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query hillary biden 2012. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Noteworthy
The Bain of our existence: Mitt Romney says that anyone who attacks Bain Capital is "attacking capitalism." By this logic, if you criticize the new Avengers flick, you're saying you don't like movies. If you don't like the newest sandwich at Subway, you're attacking the very concept of food.
Vote suppression: Slate has published an incredibly good piece on Republican vote suppression efforts. As you know (or should know), fraud perpetrated by voters intentionally misidentifying themselves is next to nonexistent. We're dealing with a mythical animal here; there's better evidence for the existence of the Maryland Goat-Man than for organized voter fraud. By contrast, vote-rigging via computerized counting machines is a very real threat. What irks me is that ill-informed citizens may not understand that the former has no relation to the latter.
This blog used to be devoted to the controversies surrounding electronic vote-counting devices. I stopped writing about that issue because Brad Friedman does the job much better, and because I couldn't figure out a way to talk about electronic vote manipulation without adding credibility to the myth of widespread voter misrepresentation. Hell, just figuring out the right way to word the previous sentence was tough!
As one might have predicted, GOP operatives are casting aside the pretense that their efforts have anything to do with ending voter misrepresentation. They are now claiming that voting is a privilege, not a right -- and you pretty much give up your privileges if you show signs of voting for the wrong party or candidates.
First and foremost, Biden just hasn't been that bad. Veeps don't get un-veeped if their greatest sin is dorkiness. They've got to do something seriously wrong.
Second, Hillary's positive ratings would vanish overnight if she were on the ticket. Right now, the Fox Newsers are careful not to slam Hillary because they want to encourage the Hillary-loving Obama-haters to stay home on election day. (And who could blame them if they did?) But the moment she got on the ticket, the right-wing news cycle would turn into a 24/7 barrage of Clinton-hate. We would relive it all: Monica, Whitewater, Waco, Mena...all of your favorite hate-memes from the 1990s. And the hate would come in hyper-concentrated form. It would feel like getting a blast of pure sulfur or capsaicin in the face, every minute of every day for months.
Don't pretend that the attacks would not have an impact. The lesson of our time is that propaganda works.
Also, if Clinton climbed aboard the ticket, the Obama-loving Hillary-hating progs of 2008 would be discouraged from going to the polls. Many of those voters no longer have much love for Obama, but they sure as hell hate anyone named Clinton.
Obama is better off sticking with boring old Joe. The worst thing the Foxers and the Bratbiters can say about Joe Biden is that he shoots from the lip.
Vote suppression: Slate has published an incredibly good piece on Republican vote suppression efforts. As you know (or should know), fraud perpetrated by voters intentionally misidentifying themselves is next to nonexistent. We're dealing with a mythical animal here; there's better evidence for the existence of the Maryland Goat-Man than for organized voter fraud. By contrast, vote-rigging via computerized counting machines is a very real threat. What irks me is that ill-informed citizens may not understand that the former has no relation to the latter.
This blog used to be devoted to the controversies surrounding electronic vote-counting devices. I stopped writing about that issue because Brad Friedman does the job much better, and because I couldn't figure out a way to talk about electronic vote manipulation without adding credibility to the myth of widespread voter misrepresentation. Hell, just figuring out the right way to word the previous sentence was tough!
As one might have predicted, GOP operatives are casting aside the pretense that their efforts have anything to do with ending voter misrepresentation. They are now claiming that voting is a privilege, not a right -- and you pretty much give up your privileges if you show signs of voting for the wrong party or candidates.
Whether it’s onerous (and expensive) voter ID rules that will render as many as 10 percent of Americans ineligible to vote, proof of citizenship measures, restricting registration drives, cancellation of Sunday voting, or claims that voting should be a privilege as opposed to a right, efforts to discount and discredit the vote have grown bolder in recent years, despite vanishingly rare claims of actual vote fraud. The sole objective appears to be ensuring that fewer Americans vote in 2012 than voted in 2008. But as strange as the reasons to purge certain votes have been around the nation, things have grown even stranger in recent weeks in Ohio, where GOP lawmakers have gone after not only voters but the federal courts, in an effort to wiggle out of statewide voting rules.More:
The GOP’s argument goes even further than pitching ballots tainted by worker error, though. In legislation proposed last year (and withdrawn after it was poised to be rejected by a voter referendum), another provision would bar poll workers from helping voters find the correct precinct if they showed up at the wrong place. That’s right. A proposed GOP reform would ensure that poll workers have no obligation to tell you anything at all if you ask them a question pertaining to precisely the thing they are meant to do—facilitate voting. The language Ohio Republicans tried to insert into the omnibus voting law would provide that “it is the duty of the individual casting the ballot to ensure that the individual is casting that ballot in the correct precinct.”Hillary for Veep? Skydancing published a piece yesterday on the recurrent meme that Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden on the ticket. Also see Riverdaughter here and Michael Tomasky here. Yes, this scenario could happen. One day, I may tell you the circumstances under which Obama might replace Biden outright, although I feel strongly that a Hillary/Joe job switch is not in the cards. But I strongly doubt that Joe Biden is going anywhere.
This presents a deeply troubling new strain in the effort to shrink the vote; a new argument that has nothing to do with stamping out fraud at all.
First and foremost, Biden just hasn't been that bad. Veeps don't get un-veeped if their greatest sin is dorkiness. They've got to do something seriously wrong.
Second, Hillary's positive ratings would vanish overnight if she were on the ticket. Right now, the Fox Newsers are careful not to slam Hillary because they want to encourage the Hillary-loving Obama-haters to stay home on election day. (And who could blame them if they did?) But the moment she got on the ticket, the right-wing news cycle would turn into a 24/7 barrage of Clinton-hate. We would relive it all: Monica, Whitewater, Waco, Mena...all of your favorite hate-memes from the 1990s. And the hate would come in hyper-concentrated form. It would feel like getting a blast of pure sulfur or capsaicin in the face, every minute of every day for months.
Don't pretend that the attacks would not have an impact. The lesson of our time is that propaganda works.
Also, if Clinton climbed aboard the ticket, the Obama-loving Hillary-hating progs of 2008 would be discouraged from going to the polls. Many of those voters no longer have much love for Obama, but they sure as hell hate anyone named Clinton.
Obama is better off sticking with boring old Joe. The worst thing the Foxers and the Bratbiters can say about Joe Biden is that he shoots from the lip.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Hillary as Secretary of State?
Hillary has met with Obama, and has declined to reveal whether she has received a formal offer to take the job of Secretary of State. Obviously, the rumors are not just rumors. Still, there is something decidedly strange about the way this business has been handled.
I would advise her not to take the job. Frankly, I think the country is and will remain in bad shape, regardless of who runs the zoo. If Obama's presidency fails, she will be tainted by association.
Which past Secretaries of State have improved their future political prospects? Well, there was Thomas Jefferson. And there were a few others in the first half-century of this nation's existence. But in more recent times...?
Let's put it this way: Did having the title "Secretary of State" on his resume improve Al Haig's chances of attaining the presidency? Did Colin Powell come out ahead? Who wants to vote for Condaleeza Rice for anything?
If Hillary takes the offer, Obama's supporters will blame her for any foreign policy stumbles. During the primary, quite a few Obots considered Hillary responsible for all the ills of humankind, up to and including poisoned dog food and the space shuttle disasters. I haven't checked Cheeto-land, but I suspect that the mouth-foamers are particularly foamy right now.
If she becomes the Secretary of State, she might as well put a sign on her desk reading "OFFICIAL SCAPEGOAT." Clinton-haters will constantly accuse her of sabotage. The accusation will make no sense, but they will make it nonetheless.
What if Obama decides to pursue an aggressive and unpopular stance against Iran? What if he stays in Iraq? What if he pulls out of Iraq and disaster ensues? (I see no good exit scenarios. Do you?) What if Obama wants to make good on his threat to take military action in (against?) Pakistan?
Hillary Clinton could find herself loyally defending and implementing foolish policies that she will not have set. And her name will be on those policies when they fail. Consider the cautionary tale of Colin Powell, who might be president right now if he hadn't hauled water for W.
How long would she keep the job? Maybe two years. Maybe three. Hell, maybe one. Obama could fire her at any time, using any setback (and setbacks are inevitable) as an excuse. Why would she give up her Senate seat for that?
Visualize this: Obama keeps her on the job for a mere six months, until Joe Biden's predicted disaster hits. She gets the blame and the boot. Obi will have ruined Hillary's political career, thereby taking her out of the running in 2012. Maybe that's the plan.
Hillary Clinton would be foolish to take the gig. If Bill Richardson wants it, let him have it.
By the way... It is telling, perhaps, that Larry Johnson wants Hillary to take the job. To an increasing degree, Johnson's goal seems to be to seed the PUMA movement with Republican talking points. The Republicans would love a scenario in which they enter the 2012 race with both the Obama name and the Clinton name tarnished. If Hillary spends any amount of time in Obama's cabinet, and if Obama's presidency fails (as I think it will) -- then who would be a strong Democratic candidate?
I would advise her not to take the job. Frankly, I think the country is and will remain in bad shape, regardless of who runs the zoo. If Obama's presidency fails, she will be tainted by association.Which past Secretaries of State have improved their future political prospects? Well, there was Thomas Jefferson. And there were a few others in the first half-century of this nation's existence. But in more recent times...?
Let's put it this way: Did having the title "Secretary of State" on his resume improve Al Haig's chances of attaining the presidency? Did Colin Powell come out ahead? Who wants to vote for Condaleeza Rice for anything?
If Hillary takes the offer, Obama's supporters will blame her for any foreign policy stumbles. During the primary, quite a few Obots considered Hillary responsible for all the ills of humankind, up to and including poisoned dog food and the space shuttle disasters. I haven't checked Cheeto-land, but I suspect that the mouth-foamers are particularly foamy right now.
If she becomes the Secretary of State, she might as well put a sign on her desk reading "OFFICIAL SCAPEGOAT." Clinton-haters will constantly accuse her of sabotage. The accusation will make no sense, but they will make it nonetheless.
What if Obama decides to pursue an aggressive and unpopular stance against Iran? What if he stays in Iraq? What if he pulls out of Iraq and disaster ensues? (I see no good exit scenarios. Do you?) What if Obama wants to make good on his threat to take military action in (against?) Pakistan?
Hillary Clinton could find herself loyally defending and implementing foolish policies that she will not have set. And her name will be on those policies when they fail. Consider the cautionary tale of Colin Powell, who might be president right now if he hadn't hauled water for W.
How long would she keep the job? Maybe two years. Maybe three. Hell, maybe one. Obama could fire her at any time, using any setback (and setbacks are inevitable) as an excuse. Why would she give up her Senate seat for that?
Visualize this: Obama keeps her on the job for a mere six months, until Joe Biden's predicted disaster hits. She gets the blame and the boot. Obi will have ruined Hillary's political career, thereby taking her out of the running in 2012. Maybe that's the plan.
Hillary Clinton would be foolish to take the gig. If Bill Richardson wants it, let him have it.
By the way... It is telling, perhaps, that Larry Johnson wants Hillary to take the job. To an increasing degree, Johnson's goal seems to be to seed the PUMA movement with Republican talking points. The Republicans would love a scenario in which they enter the 2012 race with both the Obama name and the Clinton name tarnished. If Hillary spends any amount of time in Obama's cabinet, and if Obama's presidency fails (as I think it will) -- then who would be a strong Democratic candidate?
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Fake news, Bloomberg, Biden, Bernie
Come on. Does Matt Drudge really think we're going to believe this?
It's sad. The name of one of our greatest presidents -- the only one to give us both prosperity and a balanced budget -- is now toxic, thanks to a decades-long propaganda barrage.
How would Drudge, and no-one else, learn of such a thing? This story is ridiculous on its face. Drudge concocted this little fantasia for two reasons: He is tossing raw meat to the Alt Right lions, and he seeks to trigger the godawful Bernie Bros.
As for Bloomberg: Apparently, black people are starting to switch from Biden to Mr. Stop N. Frisk. That...is...insane.
Meanwhile, Anita Hill still won't forgive Joe Biden because Biden blocked a witness from testifying on her behalf -- a witness so weak, so easily discredited, that the Republicans were dying for the chance to cross-examine her. Like Ms. Hill, they haven't forgiven Biden for his refusal to put that witness on TV!
I generally vote the way black people vote, but let's face it: African Americans can be as easily bamboozled as any other voting bloc.
Bloomberg. I cannot freakin' believe it. I'll vote for the guy if I have to, but...jeez. Do I have to?
(That said, I must concede that Bloomberg's ubiquitous TV and YouTube commercials are superb. One of the all-time best ad campaigns. Genuinely artful. Those ads should be studied in cinema classes in every university. Biden and Warren -- who have nothing to lose at this point -- should use Bloomberg's ads as templates for their own attacks on Bernie.)
Finally! Biden has demanded that Bernie Sanders take responsibility for the ghastly online behavior of the Bernie Bros.
Bernie is responsible. He could have put a stop to the vileness with one stern lecture addressed to his own followers, warning them to start behaving like human goddamned beings. The fact that he has not delivered such a lecture in four fucking years proves that Bernie himself deserves full blame for the many displays of dickishness conducted in his name.
Another point about Bernie...
Here's an interesting follow-up comment:
I'll say it again: Biden has to go for the jugular. Show some passion, dude. The Bernie Bros are never going to stop biting and snarling and mauling. Time to bite and snarl and maul back.
“Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...,” the tweet continued, pointing to Drudge’s eponymous website, where the scoop was played in underlined type above the scroll and a bright-red all-caps headline.Yes, I know that the Bloomberg camp did not issue a denial. They probably don't want to annoy the many Hillary fans who still exist in Camp D, and they certainly don't want to trigger the rabid Hill-haters in Camp R. The latter will be screech in equal horror at a confirmation or a denial: Any mention of the Clinton name evokes an autonomic response. From Bloomberg's standpoint, the best course of action would be not to mention the name "Clinton" at all.
It's sad. The name of one of our greatest presidents -- the only one to give us both prosperity and a balanced budget -- is now toxic, thanks to a decades-long propaganda barrage.
How would Drudge, and no-one else, learn of such a thing? This story is ridiculous on its face. Drudge concocted this little fantasia for two reasons: He is tossing raw meat to the Alt Right lions, and he seeks to trigger the godawful Bernie Bros.
As for Bloomberg: Apparently, black people are starting to switch from Biden to Mr. Stop N. Frisk. That...is...insane.
stop and frisk stats over the course of Mike Bloomberg's 12 years as NYC mayor:
— Matt Binder (@MattBinder) February 11, 2020
2002: 97,296
2003: 160,851
2004: 313,523
2005: 352,348
2006: 506,491
2007: 472,096
2008: 540,302
2009: 581,168
2010: 601,285
2011: 685,724
2012: 532,911
2013: 191,851 https://t.co/QSg1uhTDRG
Meanwhile, Anita Hill still won't forgive Joe Biden because Biden blocked a witness from testifying on her behalf -- a witness so weak, so easily discredited, that the Republicans were dying for the chance to cross-examine her. Like Ms. Hill, they haven't forgiven Biden for his refusal to put that witness on TV!
I generally vote the way black people vote, but let's face it: African Americans can be as easily bamboozled as any other voting bloc.
Bloomberg. I cannot freakin' believe it. I'll vote for the guy if I have to, but...jeez. Do I have to?
(That said, I must concede that Bloomberg's ubiquitous TV and YouTube commercials are superb. One of the all-time best ad campaigns. Genuinely artful. Those ads should be studied in cinema classes in every university. Biden and Warren -- who have nothing to lose at this point -- should use Bloomberg's ads as templates for their own attacks on Bernie.)
Finally! Biden has demanded that Bernie Sanders take responsibility for the ghastly online behavior of the Bernie Bros.
“You know me well enough to know if any of my supporters did that, I’d disown them. Flat disown them,” Biden said. “The stuff that was said online. The way they threatened these two women who are leaders in that Culinary union. It is outrageous. Just — just go online.”I've been saying it since 2016. Sanders' supporters are monsters, and Sanders deserves to be held accountable. He's the King of the Monsters. He has never apologized for the hateful antics of H.A. Goodman and Cassandra Fairbanks and all of the other beasts. What the Bernie Bros did in Nevada last time was unforgivable.
In an exclusive interview airing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Biden said the Vermont senator “may not be responsible for it, but he has some accountability.”No, Joe, no! That's not the way to make your point and that's not the way to win an election. You can't weaken your own argument with too many qualifiers. Go for the jugular.
Bernie is responsible. He could have put a stop to the vileness with one stern lecture addressed to his own followers, warning them to start behaving like human goddamned beings. The fact that he has not delivered such a lecture in four fucking years proves that Bernie himself deserves full blame for the many displays of dickishness conducted in his name.
Another point about Bernie...
Florida (29 electoral votes) - Guaranteed win for Trump if Bernie is the nominee simply because of the fact that Sanders praised and had/has a soft spot for Fidel Castro. Cubans make up 1.2 million people in Florida.None of this will matter to the brainwashed Bros, who actually believe that they can win the election WITHOUT voters.
Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) - Fracking supports 320,000+ jobs in the state. Sanders wants to outlaw fracking by 2025.
I don't see a scenario where Trump wins PA but loses Wisconsin and Michigan. It doesn't matter either way as Florida, Ohio, PA, and NC put him at 279
Here's an interesting follow-up comment:
I believe he'd be Corbyn 2.0 in the general, but you know what makes it hard for the public to see the disaster ahead? The near lack of urgency from other campaigns and the party in general, which serves as a tacit advertisement of his electability. They're not exactly doing anything vigorous to stop him Corbyning us, unless they have convention machinations in mind, which would be terrible because there are many ways of stopping him pre-convention"Lack of urgency." Yes! "Tacit advertisement of his electability." Yes!
I'll say it again: Biden has to go for the jugular. Show some passion, dude. The Bernie Bros are never going to stop biting and snarling and mauling. Time to bite and snarl and maul back.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Can Hillary Clinton save Obama's ass?
Once again, we're hearing noises about Hillary for veep. This time, the noises are coming from the respected Democrat Brent Budowsky. One can't fairly call Budowsky a friend to this blog -- I don't know if he even reads it -- but he is a friend to a friend, and has been helpful on a couple of occasions. Here is the gist of his pro-Hillary argument:
For years, the Republican propagandists have chosen not to go after Hillary because they sought (and still seek) to exploit the 2008 fissures between the Clinton and Obama camps. That situation would change the moment Hillary climbed aboard the ticket.
Are things bad enough for Obama that he needs to resort to a headline-grabbing stunt? No. But the situation may soon reach that point.
In the public mind, the right's fantasy version of Obama has overtaken reality; such is the power of incessant propaganda in a time of economic hardship. Thus, we have conservatives like Jennifer Rubin getting away with utter hogwash like this:
Just a few days ago, I received yet another opportunity to interview a couple of right-wing clowns offering a hyperbolized version of these same talking points. (Apparently, I'm on some sort of toxic sludge mailing list.)
As Paul Krugman details in his excellent new book End This Depression Now, there was no Keynesian stimulus; the largest item in the stim package was tax cuts. As for "printing trillions of dollars out of thin air" -- when? When did that happen? I'd be grateful for a citation of evidence. There has been no government intervention in the free marketplace except for the Wall Street bailout (which really happened under Dubya, and which was demanded by both parties) and the aid package offered to GM, which worked out well.
Seriously: What the hell is it with the rightists and their caterwauling about "high inflation"? Do you see any inflation? Why do right-wingers love to pretend, against all evidence, that we're living in a perpetual Wiemar state? Yes, we've seen some prices rise due to unregulated commodity speculation. But if home prices and wages remain depressed, then there is no fucking inflation -- by definition.
Nevertheless, the right continues to paint Obama as some sort of left-wing zealot. Here's the latest attempt: Apparently, the National Review has discovered a story which Cannonfire covered more fully back in 2008. Most of the credit goes to a contributor called G.
The National Review ideologues thinks that Obama's one-time dalliance with the New Party proves that our president is "trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy." Oh, if only!
G and I argued that Obama's stances of that time were pure opportunism:
If the guy is going to take the socialist rap, then couldn't he have given us at least a little bit of old-school liberalism? Like, couldn't he have given Geithner's gig to someone like Krugman or Stiglitz?
The Obama of right-wing hallucination has obscured the real Obama. The real one deserves our condemnation, albeit for very different reasons. Matt Stoller puts the case against the president brilliantly in his piece on the Wisconsin debacle:
We cannot allow a false narrative to take hold. Obama screwed us not by imposing Keynesianism but by his refusal to consider such a solution. If a President Romney chooses to save his nation -- a questionable proposition -- he'll do it the same way Reagan and Hitler did it: Military Keynesianism. Huge armaments spending, on the credit card.
(If you're now dying to snarl at me about Godwin's law, screw you. My point is historically accurate. Military Keynesianism is exactly what Hitler and Reagan did. FDR too, arguably.)
Can Hillary salvage Obama? I don't think so, but if the Democrats face a sufficiently dire situation, fortune may favor the bold. The future of the Supreme Court remains a compelling consideration.
If President Obama makes the bold and historic decision to run with Hillary Clinton in 2012, an Obama-Clinton ticket would launch a rocket of enthusiasm throughout a rejuvenated and mobilized Democratic base.
An Obama-Clinton team would reduce the dangers of a generation-long Supreme Court rightist majority on a court that is already far to the right of two centuries of American jurisprudence with decisions such as Citizens United, in which five unelected justices have put under aggressive and hostile attack the core American notion that our Founding Fathers shared.
President Clinton might sometimes make the White House nervous, but he, and Hillary Clinton, stand for a Clinton presidency that was a great and well-remembered economic triumph and for an Obama presidency that has done great good, with much more great good to come.Am I convinced? No. To repeat points made in an earlier post: Veeps don't get unveeped unless they've done something truly bad, and Biden's worst sins have been a few silly gaffes. Few love Biden, but few despise him.
For years, the Republican propagandists have chosen not to go after Hillary because they sought (and still seek) to exploit the 2008 fissures between the Clinton and Obama camps. That situation would change the moment Hillary climbed aboard the ticket.
We would relive it all: Monica, Whitewater, Waco, Mena...all of your favorite hate-memes from the 1990s. And the hate would come in hyper-concentrated form. It would feel like getting a blast of pure sulfur or capsaicin in the face, every minute of every day for months.There is, however, an argument in favor of choosing Hillary: If Obama looks doomed, then he would need to grab attention with a grand, "game-changing" move. McCain chose Palin for similar reasons. As a lot of people now forget, the trick almost worked: Just before the Wall Street collapse, the Palin factor put McCain ahead of Obama.
Are things bad enough for Obama that he needs to resort to a headline-grabbing stunt? No. But the situation may soon reach that point.
In the public mind, the right's fantasy version of Obama has overtaken reality; such is the power of incessant propaganda in a time of economic hardship. Thus, we have conservatives like Jennifer Rubin getting away with utter hogwash like this:
Obama also has wrecked havoc in the the Democratic Party. He’s firmly affixed the “tax and spend” label to it ...In fact, taxes have gone down, and so has spending. The "stimulus" program was mostly a matter of tax cuts -- a fact which conservatives never tell you. There are fewer federal employees now than there were under Bush.
Just a few days ago, I received yet another opportunity to interview a couple of right-wing clowns offering a hyperbolized version of these same talking points. (Apparently, I'm on some sort of toxic sludge mailing list.)
President Obama's policies of Keynesian stimulus, printing trillions of paper dollars out of thin air and government intervention in the free marketplace have “completely failed” and are now dragging the U.S. back into recession, stagnation and high inflation.This is sludge in concentrated form. Hell, it's the concentrate they use to make concentrate.
As Paul Krugman details in his excellent new book End This Depression Now, there was no Keynesian stimulus; the largest item in the stim package was tax cuts. As for "printing trillions of dollars out of thin air" -- when? When did that happen? I'd be grateful for a citation of evidence. There has been no government intervention in the free marketplace except for the Wall Street bailout (which really happened under Dubya, and which was demanded by both parties) and the aid package offered to GM, which worked out well.
Seriously: What the hell is it with the rightists and their caterwauling about "high inflation"? Do you see any inflation? Why do right-wingers love to pretend, against all evidence, that we're living in a perpetual Wiemar state? Yes, we've seen some prices rise due to unregulated commodity speculation. But if home prices and wages remain depressed, then there is no fucking inflation -- by definition.
Nevertheless, the right continues to paint Obama as some sort of left-wing zealot. Here's the latest attempt: Apparently, the National Review has discovered a story which Cannonfire covered more fully back in 2008. Most of the credit goes to a contributor called G.
The National Review ideologues thinks that Obama's one-time dalliance with the New Party proves that our president is "trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy." Oh, if only!
G and I argued that Obama's stances of that time were pure opportunism:
He took far-left positions when doing so served to advance his career, and now repudiates those same positions in order to advance further.
At each step of the way in his political career, Obama has risen by convincing people that he's on "their" side. When Ken Adelman and Noam Chomsky endorse the same politician, you know something's seriously wrong.Alex Parenne found just the right words today: Barack Obama is "a passionless former left-wing poser." Years ago, Obama made certain fleeting alliances with various lefties because he rose to prominence in a very left-wing sector of Chicago. Even then, many of the people in his district considered him a phoney who didn't really care about progressive ideals.
If the guy is going to take the socialist rap, then couldn't he have given us at least a little bit of old-school liberalism? Like, couldn't he have given Geithner's gig to someone like Krugman or Stiglitz?
The Obama of right-wing hallucination has obscured the real Obama. The real one deserves our condemnation, albeit for very different reasons. Matt Stoller puts the case against the president brilliantly in his piece on the Wisconsin debacle:
I wish I could say I had a new insight, but it’s basically the same problem I’ve been writing about for years. Put simply, it’s that Obama’s policy framework is now the policy framework of the Democratic Party, liberals, and unionism. Up and down the ticket, Democrats are operating under the shadow of the President, associated with unpopular policies that make the lives of voters worse and show government to be an incompetent, corrupt handmaiden to big business. So they keep losing.Here's Stoller's most important point:
And if Obama loses, the recriminations will start, and liberals will take the blame for not allowing Obama to be centrist enough.(Emphasis added.) We cannot let that happen. We cannot let that happen.
We cannot allow a false narrative to take hold. Obama screwed us not by imposing Keynesianism but by his refusal to consider such a solution. If a President Romney chooses to save his nation -- a questionable proposition -- he'll do it the same way Reagan and Hitler did it: Military Keynesianism. Huge armaments spending, on the credit card.
(If you're now dying to snarl at me about Godwin's law, screw you. My point is historically accurate. Military Keynesianism is exactly what Hitler and Reagan did. FDR too, arguably.)
Can Hillary salvage Obama? I don't think so, but if the Democrats face a sufficiently dire situation, fortune may favor the bold. The future of the Supreme Court remains a compelling consideration.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Is it too early to talk about 2012?
The unsettling post below got me to thinking: How can Obama be replaced legally in 2012?
Of course, it is far too early to speak seriously about that election. Back in 2005, did anyone see Barack Obama coming? But early predictions are fun to make, so let's indulge.
If Obama gets his shit together, we need not speak of replacement. But I don't see any fecal firming. I see three more years of political diarrhea. Sure, he'll have his ups and downs, as all presidents do, but the downs will be numerous enough to alienate the Dems and the middles.
To my mind, the closest historical parallel is 1968, when an unpopular LBJ withdrew from the race, leaving the field free for his veep, Hubert Humphrey. People forget that Humphrey -- once he started to distance himself from Johnson's war policies -- nearly beat Nixon.
We might also look back at 1980 and the Kennedy challenge. History would have been more pleasant if Carter had stepped aside.
Whom will the Republicans field in 2012? Today, they have no-one of Nixon's caliber. (I can't believe that I just used the phrase "Nixon's caliber" non-ironically.) Ike's veep was smart, canny, well-known and a skilled debater. In 1968, the former red-baiter was able to repackage himself as a cautious, cool-headed centrist; the public did not yet know of his crooked ways.
Nowadays, the closest thing the GOP has to a Nixon is, god help us, Romney. His Mormon background will continue to make him unpopular among the all-important evangelicals.
The Bush brand has, I hope, run its course.
The conservative movement has been commandeered by the kind of people who think that "Has George Noory fallen under alien mind control?" is one of the burning political questions of the day. The GOP has become the Crazy Person's Party, and I don't see the crazies tolerating any more McCains or Doles: That type of more-or-less sensible Crusty Old Fart no longer has a place at the table.
Palin? Perhaps. She retains a certain "tin foily" charm. Quite a few independent female voters loved her. But her resignation from the governorship struck many as cowardly.
The loons have made it clear that they favor Huckabee -- and that, I fear, is what they are going to get.
As a president, he would be the most dangerous man in American history -- far worse than Dubya. As a candidate, his extremism makes him beatable. (Of course, people said the same things about Reagan in 1980.)
Republican wackiness is the one thing the Dems have going for them. Americans dislike Obama's incompetence, but many of them also don't like the right-wing's rhetoric of paranoia, brutishness, treason and supernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo. Conspiranoia worked well for the Republicans in the 1993-1998 period, and it seems to be having a similar impact now. But I suspect that the tactic has its limits, and will soon become self-defeating.
The average American wants a return to normalcy. We want to party like it's 1999.
So let us presume the GOP chooses Mike Huckabee, the Crazy Person's candidate, the man favored by Chuck "secession" Norris. What about the Dems?
The future of civilization depends on making sure that someone other than the current screw-up stands between Huckabee and the White House. (If the current screw-up stops screwing up, ignore the previous sentence.) If Obama steps aside, who would take his place as the party standard-bearer?
The 1968 parallel would suggest a Biden candidacy. I still like Biden, but I seem to be the only one left. He has not made a good impression on the nation. Besides, he would bear the Obama taint.
In 1968, RFK would have defeated Nixon handily. Humphrey might have done so as well, if he were a senator and not LBJ's veep. RFK combined the appeal of the outsider -- he had positioned himself as a Johnson opponent and a friend to minorities -- yet he also reminded the electorate of better times and a better presidency.
The Dems need someone like that. Who?
The obvious choice would be Hillary. She has demonstrated that she is the fiercest political warrior in America today. But in accepting the Secretary of State position, she tied her future to Obama's. Yes, she is a good SOS, and she'd make a fine president. But consider: Afghanistan. Iran. Pakistan, Russia. Al Qaeda. Israel. Within a year -- maybe two -- foreign affairs will bite Obama on the ass, and I don't see how Hillary's rump will escape the same dental markings. Conceivably, a well-timed resignation over a matter of conscience could rescue her political chances -- but that gesture could also backfire.
I believe that Americans will want someone who reminds everyone of the prosperous Clinton years, yet who has no links to the present administration. We also need someone who will provide a reassuring contrast to the Crazy Party Candidate.
The choice is obvious: Al Gore.
The Nobel Prize winner who sounds like everyone's high school science teacher. A calming choice for un-calm times.
2012: Al Gore versus Mike Huckabee. Mr. Rationality versus Mr. Wacky. What do you think?
Of course, it is far too early to speak seriously about that election. Back in 2005, did anyone see Barack Obama coming? But early predictions are fun to make, so let's indulge.
If Obama gets his shit together, we need not speak of replacement. But I don't see any fecal firming. I see three more years of political diarrhea. Sure, he'll have his ups and downs, as all presidents do, but the downs will be numerous enough to alienate the Dems and the middles.
To my mind, the closest historical parallel is 1968, when an unpopular LBJ withdrew from the race, leaving the field free for his veep, Hubert Humphrey. People forget that Humphrey -- once he started to distance himself from Johnson's war policies -- nearly beat Nixon.
We might also look back at 1980 and the Kennedy challenge. History would have been more pleasant if Carter had stepped aside.
Whom will the Republicans field in 2012? Today, they have no-one of Nixon's caliber. (I can't believe that I just used the phrase "Nixon's caliber" non-ironically.) Ike's veep was smart, canny, well-known and a skilled debater. In 1968, the former red-baiter was able to repackage himself as a cautious, cool-headed centrist; the public did not yet know of his crooked ways.
Nowadays, the closest thing the GOP has to a Nixon is, god help us, Romney. His Mormon background will continue to make him unpopular among the all-important evangelicals.
The Bush brand has, I hope, run its course.
The conservative movement has been commandeered by the kind of people who think that "Has George Noory fallen under alien mind control?" is one of the burning political questions of the day. The GOP has become the Crazy Person's Party, and I don't see the crazies tolerating any more McCains or Doles: That type of more-or-less sensible Crusty Old Fart no longer has a place at the table.
Palin? Perhaps. She retains a certain "tin foily" charm. Quite a few independent female voters loved her. But her resignation from the governorship struck many as cowardly.
The loons have made it clear that they favor Huckabee -- and that, I fear, is what they are going to get.
As a president, he would be the most dangerous man in American history -- far worse than Dubya. As a candidate, his extremism makes him beatable. (Of course, people said the same things about Reagan in 1980.)
Republican wackiness is the one thing the Dems have going for them. Americans dislike Obama's incompetence, but many of them also don't like the right-wing's rhetoric of paranoia, brutishness, treason and supernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo. Conspiranoia worked well for the Republicans in the 1993-1998 period, and it seems to be having a similar impact now. But I suspect that the tactic has its limits, and will soon become self-defeating.
The average American wants a return to normalcy. We want to party like it's 1999.
So let us presume the GOP chooses Mike Huckabee, the Crazy Person's candidate, the man favored by Chuck "secession" Norris. What about the Dems?
The future of civilization depends on making sure that someone other than the current screw-up stands between Huckabee and the White House. (If the current screw-up stops screwing up, ignore the previous sentence.) If Obama steps aside, who would take his place as the party standard-bearer?
The 1968 parallel would suggest a Biden candidacy. I still like Biden, but I seem to be the only one left. He has not made a good impression on the nation. Besides, he would bear the Obama taint.
In 1968, RFK would have defeated Nixon handily. Humphrey might have done so as well, if he were a senator and not LBJ's veep. RFK combined the appeal of the outsider -- he had positioned himself as a Johnson opponent and a friend to minorities -- yet he also reminded the electorate of better times and a better presidency.
The Dems need someone like that. Who?
The obvious choice would be Hillary. She has demonstrated that she is the fiercest political warrior in America today. But in accepting the Secretary of State position, she tied her future to Obama's. Yes, she is a good SOS, and she'd make a fine president. But consider: Afghanistan. Iran. Pakistan, Russia. Al Qaeda. Israel. Within a year -- maybe two -- foreign affairs will bite Obama on the ass, and I don't see how Hillary's rump will escape the same dental markings. Conceivably, a well-timed resignation over a matter of conscience could rescue her political chances -- but that gesture could also backfire.
I believe that Americans will want someone who reminds everyone of the prosperous Clinton years, yet who has no links to the present administration. We also need someone who will provide a reassuring contrast to the Crazy Party Candidate.
The choice is obvious: Al Gore.
The Nobel Prize winner who sounds like everyone's high school science teacher. A calming choice for un-calm times.
2012: Al Gore versus Mike Huckabee. Mr. Rationality versus Mr. Wacky. What do you think?
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Barr's plan to put Joe Biden in jail. History's biggest frame-up is in the works.
We have a troubling report from Kyiv suggesting that William Barr may be readying an indictment of Joe Biden. The charges will be false, of course -- but they may stick, nonetheless.
Before we talk about this horrifying development, I must offer a few preliminary observations about the Attorney General.
Back when Dems were hoping that Barr would be one of the proverbial "adults in the room," I warned that he was a CIA operative with a history of deceit and underhanded behavior. Dems learned the truth -- the hard way -- when Barr lied about the Mueller report.
Digby understands why Barr is the most dangerous man in America: Barr is Trump with brains. Digby also punctures the myth that John Durham is a straight shooter.
This insane assertion contradicts all experience, all history, all common sense. Virtually every book and article I've ever read about the Bureau has described it as a conservative institution that attracts conservative employees. From time to time, I've met people who have worked for the Bureau, and all of them were locatable somewhere on the right.
(I even met a former FBI guy -- a man who once held a prominent position -- who ended up on the Alex Jonesian lunatic fringe. Some of you may be able to guess who I'm talking about. Of course, I met a lot of weird people back in the 1990s.)
During the 2016 election, the only bias publicly demonstrated by the FBI was the decision to reveal the investigation into the Weiner laptop. That decision, which walloped Clinton, was probably forced on FBI Director Jim Comey by a pro-Trump contingent in the New York office. In fact, we now have confirmation that this FBI office was working with Rudy Giuliani.
When Comey made that announcemnt, Harry Reid and a whole lotta rank-and-file Dems accused Comey of pro-Republican bias. That accusation, though not really fair, has always been a lot more plausible than were the bizarre conspiracy theories later offered by the right. After all, Jim Comey was a registered Republican, and his actions effectively handed the presidency to Trump.
Logic tells us that, if the FBI really had been anti-Trump, the Bureau would have revealed that Trump was under investigation.
Moreover, FBI sources would not have told NYT reporters that the DNC hack was “was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Trump.” (Do you remember that infamous pre-election article?) It was the FBI's obvious pro-Trump bias which led an enraged Christopher Steele -- who was sincerely worried that a Russian puppet would gain the presidency -- to leak the Dossier to David Corn.
Yet Americans are being bombarded with propaganda designed to convinced them that the Bureau was pro-Clinton. Insane! Reality is being turned upside-down. Any propaganda apparatus capable of selling that absurd idea can also convince the public that Puff the Magic Dragon is real.
The triumph of propaganda will allow Barr to transform the Justice Department into an instrument of tyranny -- an Inquisition into any perceived foe of Donald Trump. Barr is Trump's Cardinal Richelieu.
Yes, Barr will indict Joe Biden. You read it here first, unless you follow the Kyiv Post or Seth Abramson (who has discussed the matter in this thread).
Attorney General Barr and his toady John Durham have the power to convene a Grand Jury. There are rumors that this has already occurred. Strong evidence suggests that the target will be Joe Biden.
Not Hunter: Joe himself.
Joe Biden is in danger of going to prison on false charges. I'm not kidding.
This incredibly important article in the Kyiv Post should have sounded far more alarm bells than we've heard.
It's important to understand that Bursima was the victim. Too many American writers speak of Burisma as an innately evil enterprise. This is a smear -- a made-in-Russia lie. The Russians hate Burisma because, previously, Russians were in charge of Ukraine's natural gas. It was a very profitable enterprise -- one which gave Russia a great deal of leverage over Ukraine. Putin wants one of his 'garchs to run that show again.
Zlochevsky was exposed and ousted long before the company hired Hunter Biden to help rehabilitate the company's international image and allow it to do business in Western Europe. While Zlochevsky still ran the company, he had zero motive to attempt to bribe the American Vice President.
Joe Biden's taxes are a matter of public record. There's no "funny money" there -- if there were, we'd all know about it by now.
During the Obama administration, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to can the corrupt prosecutor -- a shady character named Viktor Shokin -- who allowed Zlochevsky to get away with it. Zlochevsky's bank accounts in the UK were frozen, but the British case against him was stymied by Shokin's refusal to cooperate. That's one reason why Biden wanted Shokin fired.
Why on earth would Biden want Mr. See-No-Evil replaced, if Biden were the recipient of a Zlochevsky bribe? It makes no sense!
Zlochevsky's thievery started to come to light in 2012, when the Prosecutor General began to investigate him for money laundering and other crimes. This was before John Kerry was Secretary of State. By the time Kerry took on that job in 2013, pretty much everyone understood that Zlochevsky was no damned good; if memory serves, he was already out at Burisma by that point. Not long thereafter, he was forced to flee his home country.
Whatever you may think about Kerry, there is no way in hell the guy would have taken money from a known crook just after taking the oath of office as Secretary of State. Kerry is old and rich; he doesn't need the money. Moreover, he has always had a sterling reputation. If there was any corruption in his history, it would have come out in 2004, when the most ruthless oppo researchers in America examined every microsecond of that man's history.
In short: This whole get-Biden narrative is utterly inane. Yet it will apparently have documentation to back it, and those documents will carry the imprimatur of the current Ukrainian government. (I told you not to trust Zelensky.)
Before we continue with the Kyiv Post article, you have to understand something else about Urkaine: Sergii Leshchenko is a true anti-corruption crusader -- probably the most trustworthy figure in the country. He's the one who exposed those obscene payments to Paul Manafort, a scandal which forced Manafort to step down as Trump's campaign manager.
Naturally, the pro-Trump and pro-Putin forces are out to destroy Leschenko's reputation.
(Don't mix up Sergii Leschenko with Yuri Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, who is not one of the good guys. The extra T in his name stands for Trump.)
Leschenko's Wikipedia entry -- which is very lengthy -- mentions no such conviction. Under Ukrainian law, would it be a crime if he had helped the American Democratic party? In fact, Leschenko did not aid the Democrats -- but he did expose those illegal payments to Paul Manafort, who went to jail. What Leschenko did was not interference: It was decency.
Basically, every time you hear a Republican claim that Ukrainians helped Hillary, it's a reference to the justice meted out to Paul Manafort -- a man whose own daughters have accused him of having people killed. The smear-merchants are setting the stage for a Manafort pardon.
Here is the bottom line:
Unfortunately, Barr will probably get away with relying on false documentation and testimony supplied by Zelensky's government.
My prediction: Joe Biden is going to be indicted. He may even go to prison.
It will be the biggest frame-up in history -- and even if it doesn't put Joe in jail, it will insure the re-election of Donald Trump. Manafort will probably go free. (So will Roger Stone, but that's a separate matter.)
Like the Silver Surfer heralding the coming of Galactus, infuriating meme-smears like this are preparing the way for the Mother of All Smears.
Conspiracies are real, my friends. The true conspirators are on the right -- always. The true victims of these conspiracies are always moderates and liberals. (Real conspiracies usually do not target those on the far left, who often play the "useful idiot" role.) Such was the situation in Germany when the Nazis came to power in the 1920s, and such is the situation in America right now.
Walter Schaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, offers an important thread on this topic, which I have taken the liberty of translating into normal prose.
Before we talk about this horrifying development, I must offer a few preliminary observations about the Attorney General.
Back when Dems were hoping that Barr would be one of the proverbial "adults in the room," I warned that he was a CIA operative with a history of deceit and underhanded behavior. Dems learned the truth -- the hard way -- when Barr lied about the Mueller report.
Digby understands why Barr is the most dangerous man in America: Barr is Trump with brains. Digby also punctures the myth that John Durham is a straight shooter.
This explains why his hand-picked special prosecutor, John Durham, broke every rule in the book by issuing his own statement saying he also disagrees with the IG's conclusions, hinting broadly that he's onto something big. If you can't remember a federal prosecutor ever talking about an ongoing investigation this way, it's because it simply isn;t done. Well, it hasn't been done. But at least it clarified that Durham is either a Rod Rosenstein-esque toady, afraid to stand up for himself, or another Trump partisan. A straight shooter wouldn't have broken that rule. Now we know.Greg Sargent in the WP:
In saying those things, Barr is rewriting the story of 2016 in a subtle but consequential way. He’s implying that the FBI’s initial investigation was only motivated by what it had learned about the Trump campaign’s intentions with regard to coordinating with Russia’s electoral subversion effort.It's worse than that. The public is being brainwashed into believing that the FBI -- yes, the freakin' FBI -- is institutionally pro-liberal.
But Barr is leaving out crucial facts and context. In fact, when the FBI launched this investigation, it had already developed an awareness that Russia was undertaking this attack on U.S. democracy — separate and apart from any Trump campaign involvement with it. This was a critical reason the FBI launched its investigation.
This insane assertion contradicts all experience, all history, all common sense. Virtually every book and article I've ever read about the Bureau has described it as a conservative institution that attracts conservative employees. From time to time, I've met people who have worked for the Bureau, and all of them were locatable somewhere on the right.
(I even met a former FBI guy -- a man who once held a prominent position -- who ended up on the Alex Jonesian lunatic fringe. Some of you may be able to guess who I'm talking about. Of course, I met a lot of weird people back in the 1990s.)
During the 2016 election, the only bias publicly demonstrated by the FBI was the decision to reveal the investigation into the Weiner laptop. That decision, which walloped Clinton, was probably forced on FBI Director Jim Comey by a pro-Trump contingent in the New York office. In fact, we now have confirmation that this FBI office was working with Rudy Giuliani.
When Comey made that announcemnt, Harry Reid and a whole lotta rank-and-file Dems accused Comey of pro-Republican bias. That accusation, though not really fair, has always been a lot more plausible than were the bizarre conspiracy theories later offered by the right. After all, Jim Comey was a registered Republican, and his actions effectively handed the presidency to Trump.
Logic tells us that, if the FBI really had been anti-Trump, the Bureau would have revealed that Trump was under investigation.
Moreover, FBI sources would not have told NYT reporters that the DNC hack was “was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Trump.” (Do you remember that infamous pre-election article?) It was the FBI's obvious pro-Trump bias which led an enraged Christopher Steele -- who was sincerely worried that a Russian puppet would gain the presidency -- to leak the Dossier to David Corn.
Yet Americans are being bombarded with propaganda designed to convinced them that the Bureau was pro-Clinton. Insane! Reality is being turned upside-down. Any propaganda apparatus capable of selling that absurd idea can also convince the public that Puff the Magic Dragon is real.
The triumph of propaganda will allow Barr to transform the Justice Department into an instrument of tyranny -- an Inquisition into any perceived foe of Donald Trump. Barr is Trump's Cardinal Richelieu.
Yes, Barr will indict Joe Biden. You read it here first, unless you follow the Kyiv Post or Seth Abramson (who has discussed the matter in this thread).
Attorney General Barr and his toady John Durham have the power to convene a Grand Jury. There are rumors that this has already occurred. Strong evidence suggests that the target will be Joe Biden.
Not Hunter: Joe himself.
Joe Biden is in danger of going to prison on false charges. I'm not kidding.
This incredibly important article in the Kyiv Post should have sounded far more alarm bells than we've heard.
A memo allegedly leaked from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine shows that prosecutors are accusing former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden of receiving “an unlawful benefit” from former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky’s Burisma Group, and oil and gas producer.Most Americans will not be able to understand just how audacious this lie is. First thing you have to know: Mykola Zlochevsky was a crook. (As I've noted in previous posts, he even looks like the Kingpin in Marvel Comics.) He was the corrupt former head of Burisma who, basically, robbed the company blind.
According to the document, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office also accuses Zlochevsky of offering Biden and former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a share of Burisma Group’s profits.
It's important to understand that Bursima was the victim. Too many American writers speak of Burisma as an innately evil enterprise. This is a smear -- a made-in-Russia lie. The Russians hate Burisma because, previously, Russians were in charge of Ukraine's natural gas. It was a very profitable enterprise -- one which gave Russia a great deal of leverage over Ukraine. Putin wants one of his 'garchs to run that show again.
Zlochevsky was exposed and ousted long before the company hired Hunter Biden to help rehabilitate the company's international image and allow it to do business in Western Europe. While Zlochevsky still ran the company, he had zero motive to attempt to bribe the American Vice President.
Joe Biden's taxes are a matter of public record. There's no "funny money" there -- if there were, we'd all know about it by now.
During the Obama administration, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to can the corrupt prosecutor -- a shady character named Viktor Shokin -- who allowed Zlochevsky to get away with it. Zlochevsky's bank accounts in the UK were frozen, but the British case against him was stymied by Shokin's refusal to cooperate. That's one reason why Biden wanted Shokin fired.
Why on earth would Biden want Mr. See-No-Evil replaced, if Biden were the recipient of a Zlochevsky bribe? It makes no sense!
Zlochevsky's thievery started to come to light in 2012, when the Prosecutor General began to investigate him for money laundering and other crimes. This was before John Kerry was Secretary of State. By the time Kerry took on that job in 2013, pretty much everyone understood that Zlochevsky was no damned good; if memory serves, he was already out at Burisma by that point. Not long thereafter, he was forced to flee his home country.
Whatever you may think about Kerry, there is no way in hell the guy would have taken money from a known crook just after taking the oath of office as Secretary of State. Kerry is old and rich; he doesn't need the money. Moreover, he has always had a sterling reputation. If there was any corruption in his history, it would have come out in 2004, when the most ruthless oppo researchers in America examined every microsecond of that man's history.
In short: This whole get-Biden narrative is utterly inane. Yet it will apparently have documentation to back it, and those documents will carry the imprimatur of the current Ukrainian government. (I told you not to trust Zelensky.)
Before we continue with the Kyiv Post article, you have to understand something else about Urkaine: Sergii Leshchenko is a true anti-corruption crusader -- probably the most trustworthy figure in the country. He's the one who exposed those obscene payments to Paul Manafort, a scandal which forced Manafort to step down as Trump's campaign manager.
Naturally, the pro-Trump and pro-Putin forces are out to destroy Leschenko's reputation.
(Don't mix up Sergii Leschenko with Yuri Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, who is not one of the good guys. The extra T in his name stands for Trump.)
Lawmaker Sergii Leshchenko published the memo on May 14. He said that the memo had been submitted by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko’s team to U.S. President Donald Trump’s team and that he had received it from journalists working for a news site affiliated with Trump.
The leaked memo came in response to claims by Trump’s personal lawyer, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, that Leshchenko had been convicted of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on the side of the Democratic Party, claims that Leshchenko denies."Convicted"? Are they nuts?
Leschenko's Wikipedia entry -- which is very lengthy -- mentions no such conviction. Under Ukrainian law, would it be a crime if he had helped the American Democratic party? In fact, Leschenko did not aid the Democrats -- but he did expose those illegal payments to Paul Manafort, who went to jail. What Leschenko did was not interference: It was decency.
Basically, every time you hear a Republican claim that Ukrainians helped Hillary, it's a reference to the justice meted out to Paul Manafort -- a man whose own daughters have accused him of having people killed. The smear-merchants are setting the stage for a Manafort pardon.
Here is the bottom line:
Leshchenko cast doubt on the veracity of the claims about Biden and Kerry. He said he believed the memo to be part of what he alleged was a disinformation campaign by Lutsenko.Unfortunately, the media -- including the mainstream media -- has sold the American public on the idea that Zelensky is some sort of anti-corruption crusader. He is anything but. He's the puppet of Ihor Kolomoisky, a villainous oligarch who has been secretly working with Rudy Giuliani.
“Lutsenko seeks to use Ukraine as a bargaining chip in the battle between the Democrats and the Republicans in the U.S.,” Leshchenko said. “They have created a conspiracy theory that made us hostages to one person’s desire to keep his job. (Lutsenko) should not get Ukraine involved in this terrible scenario and should not take President-elect Volodymyr Zelenskiy hostage.”
Lutsenko has been accused of trying to curry favor with Trump by investigating Biden, Trump’s potential Democratic rival in the 2020 presidential election.
Unfortunately, Barr will probably get away with relying on false documentation and testimony supplied by Zelensky's government.
My prediction: Joe Biden is going to be indicted. He may even go to prison.
It will be the biggest frame-up in history -- and even if it doesn't put Joe in jail, it will insure the re-election of Donald Trump. Manafort will probably go free. (So will Roger Stone, but that's a separate matter.)
Like the Silver Surfer heralding the coming of Galactus, infuriating meme-smears like this are preparing the way for the Mother of All Smears.
Conspiracies are real, my friends. The true conspirators are on the right -- always. The true victims of these conspiracies are always moderates and liberals. (Real conspiracies usually do not target those on the far left, who often play the "useful idiot" role.) Such was the situation in Germany when the Nazis came to power in the 1920s, and such is the situation in America right now.
Walter Schaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, offers an important thread on this topic, which I have taken the liberty of translating into normal prose.
As Attorney General, Barr is a threat to democracy. He has distorted facts and misled the public. He appointed Durham to run a concurrent investigation because he knew the Inspector General would debunk his conspiracy theories, and he needed someone he could control.
Durham revealed much about his own character when he issued a transparently political message challenging the IG's report before completing his investigation. Barr, who deceived the public about the contents of the Mueller report, has similarly tried to undermine the IG report.
Barr's crackpot theory boils down to the idea that the last administration tried to sabotage Trump's candidacy by keeping its investigation of Trump's campaign completely secret while colluding with Jason Chaffetz to leak information about its investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Barr bizarrely argues it'd be bad if a president abused his power to sabotage a rival's campaign with an investigation. The notion that Obama came anywhere near doing this is the debunked lunacy of pizzagate enthusiasts, but it's exactly what the "transcript" shows Trump did. Barr's comments also suggest a plan to take personnel actions against individuals tied to the investigation of Trump. Whether action is warranted or not, an Attorney General commenting on personnel actions that must be taken by lower level managers suggests the fix is in.
Whether he ultimately intervenes in personnel matters is almost beside the point. His remarks were intended to intimidate the DOJ attorneys and FBI agents investigating others associated with the president. And there's something far more ominous that his remarks have signaled.
Barr, who traveled the world looking for ways to defend the politician he serves instead of the rule of law, has also signaled he may use the criminal investigative apparatus of the state to go after perceived enemies of his boss -- weaponizing it as a tool of a political party. Even the mere suggestion that he would do this is a direct assault on democracy and a betrayal of the public trust. It is extremely dangerous and may chill legitimate investigations. It's the stuff of autocracies. It must not be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in a republic.
(Barr even talks like an authoritarian. He said he'd ignore any ethics guidance he disagreed with. He ignored the 1st amendment and blamed "secularism" for society's ills. He told certain "communities" [wink] they need to show more respect or live without police protection.)
In this context, it's important to remember that Trump fired Sessions the day after the election because he would not stop the Russia investigation. A president firing someone for failing to treat him as though he is above the law should have been viewed as an impeachable act. Instead, Barr was greeted warmly as a stabilizing force by people who should have known better. But, as the beneficiary of a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre, Barr was hired to do what Sessions wouldn't do. He was hired for this moment in history.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Peter DeFazio for President! (I'm serious.)
Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio is the first prominent Democrat to call for the firing of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the two Obama administration officials who gave Wall Streeters all the KY Jelly they needed to rape the taxpayers. DeFazio's candor impresses me. In fact, I'm so impressed that I want to run the words "DeFazio for President in 2012" past my audience.
Yeah, I know how most Americans will react to this suggestion: "Peter who?"
Perhaps the better question is: "Who else?"
Well, there's Obama. Believe it or not, I'd love for him to get his act together. I'd love to vote for a newer, smarter, better Obama in 2012. In all likelihood, though, his poll numbers will soon head into George-Bush-2007 territory. (And here's why.) That popularity plunge will, sadly, tar anyone connected to his administration -- including Hillary Clinton (who would make a fine president) and Joe Biden (whom I still like even though you probably don't).
2012 may resemble 1968, when Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race due to his unpopularity. If RFK had picked up the nomination, Nixon would have lost. Instead, the candidate was Hubert Humphrey, a good man saddled with the unhappy job of being LBJ's veep. Many Dems thought that a vote for Humphrey was a vote for a continuance of the Johnson administration (and of the war).
We know what happened back then. That's why we need an outsider in 2012.
But we also need an insider -- someone who has spent many years in D.C., someone who knows how the system works. Both Dubya and Obama have taught us the dangers of inexperience.
Peter DeFazio is definitely a maverick. He's not part of what the Corrente bloggers call "Versailles." Yet he has been in Congress since 1987 -- and before that, he worked for Representative Jim Weaver. He knows his way around.
He comes from a purple-tinged rural state. I doubt that many country folk in the red states could ever really come to hate him, not in the way they instinctively hate big-city Easterners.
He did four years in the military during Vietnam. He has an unambiguous record of opposing gun control. He wants a big increase in pay for active-duty military personnel. He is a church-goer but not a religious nut.
All of this serves to preempt the more obvious lines of right-wing attack.
If Obama fails as badly as I think he'll fail, if populist outrage over the Wall Street handouts continues to gather force, then the Democrats in 2012 will be desperate to find someone in the party who opposed the Obama economic team from the very beginning. Alas, nearly all of the Democratic opposition came from Blue Dogs whose conservatism would alienate the progressive base and the netroots.
There is but one exception: Peter DeFazio. Let's look at the record:
He opposed the Iraq war from the start. He didn't just give one (1) speech against the invasion, as Obama did. He voted against it.
He offers genuine opposition to free trade agreements.
He opposed the stimulus bill because "I couldn't justify borrowing money for tax cuts." (Most Americans don't know that much of the stim bill went to tax cuts, not job creation.) This principled opposition sent Obama into Al Capone mode. He warned DeFazio: "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."
That bit of Chicago-style thuggery could prove golden for DeFazio in 2012.
Here's DeFazio on TARP back in January:
I was wrong. It was actually worse than I thought it could be.The reference goes to the first bailout vote, during the waning days of Bush. (Isn't it odd how many people now forget that this vote even occurred? And it was only a year ago!) DeFazio voted against the October, 2008 TARP plan "emphatically," offering a much more sensible alternative. He was not taken in by the NOW NOW NOW propaganda which was so prevalent at the time.
You know, what did we get for $350 billion? I mean, that's the question my constituents are asking. And that's now the question my colleagues -- even those who supported it -- are asking.
RYSSDAL: How are you going to vote this time when the second $350 billion comes up?That transfer tax -- a tax on stock trades -- is something I have advocated in a number of previous posts. Such a tax would have held in check the insane computerized trading we've seen recently, trading which enriched Goldman Sachs unfairly and led to an utterly distorted market. This proposal would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money.
DeFazio: Well, first, today, I want to see these very strong restrictions put in place. But I'm still not inclined to vote for it. I wanted two amendments that aren't being allowed. I would have split the money and said, "OK, here's part of it. Let's see what you do with it." And then, secondly, I still want to impose a minuscule transfer tax, something we had in this country throughout the Great Depression, throughout World War II, up until the '60s, on stock transfers. It wouldn't hurt people in 401(k)'s. And legitimate traders it would be one-quarter of 1 percent, so Wall Street could pay to bailout itself.
His opposition to TARP makes him one of the few Democrats that right-wingers will listen to -- hell, even Alex Jones has had him on his show. Yet DeFazio's opposition to "corporate socialism" -- to Goldman Sachs and environs -- will endear him to all true liberals.
DeFazio would not be a perfect candidate. On the issues, he has made one major mistake: He voted for the House health care reform bill, which, if passed by the Senate, will soon be very unpopular.
He's not young. He's not colorful. His rhetoric does not soar. He looks and sounds like a guy who should be running a neighborhood grocery store.
But he has one thing in his favor -- a penchant for being right.
Some of my feminist readers will automatically disqualify him from consideration on the grounds that he has committed the sin of penis-ownership. I hope that his record will make his genitalia forgivable.
No-other left-wing Democrat -- not even Kucinich -- has so consistently and loudly opposed Obama's economic mismanagement. In 2012, many disillusioned progressives who had once backed Obama will thank all of heaven's angels that Peter DeFazio has compiled such a principled resume.
Sunday, October 06, 2019
Whistleblowers and the CIA. Plus: Giuliani's corrupt connection to Ukraine. (NEW AND IMPORTANT.)
I wanted the previous post (which debunks Ukraine/Biden conspiracy theories) to stay up for a couple of days. But so much is happening...!
First and foremost, there now appear to be "multiple" whistleblowers.
At any rate, keep in mind that people in the intelligence community use spooky lawyers, which means that the "Deep State" conspiracy junkies are going to leap on Bakaj and Zaid.
Andrew P Bakaj, 36, is indeed a "former" CIA officer who formally served from 2012 to 2015. He is now running Compass Rose Legal Group. Interestingly, he once worked in the American embassy in Kiev. As a young man, Bakaj served on Capitol Hill (probably as an intern) for Chuck Schumer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and -- wait for it -- Hillary Clinton.
Oh boy. You know what the rightwingers are going to do with all of that. "He's got Clinton cooties all over him!"
From his firm's website:
The Liquid Natural Gas connection. What I'm about to lay out for you is very important, and almost nobody is talking about it. So PLEASE: Read carefully, double-check if you can, and spread the word.
First: We all got a nice giggle when Trump tried to deflect blame for the Zelensky call to Rick Perry. If I were in Trump's shoes, I wouldn't want to give people the impression that I was dumb enough to be hornswoggled by Rick freakin' Perry. I think I'd rather just take an impeachment.
The marvelous Wendy Siegelman decided to investigate further, and what she found is pretty damned amazing.
After reading this, you'll be asking the obvious question: Why is anyone talking about Hunter Biden? Rudy Giuliani is the one with deep and continuing business interests in Ukraine. Read Siegelman's piece and you'll get a good whiff of Giuliani's corruption.
I've taken the liberty of translating her Twitter-ese into conventional prose. The words below the asterisks are hers. I have improved the grammar slightly; if that decision bothers you, hit the link and read the original thread.
Trump's attempt to blame Rick Perry for his call to Zelensky is hilarious, but there is an underlying truth to his new narrative. No, Perry isn't responsible for Trump coercing Ukraine into supporting his campaign, but LNG is at the heart of the Ukraine scandal.
It's also why I've grown skeptical of the idea that the Ukraine scandal's supposed simplicity means it should be the focus of the House's impeachment inquiry. Yes, the corruptness of Trump's request to Zelensky is straightforward, but there's a much messier story underlying it.
Different members of the Trump administration saw a Liquid Natural Gas deal in Ukraine as a means to different ends, but for Trump, exporting LNG to Ukraine was closely associated with his frequent (incorrect) boasts about how America is now a net energy exporter, etc. It's also the thing Trump cites to when he claims 'nobody has been tougher on Russia than him.' While he's obviously wrong about the whole toughest on Russia part, Trump is right that this is one area – probably the only area – where his policies are genuinely adverse to Russia.
To grossly oversimplify everything: Russia has a lot of LNG that it supplies to Europe, and how reliant those European countries are on Russia for their total gas supply, and what pipelines Russia uses to transport the LNG to them, both have huge political ramifications. Ukraine's role in Europe's LNG politics is why Rick Perry and John Bolton were two of the heavy-lifters when it came to the negotiations with the new presidential administration in Ukraine. And it's why they were involved in the negotiations in July with Ukraine's security chair.
Back in May, Perry was subbed in last minute for Pence to attend Zelensky's inauguration. In part, it was a warning to Zelensky that he was being tested. But it is also the case that Perry was sent there, along with Sen Johnson and Volker, to discuss the LNG pipeline.
(Side note: check out that attendance list from the Ukrainian side. Why on earth would Ruslan Riaboshapka, an attorney, have been sent to an LNG meeting? Riaboshapka, btw, is also the guy Zelensky tapped to be his Chief Prosecutor. Who will lead any investigation into Biden.)
All of this negotiation over LNG pipelines and supply agreements is a normal part of politics. Yes, corruption is endemic in the LNG world, especially in developing nations, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what Perry/Bolton were doing in these LNG talks with Ukraine.
But what was happening in Ukraine wasn't just the usual LNG politics, because there was a monkey wrench that was interrupting the normal foreign policy process. That monkey wrench was Rudy Giuliani. Because Giuliani is the President's personal attorney. And he was in Ukraine operating on Trump's behalf.
But Trump doesn't pay Giuliani. Trump isn't paying for Giuliani's work in Ukraine. A Ukrainian-American LNG company is paying Giuliani for all his work in Ukraine.
Giuliani's actual client – his paying client – is Global Energy Producers. GEP's business is facilitating LNG export contracts to Ukraine. Which means that is also Giuliani's purpose in Ukraine. While simultaneously acting on behalf of the President of the United States.
"Conflict of interest" is an insufficient term for this abuse of power.
Giuliani was negotiating with the Ukrainians on Trump's behalf, while also try to help his clients score an LNG contract. All while Perry and Bolton are also negotiating with Ukraine on an LNG deal.
GEP is owned by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They're the ones who got Giuliani in touch with Lutsenko, and who Giuliani sent to first make contact with Zelensky after his election. They're also the ones helping Giuliani in his quest to manufacture dirt on Biden in Ukraine.
Since 2016, Parnas and Fruman have gotten millions in funding from an unknown source, which they have used to donate millions of dollars to GOP campaigns and PACs. This, in turn, has given them a bit of access to some elected officials.
First and foremost, there now appear to be "multiple" whistleblowers.
“IC WHISTLEBLOWER UPDATE: I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General,” the attorney, Andrew Bakaj, said in a tweet. “No further comment at this time.”Doesn't need to? Tell me more!
Mark Zaid, who also is a member of the original whistleblower’s legal team, confirmed to The Washington Post that the team is now representing a second whistleblower, who works in the intelligence community. The second individual has spoken to the inspector general of the intelligence community and has not filed a complaint. “Doesn’t need to,” Zaid said.
At any rate, keep in mind that people in the intelligence community use spooky lawyers, which means that the "Deep State" conspiracy junkies are going to leap on Bakaj and Zaid.
Andrew P Bakaj, 36, is indeed a "former" CIA officer who formally served from 2012 to 2015. He is now running Compass Rose Legal Group. Interestingly, he once worked in the American embassy in Kiev. As a young man, Bakaj served on Capitol Hill (probably as an intern) for Chuck Schumer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and -- wait for it -- Hillary Clinton.
Oh boy. You know what the rightwingers are going to do with all of that. "He's got Clinton cooties all over him!"
From his firm's website:
Bakaj won DoD’s Investigator of the Year award in 2012 for his work on chemical weapons storage. He personally wrote both CIA and DoD agency regulations prohibiting reprisals against whistleblowers.Bakaj says that he himself received wrongful termination for helping whistleblowers in a case that we don't know much about because the details remain classified.
The Liquid Natural Gas connection. What I'm about to lay out for you is very important, and almost nobody is talking about it. So PLEASE: Read carefully, double-check if you can, and spread the word.
First: We all got a nice giggle when Trump tried to deflect blame for the Zelensky call to Rick Perry. If I were in Trump's shoes, I wouldn't want to give people the impression that I was dumb enough to be hornswoggled by Rick freakin' Perry. I think I'd rather just take an impeachment.
The marvelous Wendy Siegelman decided to investigate further, and what she found is pretty damned amazing.
After reading this, you'll be asking the obvious question: Why is anyone talking about Hunter Biden? Rudy Giuliani is the one with deep and continuing business interests in Ukraine. Read Siegelman's piece and you'll get a good whiff of Giuliani's corruption.
I've taken the liberty of translating her Twitter-ese into conventional prose. The words below the asterisks are hers. I have improved the grammar slightly; if that decision bothers you, hit the link and read the original thread.
* * *
Trump's attempt to blame Rick Perry for his call to Zelensky is hilarious, but there is an underlying truth to his new narrative. No, Perry isn't responsible for Trump coercing Ukraine into supporting his campaign, but LNG is at the heart of the Ukraine scandal.
It's also why I've grown skeptical of the idea that the Ukraine scandal's supposed simplicity means it should be the focus of the House's impeachment inquiry. Yes, the corruptness of Trump's request to Zelensky is straightforward, but there's a much messier story underlying it.
Different members of the Trump administration saw a Liquid Natural Gas deal in Ukraine as a means to different ends, but for Trump, exporting LNG to Ukraine was closely associated with his frequent (incorrect) boasts about how America is now a net energy exporter, etc. It's also the thing Trump cites to when he claims 'nobody has been tougher on Russia than him.' While he's obviously wrong about the whole toughest on Russia part, Trump is right that this is one area – probably the only area – where his policies are genuinely adverse to Russia.
To grossly oversimplify everything: Russia has a lot of LNG that it supplies to Europe, and how reliant those European countries are on Russia for their total gas supply, and what pipelines Russia uses to transport the LNG to them, both have huge political ramifications. Ukraine's role in Europe's LNG politics is why Rick Perry and John Bolton were two of the heavy-lifters when it came to the negotiations with the new presidential administration in Ukraine. And it's why they were involved in the negotiations in July with Ukraine's security chair.
Back in May, Perry was subbed in last minute for Pence to attend Zelensky's inauguration. In part, it was a warning to Zelensky that he was being tested. But it is also the case that Perry was sent there, along with Sen Johnson and Volker, to discuss the LNG pipeline.
(Side note: check out that attendance list from the Ukrainian side. Why on earth would Ruslan Riaboshapka, an attorney, have been sent to an LNG meeting? Riaboshapka, btw, is also the guy Zelensky tapped to be his Chief Prosecutor. Who will lead any investigation into Biden.)
All of this negotiation over LNG pipelines and supply agreements is a normal part of politics. Yes, corruption is endemic in the LNG world, especially in developing nations, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what Perry/Bolton were doing in these LNG talks with Ukraine.
But what was happening in Ukraine wasn't just the usual LNG politics, because there was a monkey wrench that was interrupting the normal foreign policy process. That monkey wrench was Rudy Giuliani. Because Giuliani is the President's personal attorney. And he was in Ukraine operating on Trump's behalf.
But Trump doesn't pay Giuliani. Trump isn't paying for Giuliani's work in Ukraine. A Ukrainian-American LNG company is paying Giuliani for all his work in Ukraine.
Giuliani's actual client – his paying client – is Global Energy Producers. GEP's business is facilitating LNG export contracts to Ukraine. Which means that is also Giuliani's purpose in Ukraine. While simultaneously acting on behalf of the President of the United States.
"Conflict of interest" is an insufficient term for this abuse of power.
Giuliani was negotiating with the Ukrainians on Trump's behalf, while also try to help his clients score an LNG contract. All while Perry and Bolton are also negotiating with Ukraine on an LNG deal.
GEP is owned by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They're the ones who got Giuliani in touch with Lutsenko, and who Giuliani sent to first make contact with Zelensky after his election. They're also the ones helping Giuliani in his quest to manufacture dirt on Biden in Ukraine.
Since 2016, Parnas and Fruman have gotten millions in funding from an unknown source, which they have used to donate millions of dollars to GOP campaigns and PACs. This, in turn, has given them a bit of access to some elected officials.
Friday, December 11, 2020
Why not respond in kind? There's evidence that the REPUBLICANS rigged the vote
Yesterday, I had much to say about the insane Texas case filed by Ken Paxton (who clearly covets a Trump pardon). But the words wouldn't come. Ever have one of those bad dreams where you feel a need to scream but you can't make a sound? I felt muffled by my own disgust, like a man trying to sing through a mouthful of vomit.
Everyone on librul teevee keeps telling us that Paxton's bizarre trick won't work, yet no-one quite believes these blandishments. Admit it: You feel fear. We all do. Maybe it's not a rational fear, but we're feeling it nonetheless.
What unnerves many is the widespread nature of this delusion. Trump has taught us, once again, that a lie repeated become truth in the minds of many. Even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case -- a decision which could come within hours -- a ludicrously false narrative has captured the imagination of half the nation.
Hate to say it, but Erick-Woods Erickson has compiled the best brief rejoinder to this legal laughingstock:
Let me explain just how absurd this case is:
Texas can cite no cases at all in its claim that it has standing to sue the states for the administration of their own internal elections.
Texas alleges the other states changed election laws due to the pandemic without the legislature’s blessing. You know one state not being sued that did that? Texas.
The states allege it is illegal to count ballots received after election day. Several of the states making that claim also do that.
Their expert argues a sign of voter fraud is that it is not likely Trump 2016 voters would vote for Biden in 2020. The expert also uses dubious statistical modeling comparing Clinton to Biden.
The Missouri amicus all but says they don’t necessarily agree with Texas’s legal statements, but the case is so important the Supreme Court should hear it.
Texas could not even get its Solicitor General — the man who argues on behalf of the state before the Supreme Court — to sign onto the lawsuit. That’s how frivolous it is.
This will persuade the fool and the gullible, but these are not meritorious arguments, particularly when many of the states on the plaintiff’s side of the lawsuit have done similar things and thus have unclean hands.
Here's my big idea: One of the blue states should respond in kind. An AG in (say) California or New York or Maryland should "pull a Paxton." There is evidence that various red states using ES&S devices rigged the election to favor the Republicans (not just Trump). This evidence is far more persuasive than anything in Paxton's pack of prevarications.
Texas, for example. The following comes from Patrick Svitek of the Texas Tribune:
Trump has won Zapata County — just north of the Rio Grande Valley along the border — by 6 points, 53% to 47%, per SOS results.Now that's evidence of election fraud. Maybe not conclusive evidence, maybe not the kind of evidence your geometry teacher demanded of you, but certainly better evidence than anything you'll get from Kenny Paxton.
Last two presidential elections there were Clinton +33 and Obama +43.
This is a small county, but that's obviously a swing. Vote counts:
2020 — Trump: 2,032 | Biden: 1,820
2016 — Clinton: 2,063 | Trump: 1,029
2012 — Obama: 2,527 | Romney: 997
A writer named Alison Greene has been looking at the situation in Kentucky. Yes, Kentucky. She has done some detailed digging, and has found evidence that someone "salted" the results to insure a McConnell victory. Her thread is long but fascinating: I am giving you much of it, though not all of it. Go here for the full experience.
On my continuing quest to understand how Mitch McConnell, who had an approval rating of 18%, managed to win reelection by 57%, I dug even deeper🤔
The deeper I dig, the more I find the numbers out of Kentucky hard to swallow🙄
Here's a follow up on Kentucky's election results👇My previous thread noted how many Kentucky Dems voted Republican. Folks said "This is just Kentucky voters"
But if Kentucky voters typically cross party lines it also provides cover to easily hide vote flipping. And HUGE numbers of Dems voted Republican.
Take Breathitt County👇In Breathitt Mitch got 234% more votes than they had registered Republicans
Amys votes only represent 17% of registered Dems
They'll still say "Its just Kentucky. Look at voting history"
Well, HISTORY shows 2 counties who NEVER before voted for Mitch gave him BIG wins in 2020👇Mitch NEVER won in Elliott or Wolfe Kentucky.
But in 2020 he won these counties with mind boggling results🧐
WOLFE COUNTY
Mitch Votes=1912
Registered GOP=943
McGrath Votes=945
Registered Dems=4527
ELLIOTT COUNTY
Mitch=1958
Registered GOP=860
McGrath=868
Registered Dems=4276And since my original thread on Kentucky I've found even more anomalies. To further verify Kentuckys data I also looked at Dems numbers to see if their votes made sense
THEORY: When a Kentucky Dem voted for Amy they also voted for Biden
But thats NOT quite what the data shows👇Out of 120 counties in Kentucky, Amy McGrath got MORE votes than Joe Biden in 119 counties.Did Amy get more votes than Biden cause more folks voted in the Senate race?
In 99% of the counties it appears voters went into the voting booth and voted for Amy McGrath AND Trump?
Really?
A Trump voter who then votes for the Democratic woman candidate?
Huh🤔
Nope
550 more people voted in the Presidential race.
Senatorial Votes: 2,134,446
Presidential Votes: 2,134,996
Btw, 550 is a tiny & oddly round number🤔
(especially as compared to even smaller states)
I only had one explanation...the whole country watched the #MoscowMitch race but noone expected Biden to beat Trump in KY
So IF they manipulated votes did they siphon off slightly MORE votes from Biden to Trump?
But I think Dominion is a distraction👇It so happens that Kentucky didn't use Dominion machines. 20% of Kentucky's counties used ES&S machines though.
In the top 6 counties where McConnell got the biggest % of votes vs registered Reps ALL used ES&S machines...even the 2 counties where historically Mitch NEVER won.Now I know this thread is about Kentucky but since I'm bringing up ES&S
👉Lindsey Grahams SC uses ES&S in each county
👉Most Maine voters ballots go through an ES&S machine
👉Texas uses ES&S (& rejected Dominion)
👉Iowa uses ES&S
👉& Florida
Just sayin...
Now back to Kentucky😉Even though Trumps vote flipping scheme is one way, it's not the only way to help a candidate in an election. What if you also wanted to add voters to the voting rolls? All those added votes would inflate the totals for the candidates you're helping.I decided to look again at Breathitt Kentucky.
But how do you detect that?
👉Breathitt used ES&S machines
👉& it's where Mitch had the biggest number of votes compared to registered Republicans
So I looked at the population of Breathitt and compared it to the registered voters and it sure does look odd👇
According to census data
👉Breathitts population is 13,116
👉Approximately 23% of the population is 19 & under. So let's estimate 20% as under 18
👉That gives us approximately 10,500 old enough to vote
Yet KY Board of Electors says Breathitt has 11,497 registered voters?
huh🤔
But how would they add voters to voting rolls? You'd need an opportunity.
Coincidentally we know...
THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CONCLUDED ELECTION SYSTEMS IN ALL 50 STATES WERE TARGETED BY RUSSIA
Russia wouldn't do it for shits & giggles. Could they have added names?
Some may say that by questioning results in Kentucky we're adding to Trumps narrative. But let's face it, Trumps incessant claims of voter fraud seem a lot like projection. And swing states who used Dominion machines mostly voted for Trump. So is Dominion a distraction from ES&S?And Trump may keep screaming about fraud but this speaks more to corruption.
Trump may not have won but who believes he didn't try?
In 2016, Hillary won 65M in the popular vote.
Trump may have expected to win with 70M votes if it wasn't for the overwhelming turn out for Joe👏🌊And Trump may have lost but Senators still won...
👉Mitch in KY
👉Lindsey in SC
👉Cornyn in TX
👉Ernst in IA
👉Collins in ME
Between ES&S machines, voter suppression, DeJoy's postal hijinks, Russian interference & Trump...
we're supposed to just accept this as a normal election?Ironically, in 2019, the same day that a bi-partisan Senate committee released a report saying that Russia had hacked into our election systems...guess who moved AGAIN to block consideration of election security legislation by Democrats...#MoscowMitch has done everything in his power to block election security
Yep, of course Mitch McConnell🤬
He's taken💰from vendors such as ES&S
He's got multiple ties to Russia
He laughed in Amy McGraths face during the debate...cause he knew the fix was in
How do we just ignore red flags in Kentucky's results?
By putting in a Special Prosecutor we can expose the truth.A Special Prosecutor would look at ALL machine vendors not just ones Trump points us to.By focusing on all vendors ES&S may come to light
They'd look at ALL States not just ones where Trump lost.
A Special Prosecutor won't ignore Trump asking Governors to change results & appointing DeJoy to disappear ballots.
They investigate
By focusing on all states the truth behind these Senate races may come out
And investigating may reveal whether Trump REALLY had 70M people vote for him?
An investigation could prove Bidens legitimacy AND expose the GOP's games
There's evidence of hugger-mugger elsewhere, as well -- particularly in Florida. Since this post has already reached a Brobdinagian length, I shall discuss Florida at another time.
As established above, and in previous posts, the real problem is not Dominion's system (which provides a paper trail) but ES&S.
Bottom line: I second the call for a special prosecutor. We need a genuine bipartisan effort. Such an investigation will serve four purposes:
1. It will assure the seccessionist Trumpian hordes that their issue is being addressed.
2. The end result will, I trust, clear Biden.
3. A thorough investigation MAY expose what the GOP has been doing for decades.
4. An investigation may lead to election reform legislation, and perhaps an amendment. We need paper ballots. We also need to end caging, gerrymandering, and long voting lines. If Voter ID cards will make the other side happy, then so be it.
Until then: If the Supreme Court does decide to hear Paxton's case, it would behoove a blue state AG to file an exactly similar case questioning the results in Texas, Florida, Kentucky and elsewhere. When will the Dems learn to hit back? Why aren't Dems as furious about ES&S (which really did have a Venezuela connection) as the Republicans are about Dominion?
Friday, November 09, 2012
2016 starts NOW!
You have now had a couple of days free of election angst. Vacation time is over.
Who are your choices -- or rather, what are your predictions -- regarding the major party nominations in 2016?
Who are your choices -- or rather, what are your predictions -- regarding the major party nominations in 2016?
Do you think that the "major party" label will be restricted to the traditional two? Both conservatives and progs have made noises about the need for alternatives. (Note: Please understand that I'm asking here for a prediction, not a prescription. Keep wishful thinking to a minimum.)
When it comes to candidates, one factor seems to play a major role: Age. Hillary Clinton seems the obvious choice for the Democratic nomination, even though she will be closing in on 70. That's not a deal-breaker -- Ronald Reagan was roughly the same age when he became president. But a lot of people were very concerned about Reagan's age in 1980, and they were even more concerned in 1984, when a doddering debate performance nearly cost him the election.
Bill Clinton did everything he could on behalf of Barack Obama this year. I would go so far as to say that Obama would not have won without the Big Dog. It seems likely that Clinton went above and beyond the call of partisan duty because he wants the Democratic leadership to rally around his wife in 2016.
I hate to say it, but Al Gore is also starting to show his years. Some have mentioned Elizabeth Warren: She will be 67 in 2016. Joe Biden, otherwise an obvious choice, will be 74.
Some people are talking about Andrew Cuomo. Maybe. But he calls to mind that famous line from the salsa commercial: "New York City?"
Others have mentioned Rahm Emanuel. Not likely. The progressive base hates him.
Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, seems a nice possibility.
Jim Webb? Even better. He would carry an important purple state, and he provides that southern touch which tends to help Democrats.
Personally, I would prefer Al Franken. Granted, his background is decidedly odd. But if a grade B movie actor could become president, why not a grade A comedy writer?
On the Republican side:
Paul Ryan will make a run. I'm sure of that. But isn't his party burned out on the Ayn Rand thing? The great lesson of 2012 is that the cult of Atlas Shrugged is not suited to democracy.
Rand Paul: See Paul Ryan; add the word "Ditto."
Of the oddballs who ran in the primaries against Romney in 2012, two seem quite likely to make return appearances: Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. They will run, but they won't win.
The party base now sneers and boos whenever anyone mentions Chris Christie. For precisely that reason, he's a strong possibility in 2016 -- if the GOP wants to rebrand itself, as it damn well ought to. Dude's gotta lose some poundage, though.
If the party leadership is really serious about a makeover, they might consider Jon Huntsman. The Republicans may not be ready for another Mormon, even though this particular LDS-er is a lot more intrinsically likable.
Jeb Bush? No. I suspect that the Bush name will still be rather pungent in 2016.
Condi? I just don't think she's very popular.
One choice is obvious: Marco Rubio. Republicans now understand that they have a huge Latino problem. Rubio provides the instant solution. Plus, he would carry Florida.
My prediction: 2016 will come down to a battle between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. In that match-up, Rubio has the advantage.
Others have mentioned Rahm Emanuel. Not likely. The progressive base hates him.
Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, seems a nice possibility.
Jim Webb? Even better. He would carry an important purple state, and he provides that southern touch which tends to help Democrats.
Personally, I would prefer Al Franken. Granted, his background is decidedly odd. But if a grade B movie actor could become president, why not a grade A comedy writer?
On the Republican side:
Paul Ryan will make a run. I'm sure of that. But isn't his party burned out on the Ayn Rand thing? The great lesson of 2012 is that the cult of Atlas Shrugged is not suited to democracy.
Rand Paul: See Paul Ryan; add the word "Ditto."
Of the oddballs who ran in the primaries against Romney in 2012, two seem quite likely to make return appearances: Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. They will run, but they won't win.
The party base now sneers and boos whenever anyone mentions Chris Christie. For precisely that reason, he's a strong possibility in 2016 -- if the GOP wants to rebrand itself, as it damn well ought to. Dude's gotta lose some poundage, though.
If the party leadership is really serious about a makeover, they might consider Jon Huntsman. The Republicans may not be ready for another Mormon, even though this particular LDS-er is a lot more intrinsically likable.
Jeb Bush? No. I suspect that the Bush name will still be rather pungent in 2016.
Condi? I just don't think she's very popular.
One choice is obvious: Marco Rubio. Republicans now understand that they have a huge Latino problem. Rubio provides the instant solution. Plus, he would carry Florida.
My prediction: 2016 will come down to a battle between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. In that match-up, Rubio has the advantage.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Disinformation daze
Has the disinformation ever been this obvious?
Gettin' Oren-ry. Here we have former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren claiming that Obama has "abandoned" Israel. Most of the article is behind a paywall, but that's not a problem, since there is no pressing reason to read beyond the first paragraph.
The Wall Street Journal, which published this nonsense, doesn't tell you that this very same Michael Oren has said some very revealing things in the recent past. For example, he told the Aspen Institute that Israel wants ISIS to win in Syria. Maybe that's why Obama has supposedly "abandoned" Israel: He doesn't want to down in history as the man who brought ISIS to power.
Holy Flaming Obama! Here we have The Hill claiming that Obama holds to a vehemently "anti-police" ideology. The evidence? The author quotes some incredibly tepid (and inarguable) words which the President uttered after the 2009 incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Gates. Also, Obama has allegedly stoked "racial flames" in Ferguson and Baltimore -- although, oddly enough, the author of this piece cannot quote one sentence of this allegedly inflammatory material.
I happen to live in Baltimore. I am pretty damned sure that not one black person in this town has said: "You know, I was going to sit quietly inside my home like a good negro -- but after Obama stoked the flames, I've decided to go out and burn down a few stores."
Snow job. A few days ago, the front page of Murdoch's Sunday Times featured an alleged news story which claimed that the Ed Snowden documents betrayed British spies to the Russians and the Chinese. Smears of this sort plug into the right-wing disinformation theme that Snowden did what he did because he was a filthy Putin spy all along.
Greenwald offers an impassioned rebuttal here. Basically, the Sunday Times piece relies on leaked information from unnamed British spooks. None of these claims are corroborated, some are provably wrong, and all are unlikely.
Snowden took no files with him when he left Hong Kong. (He had turned everything over to several journalists, including Greenwald.) The Sunday Times also falsely states that Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, "was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 “highly classified” intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow." This whopper was later deleted from the online version of the article.
As Greenwald notes:
However, Snowden makes for an easy scapegoat. As part of its ongoing war on whistleblowers, the administration can blame Snowden for any damaging information which the Chinese and the Russians gained through other means.
Greenwald notes an interesting historical parallel: After Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, the Nixonites had friendly media sources float the story that Ellsberg was some sort of commie spy.
My mind flashed on another parallel -- Ireland. During the height of the Troubles in the 1970s, the British army used similar leaks (and even a few fake documents, which were shown to reporters on a "read but don't copy" basis) to convince American journalists that the Soviet Union was behind the IRA. This claim was a complete lie, yet it became widely believed all across the political spectrum. The purpose of the fib was to stop American Catholics from donating to the IRA.
That DIA report. This humble blog is hardly the only online watering hole to discuss the DIA report which revealed the role of "the west" (loosely defined) in the creation of ISIS. The truth has found a large audience. Thus, it became necessary to have a pseudo-journalist named Jacob Siegel cobble together a piece which consigns the DIA revelations to the category of -- you guessed it! -- "conspiracy theory."
Siegel's tactics are smarmy. He notes that the despicable Pamela Geller (for reasons of her own) has latched onto this document; therefore, anyone else who thinks that the DIA report is important must be in bed with Pam. You know what that argument is like? It's like saying that David Duke was once spotted eating the chili at Wendy's -- thus, if you've ever eaten the chili at Wendy's, you probably also like to march around in public while wearing a swastika. That's just logical, right?
Here's another example of smarm:
Brad Hoff demolishes Siegel here.
Since strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor, I would love to see Siegel try to consign this piece by Dan Sanchez to the "conspiracy theory" bin...
Friendly fire. You will note the unifying factor in all of these examples: If a disinformation story is to have an impact, it can't appear solely in a place like Fox News. The Fox newsfolk speak to people who never leave that intellectual ghetto. Fox has become a meme-trap; it is no longer a way for memes to escape into the wild.
In order for disinformation to work, it has to appear in places where liberals, moderates and conservatives might see and believe it. Venues like the NYT, Buzzfeed, Slate and The Guardian are very useful to the disinformers.
Not everything printed in those venues is a lie (although the NYT has gotten so bad lately that I'm not sure how different it would look if Roger Ailes ran the joint). Heavy-handed "top down" disinformation doesn't work nearly as well as the clever insinuation of misleading stories amid normal reportage.
Gettin' Oren-ry. Here we have former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren claiming that Obama has "abandoned" Israel. Most of the article is behind a paywall, but that's not a problem, since there is no pressing reason to read beyond the first paragraph.
The Wall Street Journal, which published this nonsense, doesn't tell you that this very same Michael Oren has said some very revealing things in the recent past. For example, he told the Aspen Institute that Israel wants ISIS to win in Syria. Maybe that's why Obama has supposedly "abandoned" Israel: He doesn't want to down in history as the man who brought ISIS to power.
Holy Flaming Obama! Here we have The Hill claiming that Obama holds to a vehemently "anti-police" ideology. The evidence? The author quotes some incredibly tepid (and inarguable) words which the President uttered after the 2009 incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Gates. Also, Obama has allegedly stoked "racial flames" in Ferguson and Baltimore -- although, oddly enough, the author of this piece cannot quote one sentence of this allegedly inflammatory material.
I happen to live in Baltimore. I am pretty damned sure that not one black person in this town has said: "You know, I was going to sit quietly inside my home like a good negro -- but after Obama stoked the flames, I've decided to go out and burn down a few stores."
Snow job. A few days ago, the front page of Murdoch's Sunday Times featured an alleged news story which claimed that the Ed Snowden documents betrayed British spies to the Russians and the Chinese. Smears of this sort plug into the right-wing disinformation theme that Snowden did what he did because he was a filthy Putin spy all along.
Greenwald offers an impassioned rebuttal here. Basically, the Sunday Times piece relies on leaked information from unnamed British spooks. None of these claims are corroborated, some are provably wrong, and all are unlikely.
Snowden took no files with him when he left Hong Kong. (He had turned everything over to several journalists, including Greenwald.) The Sunday Times also falsely states that Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, "was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 “highly classified” intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow." This whopper was later deleted from the online version of the article.
As Greenwald notes:
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.I would note that nothing in the available Snowden documents (which mostly seem to be Powerpoint presentations) indicates that he attained any lists of covert agents. Nor is it likely that any such list would have been available to him. Snowden worked for Booz-Hamilton, an NSA contractor. The NSA is not the CIA. The CIA runs spies and places people under cover in foreign countries. The NSA is all about signals intelligence -- eavesdropping on your phone calls and internet usage. Thus, the Sunday Times article is unlikely on its face.
However, Snowden makes for an easy scapegoat. As part of its ongoing war on whistleblowers, the administration can blame Snowden for any damaging information which the Chinese and the Russians gained through other means.
Greenwald notes an interesting historical parallel: After Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, the Nixonites had friendly media sources float the story that Ellsberg was some sort of commie spy.
My mind flashed on another parallel -- Ireland. During the height of the Troubles in the 1970s, the British army used similar leaks (and even a few fake documents, which were shown to reporters on a "read but don't copy" basis) to convince American journalists that the Soviet Union was behind the IRA. This claim was a complete lie, yet it became widely believed all across the political spectrum. The purpose of the fib was to stop American Catholics from donating to the IRA.
That DIA report. This humble blog is hardly the only online watering hole to discuss the DIA report which revealed the role of "the west" (loosely defined) in the creation of ISIS. The truth has found a large audience. Thus, it became necessary to have a pseudo-journalist named Jacob Siegel cobble together a piece which consigns the DIA revelations to the category of -- you guessed it! -- "conspiracy theory."
Siegel's tactics are smarmy. He notes that the despicable Pamela Geller (for reasons of her own) has latched onto this document; therefore, anyone else who thinks that the DIA report is important must be in bed with Pam. You know what that argument is like? It's like saying that David Duke was once spotted eating the chili at Wendy's -- thus, if you've ever eaten the chili at Wendy's, you probably also like to march around in public while wearing a swastika. That's just logical, right?
Here's another example of smarm:
The intelligence report about Syria is just that — a report, It’s not a policy directive and there’s no proof that any action was taken based on its analysis. Nevertheless, people across the political spectrum are taking it as if it were a presidential order.Nobody ever claimed that it was a policy directive. The point of any report is to describe what actually happened, and it is fair to presume that the DIA has pretty good resources when it comes to finding out the truth. It is also fair to presume the intelligence community is more likely to speak candidly in a secret document than in a public statement. The game Siegel is playing here comes under the heading of "Baffle 'em with bullshit."
Brad Hoff demolishes Siegel here.
As to the content of the DIA document itself, Siegal’s main point (after citing Cole) is that the DIA is actually pointing the finger exclusively at America’s allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and that “the West” (and US) is somehow wholly separate from its own coalition. Joe Biden’s revealing comments at Harvard University are referenced, but his prior statements regarding support for the Syrian opposition are ignored: “We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help…” (and this is consistent with statements of other US officials).In truth, we did not need that DIA report to figure out the truth about ISIS. This humble blog was talking about that inconvenient truth well before the report became public. You can learn all you really need to know from studying the words of Michael Oren, as noted above. (I like Oren: His blabbiness is useful.) We also have the hard evidence in the video embedded below, which I strongly urge you to watch in full.
The idea that US intelligence and military officials were far removed from the situation as allies armed the likes of Nusra, ISIS, and Ahrar Al-Sham, even while those officials all occupied the same “operations command center” (in Jordan and in Turkey), is absurd on its face. American government officials themselves told the New York Times of a joint Saudi/CIA program to arm the rebels beginning in 2012.
Since strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor, I would love to see Siegel try to consign this piece by Dan Sanchez to the "conspiracy theory" bin...
The Pentagon and the CIA, as well as Britain and France, have been training Syrian rebels in neighboring Jordan since at least October 2012, as reported by The Guardian.I'm sure that Siegel would say that this equipment went only to the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), a.k.a. the moderates. As we have seen in many previous posts, the FSA is largely a convenient fiction; Nusra and ISIS provide the real muscle in the Syrian civil war.
As early as April 2012, the State Department under Hillary Clinton began supplying communications equipment to rebels, according to The Wall Street Journal.
It is likely that, without this crucial early logistical aid from the US, the fractious and power-hungry opposition would have fallen apart, the bloody and ruinous civil war would have ended much earlier, and tens of thousands of violent deaths would have been prevented.What Sanchez is saying, Mr. Siegel, comes down to three simple words: Money is fungible.
More to the point, the war would have ended before Syrian al-Qaeda (aka the Nusra Front) and ISIS could conquer much of Syria, and before ISIS could use its Syrian foothold to stage its conquest of the northwestern half of Iraq. By prolonging the war, the US gave the extremists the time, the space, and the chaos they needed to expand astonishingly.
The chief role of the Saudis and Qataris has been to bankroll the weapons shipments. Both Gulf States are dependent on American arms deliveries worth tens of billions of dollars every year.
Turkey and the Gulf States are client regimes, greatly dependent on American support. If Washington really wanted them to stop arming the rebels, a slight tug of the purse strings would quickly do the trick. With major policy questions like this, if Turkey and the Gulf States are doing something big, it is because it is okay with Washington. Even more likely, it is because it is exactly what Washington wants, and the US is simply using its proxies to do its dirty work.But it hasn't just been a matter of proxies...
Since at least June 2012, the CIA has been in Turkey actively steering their delivery, as reported by The New York Times.These missiles can take down passenger jets.
Yet by October 2012, heat-seeking, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles were being smuggled into Syria, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. And apparently, by early 2013, they didn’t even need to be smuggled.
We know who delivered them to the rebels and who paid for them. But where did these anti-aircraft missiles come from? According to the 2012 Journal report, mostly from Libya...Even former CIA spokesperson Michael Morell semi-admits that the Syrian rebels got weapons from Libyan stores, although he expects us to buy into bullshit stories involving proxies. Here's the thing: The very same missiles made their way from the so-called Free Syrian Army to ISIS. Proof, one again, that the whole raison d'etre of the FSA is to provide a plausibly deniable mechanism by which American aid can reach the jihadis.
Friendly fire. You will note the unifying factor in all of these examples: If a disinformation story is to have an impact, it can't appear solely in a place like Fox News. The Fox newsfolk speak to people who never leave that intellectual ghetto. Fox has become a meme-trap; it is no longer a way for memes to escape into the wild.
In order for disinformation to work, it has to appear in places where liberals, moderates and conservatives might see and believe it. Venues like the NYT, Buzzfeed, Slate and The Guardian are very useful to the disinformers.
Not everything printed in those venues is a lie (although the NYT has gotten so bad lately that I'm not sure how different it would look if Roger Ailes ran the joint). Heavy-handed "top down" disinformation doesn't work nearly as well as the clever insinuation of misleading stories amid normal reportage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)