Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

The AP Leak and Hillary’s Victory Night

AP’s announcement of Hillary Clinton’s victory on the eve of the California primary contradicts the whole essence of democracy.

Kevin Henderson

Published

on

On June 6th, 2016,  a modern political heist was viewed by thousands of Americans on the Internet in real time.

The moment I saw the AP’s “breaking story”, via a Zero Hedge post, I had a sinking feeling in my heart, the kind I get watching burning skyscrapers crumble into their footprints. A crime of the political season was taking place. In a few minutes, the MSN spin machine would wash the dirt away and declare the crime “official.” I wrote the following notes the night of June 7th, unable to find the Californian primary results that were supposed to matter. California is, of course the primary where, years ago, Bobby Kennedy pulled off a surprising win and was then shot to death. California has had special primary baggage ever since (indeed, Clinton made a strange reference to Kennedy in a previous campaign), and was perhaps the perfect place for the DNC and willing assistants at AP and other media allies to pull a full blown heist in under twenty minutes.

Whoever did this timed the act to make California’s vote moot before the day of the primary. According to the newswires, this was an astonishing success.

The first post that appeared from AP was around 8pm on June 6th, the night before  the primaries. AP’s article was then shared on Zero Hedge. The full  AP “story” has apparently disappeared down a Memory Hole, but you can read it here.

This article was brazen propaganda, and something new:  A declaration of fait accompli victory the night before a single June 7th primary vote was cast.

The AP story is peculiar.  The theme is past tense and capital-H Historic — the final confirmation of the first woman presidential nominee ever. It reads like it was written by the Clinton campaign itself, or a DNC lackey; it certainly does not read like the product of a neutral news organization:

“Campaigning as the loyal successor to the nation’s first black president, Clinton held off a surprisingly strong challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He mobilized millions with a fervently liberal message and his insurgent candidacy revealed a deep level of national frustration with politics-as-usual, even among Democrats who have controlled the White House since 2009.” Keep in mind this is a day before the CA primary.

According to AP, this pre-primary “victory story” was based entirely on anonymous interviews with some or many “Super Delegates”, all of whom apparently whispered their secrets to loyal AP operatives.

I knew that within the seconds the AP meme would spread to CNN, Fox News, ABC/NBC/CBS, the New York Times, and Washington Post, as indeed it did. Within an hour it was everywhere.

This was a new variety of sleazy campaign tricks for a political candidate, and a propaganda coup for the AP.  Why not just leak a proclamation of something, let the wires pick it up, and then, voilá, declare victory the night before?

Late night on the 6th, The New York Times, Politico, Huffington Post and various other Clinton supporters, many with established financial and PR interests in the investment (I mean candidate) were smugly proclaiming victory. Very interestingly, the talking points raised in the AP “story”, and similar prose in the New York Times and Politico, re-appeared, in very similar language, in Hillary’s “Acceptance Speech” the next night.  The agitprop wasn’t subtle: This is the First Woman President; this is Historic; Sanders had done a good job “mobilizing millions”; that, hey, it was tough for those tough but loveable Bernie-Bots to lose; but the Democrats must forget the differences between Sanders and Clinton and “Come Together, Right Now”. (Incredibly, a HuffPo editorial brought a deceased John Lennon into this fiasco.)

The next afternoon, Hillary’s campaign declared “History Made” on her Twitter feed, and prepared to present the speech. She’d won New Jersey, you see. Not a single vote from California had been counted.

Hilary Clinton’s “Victory Speech” the evening of June 7th was quite a performance: planned, big-time, with the usual ugly color scheme typical of whitehouse.gov presentations.

There was a pre-game, so to speak, for a few minutes.

There was no way to tell how many people were in the mid-sized auditorium, but at least half seemed to be stacked up behind the podium. A young woman sang The Star Spangled Banner, as though this were Inauguration Day, seven months in advance. The people behind the podium began to wave little American flags – doubtlessly dispensed by a patriotic gnome backstage. The lights dimmed – this was show business after all. Over loudspeakers come the voices of unknown supporters, interspersed with “classic” quotations from that great successor of all humanitarians, Hillary Clinton.

The lights came up and The Great Leader beamed in what appeared to be a joyous emotional orgasm, but Hillary’s eyes were peculiar. Behind the smiles I heard the voice of a woman who, upon learning that Gaddafi had been ritually murdered, happily exclaimed “We came, we saw, he died”.

Her demeanor displayed a forgone conclusion:  Hillary Clinton is already the President!

Then there was a bit of a letdown – Hillary started to speak and the microphone was off.  A sound person attempted to find a fader on a mixing board. Then there was a scream of feedback, but Hillary didn’t even wince. She knew. This was her moment. The sound stayed bad for the entire thing; the engineer couldn’t balance the levels. With all of their Clinton Cash, between the chintzy flags and bad sound (not to mention previous choice of IT professionals for private servers) this was a typically cheap public Clinton production: Hot dogs, not caviar, for the troops.

I can’t report on the Speech, because I record sounds myself, and there are some voices that really grate on you. When Hillary gets that self-righteous bullhorn going, we must follow Dante and abandon the wife of the boy from Hope. However, one can observe the aesthetics of the thing. The narcissism of our current Great Leader is well documented, but Hillary is something else. She took credit for many vague successes and appropriated the triumphant struggles of everything from feminism to the civil rights movement. And she promised her followers, without a hint of $300,000 G-Sachs irony, hey, we’re really gonna go after those big banks. Best of all, Hillary talked “street”: “I’ve got your back,” she thundered. With enough drinks in them, the audience, along with Beltway cronies getting tanked right now, might actually believe this.

Reflecting on the above, I wonder if Trump even has a chance. He’s got a million topics to grill Hillary over (Iraq, an FBI indictment, Benghazi, Libya, Syria, targeting victims of her husband’s sexual harassment, etc.). Every American should read Roger Morris’ “Partners in Power” (1996) and learn about dozens more. “Crooked Hillary” is no mere libel — there are public records of too many things.

But in spite of Trump’s talent for hard debate and asking politically incorrect questions, I wonder if Trump is a mere amateur compared to this Clinton Cosa Nostra. The Clintons not only have their cash, via the Clinton Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Soros, and other banks and philanthropists, but they also have the willing support and love of all the media who participated in the heist last night – from the BBC/ABC/NBC/CBS, to Politico and the Huffington Post, etc. The Clintons have powerful friends who will control the echo chamber.

For millions of Americans of all shades of political grey, and for the democratic process in this country, the Clintons and AP showed complete contempt.

It’s interesting to speculate on some Clinton protegés who might end up with high ranks in a Hillary Clinton administration.

This week, Victoria Nuland was speaking to some Senators about some kind of alternate world in which the evil Russians are winning the propaganda wars over issues like “U.S. Assets in Ukraine.”

To the average American, such topics make little sense. The average American is concerned with obtaining or keeping a decent job, or receiving another paycheck of any kind. Many worry about the next couch to crash on. Russia is far away and generally not considered important business, certainly not to anyone with a life who’s trying to survive.

Victoria Nuland, political mastermind that she is, was actually telling the Senators what a shame it is that Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, et al, cannot compete with Russia Today (RT).  Nuland was among the masterminds who helped engineer the tragic civil wars/coups in Libya and the Ukraine.

[Off topic: If I could address the Congress on behalf of millions of American viewers: perhaps it’s not that RT is the perfect propaganda machine; perhaps instead RT is a) aesthetically more interesting than CNN, b) insults the viewer’s intelligence way, way less than CNN.]

State department types, along with the CIA and other Responsibility to Protect-ors,  are encouraging NATO allies to conduct “war games” and stir up anti-Russian sentiment in the likes of Latvia, while installing missiles right up to the Russian border. Provoking the Russian Bear seems insane and pathetic to most people, and I wonder if anyone outside a drunk tank inside the Beltway takes it seriously.

(Paul Craig Roberts has described this crazy rhetoric here).

Neo-liberal neo-cons like Victoria Nuland are the folks who may well get the keys to the castle in a Hillary presidency. Not only do neo-cons behave irresponsibly;  they are often arrogant and ignorant, a particularly bad combo in foreign affairs with a nuclear state like Russia which is armed to the teeth. Consequences, to the neo-cons,  are for the little people. As Nuland said, “f*ck the EU!”

There were still no California results on midnight of the 7th. The DNC, one assumes, had all night to process and perhaps fix any, ahem, “unfortunate” outcomes. They did such a great job suppressing voters in Arizona, Kentucky, Nevada, and New York, the DNC certainly can’t call itself unskilled in this line of work. Indeed, later news stories reported this to have been the case in California.

So-called left-liberals made a real stink over voter suppression when the Bush-era Republicans did it.

I hope the Sanders campaign will continue their difficult and noble struggle. Unfortunately, Sanders supporters will face the cops in DNC-run Philly, along with probable armies of paid provocateurs.  Still, despite the help of generous friends like the AP, the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be no cakewalk. There are too many scandals; we are living in strange and interesting times.  Finally, I don’t see Hillary’s support numbers planting flags on Mount Everest any time soon. The Clintons had to pull off this 24 hour California fiasco to silence a 74 year old Socialist Senator from Vermont, who fills real venues with really impassioned supporters, most of whom actually believe in something more than power, money, and the Clinton’s patron saint, Machiavelli.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Airline wars heat up, as industry undergoes massive disruption (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 145.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the global commercial airline industry, which is undergoing massive changes, as competition creeps in from Russia and China.

Reuters reports that Boeing Co’s legal troubles grew as a new lawsuit accused the company of defrauding shareholders by concealing safety deficiencies in its 737 MAX planes before two fatal crashes led to their worldwide grounding.

The proposed class action filed in Chicago federal court seeks damages for alleged securities fraud violations, after Boeing’s market value tumbled by $34 billion within two weeks of the March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX.

*****

According to the complaint, Boeing “effectively put profitability and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty” by rushing the 737 MAX to market to compete with Airbus SE, while leaving out “extra” or “optional” features designed to prevent the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air crashes.

It also said Boeing’s statements about its growth prospects and the 737 MAX were undermined by its alleged conflict of interest from retaining broad authority from federal regulators to assess the plane’s safety.

*****

Boeing said on Tuesday that aircraft orders in the first quarter fell to 95 from 180 a year earlier, with no orders for the 737 MAX following the worldwide grounding.

On April 5, it said it planned to cut monthly 737 production to 42 planes from 52, and was making progress on a 737 MAX software update to prevent further accidents.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge…

Step aside (fading) trade war with China: there is a new aggressor – at least according to the US Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer – in town.

In a statement on the USTR’s website published late on Monday, the US fair trade agency announced that under Section 301 of the Trade Act, it was proposing a list of EU products to be covered by additional duties. And as justification for the incremental import taxes, the USTR said that it was in response to EU aircraft subsidies, specifically to Europea’s aerospace giant, Airbus, which “have caused adverse effects to the United States” and which the USTR estimates cause $11 billion in harm to the US each year

One can’t help but notice that the latest shot across the bow in the simmering trade war with Europe comes as i) Trump is reportedly preparing to fold in his trade war with China, punting enforcement to whoever is president in 2025, and ii) comes just as Boeing has found itself scrambling to preserve orders as the world has put its orderbook for Boeing 737 MAX airplanes on hold, which prompted Boeing to cut 737 production by 20% on Friday.

While the first may be purely a coincidence, the second – which is expected to not only slam Boeing’s financials for Q1 and Q2, but may also adversely impact US GDP – had at least some impact on the decision to proceed with these tariffs at this moment.

We now await Europe’s angry response to what is Trump’s latest salvo in what is once again a global trade war. And, paradoxically, we also expect this news to send stocks blasting higher as, taking a page from the US-China trade book, every day algos will price in imminent “US-European trade deal optimism.”

Below the full statement from the USTR (link):

USTR Proposes Products for Tariff Countermeasures in Response to Harm Caused by EU Aircraft Subsidies

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has found repeatedly that European Union (EU) subsidies to Airbus have caused adverse effects to the United States.  Today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) begins its process under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to identify products of the EU to which additional duties may be applied until the EU removes those subsidies.

USTR is releasing for public comment a preliminary list of EU products to be covered by additional duties.  USTR estimates the harm from the EU subsidies as $11 billion in trade each year.  The amount is subject to an arbitration at the WTO, the result of which is expected to be issued this summer.

“This case has been in litigation for 14 years, and the time has come for action. The Administration is preparing to respond immediately when the WTO issues its finding on the value of U.S. countermeasures,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.  “Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the EU to end all WTO-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft.  When the EU ends these harmful subsidies, the additional U.S. duties imposed in response can be lifted.”

In line with U.S. law, the preliminary list contains a number of products in the civil aviation sector, including Airbus aircraft.  Once the WTO arbitrator issues its report on the value of countermeasures, USTR will announce a final product list covering a level of trade commensurate with the adverse effects determined to exist.

Background

After many years of seeking unsuccessfully to convince the EU and four of its member States (France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom) to cease their subsidization of Airbus, the United States brought a WTO challenge to EU subsidies in 2004. In 2011, the WTO found that the EU provided Airbus $18 billion in subsidized financing from 1968 to 2006.  In particular, the WTO found that European “launch aid” subsidies were instrumental in permitting Airbus to launch every model of its large civil aircraft, causing Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and market share throughout the world.

In response, the EU removed two minor subsidies, but left most of them unchanged.  The EU also granted Airbus more than $5 billion in new subsidized “launch aid” financing for the A350 XWB.  The United States requested establishment of a compliance panel in March 2012 to address the EU’s failure to remove its old subsidies, as well as the new subsidies and their adverse effects.  That process came to a close with the issuance of an appellate report in May 2018 finding that EU subsidies to high-value, twin-aisle aircraft have caused serious prejudice to U.S. interests.  The report found that billions of dollars in launch aid to the A350 XWB and A380 cause significant lost sales to Boeing 787 and 747 aircraft, as well as lost market share for Boeing very large aircraft in the EU, Australia, China, Korea, Singapore, and UAE markets.

Based on the appellate report, the United States requested authority to impose countermeasures worth $11.2 billion per year, commensurate with the adverse effects caused by EU subsidies.  The EU challenged that estimate, and a WTO arbitrator is currently evaluating those claims

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mueller report takes ‘Russian meddling’ for granted, offers no actual evidence

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ report has cleared Donald Trump of ‘collusion’ charges but maintains that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. Yet concrete evidence of that is nowhere to be seen.

The report by Mueller and his team, made public on Thursday by the US Department of Justice, exonerates not just Trump but all Americans of any “collusion” with Russia, “obliterating” the Russiagate conspiracy theory, as journalist Glenn Greenwald put it.

However, it asserts that Russian “interference” in the election did happen, and says it consisted of a campaign on social media as well as Russian military intelligence (repeatedly referred to by its old, Soviet-era name, GRU) “hacking” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the DNC, and the private email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

As evidence of this, the report basically offers nothing but Mueller’s indictment of “GRU agents,” delivered on the eve of the Helsinki Summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in what was surely a cosmic coincidence.

Indictments are not evidence, however, but allegations. Any time it looks like the report might be bringing up proof, it ends up being redacted, ostensibly to protect sources and methods, and out of concern it might cause “harm to an ongoing matter.”

‘Active measures’ on social media

Mueller’s report leads with the claim that the Internet Research Agency (IRA) ran an “active measures” campaign of social media influence. Citing Facebook and Twitter estimates, the report says this consisted of 470 Facebook accounts that made 80,000 posts that may have been seen by up to 126 million people, between January 2015 and August 2017 (almost a year after the election), and 3,814 Twitter accounts that “may have been” in contact with about 1.4 million people.

Those numbers may seem substantial but, as investigative journalist Gareth Porter pointed out in November 2018, they should be regarded against the background of 33 trillion Facebook posts made during the same period.

According to Mueller, the IRA mind-controlled the American electorate by spending “approximately $100,000” on Facebook ads, hiring someone to walk around New York City “dressed up as Santa Claus with a Trump mask,” and getting Trump campaign affiliates to promote “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.” Dozens!

Meanwhile, the key evidence against IRA’s alleged boss Evgeny Prigozhin is that he “appeared together in public photographs” with Putin.

Alleged hacking & release

The report claims that the GRU hacked their way into 29 DCCC computers and another 30 DNC computers, and downloaded data using software called “X-Tunnel.” It is unclear how Mueller’s investigators claim to know this, as the report makes no mention of them or FBI actually examining DNC or DCCC computers. Presumably they took the word of CrowdStrike, the Democrats’ private contractor, for it.

However obtained, the documents were published first through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 – which the report claims are “fictitious online personas” created by the GRU – and later through WikiLeaks. What is Mueller’s proof that these two entities were “GRU” cutouts? In a word, this:

That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.(p. 43)

However, the report acknowledges that the “first known contact” between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks was on September 15, 2016 – months after the DNC and DCCC documents were published! Here we do get actual evidence: direct messages on Twitter obtained by investigators. Behold, these “spies” are so good, they don’t even talk – and when they do, they use unsecured channels.

Mueller notably claims “it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks” (the rest of that sentence is redacted), but the report clearly implies the investigators do not actually know how. On page 47, the report says Mueller “cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.”

Strangely, the report accuses WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange of making “public statements apparently designed to obscure the source” of the materials (p.48), notably the offer of a reward for finding the murderer of DNC staffer Seth Rich – even though this can be read as corroborating the intermediaries theory, and Assange never actually said Rich was his source.

The rest of Mueller’s report goes on to discuss the Trump campaign’s contacts with anyone even remotely Russian and to create torturous constructions that the president had “obstructed” justice by basically defending himself from charges of being a Russian agent – neither of which resulted in any indictments, however. But the central premise that the 22-month investigation, breathless media coverage, and the 448-page report are based on – that Russia somehow meddled in the 2016 election – remains unproven.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Rumors of War: Washington Is Looking for a Fight

The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


It is depressing to observe how the United States of America has become the evil empire. Having served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and in the Central Intelligence Agency for the second half of the Cold War, I had an insider’s viewpoint of how an essentially pragmatic national security policy was being transformed bit by bit into a bipartisan doctrine that featured as a sine qua non global dominance for Washington. Unfortunately, when the Soviet Union collapsed the opportunity to end once and for all the bipolar nuclear confrontation that threatened global annihilation was squandered as President Bill Clinton chose instead to humiliate and use NATO to contain an already demoralized and effectively leaderless Russia.

American Exceptionalism became the battle cry for an increasingly clueless federal government as well as for a media-deluded public. When 9/11 arrived, the country was ready to lash out at the rest of the world. President George W. Bush growled that “There’s a new sheriff in town and you are either with us or against us.” Afghanistan followed, then Iraq, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats came up with Libya and the first serious engagement in Syria. In its current manifestation, one finds a United States that threatens Iran on a nearly weekly basis and tears up arms control agreements with Russia while also maintaining deployments of US forces in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and places like Mali. Scattered across the globe are 800 American military bases while Washington’s principal enemies du jour Russia and China have, respectively, only one and none.

Never before in my lifetime has the United States been so belligerent, and that in spite of the fact that there is no single enemy or combination of enemies that actually threaten either the geographical United States or a vital interest. Venezuela is being threatened with invasion primarily because it is in the western hemisphere and therefore subject to Washington’s claimed proconsular authority. Last Wednesday Vice President Mike Pence told the United Nations Security Council that the White House will remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, preferably using diplomacy and sanctions, but “all options are on the table.” Pence warned that Russia and other friends of Maduro need to leave now or face the consequences.

The development of the United States as a hostile and somewhat unpredictable force has not gone unnoticed. Russia has accepted that war is coming no matter what it does in dealing with Trump and is upgrading its forces. By some estimates, its army is better equipped and more combat ready than is that of the United States, which spends nearly ten times as much on “defense.”

Iran is also upgrading its defensive capabilities, which are formidable. Now that Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran, has placed a series of increasingly punitive sanctions on the country, and, most recently, has declared a part of the Iranian military to be a “foreign terrorist organization” and therefore subject to attack by US forces at any time, it is clear that war will be the next step. In three weeks, the United States will seek to enforce a global ban on any purchases of Iranian oil. A number of countries, including US nominal ally Turkey, have said they will ignore the ban and it will be interesting to see what the US Navy intends to do to enforce it. Or what Iran will do to break the blockade.

But even given all of the horrific decisions being made in the White House, there is one organization that is far crazier and possibly even more dangerous. That is the United States Congress, which is, not surprisingly, a legislative body that is viewed positively by only 18 per cent of the American people.

A current bill originally entitled the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) of 2019,” is numbered S-1189. It has been introduced in the Senate which will “…require the Secretary of State to determine whether the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and whether Russian-sponsored armed entities in Ukraine should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.” The bill is sponsored by Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and is co-sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

The current version of the bill was introduced on April 11th and it is by no means clear what kind of support it might actually have, but the fact that it actually has surfaced at all should be disturbing to anyone who believes it is in the world’s best interest to avoid direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

In a a press release by Gardner, who has long been pushing to have Russia listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, a February version of the bill is described as “…comprehensive legislation [that] seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait. The legislation establishes a comprehensive policy response to better position the US government to address Kremlin aggression by creating new policy offices on cyber defenses and sanctions coordination. The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote. It also increases sanctions pressure on Moscow for its interference in democratic processes abroad and continued aggression against Ukraine.”

The February version of the bill included Menendez, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as co-sponsors, suggesting that provoking war is truly bipartisan in today’s Washington.

Each Senator co-sponsor contributed a personal comment to the press release. Gardner observed that “Putin’s Russia is an outlaw regime that is hell-bent on undermining international law and destroying the US-led liberal global order.” Menendez noted that “President Trump’s willful paralysis in the face of Kremlin aggression has reached a boiling point in Congress” while Graham added that “Our goal is to change the status quo and impose meaningful sanctions and measures against Putin’s Russia. He should cease and desist meddling in the US electoral process, halt cyberattacks on American infrastructure, remove Russia from Ukraine, and stop efforts to create chaos in Syria.” Cardin contributed “Congress continues to take the lead in defending US national security against continuing Russian aggression against democratic institutions at home and abroad” and Shaheen observed that “This legislation builds on previous efforts in Congress to hold Russia accountable for its bellicose behavior against the United States and its determination to destabilize our global world order.”

The Senatorial commentary is, of course, greatly exaggerated and sometimes completely false regarding what is going on in the world, but it is revealing of how ignorant American legislators can be and often are. The Senators also ignore the fact that the designation of presumed Kremlin surrogate forces as “foreign terrorist organizations” is equivalent to a declaration of war against them by the US military, while hypocritically calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism is bad enough, as it is demonstrably untrue. But the real damage comes from the existence of the bill itself. It will solidify support for hardliners on both sides, guaranteeing that there will be no rapprochement between Washington and Moscow for the foreseeable future, a development that is bad for everyone involved. Whether it can be characterized as an unintended consequence of unwise decision making or perhaps something more sinister involving a deeply corrupted congress and administration remains to be determined.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending