Connect with us

Latest

News

Europe

How President Trump may actually be fixing relations with Russia and Iran

President Trump speaks from Iraq, hinting that he wants to support a new balance of power, including Russia and Iran, in the Middle East.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,599 Views

President Trump made an unexpected trip to Iraq on the day after Western Christmas, flying in secret on Air Force One with the lights blacked out and military escort jets alongside. The eleven-hour journey concluded with the President speaking to the US troops stationed there, but his message was intended for the whole world to hear. In that message, he delivered several messages that may well have been conciliatory towards both Russia and Iran, while also fiercely – and effectively defending his “America First” viewpoint of the US’ involvement in foreign affairs, particularly those involving armed conflict.

The American media, as well as most Western outlets, are almost sure to miss this because of their desperate pivoting to find ways to be critical of the unwanted resident of the White House. However, for those who listen and read the actual news, there is some very interesting information that the President spoke about.

The video of the speech is made available here.

The White House website has the transcript of the President’s full speech here. As with all news of this nature, the most assured way to have an accurate picture of what is going on is to read or listen to all of the information concerning a subject, as the full picture changes everything.

We are going to point out certain points in the speech. They will be preceded with the timestamp at which the remarks occur so anyone who wants to can listen directly to the point. We are also going to offer some possible interpretations of these points. While this is speculative work, there is context to support our speculations.

[06:00] The courageous men and women at Al Asad Air Base are on the leading edge of our fight to vanquish America’s terrorist enemies.  You know that.

The other reason I’m here today is to personally thank you and every service member throughout this region for the near elimination of the ISIS territorial caliphate in Iraq and in Syria.  (Applause.)

[06:28] Two years ago, when I became President, they were a very dominant group.  They were very dominant.  Today, they’re not so dominant anymore.  (Applause.)  Great job.  I looked at a map, and two years ago it was a lot of red all over that map.  But now you have a couple little spots.  And that’s happening very quickly.  That’s happening very quickly.  You’ll be seeing that.

I want to just say great job.  And we’ll be watching ISIS very closely.  We’ll be watching them very, very closely — the remnants of ISIS.

This is a well-crafted comment. While the US forces in Syria were ostensibly there “to defeat ISIS”, we at The Duran have countless accounts of other motives by the American forces, namely to defeat and remove Bashar Al-Assad from power. As President Trump began his term, this latter narrative was firmly in the lead, with ISIS a secondary consideration. However, one may note that references to removing Assad from power are all but gone in American news coverage. Further, last week’s announcement that the American troops are leaving Syria also featured the President making absolutely no reference to Assad.

[07:12] No enemy on Earth can match the awesome strength of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.  Nobody is even close.  And nobody is even close, in terms of our equipment.  We make the greatest equipment in the world.  Whether it’s missiles or ships or anything you want to name, we have the greatest in the world.  The jet fighters, the new F-35, the Super F-18s — we have the greatest fighter jets in the world.  We make the greatest equipment in the world.

But you strike fear into the hearts of our enemies and bring comfort to all of our allies and those who cherish peace.  And we want peace.  And the best way to have peace is strength.  When we’re strong, we’re going to have peace.  If we’re not strong, you know what happens.  So we’re stronger than ever.  And very soon, when it all comes in, when that equipment keeps flowing — it’s being made, much of it now — there will be nobody ever in history that’s even close.

[08:18] American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.  We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory.  Think of what that is — 20,000.  Twenty thousand acres is a lot; think of what twenty thousand square miles is.  It’s a lot.  This was all formerly held by ISIS — and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control.

The men and women stationed at Al Asad have played a vital role in the military defeat of ISIS in Iraq and in Syria.  Because of these gains, our service members in Syria can now return home to their families.  Some will come here for a stay, but a lot of them are going to be going back home, where they want to be, with their families.  They’ve done a fantastic job.

[09:32] Originally, years ago, they came here.  And it was supposed to be for three to four months, and that was a long time ago.  That was many years ago.  But what a job you have done.  What a job they have done.  I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building.  Rebuilding Syria will require a political solution.  And it’s a solution that should be paid for by its very rich neighboring countries, not the United States.  Let them pay for it.  And they will.  They will.

In fact, Saudi Arabia yesterday — you probably read — stepped up to the plate and has already made a commitment of substantial funds for development.  And President Erdogan of Turkey has also agreed to take out any remnants of ISIS, and we’ll be working with them.  We’re going to be working with them.

Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent…

One year ago, I gave our generals six more months in Syria.  I said, “Go ahead. Get them.” And it turns out it was really a year and a half ago.  I said, “Go get them.”  “We need six months.”  “Go get them.”  Then they said, “Give us another six months.”  I said, “Go get them.”  Then they said “Go — can we have one more, like, period of six months?”  I said, “Nope.  Nope.”  I said, “I gave you a lot of six months.”  And now we’re doing it a different way.  And we’re doing it.  And you’re doing it, folks.  You’re doing it.  Just the remnants.

This again is a very carefully and well-crafted comment. By not naming any particular nations at first, the President steps away from any particular endorsement of Russia, but he also does not block it. Since he is still encumbered by the Russiagate witch-hunt – er – investigation, with its apparently endless supply of money and resources, all dedicated to removing the unexpected and unwanted Trump from office, he really cannot make a reference to Russia and expect to be able to do the rest of his job for the American nation.

This is an uncomfortable fact, but it is the truth. The only way to get the US president clear to do the policymaking changes to repair the globalist-caused damage to the US and Russia relations is to strengthen his post with a Congress that is also willing to take the fight to the globalists and continue to move the US towards the position Mr. Trump desires – that of a strongly sovereign nation, with strong borders, and a complete break from globalist policies. Until that happens, the President has to outmaneuver the embedded globalists, or their policies has held by the hapless Deep State.

Consider that President Recep Erdogan is a NATO ally that is also getting more and more cozy with Russia, and that Saudi Arabia is an American ally. Both are local to the Syrian region though.

This is a fact that is slowly gaining recognition in the US, particularly with journalists and pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, but perhaps most clearly understood by Tucker Carlson. It cannot really be said that the 2018 midterms featured globalism as a campaign issue, but it ought to become one.

[11:34] The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families.  Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS.  Some people said we’ve already retaken 99 percent.  That’s a number that comes up a lot.  And if you look at the map, before and after, it looks like 99 percent.

This bold-type statement will almost assuredly win the President’s 2020 campaign with the military. It signals a much bolder set of moves than President George W Bush’s 2003 “Mission Accomplished” statement which resulted in the revelation that the mission was far from accomplished. The reason why President Trump’s attempt here is different already was noted by his clearing the decks, so to speak, for the local and regional powers to get involved.

[12:02] Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.  And also, they have to confront those remnants of ISIS and take them out very easily — if, after we’re totally finished, they’re even left at all.

There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.  We’ll be watching.

This, of course, is already fodder for many armchair strategists, who write of disbelief that the US will ever truly withdraw its presence from any place it sends its forces to. To be sure, at this time we can only watch and see. However, President Trump’s resolve was firm enough for him to get resignations from Defense Secretary Mattis and the Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, Brett McGurk. This suggests a lot more than a powerless political statement took place.

The comment of “watching over Iran” is perhaps a very well-crafted statement. This can be read aggressively, which fits the US narrative that Iran is a vicious enemy, and the American troop presence in Iraq is a strong strategic move in this area since Iraq borders Iran. However, the Iranians are in a quandary over the American withdrawal from the JCPoA (also known as “the Iran deal”) and the country is back under American sanctions. However, they also know that President Trump is a deal maker, and has in fact hinted at the possibility of making a deal with Iran when they express interest.

After clearing the global issues, the President went on to address the big problem at home – the security of the American Southern border. In this he made use of the audience, who clearly enjoyed his visit and his speech, to show the world, and the Democrats, that the argument for the construction of a border wall is in his favor:

[14:40] We will honor — you’re welcome.  You’re welcome.  (Laughter.)  We will honor your service by doing everything in our power to defend our homeland and to stop terrorists from entering America’s shores.  And that includes the strengthening of our borders.

I don’t know if you folks are aware of what’s happening.  We want to have strong borders in the United States.  The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders — only for one reason.  You know why?  Because I want it.  (Laughter.)  If I said — you know, I think, just standing here looking at all these brilliant, young faces — these warriors.  You’re warriors.  You know, you’re modern-day warriors.  That’s what you are.

But you gave me an idea, just looking at this warrior group.  I think I’ll say, “I don’t want the wall.”  And then they’re going to give it to me.  (Laughter.)  I’ve figured out the solution, First Lady.  (Laughter.)  Tell Nancy Pelosi, “I don’t want the wall.”  “Oh, we want the wall.”  And then we get the wall.  (Laughter and applause.)  That’s another way of doing it.  (Applause.)  That’s another way of doing it.

No, we have to have it.  And, you know, not only human trafficking; drugs; illegals; a lot of criminals — bad records.  We’ve seen murderers come in through the — you saw what happened with the caravan, as we call it.  A caravan of thousands of people.

And, by the way, our Border Patrol did an incredible job, and our military did an incredible job.  And local law enforcement on the various parts of the border did an incredible job.  And those caravans are slowly breaking up, and they’re going back where they came from, and they have to come into our country legally.  Legally.

This last comment, that the caravans are breaking up, is not being reported by anyone to any extent. But it is the logical outcome of not being able to gain access to the US.

There was much more to this speech, such as making sure that anyone wanting US military help pays the US for that help, and great honor given to the soldiers who gave their lives in service to the country. There is enough here to write a great deal more analysis.

As usual, the essence of a speech by President Trump and the media’s handling of his speeches are totally different matters. The President was ruthlessly positive, and very solidly able to connect to the soldiers in the audience. Whether on script or off script, the message is genuine. Perhaps the mainstream media’s problem is that they are too smart to grasp plain speech when they hear it.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Shaun Ramewe Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

Anti-terrorist pro-democracy resource-rich Iran and Russia do very well knowing never to trust Zio-liar false-flagging terrorist-abetting war-criminal media-faking Swamp-Chump or any other deal-breaking political-meddling back-stabbing foul-mouthed coward-pervert ZOG-Yank.

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

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

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

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

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

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

Trending