by William Skink
What’s worse, using the Orlando shooting to try and exclude refugees from Montana or using the Orlando shooting to justify escalating air strikes in Syria, creating even more refugees and possibly a direct military confrontation with Russia?
The latter link is to a Consortium piece about the collective insanity that has taken hold at the State Department, former lair of the despicable warmonger, Hillary Clinton. These warmongering bastards from a department once tasked with diplomacy abroad have used something called “the dissent channel” to bash Obama for not using enough death and destruction to oust Assad and create another chaotic breeding ground for Islamic jihadists:
Some 51 State Department “diplomats” signed a memo distributed through the official “dissent channel,” seeking military strikes against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad whose forces have been leading the pushback against Islamist extremists who are seeking control of this important Mideast nation.
The fact that such a large contingent of State Department officials would openly advocate for an expanded aggressive war in line with the neoconservative agenda, which put Syria on a hit list some two decades ago, reveals how crazy the State Department has become.
The State Department now seems to be a combination of true-believing neocons along with their liberal-interventionist followers and some careerists who realize that the smart play is to behave toward the world as global proconsuls dictating solutions or seeking “regime change” rather than as diplomats engaging foreigners respectfully and seeking genuine compromise.
Even some State Department officials, whom I personally know and who are not neocons/liberal-hawks per se, act as if they have fully swallowed the Kool-Aid. They talk tough and behave arrogantly toward inhabitants of countries under their supervision. Foreigners are treated as mindless objects to be coerced or bribed.
These people are clearly not diplomats and should be fired immediately. But I suspect all they are doing is laying the groundwork for Hillary once she obtains residency at the White House.
When it comes to exploiting Orlando, Democrats and Republicans are both doing it. One policy area that finds political overlap is the push to expand the police state in the wake of the Orlando shooting. To this end, while Hillary isn’t doing the xenophobic two-step like Trump, she is nonetheless more than ready to further shred the constitution and bestow even more power to the security state that can’t seem to stop even the unstable people they are surveilling for 10 months. Here is part of a speech Hillary delivered less than 48 hours after the Orlando tragedy:
We already know we need more resources for this fight. The professionals who keep us safe would be the first to say we need better intelligence to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out. That’s why I’ve proposed an ‘intelligence surge’ to bolster our capabilities across the board, with appropriate safeguards here at home.
While partisans are either incapable of interpreting this, or unwilling to acknowledge how dangerous Hillary wielding her war cock will be, we luckily have other, less complicit stooges to help us understand what Hillary is really saying:
As with all things Hillary, one must carefully deconstruct the statement to unravel the distortions and empty rhetoric, and distill her actual proposal. The first part of her statement is instantly suspect as the US has already grossly inflated its intelligence budget. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the 2017 intelligence budget will reach nearly $70 billion, with $50 billion being spent on the National Intelligence Program (NIP). One would have to seriously question the logic in Clinton’s statement, namely the implied consensus about the need for more resources. How much more exactly will prevent incidents like the one in Orlando? Perhaps another $50 billion would do the trick?
The second fallacy embedded in the torrent of misinformation that is a Hillary Clinton speech excerpt is the specious argument that “better intelligence” would “discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out.” This vacuous statement must be dismissed out of hand after one considers the fact that the alleged Orlando killer, Omar Mateen, was investigated, followed, and interviewed by the FBI multiple times (he was also introduced to FBI informants whose responsibility was likely to keep tabs on him).
So, according to Clinton the US should spend tens of billions more dollars to fund the agencies and programs that already have the ability to single out a potential terrorist, do all the leg work to establish contact with him, invest human resources into his case, and yet still be unable to stop his alleged actions. To put it in terms Hillary’s Wall Street patrons would understand: sounds like a bad investment strategy.
The third unmistakably wrongheaded statement (I only selected three sentences, so she’s 3 for 3) is the absolutely odious suggestion of an “intelligence surge” to improve the capabilities of the intelligence community. In fact, what Clinton is actually suggesting is a massive increase in contracts awarded to private intelligence firms and military contractors, though veiling it as a boost to the intelligence community. This fact is made clear by the renowned investigative journalist Tim Shorrock in his 2008 book Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.
Over the weekend, the woman who should be indicting Hillary Clinton for multiple felonies relating to her email server was on tv to explain why the American public will be fed only the portions of the 911 calls in Orlando they want us to hear:
In the ongoing war of words between president Obama on one hand, who has repeatedly said that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was “self-radicalized” and was not influenced by Islamic elements, and Donald Trump prominently on the other, where the Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly alleged that Mateen’s actions were provoked by “radicalized Islam” which has prompted Trump to renew his calls for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants as well as profiling Muslims already in the US, it appears that the president is about to get some much needed help from none other than the Department of Justice, which will step into the debate, by releasing Mateen’s 911 transcripts however only after heavy edits which censor and remove all references to Islamic terrorism.
As RealClearPolitics writes, in an interview conducted earlier today with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that on Monday the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage. One minor matter: the transcripts will be heavily edited.
“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said.
“We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”
What utter bullshit. So what’s really going on here? Could it be that what Mateen actually said about wanting the government to stop bombing his country (his dad was born in Afghanistan) is more an indication that this massacre is actually blowback from US foreign policy in Afghanistan? That’s what this piece asserts:
The FBI’s motivation to portray events in a way that supports U.S. foreign policy, and its history of portraying its actions in a way that has served to hype an ISIS threat should make journalists cautious about taking officials’ words at face value. Especially in the case of a 911 call, which is a public record in Florida, proper journalistic due diligence would be to consult the actual source of the claims being disseminated.
Instead, not a single journalist appears to have done this with Orlando killer Omar Mateen’s 911 call.
On Tuesday, CNN aired interviews of eyewitnesses to the shooting spree who described their harrowing encounters with the gunman inside the club. Patience Carter, who was inside a bathroom stall feet from the gunman when he called 911, said he told the dispatcher that “the reason why he was doing this is because he wants America to stop bombing his country.” (Mateen is a native of the United States, but he was presumably referring to Afghanistan, where both of his parents are from.) She said he then declared that “from now on he pledges his loyalty to ISIS.”
This demonstrates that his primary motive for his terror attack was retaliation for the U.S. aggression in Afghanistan, where nearly 100,000 people have been killed since the illegal U.S. invasion in 2001. His mention of ISIS seems merely adjunct to what he admits was his justification for the attack. His motivation precedes his ideological alignment with ISIS, not the other way around.
Here is the uncomfortable reality that most Americans will be reluctant to acknowledge. The enemies of this country and its founding principles—the people who most threaten our families and our community’s safety—are the Democrats and Republicans exploiting this tragedy to fulfill their political agendas, which really only differ in terms of rhetorical window dressing.
Some day in the not-distant-future it might be up to our military to intervene, but not abroad in some country ripped apart by America’s jihadist/Zionist pals. No, what might finally put a stop to the insanity is a military coup in these here United States of America to stop these psychopaths and their minions from perpetrating any more madness and destruction before it’s too late.
JC
The story about the State Department’s so-called “diplomats” calling for an “expanded, aggressive war” in Syria sickened me. But it is ironic that someone other than you is “bash(ing) Obama.” Must be hard to take.
Also, I see you never pass up an opportunity to stick your thumb in the eye of an ID contributor. Don’s post decrying the intolerance shown Muslim refugees by Montana’s Republican Speaker of the House is somehow on par with escalating Syrian bombing. As a matter of fact, all Democratic efforts following the Orlando massacre are just partisan hackery to “fulfill (our) political agendas.” Restricting military-style assault weapons and expanding background checks must be bad ideas.
Finally, you’re sounding more-and-more like a far-right hate site with your thoughts on “a military coup in these here United States of America.”
Keep up the good work.
yeah, it’s sad that I have to hope that maybe our military leadership is overseen by fewer psychopaths than our civilian leadership, and that our enemies, both foreign and domestic, can be stopped before a headline like US, Russian Warplanes “Clash” Over Syria turns into Cold War with Russia Now Hot War, which is what could have happened had one of those American pilots fired on the Russian planes.
do you realize that we are on the brink of open war with Russia? do you realize tensions have been immensely escalated under Obama through Neocon minions in Hillary’s State Department, like Nuland? why aren’t your pals at the Peace Center writing letters to the editor decrying warmongers like Hillary Clinton who have spit upon the corpses of the dead in Orlando by using their deaths to pimp for war on Syria? are they too busy depicting anyone concerned about bringing refugees and regulating guns as violent bigots ready to vote for an American Hitler in the guise of Trump?
sorry to waste your time with this trivial stuff, Talbot. best get back to pimping for Democrats, because that’s worked out so great these last 7 years.
No, I didn’t realize we are on the brink of open war with Russia. Haven’t we been for the past decade? Man, you should have been around in the 60s.
Keep up the rhetoric about Democrats using Orlando “to pimp for war on Syria,” I haven’t witnessed that in any of the campaigns where I’m involved. And continue to blow off refugee bigotry and the need for gun regulation while ignoring what a terrible threat Trump would pose as President. Since you enjoy selecting subjects for others to write about, I suggest you take a stab defining Trump’s State Department and foreign policy.
since you guys are trying to use Trump’s positions to damage Republican candidates, I’m sure they will do the same, so you might want to to get the candidates you are working for to at least consider whether or not they agree with Hillary’s disgusting and incredibly dangerous warmongering, and if they don’t, you better prepare them to be vague and evasive if asked, because we all know local dems don’t have the guts to oppose the Clinton machine, no matter how many felonies she commits or countries she has helped destabilize.
Pete, if you really don’t think that the current hybrid war we are engaged in with Russia could go hot, then maybe you aren’t reading widely enough. I was around in the 60s, and fortunately, we had a press that was more willing to report on the cold war, and a peace movement that was able to put pressure on both the media and politicians.
In the 60s, Americans were treated to cold war hysteria to advance certain political goals, and also to prepare the populace for a disaster. Today, Americans are treated to propaganda that distorts the current world situation, a media that neglects to report on what really is happening, and a State department that uses “playing chicken” as a way to force their agenda down both their allies and enemies’ throats.
Here, read some RT today, it’ll do you good. I know you don’t believe that RT is a valuable or unbiased news source, it but isn’t mores that say the NY Times, the WaPo, all the cable news networks, and most news mags.
If that isn’t a huge escalation in the Cold War 2.0, no different than the Cuban Missile Crisis, then I don’t know what more would have to happen to signify that we are one hair trigger away from moving the current hybrid war into a hot war, except for one country or the other physically attacking the other. And Putin has already said he reserves the right to launch a nuclear attack against the U.S. mainland in retaliation.
Ostrich head-in-the-ground politics re Russia is the one thing that will ensure that our State Dept. neocon/liberal interventionists instigate a false flag, creating the illusion of a Russian first strike, and enabling a retaliation that is swift and final (for all).
Skink says, “we all know local dems don’t have the guts to oppose the Clinton machine.” Tell that to the 12 Sanders delegates we’re sending to Philadelphia next month.
Being pro-Sanders is not the same as opposing the “Clinton machine.” What will those Sanders delegates do after Bernie loses the first vote? Throw their support to Clinton? There are many, many people who believe that Clinton’s foreign policy is a recipe for disaster, as is her coziness with Wall Street a disaster for the economy.
What is more important to those Sanders delegates? Foreign policy and the economy or identity politics?
I for one am tired of the primacy of identity politics driving dem candidacies to the detriment of foreign policy, banking, and equality — and the loss of privacy, freedom and liberty.
You’ll have to ask the Sanders supporters what they’re going to do if Clinton is nominated, JC. I’d imagine there’ll be some different paths. At the very least, pressing the DNC to adopt some of Sanders’ policies is a must and the smart thing for Democrats to do if they want to remain viable with progressives.
And must you insist on the “identity politics” trope? It’s disingenuous. Are you talking about women voting for a woman? You need to clarify. I’ve had this discussion with some very progressive women who might be able to share some insights with you.
There will be no hot war with Russia. All y’all blogger pundits are welcome to laugh and laugh when I’m proven wrong, but I won’t be. I follow the links on this site, and I find more fear mongering and moralist clap-trap about Candidate Clinton and little evidence of any hot war style escalation, save paranoia. There will be no hot war with Russia. They are vastly more concerned with how with the Chinese will treat our currency than they are with fly-bys and retaliation. Our State Department is vastly more concerned with the TPP than they are with bombing Vladivostok. There will be no hot war with Russia.
As for questioning our candidates about the policies of President Clinton, perhaps y’all ought to publicly display your distrust as opposed to demanding that others do it for you. Just suggesting …
Go to the 4&20 archives and search World War 3.
Predictions about open war with Russia, preemptive nuclear attacks on China, and the fall of civilization have been made for over three years now.
Not that a build up for war couldn’t take years, but I don’t think any of us have special insight into signal vs noise when it comes to such an event.
You realize that we are already in a hybrid war with Russia, don’t you? People who watch these things say we are closer to a hot war with Russia today than anytime during the Cold War — which also was a hybrid war of a different sort.
A giant diversion from the real threat we’re facing.
Beware of the Bear while the viper prepares to strike.
Care to unmask “the viper” for us. Is it the bankers, who direct from behind the shadows every politician and every war?
What do you expect to happen when you poke a bear with a stick, and kick a viper?