Although your analysis notes Clinton's shortcomings as a candidate, it fails to mention the real culprit: the technology behind voting machines which has been manipulated to affect election outcomes in this country. The electoral process is deeply corrupt as shown in the 2006 HBO documentary Hacking Democracy. Blaming Russia is a diversionary tactic.
It's no secret the intelligence community is out to get Trump any way it can because they can't control him the way they could say, Pence. What Trump did has been done by the intelligence community when it has suited their purposes. These people won't rest until they bring Trump down. The hysteria over Russia has just been escalated. They want their puppet in the White House who can be manipulated like Obama was by John Brennan, who can be scared out of his mind by the CIA briefer. Trump may be a clown but he's not a creature of Washington. He never held political office so never received his training in how to behave. Pence was a congressman and governor so he fits the bill and is very acceptable to the spymasters as someone who will do their bidding. This is all a setup to further their efforts to do away with this pretender and install a more malleable caretaker.
Hillary didn't play fair with Bernie either, and that's why we got Trump. She would have been a nightmare as well, e.g., more war, favors to Wall Street and big banks, bailouts for them, more inequality, more privatization, more prison time for blacks, no universal health plan, continuation of Obama's record deportation of immigrants.
What's so baffling about Hillary's answer on Iraq and Syria? It's clear she's a political hack whose aides do all the work for her and then she spouts these well-rehearsed lines that sound like she's knowledgeable. It's obfuscation, she does it smoothly and it works for her.
You really have drunk the kool aid to say the US bombed the Syrian government base mistaking it for an ISIL one. That was a deliberate attack to derail the Kerry-Lavrov deal. Obama wants it both ways--to look like a peacemaker and simultaneously wreck any peace prospects. Typical of him. I think you must be getting ready for the Hillary administration so you can justify her certain escalation of the war in Syria, something you would denounce if a Republican were president. You have previously said the US is de facto allied with the al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
You've just stated the establishment case for not letting the families sue Saudi Arabia. Let the Saudis take their filthy money elsewhere. The US will not fall apart. There's been enough appeasing of Saudi Arabia, and the US is helping it obliterate Yemen. What you wrote is fear-mongering nonsense. And if the US is sued for its criminal actions abroad, all the better. It needs to be held accountable for indiscriminate killing in the Middle East and South Asia. Not to worry though. This is just Congress posturing before the election to win some points with the people it doesn't represent. This law will be overturned very, very soon. The real power will assert itself to prevent this law from taking effect.
A self-serving and mendacious retelling of CIA's role by someone who will be national security adviser or CIA director in a (God forbid) Hillary Clinton administration.
Obama is not the best anything and far from the best US president on the Middle East. No president has been "good" on the ME. They have all been captive to intelligence agency intrigues and the oil interests. I don't see anything changing--whoever gets elected--because there is no one with good personal knowledge of the area and the strength of character needed to buck the system.
You seem baffled by Obama's detachment but it really comes down to a total lack of political courage. I think he fears getting his head blown off like the Kennedys and MLK if he takes a stand on anything.
When you say Clinton was right that the Libyans rejected aid after Gaddafi's overthrow, it was probably because there were too many strings attached. And let's not forget that Clinton called Mubarak a good friend of her family.
This wasn't some impulsive decision by Erdogan to pull the trigger. It was a warning shot to the Russians, and I would be surprised if NATO wasn't in on it. NATO can hide behind Turkey and pretend Turkey acted on its own. The US wants to just keep poking Russia in the eye every chance it gets because it is angry at Russia for defending its sphere of influence in Ukraine.
There's not much daylight between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to making war. And Obama has done nothing as president but try to please Republicans and make deals with them. Obamacare was Romneycare before it became Obamacare. It's a Republican plan in which the insurance and pharmaceutical companies got sweet backroom deals to continue to rip Americans off.
Your assumption here is that Turkey, a NATO member, decided to go it alone in shooting down the Russian plane. I doubt it didn't inform the other NATO members of what it planned to do. This was a calculated move carried out with NATO's knowledge to see how Russia would react or it was a deliberate provocation of Russia. Putin has kept his cool so NATO members have had to reassess. Probably not all members were solidly behind the attack, but they were all informed of Turkey's intention and now have to plan their next move with France already breaking ranks after it was attacked and Hollande talking to Putin about a coalition against ISIL which the US rejects because it doesn't want Russia to be a player in its grand design. Turkey gets oil from ISIL and wants to protect that, and the US is OK with it so the US is allowing Turkey to do its thing, including shooting down a Russian plane. The US is now focused on Russia, and it's the return of big-power politics and rivalry. The US had a free hand in Iraq but Syria is a client state of Russia so the picture is different. The US keeps needling Russia, the latest attempt being the invitation to Montenegro to join NATO.
Russia is correct to say that Turkey is effectively siding with Daesh. It's well known that foreign fighters headed for Syria have entered in droves from Turkey while Turkey looked the other way. Erdogan cares only about keeping the Kurds in check, which puts him in conflict with the US, but this does not prevent him from working with the US against Russia. The US pursues its "interests" without regard for the big picture. It is content to prolong the mayhem there while trying to position itself favorably for the eventual outcome. It is playing the same dangerous game it played in Afghanistan in the 80s, and the result will be the same.
I see the US hand in this attack on the Russian jet. You kind of hint at it when you mention the CIA role in arms smuggling. The US doesn't want Russian involvement. It wants to control things there. The US, as usual, is playing the same dangerous game it played in Afghanistan. It is in effect helping the al-Qa'ida affiliates. It is not serious about defeating ISIL. The Russians are. The US is acting in bad faith there, saying one thing for US and world consumption and doing another on the scene. The Russians have their interests surely, but they are being more honest about what they want to accomplish in Syria.
Although your analysis notes Clinton's shortcomings as a candidate, it fails to mention the real culprit: the technology behind voting machines which has been manipulated to affect election outcomes in this country. The electoral process is deeply corrupt as shown in the 2006 HBO documentary Hacking Democracy. Blaming Russia is a diversionary tactic.
It's no secret the intelligence community is out to get Trump any way it can because they can't control him the way they could say, Pence. What Trump did has been done by the intelligence community when it has suited their purposes. These people won't rest until they bring Trump down. The hysteria over Russia has just been escalated. They want their puppet in the White House who can be manipulated like Obama was by John Brennan, who can be scared out of his mind by the CIA briefer. Trump may be a clown but he's not a creature of Washington. He never held political office so never received his training in how to behave. Pence was a congressman and governor so he fits the bill and is very acceptable to the spymasters as someone who will do their bidding. This is all a setup to further their efforts to do away with this pretender and install a more malleable caretaker.
You left out one of Castro's greatest accomplishments:
http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola/
Hillary didn't play fair with Bernie either, and that's why we got Trump. She would have been a nightmare as well, e.g., more war, favors to Wall Street and big banks, bailouts for them, more inequality, more privatization, more prison time for blacks, no universal health plan, continuation of Obama's record deportation of immigrants.
What's so baffling about Hillary's answer on Iraq and Syria? It's clear she's a political hack whose aides do all the work for her and then she spouts these well-rehearsed lines that sound like she's knowledgeable. It's obfuscation, she does it smoothly and it works for her.
You really have drunk the kool aid to say the US bombed the Syrian government base mistaking it for an ISIL one. That was a deliberate attack to derail the Kerry-Lavrov deal. Obama wants it both ways--to look like a peacemaker and simultaneously wreck any peace prospects. Typical of him. I think you must be getting ready for the Hillary administration so you can justify her certain escalation of the war in Syria, something you would denounce if a Republican were president. You have previously said the US is de facto allied with the al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
You've just stated the establishment case for not letting the families sue Saudi Arabia. Let the Saudis take their filthy money elsewhere. The US will not fall apart. There's been enough appeasing of Saudi Arabia, and the US is helping it obliterate Yemen. What you wrote is fear-mongering nonsense. And if the US is sued for its criminal actions abroad, all the better. It needs to be held accountable for indiscriminate killing in the Middle East and South Asia. Not to worry though. This is just Congress posturing before the election to win some points with the people it doesn't represent. This law will be overturned very, very soon. The real power will assert itself to prevent this law from taking effect.
A self-serving and mendacious retelling of CIA's role by someone who will be national security adviser or CIA director in a (God forbid) Hillary Clinton administration.
Obama is not the best anything and far from the best US president on the Middle East. No president has been "good" on the ME. They have all been captive to intelligence agency intrigues and the oil interests. I don't see anything changing--whoever gets elected--because there is no one with good personal knowledge of the area and the strength of character needed to buck the system.
You seem baffled by Obama's detachment but it really comes down to a total lack of political courage. I think he fears getting his head blown off like the Kennedys and MLK if he takes a stand on anything.
When you say Clinton was right that the Libyans rejected aid after Gaddafi's overthrow, it was probably because there were too many strings attached. And let's not forget that Clinton called Mubarak a good friend of her family.
This wasn't some impulsive decision by Erdogan to pull the trigger. It was a warning shot to the Russians, and I would be surprised if NATO wasn't in on it. NATO can hide behind Turkey and pretend Turkey acted on its own. The US wants to just keep poking Russia in the eye every chance it gets because it is angry at Russia for defending its sphere of influence in Ukraine.
There's not much daylight between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to making war. And Obama has done nothing as president but try to please Republicans and make deals with them. Obamacare was Romneycare before it became Obamacare. It's a Republican plan in which the insurance and pharmaceutical companies got sweet backroom deals to continue to rip Americans off.
Your assumption here is that Turkey, a NATO member, decided to go it alone in shooting down the Russian plane. I doubt it didn't inform the other NATO members of what it planned to do. This was a calculated move carried out with NATO's knowledge to see how Russia would react or it was a deliberate provocation of Russia. Putin has kept his cool so NATO members have had to reassess. Probably not all members were solidly behind the attack, but they were all informed of Turkey's intention and now have to plan their next move with France already breaking ranks after it was attacked and Hollande talking to Putin about a coalition against ISIL which the US rejects because it doesn't want Russia to be a player in its grand design. Turkey gets oil from ISIL and wants to protect that, and the US is OK with it so the US is allowing Turkey to do its thing, including shooting down a Russian plane. The US is now focused on Russia, and it's the return of big-power politics and rivalry. The US had a free hand in Iraq but Syria is a client state of Russia so the picture is different. The US keeps needling Russia, the latest attempt being the invitation to Montenegro to join NATO.
Russia is correct to say that Turkey is effectively siding with Daesh. It's well known that foreign fighters headed for Syria have entered in droves from Turkey while Turkey looked the other way. Erdogan cares only about keeping the Kurds in check, which puts him in conflict with the US, but this does not prevent him from working with the US against Russia. The US pursues its "interests" without regard for the big picture. It is content to prolong the mayhem there while trying to position itself favorably for the eventual outcome. It is playing the same dangerous game it played in Afghanistan in the 80s, and the result will be the same.
I see the US hand in this attack on the Russian jet. You kind of hint at it when you mention the CIA role in arms smuggling. The US doesn't want Russian involvement. It wants to control things there. The US, as usual, is playing the same dangerous game it played in Afghanistan. It is in effect helping the al-Qa'ida affiliates. It is not serious about defeating ISIL. The Russians are. The US is acting in bad faith there, saying one thing for US and world consumption and doing another on the scene. The Russians have their interests surely, but they are being more honest about what they want to accomplish in Syria.