Who is really behind the surge of media interest in possible Russian involvement in the election? Could it be a last, desperate attempt of the Clinton machine?
The US has relentlessly tried to influence foreign elections throughout the world at least since WW II, covertly or overtly. If the 'wrong' party won, opposition would be generated and armed to overthrow them, often with the direct or indirect us of the US military, or the winner would simply be killed.
When asked if he thought the US had been involved in the 2010 coup attempt against him, Ecuador's President Correa replied, "Well, there have been some 49 known coups or coup attempts in Latin America. If the US was not involved, it would have been the first time."
The US has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for more death and destruction, outside their country, than the total of all the rest of the countries of the world combined. US interventions, at least since the Korean War, have made things worse, often horribly, horribly, tragically worse.
It is hard to believe that so many US journalists are really so ignorant of this critical perspective, or is it willful ignorance? People who so gullibly and uncritically swallow this line are not worthy of respect, especially when honest and respected news is available, such as Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept.
Does this make me a fan of the likes of Assad, or Saddam Hussein? Of course not, although it must be pointed out that there are 'friendly' Middle Eastern regimes that have long been more systematically repressive, including Saudi Arabia and Israel (Some have given millions to influence the recent election in Hillary's favor, either directly or laundered through the corrupt Clinton Foundation).
A definition of corruption would be helpful. I would define corruption as where officials act, directly or indirectly, in their own interest rather than in the interest of those they supposedly represent. Such corruption can be 'overt', such as taking bribes to award contract, or 'covert', where their actions, while seeming to be legal, are not in the interest of their constituents. With such a definition it becomes obvious that virtually the entire US Congress is corrupt.
Who is really behind the surge of media interest in possible Russian involvement in the election? Could it be a last, desperate attempt of the Clinton machine?
The US has relentlessly tried to influence foreign elections throughout the world at least since WW II, covertly or overtly. If the 'wrong' party won, opposition would be generated and armed to overthrow them, often with the direct or indirect us of the US military, or the winner would simply be killed.
When asked if he thought the US had been involved in the 2010 coup attempt against him, Ecuador's President Correa replied, "Well, there have been some 49 known coups or coup attempts in Latin America. If the US was not involved, it would have been the first time."
The US has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for more death and destruction, outside their country, than the total of all the rest of the countries of the world combined. US interventions, at least since the Korean War, have made things worse, often horribly, horribly, tragically worse.
It is hard to believe that so many US journalists are really so ignorant of this critical perspective, or is it willful ignorance? People who so gullibly and uncritically swallow this line are not worthy of respect, especially when honest and respected news is available, such as Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept.
Does this make me a fan of the likes of Assad, or Saddam Hussein? Of course not, although it must be pointed out that there are 'friendly' Middle Eastern regimes that have long been more systematically repressive, including Saudi Arabia and Israel (Some have given millions to influence the recent election in Hillary's favor, either directly or laundered through the corrupt Clinton Foundation).
A definition of corruption would be helpful. I would define corruption as where officials act, directly or indirectly, in their own interest rather than in the interest of those they supposedly represent. Such corruption can be 'overt', such as taking bribes to award contract, or 'covert', where their actions, while seeming to be legal, are not in the interest of their constituents. With such a definition it becomes obvious that virtually the entire US Congress is corrupt.