The flamboyant denunciations of Trump by establishment figures make no sense except as self-aggrandizing pretense. He’s their id.
The political and media establishments in the U.S. — which have jointly wrought so much destruction, decay, and decadence — recently decided to unite against Donald Trump. Their central claim is that the real estate mogul and longtime NBC reality TV star advocates morally reprehensible positions that are far outside the bounds of decency; relatedly, they argue, he is so personally repellent that his empowerment would degrade both the country and the presidency.
In some instances, their claim is plausible: There is at least genuine embarrassment if not revulsion even among America’s political class over Trump’s proposed mass deportation of 11 million human beings, banning of all Muslims from entering the country, and new laws to enable him to more easily sue (and thus destroy) media outlets that “falsely” criticize him. And his signature personality brew of deep-seated insecurities, vindictive narcissism, channeling of the darkest impulses, and gaudy, petty boasting is indeed uniquely grotesque.
But in many cases, probably most, the flamboyant denunciations of Trump by establishment figures make no sense except as self-aggrandizing pretense, because those condemning him have long tolerated if not outright advocated very similar ideas, albeit with less rhetorical candor. Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it. He’s their id. What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse, along with the resentments and hatreds they have long deliberately and self-servingly stoked but which are now raging out of their control.
Two of the most recent, widely discussed anti-Trump outrage rituals — one from Wednesday and the other from last night’s Fox News debate — demonstrate the sham at the heart of the establishment display of horror. This week, American political and media figures from across the spectrum stood and applauded a tawdry cast of neocons and other assorted warmongers who are responsible for grave war crimes, torture, kidnappings, due process-free indefinite imprisonment, and the worst political crime of this generation: the attack on and destruction of Iraq.
These five dozen or so extremists (calling themselves “members of the Republican national security community”) were the toast of the town because they published an “open letter” denouncing Trump on the ground that his “own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.” This was one of their examples:
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
Most decent human beings, by definition, would express this sentiment without including the qualifying word “expansive.” Even Ronald Reagan, whom virtually all the signatories claim to idolize, advocated for and signed a treaty in 1988 that stated that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever … may be invoked as a justification of torture” and that “each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law.” The taboo is on “all acts of torture,” not its “expansive use” — whatever that means.
But the group signing this anti-Trump letter can’t pretend to find an embrace of torture itself to be “inexcusable” because most of them implemented torture policies while in government or vocally advocated for them. So instead, they invoke the Goldilocks Theory of Torture: We believe in torture up to exactly the right point, while Trump is disgraceful because he wants to go beyond that; he believes in “the expansive use of torture.” The same dynamic drove yesterday’s widely cheered speech by Mitt Romney, where the two-time failed GOP candidate denounced Trump for advocating torture while literally ignoring his own clear pro-torture viewpoints.
Here we see the elite class agreeing to pretend that Trump is advocating views that are inherently disqualifying when — thanks to those doing the denouncing — those views are actually quite mainstream, even popular, among both the American political class and its population. Torture was the official American policy for years. It went way beyond waterboarding. One Republican president ordered it and his Democratic successor immunized it from all forms of accountability, ensuring that not a single official would be prosecuted for authorizing even the most extreme techniques, ones that killed people — or even allowed to be sued by their victims.
Many of the high officials most responsible for that torture regime and who defended it — from Condoleezza Rice and John Brennan — remain not just acceptable in mainstream circles but hold high office and are virtually revered. And, just by the way, both of Trump’s main rivals — Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — refuse to rule out classic torture techniques as part of their campaign. In light of all that, who takes seriously the notion that Trump’s advocacy of torture — including techniques beyond waterboarding — places him beyond the American pale? To the contrary, it places him within its establishment mainstream.
Then there’s the outrage du jour from last night. A couple of weeks ago, George W. Bush’s NSA and CIA chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, claimed that members of the military would never follow Trump’s orders if it meant committing war crimes such as torturing detainees or killing a terrorist’s family members (perish the thought). When asked about this last night, Trump insisted that the U.S. military would do so: “They’re not going to refuse. Believe me,” he said. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is about.” Of all the statements Trump made last night, this was the one most often cited by pundits as being the most outrageous, shocking, disgusting, etc. Even bona fide war criminals such as the Bush White House’s pro-invasion and torture propagandist got in on the moral outrage act:
Trump is wrong when he says military will do whatever he tells them. They'll resign before carrying out what they think is an illegal order.
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) March 4, 2016
But is there any doubt that Trump is right about this? Throughout the 14-year war on terror, a handful of U.S. military members have bravely and nobly refused to take part in, or vocally denounced, policies that are clear war crimes. But there was no shortage of people in the military, the CIA, and working for private American contractors who dutifully carried out the most heinous abuses and war criminality. The military official in charge of investigating war on terror policies, Gen. Antonio Taguba, said this in 2008:
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.
In 2009, Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, “We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.” The notion that the U.S. intelligence and military community will collectively rise up in defiance of the commander-in-chief if they are ordered to obey polices that are illegal is just laughable.
It’s obviously a pleasing fiction to believe — it produces nice, nationalistic feelings of nobility — but everything in the past decades proves that Trump is right when he says, “They’re not going to refuse.” Some likely would, but nowhere near enough to preclude the policies being carried out. In fact, the primary argument used to justify immunizing America’s torturers is that they were just following orders as approved by John Yoo and company: reflecting a moral code that dictates that, even when it comes to plainly illegal policies, obedience is preferable to defiance.
Then there’s the feigned horror over Trump’s proposal to kill the family members of terrorists. Though they claim they don’t do it deliberately, the fact is that this is something both the U.S. and Israel, among others, have routinely done for years: They repeatedly bomb people’s homes or work places, killing innocent people including family members, and then justify it on the ground that a terrorist was among them. While they claim they don’t target terrorists’ family members, they certainly target their homes and other places family members are certain to be found.
When a U.S. drone strike in 2011 killed the U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and then another drone strike two weeks later killed his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman (who nobody claimed was involved with terrorism), former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs justified it this way:
If you really think you can locate fine distinctions — we merely keep killing the children, spouses, and other family members over and over by accident, not by purposely targeting — at least don’t pretend that what Trump is advocating is something our civilized minds have never previously encountered. He may be more gauche for saying it aloud and gleefully justifying it rather than feigning sorrow over it, but the substance of what he’s saying — despicable though it is — is hardly categorically different from what the U.S. government and its closest allies actually do over and over. And that’s to say nothing of the unpleasant fact that we’re all now supposed to ignore lest we be smeared as Trump supporters: that even as he advocates clear war crimes, he also, in some important cases, is advocating policies and approaches less militaristic and warmongering than not only his GOP rivals, but the war-loving leading Democratic candidate as well.
As for his starkly disgusting personal qualities, none of these is new. Anyone who has lived in New York has known for decades that this is who and what Donald Trump is. And yet he was fully integrated within and embraced by America’s circles of power and celebrity, including by those who now want to pretend to find him so hideously offensive. As the New York Times put it in December, “For years, President Bill Clinton was the best friend Donald J. Trump always hoped to have.”
One can argue, with some validity, that there’s value in collectively denouncing the most extreme expressions of imperial violence and war criminality in the context of a national election, even if it’s tinged with some inconsistency and hypocrisy. That’s fine, provided doing so does not serve to consecrate feel-good fantasies about American government and society. Finding a villain we can collectively condemn by consensus is a natural tribalistic desire: Declaring someone uniquely evil and then denouncing him is an affirmation of one’s own virtue. It feels good. As an excellent New York Times op-ed last week by psychology researchers at Yale explained, “human beings have an appetite for moral outrage” because it’s often “a result of a system that has evolved to boost our individual reputations.”
Collective moral condemnation can be genuinely valuable if it’s grounded in honest moral line-drawing. But when it’s driven largely by self-delusion and self-glorification — by the fiction that what is being condemned resides in a different moral universe rather than just a couple of degrees farther down the road — it can be quite destructive: ennobling that which is decisively ignoble.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a tidal wave of establishment denunciations of Donald Trump. It’s now not only easy to do but virtually obligatory. But very few of those denunciations contain any real examination of what accounts for his popularity and appeal: why a message grounded in contempt for the establishment resonates so strongly, why anxiety and anger levels are so high that the ground is so fertile for the angry strongman persona he represents. That’s because answering that question requires what U.S. establishment guardians most fear and hate: self-examination.
“Candidates decide what to say on the basis of tests that determine what the effect will be across the population. Somehow people don’t see how profoundly contemptuous that is of democracy.”
https://chomsky.info/1988____/
Maybe I don’t get this because I haven’t watched tv in over 10 years and I don’t consider media persons my peers.
The author is criticizing Media/establishment/Americans for criticizing Trump for just being who he always was and saying bluntly what America has always done. It’s all feigned horror there to produce nice nationalistic feelings of nobility and to make us/them all feel morally superior.
This means that if you’re an American participating in the criticism of Trump (and the people who do not ignore his supposed less militaristic and warmongering policies) you’re a fraud who needs some self reflection?
We all know that politicians can bs to win but because Trump is willing to be shocking and a jerk people think he must be telling the truth and by the force of his personality he will make those changes.
Remember how well George W’s “cowboy diplomacy” was received?
What is the purpose of being polite again?
I can understand feeling sour about television coverage of anything but I don’t understand how someone can criticize mainstream media and their “establishment mavens” for lack of truth and at the same time believe media accurately reflects opinions and values of the people.
Sure they influence and there is reflection for some but is it mainstream? or an absolute? Maybe popular music is everyone’s favorite and a commenting section is an equivalent to an opinion poll
Wow, just wow. Think of the stories that didn’t make the cut….”Sanders threatens to make billionaires pay taxes”….”Sanders plan to make billionaires pay their employees exposed”….
Dear Intercept, Please cleanse your discussion threads of rants that are completely off topic.
Way to go, Glenn, you nailed it as usual. While these hypocrites rend their shirts upon their high horses, they plan on continuing the same policies. They hate Trump for all the reasons you state, he’s honest enough to say what the rest of them think and that some of them have done.
Pictured: the alternate cast of “O Brother Where Art Thou.”
“Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue” — that certainly characterizes Obama whom you voted for. And yet when he first ran you were quite supportive of him like many liberals. What happened to your sense of character back then? I have no reason to believe that your perceptivity has increased. Of course experience does assist one in becoming more sagacious, but that requires a great deal of self-examination and by adulthood most people have lost the ability to change much. So with that in mind I think it a good idea to conclude that once again you have failed to make a correct judgment of a political figure. And, no, I did not vote for Obama either time. Nor for McCain or Romney. Anyone who would use a nonsensical motto like “Change you can believe in” has to be a confidence man as he turned out to be. “Make America great again” does make good sense and would be a fine thing.
laughing hard at this bit:
” Anyone who would use a nonsensical motto like “Change you can believe in” has to be a confidence man as he turned out to be. “Make America great again” does make good sense and would be a fine thing.”
Right, sure. One dopey advertising motto is “nonsensical” but the other dopey advertising motto “does make good sense and would be a fine thing.”
what a maroon, as bugs bunny would say
Hah. Good one.
You may be surprised if he gets elected. Would you prefer “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too”? Or “I like Ike”?
Anti semitic in The Intercept:
“I’ve read in many articles that Jews owned many slave ships and auction houses that sold slaves.And their use of black laborers in Israel seems slave like,but hey,reality bites.” Dahoit
Since Jews participated in the slave trade, then we have to blame Israel as well as France. US, UK… It is completely irrelevant that the State of Israel did not exist when the first African slaves came to the Americas and when the Slave trade was abolished.
Should we blame the Kurds for the slave trade since many Muslims did participate in the trade? Should we blame Filipinos since many Catholics participate in the trade?
This comes from misinformation and not necessarily anti-semitism. There is deliberate misinformation out their that color people’s opinion. But I understand your point.
Next time you read somebody talking about Jewish involvement in the slave trade, point out that the Arab slave trade was more vicious, and longer lasting than the Atlantic slave trade. Point out that human beings of every conceivable creed and color participated in it. Point out that slave labor exists TODAY in the Muslim Gulf countries, in Malaysia, in Thailand among other countries. Subjugation of others is a human trait, and blaming Jews, or Whites, or Blacks or Arabs for human behavior common to everyone is stupid. Point it out, then laugh at them.
Qualification: Muslim Gulf countries excluding Iran.
Well said. But in a prior thread dahoit has written some things that, at best, flirted with actual anti-semitism.
I’m still trying to figure out why newspapers run these horse race stories:
Translation: Rubio’s string of losses points to the limits of a losing strategy. If Rubio’s losing skid continues, it raises doubts about his ability to win!!!
Oh, oh, Bernie Sanders shows his true colours, in an attempt to show an understanding of institutional racism and the part it plays in poverty, Sanders has risked alienating poor white people. What was he thinking? “Asked about any racial blind spots he might have as a white man” Sanders should have immediately gone into a tirade about how nobody suffers more than white trailer trash!!!
Thanks for that link. I was wondering if I should be pissed or amused. Decided to have a laugh.
These people are children.
Wow, that is being honest, obviously not worried about repercussions
If only other industries were as frank…..
Tobacco – Our focus on the youth market is paying dividends, cancer deaths aside, it’s going to be a good year for us!!!
“……It’s geo-politics, Sufi. Craig is perfectly well aware that Muslims in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan the Palestinian Territories, Pakistan and Indonesia (the Muslim nations Pew polled) hold negative views about Jews because of this entity that calls itself “The Jewish State.” To expect otherwise would be like having expected Jews c. 1933 to hold positive views of Germans……”
There is no comparison between what Jews faced in Nazi Germany and what Palestinians face under the occupation of Israel. Inflammatory comparisons to Nazi Germany are commonly used in the IP debate. Nuf uses the comparison frequently (on this thread).
Mondoweiss writes regarding Nazi comparisons to Israel:
“………Even though a good deal of what Leibowitz feared and predicted has either already occurred or is well on the road to occurring, the term Nazism is still much too strong………Fascism is not the same as Nazism which represents, on a scale of 1-100, absolute evil. Israel, of course, doesn’t come close, obviously not in its internal policies……..Even its policies towards the Palestinians are not comparable to Nazism, for they are obviously not “genocidal” or anywhere near it. After all, even after the Nakba—the violent expulsion from Israel/Palestine, accompanied by a number of massacres, of some 750,000 Arabs in 1948–hundreds of thousands of other Arabs were allowed to remain in Israel……..Of course, since 1948 this Israeli Arab minority has faced economic, social, and political discrimination–but nothing remotely on the order of what European Jews faced under Nazi Germany……..”
According to David Cecarani (who specialized in Jewish history and the Holocaust), Nazis had a unique perspective of Jews which varied from the usual stereotypes and irrational fears of Jewish people (Judeophobia):
“……..What made the Nazis’ hatred of the Jews so unusual is that it was racial and it was biological. They believed that the Jews were not just the followers of an abhorrent religious doctrine, or that the Jews had grabbed too much economic influence, or even that they were too intrusive in politics or culture: what made the Nazis hatred of the Jews so different is that they believed that the Jews were biologically and racially distinct and that there was a kind of biological struggle for dominance over the entire human race between the Jews and everybody else……..This wasn’t something that could be solved through religious debate and argument, the conversion of the Jews, for example, wouldn’t do. The Nazis hated assimilated and converted Jews as much as they hated orthodox Jews. This was a struggle that was almost zoological, from the animal world. This was a struggle for survival between the human race and this Jewish species that the core group of the Nazis invested with almost a kind of supernatural demonic power, which was absolutely unprecedented……..Another thing that separates the Nazis apart from other people who dislike Jews is that the Nazis believed that the Jews had acquired vast power, and that they had used this power in a malign way. It was the power of the Jews that had led to the Bolshevik revolution, it was the power of the Jews that had led to revolution in Germany, had stabbed the German Army in the back and had brought down Imperial Germany. In the Nazis’ world vision not only were the Jews a force for evil, a Manichean, demonic force for evil, but they had vast power, they had their hands on the levers of power. They had to be eliminated, they had to be deprived of that power, they had to be broken and then destroyed. To the Nazis the entire course of world history vindicated that interpretation of Jewish power.……….”
The last part of the quote certainly has parallels to modern times. The Intercept commonly makes references to the Islamophobia of Americans or westerners, but rarely addresses antisemitism. In fact, as far as I know, no one at the Intercept has even acknowledged that Jews were targeted during the massacre of the staff of Charlie Hebdo.
True enough. Why don’t you go tell that to the parent of a Palestinian child killed by Israel. I’m sure that’ll put their loss in perspective for them.
And let’s face it. Whatever Jews faced under Nazi Germany, YOU did not face it. Israeli settlers did not face it. So it’s a little difficult to feel your pain, while you point your gun at a Palestinian and claim cover of the Holocaust. Lot’s of people feel pain for the Jews that suffered, it’s only human; just not for you or for Israeli settlers of today.
Fair enough Atheist. Thanks.
Jesus-fucking-Christ dude. Don’t you ever stop serving your rehashed hasbara bullshit ? Do you have a day job or do you get paid directly in sheckels for your zionist services? You are insufferable – literally suffocating this site with your non-stop zionist bullshit
“…….You are insufferable – literally suffocating this site with your non-stop zionist bullshit…..”
Greenwald devotes a considerable amount of precious space in his columns to criticism of Israel. Commentators below the line are also obsessed with Israel so you just may need to deal with it. Oh, and you did take the Lord’s name in vane. Can you just be a little more careful with your language?
With Craig, I’m not sure it’s “rehearsed.” This is some sort of idée fixe with him, separate from the hasbara brigades.
World perfection through individual perfection! The world can only be changed by the spiritual unfoldment of each individual – not by political revolution, but by spiritual evolution.
Swami Chinmayananda
The media is getting agitated about this:
Forgetting that George W showed that formally changing the law is not necessary:
America Deserves Trump.
The world is run by sociopaths and always has been. Sociopaths control the masses through many means, from the church to the media. They are easily able to to get the rubes fighting among each other and always have been able to. A normal person, likely >90% of people, are defenseless against sociopaths. How anyone could think the USA is any less evil than Stalin’s USSR or Hitlers Germany or any of the European empires defies logic. From the genocide and ethnic cleansing to the slavery and DE-facto slavery to the fire bombing of women and children in WWII to Korea and Vietnam to Honduras by Hillary recently and the endless overflights of Obama’s death machines. Not, that anyone else is better if they are great nations. Even the Nordic country’s were into mass murder until they weren’t. Leaders/authority is/are inherently corrupt and amoral. We worship the wrong people and we just can’t figure it out.
“As for his starkly disgusting personal qualities, none of these is new. Anyone who has lived in New York has known for decades that this is who and what Donald Trump is.” Worse traits in the Clintons never seemed to bother people much. The fact that Hilary is successfully pursuing the Democratic nomination reveals that along with help from Bill. I
suspect that much of what you see as “disgusting personal qualities” are simply fairly common traits/weaknesses of disposition magnified by the envy of New Yorkers who have a great deal less. It might go like this: ‘Yeah, he has a lot of money and a beautiful wife, but look at his behavior!’ He might surprisingly have some good traits as well but those don’t do anything to assuage the envy.
Look beneath the behavior required of a political candidate and you might discover something of value which would make him a genuine threat to the establishment and not as you suggest, its Id. In any case Freud is something himself of a fraud.
Happy Birthday Mr. Glenn.
Yes it is. One of his peculiarities — or at least this was true when we were at the firm together — is he dislikes the whole idea of celebrating birthdays. He takes the view that one should do nice things for the people one cares about just because, and not on the occasion of their birth. Because it’s expected he finds it inauthentic.
I felt and feel it’s a nice human ritual. Maybe he’s come around.
I sure as hell am glad he was born!
Is it his Birthday? Happy Birthday Glenn!!
I hate Birthdays. It reminds of the days when my poor dad, because he couldn’t afford to buy me birthday presents, used to force me to write essays in English about what I was going to do with my life.
Mona selectively (like Max Blumenthal) hold up racism in Israel as if it’s unique to the region. She believes this to be an ethno-supremacist ideal that is inherent to being a Zionist. They are Jews (Zionists) therefore it follows that they are racists. Indeed, Blumenthal has documented the racist views of Israeli Jews – and while the poll results clearly demonstrate the anti-Jewish bigotry of Muslims, Muslim racism is a natural response to the creation of the Jewish state and European colonialism.
“……It’s geo-politics, Sufi. Craig is perfectly well aware that Muslims in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan the Palestinian Territories, Pakistan and Indonesia (the Muslim nations Pew polled) hold negative views about Jews because of this entity that calls itself “The Jewish State.” To expect otherwise would be like having expected Jews c. 1933 to hold positive views of Germans……”
Implied from Mona’s post is that without the creation of Israel, there would be no animosity toward Jews in general. Additionally, the poll clearly states “Jew”, not Israeli – so to Muslims, they are victims to the creation of Israel on Muslim holy land and it makes no difference if you say Jew or Israeli. In the eyes of Muslims they are one in the same. About 90% of Muslims don’t like a Jew even if he is not a Zionist. This is as true in Indonesia as it is in Jordan. Jews have been murdered all over the world in retaliation for the actions of Israel so there is no denying that to Muslims, Jews are the same as “Israeli” – and polls conclusively demonstrate: they don’t like Jews.
Mona may pretend that racism is unique to Israel, but that is as far from the truth as Indonesia is from Israel. It’s just that Blumenthal cherry-picks Jewish Israelis for his surveys while ignoring the attitudes of the surrounding populations including the Palestinians. He does this for political reasons – and for the same reason as Mona. In effect, he creates a billion victims in much the same way as Mona did by excusing Arab racism implied to be justified by the creation of Israel.
Is Muslim racism just confined to Jews? In fact, ethnic and religious bigotry and racism are endemic to the greater Middle East Muslim populations. No sane person can deny this – especially the Kurds and other ethnic or racial minorities who face that bigotry on a daily basis. Racist attitudes toward Jews are racist because most Muslims surveyed are racist – not because of the creation of Israel. According to an article in the state operated New York Times written by Mona Eltahawy:
“……….Mona Eltahawy, a columnist for Egypt’s Al Masry Al Youm and Qatar’s Al Arab, wrote in the New York Times an article titled, Racism: The Arab world’s dirty secret. She was a witness to racist attacks by Arab Egyptians on blacks and stated: “We are a racist people in Egypt and we are in deep denial about it. On my Facebook page, I blamed racism for my argument………Our silence over racism not only destroys the warmth and hospitality we are proud of as Egyptians, it has deadly consequences.” She believed racism was behind a police crackdown on 5,000 Sudanese refugees and the beating to death of some women and children. She added: “The racism I saw on the Cairo Metro has an echo in the Arab world at large, where the suffering in Darfur goes ignored because its victims are black and because those who are creating the misery in Darfur are not Americans or Israelis and we only pay attention when America and Israel behave badly.” She criticized the country’s attitudes: “We love to cry ‘Islamophobia’ when we talk about the way Muslim minorities are treated in the West and yet we never stop to consider how we treat minorities and the most vulnerable among us.” While noting that racist incidents are condemned in the United States, she said that in Egypt, as well as in the Arab world, there is a culture of silence toward racist incidents which reflects negatively on Arab society.[3]…….”
Also according to Wikipedia, in the Sudan where Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court:
“…….Beginning in 1991, elders of the Zaghawa people of Sudan complained that they were victims of an intensifying Arab apartheid campaign.[6] Vukoni Lupa Lasaga has accused the Sudanese government of “deftly manipulat(ing) Arab solidarity” to carry out policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs in Darfur.[7]……”
Racism and discriminatory policies have been carried out against the Kurds, Yazidis, Hazaris, Shia, women, Jews and just about every other minority that has lived within Muslim societies. There is racism directed at black people because they are black. It certainly is true that the creation of Israel exacerbated the problem, but it most certainly did not create the racist views toward Jews in the first place. Jews were always second class citizens within Arab/Muslim societies for the past thousand years and Jews were subjected to violence by Muslims.
Mona (and Blumenthal) plays an insidious game with racism justifying hatred of all Jews for the creation of Israel while ignoring the racist history perpetrated by Muslims against minorities throughout the greater Middle East – including Jews. Effectively, they are perpetuating a lie for political expediency. It’s the main reason neither have any credibility.
You wish.
I’m not going to address any of the specifics in that farrago of lies, bullshit and whataboutery. It annoys the readers here when I engage your tripe and thus keep you spewing long and dense (both meanings) comments, so carry on.
I have always said that racism is a two way street. There certainly are Jewish racists just as there are Muslim racists. The disingenuous game that is played by Blumenthal and others is simple to see through, Mona. It’s the same with apartheid Israel. Lies, Lies and more lies. Just like “hands up, hands up, don’t shoot, don’t shoot”, the truth is irrelevant to the political goal.
Thanks Mona (what lies Mona?)
Hopefully, some day, humans will evolve in their consciousness and stop seeing otherness, for, in essence, we’re one.
I’d endorse a Craig/Mona or Mona/Craig third party ticket.
Sufi, that’s insulting. Craig sees torture as not merely tolerable, but good. He can’t cite anything he likes about the 4th Amendment. Craig votes Republican.
If he’s not evil, he supports great evil. He certainly is an authoritarian.
Please do not ever again suggest that Craig and I have enough in common to lead a common party. The idea is more offensive to me than I can put in words.
Sorry, my apologies. I was merely jesting.
Accepted. My reaction was perhaps a bit too strong, but I genuinely find Craig’s views morally repugnant.
Thanks Sufi
Of course, I would be honored to have Mona as my VP. Sheldon Adelson could fund our political ticket. Take care and thanks.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ATM, billionaire Israeli-American Haim Saban, says Trump is a “clown.” As of last November, Saban had donated over $2 million to the Clinton campaign. For her money, Clinton wrote him a letter pledging to join him in stopping BDS.
How odd, that long-time Democrat Saban has nothing to say about Bernie Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president of the United States. Bernie worked on a kibbutz in his youth. His family lost members in the Holocaust.
But Saban is showering Hillary with money and support. Could it be her warmongering? Could it be her love letter to Bibi? Could it be that she’s as anti-Palestinian as virtually any Republican?
I could be!!!!
“What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse.”
Precisely. And this is why the hardest Neocons hate him more than anybody.
Racism in Israel is virulent — many don’t like black people, including African Jews. A member of theLikud (!!!) party is accusing his country of racism for refusing to bring in 8,000-9,000 Ethiopian Jews who have been coerced into converting to Christianity.
In the past, international pressure has compelled Israel to let some of these Ethiopian Jews immigrate to Israel — where they are now the Israeli outpost of Black Lives Matter. They face intense discrimination, including police brutality.
Many Israelis apparently only want their Jews white. As the Likud leader put it, Israel only wants Jewish immigrants from the U.S. and France. That is: White.
The idiot anti American, anti Israel has spoken again!
This time not to talk about well documented virulent racism in her own country but about Israel. Not about virulent racism in Germany or Japan (countries with massive military support from the US). But about Israel.
It is always funny to watch anti Semites complaining about racism.
Mona is not an anti-semite just anti-colonialist; you must know the difference!
“Mona is not an anti-semite just anti-colonialist”
This is how Mona described a few slave owners who advocated the forced removal of Native Americans, which resulted in the first genocide in North America:
“They were political geniuses” to be “esteemed”.
She was referring to Europeans and European descents who came to North America, killed the indigenous inhabitants, used African slaves as labor and passed laws to exclusively protect themselves, the European descents.
About you? Do you know the difference between an anti Semite and an anti colonialist?
What I actually said.
Kevin Spacey just called Elvis and Nixon “America’s two greatest recording stars”.
When asked who would win in a debate, Trump or Frank Underwood, he responded, “one of the characters is fictional while the other is fictional …”.
rim-shot
Mona
I’m glad you broached the subject of abhorrent Israeli racism. In the last thread I posted a couple of polls on Arab racism which extends far beyond the boundaries of Palestine. Interestingly enough, you didn’t respond. I’ll post it again for your benefit. Racism is a two way street. The reason you ignore the clear anti-Jewish bigotry exhibited by Middle Eastern Muslims is because the radical left views Muslims as victims. Racism is understandable under those conditions – even in Indonesia.
The first quote is your statement of disbelief regarding Muslim attitudes toward Jews and my post is in brackets. The polls show their is widespread racism exhibited by Muslims.
“…….[Most Muslims throughout the Middle East dislike her husband, but not because he is in the one percent, but because he is a Jew.]…….I know ME Muslims, as well as Western Muslims, and that is baseless……….” My insertion in brackets
Polls convincingly show you are wrong on this issue, Mona. A Pew poll from 2011 indicates that in Muslim countries, Jews are not viewed favorably (but who can blame them right?).
“……..Ratings for Jews are uniformly low in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed – in all seven of these nations, less than 10% have a positive opinion of Jews. Indeed, outside of Indonesia, less than 5% offer a positive opinion [of Jews]……” my insertion in brackets
Palestine has the highest (or lowest) rating of viewing Jews favorably. Even in Indonesia which is a long ways from the Middle East, only 9% of those surveyed have a favorable view of Jews.
An ADL poll survey collected in 2014 shows similar results (based on anti-Semitic attitudes):
“……After the Palestinian-populated territories, the most anti-Semitic places were Iraq, where 92 percent harbor anti-Semitic views; Yemen at 88 percent; Algeria and Libya at 87 percent; Tunisia at 86 percent; Kuwait at 82 percent; and Bahrain and Jordan at 81 percent……”
Europe was not immune to anti-Semitic attitudes as well:
“……In Western Europe, the most anti-Semitic countries were Greece (69 percent) and France (37 percent). In Eastern Europe, Poland (45 percent) and Bulgaria (44 percent) topped the list, and the Czech Republic was the least anti-Semitic, at 13 percent……”
Of course, no one holds anti-Semitic attitudes at the Intercept – above and below the line so lets just dispel that possibility right away.
Thanks Mona
Let’s see … Israel is the Jewish state and they butcher thousands of non-Jewish Palestinians at a time. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Israel has walled in Palestine just as the Germans walled in Warsaw.
Yeah, the abused learned well, and now they practice similar abuses.
Just how corroded is the soul of an Israeli Jew?
Many Muslims in the Muslim majority countries are like frogs in a well when it comes to their interpretation of Islam, and religion in general.
Their religious paths are primarily based on the Islam that has layers upon layers of juristic interpretations and secondary sources of the past 1400 years, cultural practices and the political situation of the day.
This Original Islam is about unity and integration with the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities.
This Islam sees all religions as the radii on the same circle and see light in all of them.
So we consider the Jews as our siblings and our religious differences as sibling rivalries.
The politics always screws things up.
Hi Sufi
Although I am a big supporter of religion in general, differences between religions has been a huge source of conflict throughout time. One just needs to look at the insane treatment of Jews by Christians over the past couple of thousand years to understand that. None the less, Jews were also second class citizens in Muslim societies with anti-Jewish pogroms from time to time.
Wherever there are differences between humans, conflict will result. That what makes us so interesting – our differences – also is a source of conflict whether race, religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality etc. Can’t wait to get to hell where hopefully things are much better.
Thanks.
The conflicts are usually over land, resources, power and control.
Generally, religion is used to define us vs them and to make bad acts seem noble and a greed for the pleasures of the hereafter.
Many religious people are unable to see unity underneath outer differences.
I personally see even the non religious people having access to the truth within their own consciousness.
Life is about grooming the self so that it reflects the higher. If it takes one to adopt a non religious path to do it, so be it.
ADDENDUM:
So it follows that if a person’s religious path isn’t helping them groom the self, they should rethink.
You’re in over your head already, Un-Cola . .. no need to pack a grip.
*dog lovers, like you and Mona, just kill me with y’alls whacky superstitions.
“Can’t wait to get to hell where hopefully things are much better.”
————————-
Abodes of joy, love, peace and happiness, and turmoil, anxiety, hatred, arrogance, are already within us.
It’s geo-politics, Sufi. Craig is perfectly well aware that Muslims in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan the Palestinian Territories, Pakistan and Indonesia (the Muslim nations Pew polled) hold negative views about Jews because of this entity that calls itself “The Jewish State.” To expect otherwise would be like having expected Jews c. 1933 to hold positive views of Germans.
Israel is a European-colonial enterprise, supported by the West, which partially explains also why Muslim attitudes are pervasively critical of the West, especially the U.S.
Be advised Mona is an idiot who does not understand how to interpret basic statistics. The Pew research did not demonstrate why people hold favorable or unfavorable views about Muslims, Jews, Christians, Westerners…The research just reported their views.
In science, you have to analyze data before you make your conclusions. If you are an idiot you would say Indonesians hold negative views about Jews because of the “Jewish State” without any data to back it up. And you would be stupid when asked to explain why 48% of Muslims in Israel who experience racism, discrimination and who clearly observe human rights violations against Palestinians, have a positive views about Jews.
edited for entertainment ….
Translated for clarification:
I, nuf said. am a proud member of the idiot club of the Intercept. Since we have no arguments, we create boring jokes and we are the only ones who laugh at them.
For those interested, and given that Colin Powell’s covering up of war crimes during Vietnam has come up, this just came across my Twitter feed: Behind Colin Powell’s Legend — My Lai Excerpt:
He had had an explicit warning that My Lais were routine; he ignored and buried it. And climbed high in the Army hierarchy.
Can you provide evidence that Colin Powell was implicated in the My Lai massacre or the attempted cover up?
Colin Powell has a long history of justifying the slaughter of civilians in Viet Nam. I’ve read much of it. If you are having trouble finding proof, check your spelling (just a guess).
That is weird.
1) I asked for evidence, but you replied with a bunch of bla bla bla
2) Even weirder is the fact that he repeatedly stated that war crimes was committed in Vietnam and it was wrong. I am not sure how that constitute “justifying”.
Read the article at my link. It’s cited and quoted at multiple history sites, as well as at Democratic Underground. As a Major, in Vietnam Powell had received a report about rampant war crimes and decreed that there was no such problem.
This was a lie. And his memoir defends shooting innocent civilians.
Israelis are fascinated by Trump. While most support Clinton, there’s a good deal of admiration for Trump’s opposition to being “politically correct.” Indeed, given the vile and racist things prominent Israelis spew about Palestinians and African refugees, a Trump presidency could make them look normal (but not decent):
So, some in Israel like Trump for his potential to make them look good in comparison.
All this signifies is that the zionists in Israel are a step ahead of their compatriots in america in realizing their MSM is helping the Donald with their negative press,and that by endorsing him,they divide his support.
Easy call.
No, I can’t see a majority of Israelis ever supporting Trump, not with his position on Israel. Not to mention the virulent antisemitism (the real kind) that’s been unleashed in many of his supporters.
But, as I wrote, they do find him fascinating, and see some positives for them. Israel is awash in virulent racism — from the highest public people — and is on the cusp of fascism. They figure Trumpism, with its own fascist impulses, could normalize their own vicious behavior.
Could you document an actual anti semitic incident of violence in the last year,say?The last month?Last week?Non existent.
People calling out Jewish Zionists for being scumbags isn’t antisemitism,its pro humanity.
The virulence,the spreading of a virus,is the zionism that exists in Israel.
I’m not saying they support Trump,what I’m saying is that the appearance of Zion liking Trump with nice words is an attempt to divide his support from those who wish Israel to butt the f*ck out of America,in the good old divide and conquer scheme.The scumbags in American MSM haven’t gotten the message from Tel Aviv yet.
Just to provide to proper context to what this irrational anti American and anti Israeli idiot has written:
Only 14% of Israelis support Trump according the Rafi Polling Institute. This is from the same article she linked:
“But if Israelis looked closely at Trump they would find a lot to dislike, said Gilboa. Trump’s scorn of immigrants and refugees harkens back to the closed borders against European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, he said. Trump also mocked Senator John McCain for having been a prisoner of war. By contrast, prisoners of war are considered heroes in Israeli culture, and Israel has paid dearly to release them from their captors, Gilboa said.”
Racism, anti migrants rhetoric can be found everywhere around the world, from Japan, Saudi Arabia, Europe, the US etc..However, only ONE country went to Africa to pick up black Africans to save them. Everybody else went there to enslave them.
So whenever an idiot (Mona) who thinks slave owners who promoted genocide are “political geniuses” to be “esteemed” is showing concerns about racism against African refugees we have the perfect example of hypocrisy.
Israel’s open embrace of refugees today shows who the better people are …
Sorry I am not here to defend Israel. You will have to find somebody else. I defend facts and the truth. Is there racism in Israel? YES.
Discrimination? YES
Severe violations of human rights and international laws? YES
Was Israel responsible for the slave trade in Africa? About the multiple coups and civil wars that destroyed those nations? Not a single nation that fueled the violence in Africa (among them 4 members of the UN Security Council: US, France, Russia, UK) volunteered to pick up black Africans where they were facing death.
So, you might hate Israel, condemn it by any means, but look at your society first when you want to comment about racism and how Africans have been treated for the last 500 years!
I’ve read in many articles that Jews owned many slave ships and auction houses that sold slaves.And their use of black laborers in Israel seems slave like,but hey,reality bites.
Now Trump is explaining his willingness to follow the law on torture: he wants the law changed to allow it so we’re “playing by the same set of rules” as ISIS:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/trump_laws_should_be_extended_to_allow_waterboardi.html
As they’d have said in Doctor Strangelove:
“We must not allow a head-chopping gap!”
Just watched the old Kirk Douglas “Sparticus” the other night. Glenn’s piece reminded me of the scene between Charles Laughton & John Gavin (Julius Caesar) where the former more or less tells Caesar that his views are private and his pronouncements are public. “I don’t believe in the gods personally, but in public they exist.” The entire Senate scene where individual Senators get up and make strong speeches against the “slave revolt” and what they think should be done “with the Rome garrison,” is laughable and, as I understand it, the blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (whom Douglas publically exonerated by announcing his real name as the credited screenwriter) put it in there to mock the politicians of the day (the late Eisenhower admin & congress).
So all this with Trump and the feigned alacrity of politicos today is nothing new.
I love Glenn, and this website for all the truth it puts out. Keep up the great work.
Great story….
It’s sad, really…..I am so disgusted with the state of our country, the fact that a man such as “The Donald” could announce his candidacy….and actually lead in the polls….what have we become? SURELY, there are people out in America who are…educated….hell, even remotely aware….that this man CANNOT be THE President of The United States….????
But, as I look on….and that is about all I care to do at this point….I am beginning to see the realistic connections…America…you have become a nation full of narcissistic, dumbed down, Fluoride ingesting, American Gladiator watching idiots…(Who needs Zika virus, just go to America for your small brained citizenry). We are more concerned with the filter used to take our friggin selfie, than we are about how completely corrupt our : government, military, justice system, tax and financial establishments….etc…etc…..ARE.
Now, I understand how you people could support/swallow this Presidential hopeful….as The Donald said…..he could ask (Mitt) us to get on our knees in front of him….No problem….Mr. PREZ…we’ve been down on our knees for a while and there isn’t too much we can’t swallow.
By dissing trump you defend his predecessors,all chumps who have sold US down the river of profit over people,Reagan to the present.
Pitiful really.He is the only one to recognize the destruction of neocapitalism on America,and has earned the wrath of the neocons for Israel.
Plain as day.
The post llightly [edited] for accuracy:
“This is an all too common [type of] reply by M[e: off-topic, irrational, and misinformed]. Quite a few people on this site wonder why I [make such a fool of myself] at the fair and balanced Intercept. I just try to [regurgitate] the “[comforting] story” [and behave like a big] baby [when the] staff at the Intercept doesn’t cover like [I want]. I consider my posts to represent the rest of the story for the radical leftists that only get their information from the Intercept[; in other words, I’m spewing nonsense for people that don’t even exist. Further] examples [of idiocy] follow:
[I] could obviously use some help. [I can’t even] identify how [so] many civilians have [been] murdered in Syria. [That’s because] every news outlet [that lied to me about Saddam’s WMD’s and links to Al Quaeda as well as almost every imperial misadventure from Afghanistan to Ukraine can still fool me about Syria and] the humanitarian crisis [brought about with terrorists armed and funded by US “allies”. Fortunately,] the well paid staff at the Intercept [and just about everyone else can see that I am] obviously poorly informed on [whatever I post] – but all of the[m] are very well informed about how [ignorant and prejudiced I am]. On that they are experts. . .
God [help me]”
The Bern was felt today:
That’s Politco, which also reports that some Clinton insiders want to start a “Republicans for Hillary” strategy, but they’re hampered by Bernie’s still being in the race.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
Couldn’t agree more!
That idiot (Mona) does not understand Sanders’ policies. She cannot understand a simple survey. how can she grab a complicated economic program? She is just a little dot ready to jump and clap after Greenwald’s anti Clinton propaganda. A pathetic irrational idiot. I would love to see her crying if Hillary wins.
Afaict, Mona, at least half of Clinton’s politicking has been/is directed at Trump/R.
*An arrogant, haunty and annoying position imo … as if Sanders is a foregone conclusion, if not a hindrance, and she is the one&only Great Sphinx-like stronghold of Democratic values and purity capable of defeating that stark-raving-mad coifed penis-head walking advertisement aka Trump.
Of course, I believe Hillary-strategists have it all backwards and Trump would tear her a new one in the general (i.e. GOTE beats LOTE). The photo in this article of ‘The Clintons’ & ‘The Trumps’ together speaks volumes to me.
(Only wish I could find some cumulative actual vote totals [not ‘delegate’ counts] so far to see if The Bern may be trending with that two-state win last night.)
That is also my sense of things. But, she’s also very much adopting tactics to deal with Bernie. For example, she’s been working hard to retain the black voting bloc with apologies for her past, er, indiscretions. Bernie’s civil rights credentials are impeccable; he was getting arrested at sit-ins when she was a Goldwater Girl. So, she’s been forced to work for a voting bloc she’d taken as a given.
Bernie’s candidacy has also made income inequality and the crimes of Wall St. the issue. Hillary’s walking a tightrope on that one.
On the one hand, Bernie’s staying in the race sucks air time from Trump’s antics and the GOP circus, and somewhat focused on what’s happening on the Dem side. On the other, it forces her to keep protecting the left flank.
Sounds like someone doesn’t want to acknowledge that prejudice exists in all.
She has never ever earned the black vote.
What apologies,her daughter came out a month ago calling for further incarceration,that she’s afraid.Gimme a break,the whole black vote in the South is tainted by naked antisemitism that no one wants to touch.How else would one explain the commonality vs the rest of the country?
The Queen of the Slave states!The free states for BS!
Thanks for a brilliant analysis. I’ve always been bothered by Robert Gibbs’ statement that Abdurahman al-Awlaki “should have chosen a more responsible father.” I’m glad you brought that up again. What a shocking statement for someone in the Obama administration to make. Clearly, the drone policy is ruthless and indiscriminate.
I have to apologize, Mr. Glenn, for not only smiling throughout reading this yesterday morning – but actually laughing (and snorting once) because of the Goldilocks analogy. Probably not the reaction you’d hoped for in most – as war criminals’ hypocrisy about their own unindicted war crimes and torture is anything but funny. But your concise analysis somehow put me in better place that has yet to wear off, so I can’t say thanks enough for that, plus it apparently irritates the hell outta Craig when I compliment you, so bonus.
The WSJ just had an article where Trump said he would indeed abide by International law concerning torture. I’m wondering how the “base” feels about that. You know, the same base that not only wants to ban Muslims but gays too.
However, he’s also just recently said he would get the law changed so he could legally torture.
Trump isn’t antigay,and the rep party is full of LGBT(Log Cabin),and Caitlyn is for Cruz,the most anti gay candidate out there,so explain it for US.
Glenn, I swear, two days prior to reading this article which is fantastic I said the exact same thing when discussing Trump with co-workers, but of course not as articulate as your article. I said, the only thing Trump is saying that is making the establishment cringe is he is holding up figuratively a mirror to them. He is just being more opened about it while these nasty establishment types like to wear nice suits with nice teeth and speak nicely about it to the parrot media.
The self-examination you suggest is required is only one of the steps toward a stronger and more founded denunciation of Trump.
Another, and perhaps even more politically untenable step is to admit that there is a segment of society inclined to embrace authoritarianism just like there is in societies and cultures around the world.
Unfortunately, as a people are no different than any other. The difference is that this vast authoritarian segment typically lies dormant while we elect politicians who at least play to the role of moral arbiter.
In this case however, we have Trump who makes pretense of moral leadership and instead appeals directly to our most base nature. Turns out, A LOT of Americans love that!
But to attack Trump correctly would be to tell a lot of Americans that in their support of him they are driven by instinct and not intelligence….which is totally not a way to win elections.
We’re stuck in a tough spot on this one, and I fear it’s not really about Trump. Trump is just a shill for the segment now awakened and likely to be entertained by the next mercenary politician with similar rhetorical flair.
I’m totally bummed.
Great article.
SUGGESTION: Start moderating your comments more strictly. So many of the comments are insane paranoid nonsense; they detract from the quality of the article and of the publication itself. I’m not suggesting NYT draconian filters, merely that some level of scrutiny be applied so that not everyone with a keyboard can speak their mind.
I’d like to read a measured, insightful discussion in the Comments section, but instead come upon extremists who shouldn’t be given a voice on a website that is trying to legitimize itself and grow an established and consistent readership.
I like coming to the Intercept, but I would come more often if the comments weren’t so ridiculous. I know it’s expensive to hire a moderator, but in the long run it’ll improve the quality of your journalism and increase the number of your readers.
If you want someone for the job, I’m available.
” I know it’s expensive to hire a moderator . . . If you want someone for the job, I’m available.”
;^)
I think an “ignore” button would be a better and more cost-effective idea.
Moderation does not lead to moderation, if you get my drift.
The most moderated site I ever knew had more hardcore bullying than any other site I’ve ever been on. So long as the bullying reflected the prejudices of the moderators, it was encouraged de facto.
Er, well, there’s already a bit of moderation going on here. Most often, really rancid, white supremacist and/or antisemitic (the actual thing, not truth-telling about Israel and Zionism) stuff will get booted. A few crapflooders have been banned.
There’s not consensus for any more than that, including on Glenn’s part, except for illegal material or posting people’s personal contact info, Social Security numbers & the like. He’s running it here as he has everywhere he’s been in charge of his own space. Of this I approve.
Speak to Mona. She is the site filter. Mona is the Great Sphinx of the Intercept
No Craig. I am neither an employee nor a volunteer worker for The Intercept. Please do not mislead readers about my role, which is merely that of a reader who has been active in Glenn’s comment sections since he began blogging in ’05.
Come on Mona. At least disclose that you were a former law partner of Greenwald, OK? In my opinion, YOU could reinstate Lenk. He was deleted for political reasons only.
I had nothing to do with banning lenk. But he wasn’t banned for political reasons. Moreover, “he” has been back again and again, and is right now. If this site banned people for political reasons, you would have been gone long ago.
As for my having worked with Glenn professionally (something I still occasionally do vis-a-vis his books or speaking appearances), that has nothing to do with comment moderation. I don’t do that.
Ah! Lenk was somebody you got banned. You are not only an idiot, but you are also dishonest. That is why you are calling me Lenk. You are attracting the moderators so they can ban me. How do you know he was not banned for political reasons? The moderators told you so?
Most sites do ban people for political reasons. It is not surprising that this site only has two or three commentators who are against Greenwald. It is also not a surprise that some of them have openly requested that I should be banned because I am a “troll”. Idiots do not understand. You prove my argument that you are an idiot when you ask others to be banned.
“……No Craig. I am neither an employee nor a volunteer worker for The Intercept……”
Do you have any idea what you said earlier, Mona?
“……To all new readers: Craig is engaged in his usual whataboutery. It’s his favorite fallacy among several……”
You sound exactly like an elementary school hall monitor and a shill for the Intercept. As I said above, you are the Great Sphinx of the Intercept.
I see.
Already covered. Any comment that makes only a perfunctory reference to the article, followed by an unsolicited suggestion, will be deleted.
Is there anything wrong with that? All new ideas are dismissed as nonsense, before they become conventional wisdom.
I agree. First let’s get rid of all the elitists.
And one day may even become the next New York Times.
Sorry, the site already has its quota of authoritarians. But your enthusiasm for censorship is duly noted. You obviously have the makings of a journalist.
hahahahah!!
Moderators are like censors. Who are YOU to judge what’s “nonsense” or not?
Censorship and moderation should be ILLEGAL…not encouraged.
Huffpo had “Community Moderators”. When I read actual comments from these clowns…well, clowns describes them to a Tee.
Get help for your tendency to be a control freak.
This is true, but some moderation at high profile political sites is necessary if the comments sections are not to degrade to the level of Youtube comments. If, say, a contingent of white supremacists decided this was the place to rant about “niggers” and “kikes,” they could overwhelm the discussion.
Similarly, if the Alex Jones crowd infested the place with rants about chemtrails and their other enthusiasms, intelligent conversation could be totally diluted. There’s also a certain type of troll who seeks to flood the place with crap — it can be nearly gibberish, or hostile, or even friendly, but it’s a great volume of disruptive posting. In that case, there is a volume problem Glenn has typically not tolerated.
So, Glenn has basically always banned the overtly, vulgar racists and antisemites, as well as certain topics along the lines of chemtrails. He also banned a commenter — a fan — who wrote great numbers of weird poetry. But he’s never banned based on political viewpoint — some of his actions at Salon were taken against supporters, and were controversial among his regulars.
IOW;The Zionists hate the truth its antisemitic.
What is a measured insightful discussion for you;The sky is blue?
Buy an MSM outlet,like Adelson,or take over the media like Erdogan.Then you can spew to your black hearts content.
While Glenn’s larger point is well taken, I think it assumes too much about what Trump is really about. If you take his worst remarks at face value, then he would represent a horrible prospect. Certainly the point about reflecting too many Americans’ beliefs is correct.
But I don’t think Trump actually believes or would enact most of those outrageous claims about Ed Snowden, torture, etc. Trump is calculating and not as dumb as he acts. He also knows, I believe, that most of what he says about those things couldn’t be implemented even if elected.
As this weeks WSJ noted, Trump’s book The Art of the Deal emphasizes taking initial extreme positions so you can back down from them in subsequent negotiations. I think he’s doing this with his redneck statements.
While too many Americans might want him to actually bar all Muslims, build a Mexican border wall 30 ft. tall (though we already have one), etc., Trump is too smart to waste any effort on doing those things, since he knows he couldn’t do so legally and politically.
While he gets media/establish uproar for saying those things, why pick on him? Actual sitting presidents or wanna-bes, like Obama, Bush and Hillary, have done far worse things with little if any criticism from these same sources. Bombing hospitals, invading countries, overthrowing people we don’t like (Libya) and unleashing ISIS and Al Qaeda in war torn places gets a total pass. Who is really anti Muslim?
Of course it is hard to defend intentional misrepresentation by Trump, which I hope it is. If not, he would be a major mistake. But at least if it turns out to be true, he isn’t pretending to be something else, unlike Hillary and Obama and Bush. Not to mention the war crazed GOP chicken hawks who are running against him. And who is asking Hillary how many dead Muslims are on her head?
Sensible comment.
muggles: “I don’t think Trump actually believes or would enact most of those outrageous claims about Ed Snowden, torture, etc. ”
Whether he believes it or not is beside the point. He is tapping into and whipping up deep seated anger, frustration, prejudice, hate and blowing the lid off, making it acceptable by his endorsement and example. btw: There’s a huge difference between the ‘Art of the Deal’ and fanning the flames. The latter can get out of control very quickly and do a horrible amount of damage.
The US govt is already after Snowden,and Assange,and already has Manning,and we are torturing somebody somewhere at this very moment,I guarantee you,so your hysteria about Trumps words is ridiculous compared to present actions endorsed by just about the whole political class.
WTF was Abu Ghraib?Guantanamo?Death and destruction everywhere,with trump the least likely to invade another nation,and he’s the monster?
outrageous claims – what is gthis?
http://thespiritscience.net/2016/03/04/documents-leaked-by-edward-snowden-reveal-an-incredible-secret-buried-below-our-feet/?c=ep
Looks like Cruz wins Kansas and has a good chance of winning Kentucky.
Look for Trump to produce a certificate to prove he has big hands. Trust but verify.
SM, my dear friend, we do not want to even hint at celebrating Cruz victories. He’s way scarier than Trump — he means what he says — and he beats Clinton in almost every poll, albeit just by a bit.
So, unless you believe Sanders is really going to win the Democratic nomination (not very likely), you and we would rather see Trump win these primary contests.
I know, it’s creepy and crazy.
Ted Cruz is the Koch Brother’s sock puppet in this game, although Rubio would happily accept that role if he could get it. This explains the establishment Republican outrage at Trump – they wanted another Bush Jr., who will do as ordered, with a Cheney-like minder on him 24-7.
First of all, I meant Maine, not Kentucky.
Second of all, Cruz is underrated. The GOP establishment may not like him, but he is the best alternative to Trump.
I think we are looking at a hung jury unless Cruz wins Louisiana tonight and then Florida.
From GOP’s perspective, Cruz has the best chance against Clinton.
So it looks like it’s going to be Prez C.
You’re absolutely mistaken. Trump talks a lot. But he’s not crazy. Ted Cruz is a maniac. Trump may talk about banning Muslims, but he won’t do it. He won’t deport Mexicans either. Cruz is actually going to deport Muslims and Mexicans. Ted Cruz is the most dangerous American politician.
I don’t think you understood what Sufi meant. She knows that the Republican establishment is desperate for an alternative to Trump and suggests (correctly, IMHO) that Cruz is their best shot at beating Clinton.
As for Louisiana, Trump walks away with 15 delegates to Cruz’s 14.
“Ted Cruz is the most dangerous American politician.”
Oh, yeah. No doubt about it. Seriously scary guy.
>”…and suggests (correctly, IMHO) that Cruz is their best shot at beating Clinton.”
Definitely disagree with that.
*Trump being Trump most likely has some dirt on Clinton(s), or should have being Trump! And what Clinton(s) consider dirty laundry … is just free publicity for being Trump./
The vote for Cruz is limited to heretics,and brainwashed Americans who believe MSM propaganda about whom the bad guys are in this world.
He will not receive any votes outside those parameters,and the hell bitch would beat him.In fact it would be electoral suicide by the rethugs,but they aint known for deep thinking,witness Mitt and the 47% insult to voters last cycle.Idiots doesn’t even begin to describe them,and I guess you too.
Those victories were in caucuses,where the wishes of the GOP might not be aligned with the wishes of the electorate.
You’ve been spewing your stuff for years about the good Islam,and now you let yourself be manipulated into hating the one guy who,hopefully, will end this madness for Zion?
Another prisoner of propaganda.
I was merely presenting my observations without taking any sides.
I think Trump’s momentum may have been stopped. Last minute deciders are going to Cruz, not Rubio. Cruz made a come back in Louisiana and lost by only one delegate.
You don’t understand that the rep mainstream of Zion whores will do anything to blunt Trump as he is a threat to Israeli hegemony.
Cruz won caucuses,closed votes by party apparatus,to try and make the public question Trumps momentum.It is as clear as day.
There is no way in hell that Cruz will win POTUS,and if the rethugs know whats good for them,they’ll nominate him.But they are clueless,so expect the opposite.
These are your observations and thoughts, and I respect that.
I am not arguing for or against any of it. I simply gave my observations of the situation I saw it, without taking any sides.
My ideal candidate is someone who reflects the higher consciousness, but people with honesty, selflessness, generosity, humility, forgiveness, love, peace, who want to serve others without expectations and have no desire for power, control, land and resources, etc., do not generally succeed in politics.
Dirty sex talk is unbecoming of such a noble Muslim.
Cruz is the worst possible rep candidate for Muslims,with Rubio neck and neck.HRC is the worst possible dem candidate for them also.
Trump is the only one to say enough with the nation building for democracy BS,that Iraq and subsequent decisions were terrible,and is the only guy to put Israel in the crosshairs of reality.
You must be another self hating idiot.
Where have I supported a candidate?
I have not. You are making an assumption. As stated before, I was merely offering my observations, not any endorsement.
Sorry then,but the small hands slur is below the belt.:)
It was a commentary on the disgusted state of affairs, with humor. Your admonition is duly noted and appreciated. Many thanks for that.
So very true. Thanks for the admonition. Much appreciated.
That said, I said it out of disgust, mixed with humor.
This week, American political and media figures from across the spectrum stood and applauded a tawdry cast of neocons and other assorted warmongers who are responsible for grave war crimes, torture, kidnappings, due process-free indefinite imprisonment, and the worst political crime of this generation: the attack on, INVASION, and destruction of Iraq.
THEN… the collective AMNESIA by all … even MSM!
GOP/Republican governance in 21st Century American IS the source and cause of all this mayhem.
What the GOP/Republican front runner has done is ripped off the hood …so that the town’s folks can “SEE” the faces of the folks they already KNEW were part of the klan!
Surprise … surprise … surprise!
Great piece. — The Supercult of Mainstream America rolls on.
An interesting article in the Guardian, with Trump supporters giving insight into their twisted souls. Many of those eager for the system to burn feel that Trump is the best choice to light the match.
While they may not be representative of Trump supporters overall, it suggests the worst mistake that Trump could make would be to reconcile with Republican Party leaders at the convention. He should keep running against them, since that appears to be his clearest avenue to broad electoral support. Can he find a way for Mitt Romney to keep attacking him, all the way through to November?
Suppose in the general election he declares that wars in the Middle East are not in America’s best interests, promises to bring home all the troops, and declares the best way to prevent terrorist attacks is to stop giving visas to terrorists. To some people, it would make more sense than the current fight them over there, so they won’t fight us here doctrine. At least it’s a new approach.
Then suppose he promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Wall St. fraud. Suddenly the election would line up with Trump on one side, and Clinton, the Neocons, the Republican Establishment, the Democratic Establishment, the military industrial complex and the bankers on the other side. That would have the makings of a populist revolt.
It probably won’t happen. However, the fact that it could is due to some changes which will continue even after this election cycle. First, the media is becoming more difficult to control. If they collectively tried to freeze Trump out of the news coverage, they would fail. His speeches and social media announcements create controversy, and the media can’t maintain the discipline necessary to ignore them. Once they break ranks, it becomes a free for all, allowing him to dominate the news cycle. The second is that the party machines and their voter lists are less critical than they used to be. Social media allows people to set up their own communications networks, and private companies now allow you to target tailored messages to groups of voters.
This is a challenge to the political parties, who will have to make some significant changes to prevent their nomination process from again being hijacked by the voters. The Democratic Party has succeeded this time, due to stronger control by party apparatchiks, wise provision for large numbers of non-elected super-delegates and use of clientelism to extract greater loyalty from some of its key voting blocks. But they may not be so lucky next time. Managing a democracy is harder work than it appears.
Superb analysis, Il Duce. Trump could very well make the sorts of announcements you speculate about. He’s already strategically pivoting toward more respectable positions, such as walking back his torture talk to the Wall St. Journal:
Of course, who the hell knows what to believe given that he constantly says utterly inconsistent things — sometimes in the same day, or even hour.
The only things we know with any certainty are that: 1. he is masterful demagogue riling up racists as well as populist whites (I’d be interested to see a Venn diagram showing the overlap between those two cohorts), and 2. he is a crass and vulgar narcissist who believes he was born to be president and wants it intensely.
But as for what his policies would actually be? Who knows?
Superb analysis and follow up comment.
The queen of the slave states sure seemed to up rile some racists eh,but the wrong color for discussion among the illiberals.
Muss,was that snark as usual,or not?
It’s not the MSM that’s harder to control,but the readership. The Zionist control is absolute.
“……..This is a challenge to the political parties, who will have to make some significant changes to prevent their nomination process from again being hijacked by the voters……”
Classic Benito.
My favorite in that bunch was the literary intellectual (name-dropping Heidegger, Judith Butler, Zizek, etc.). The same kind of assholes who cheered on the coming of World War I as a cleansing in blood.
It’s weaselly as hell. Setting up the Nader narrative, preemptively.
Corey Robin on Hillary Clinton’s most overlooked attribute, blunt honesty.
Not for nothing, Bill gave Trump a nudge last spring (Cass Sunstein style)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Frankenstein? Sure. But its Brooks’, not Shelley’s.
Your eminence, you are so bold yet so subtle. It was only upon the fifth rereading of your words that I understood. You are saying that Trump represents the Third Party for which we’ve all been waiting.
Excellent and thank you.
Several people here — Craig Summers as well as “truth&freedom” continue to prattle about me, Glenn and others supposedly being “anti-American.” This notion is a close cousin of “unAmerican,” a concept well-slain by F.A. Hayek:
Indeed, and it is no real argument to say that an idea is anti-American, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of, or a majority of, our compatriots.
Not to belittle your point or your diligence, I think there is
reason to be thankful if one is called “anti-american”
because it means that you do not cling to a bogus categorization
which is used to promote a false sense of superiority and
the subsequent predatory global schemes which
depend upon the degradation of everyone involved.
This is why I refer to the fake U$A.
If a nation is based upon a constitution and that
same constitution (and the subsequent treaties)
is ignored and violated, then that supposed nation is
non-existent.
Beyond that point, the use of the word “america” to
refer to one of the many nations which exist upon the
continents called america, as if that one nation is the
only reality on those continents, is the worst kind of
stupefying arrogance.
A typical idiot has no “critical faculties” she is unable to analyze arguments presented by others.
“No real argument to say that an idea is anti American”
Really? What about the idea of preventing American investors in a country?
What about Qutb ideas? Do you know who he was?
Why would a US citizen distort a research and use it to state Americans like torture? The answer is simple. That citizen is an idiot who cannot understand a basic survey or she is an anti American ready to associate any negative characteristics with the United States.
Why would a US citizen ( Chomsky) describe the military intervention in Afghanistan as a “calculated genocide”? Really the US invaded Afghanistan to commit genocide?
It is very easy to find crimes committed by the US, the Germans, the Russians…Politicians abuse their power. A US patriot would consistently target bad government policies, and fire corrupt government officials. The anti American will do whatever he can to portray the US as the greatest evil. He will discount crimes committed by US enemies, redefine genocide or international laws to prove that the US is a terrorist state. The anti Americans are also irrational. They blame themselves for financing the terrorist state but they continue financing it. They reject all options to abandon that terrorist state.
That kind of thing is usually about government or corporate policies. Like those who opposed South Africa back in the day or who boycott Israel now.
What about Qutb ideas? Do you know who he was?
I do. He hated every single thing about the United States. He was anti-American. But his ideas must be judged on their own merits — to simply call them “anti-American” is a fallacy.
Who, that is a U.S. citizen, does all of these things? Please be specific and tell me where I might read this person(s) doing those things.
Blockquote fail: these are Truth&Freedom’s words: “What about Qutb ideas? Do you know who he was?”
I am not an idiot like you. I can back up my statements with data. Of course you will distort them as you are unable to comprehend anything.
Me: The anti American will do whatever he can to portray the US as the greatest evil.
Greenwald: “A lot of these people are Iraqis fighting for control of their own government. I mean, maybe there is an argument to make that outside forces that go in and start bombing that country or invading that country are actually terrorists more so than the people in the country.”
Did Greenwald survey the Iraqi Kurds, the Yazidis…and they told him they believe US forces bombing ISIS are more terrorists than ISIS fighters?
Mona: “Americans like torture”.
A complete distortion of a scientific research that you barely understand. The researchers never ask whether Americans, Indians, Lebanese…like torture. The research was never designed to demonstrate whether any nations like torture.
Me: The anti American will discount crimes committed by US enemies
Greenwald: “The Obama administration needed propagandistic and legal rationale for bombing yet another predominantly Muslim country.”
Really? ISIS provides its own propaganda to attract military intervention against it.
Chomsky: “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise”
Did Chomsky review the number of deaths caused by communists in Ukraine, Czech republic, Bulgaria….?
Me: the anti American will redefine genocide or international laws
Chomsky: “Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide… we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people” On US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001.
Unbelievable!
I’m only taking your first bit of nonsense since that’s all it takes to invalidate your claim, and also because it’s not worth my time to address all of your inane spewing:
First, the most that can be said of Greenwald’s quote is that he suggests the U.S. might be the greatER evil as between us and the people that fought us or their fellow Iraqis in their country. Nothing about that demonstrates his saying the U.S. is the greatEST evil. (Among other things, something like the Holocaust is worse than any terrorism in Iraq. Iraq has seen evil, but not the greatEST.)
Second, who Greenwald did or did not survey is irrelevant to your already-failed argument.
As I knew, you can not demonstrate that anyone to whom you apply the epithet is “anti-American,” per your own criteria.
You are digging your own crave, going deeper into your ignorance while you strongly believe as usual you are right and everybody else is wrong. Greenwald ( you must be in love with that dude), clearly suggested US forces bombing ISIS in Iraq are “actually terrorists more so than the people in the country”.
You may turn it around however you want to. His statement was clear. He suggested US forces are worst than ISIS. Since you are in love with him, then you will never admit it. You must be in love with him because you really cannot be that stupid.
“As I knew, you can not demonstrate that anyone to whom you apply the epithet is “anti-American,” per your own criteria.”
Actually I did. But you are an idiot and more importantly you just want to “feel” that you win an argument. The truth or scientific data are completely irrelevant to you. An individual who insists so much at stating that the Pew research demonstrates Americans, Indians, Nigerians..like torture is definitely a complete idiot. In your case, it is irrelevant what the research actually states. In your narrow minded imbecilic brain, it demonstrates what you “feel” and everybody else is wrong.
Mona
According to Wikipedia:
“……Anti-Americanism, Americanophobia or anti-American sentiment, is dislike, fear, or hostility toward the United States or the American people and their culture, business practices and technology, or the policies of their government, especially the foreign policy practices of the United States……”
If the shoe fits……..
You claim that dislike of “or the policies of their government, especially the foreign policy practices of the United States” is anti-Americanism? What twisted universe are you living in?
Supporting woefully stupid policies that cause great damage to the economic prospects of American citizens is what is really unAmerican, and that includes the propping up of regimes who are anti-democratic, anti-everything that the U.S. Constitution represents – for example, see Turkey shutting down its independent press, or Saudi Arabia’s hereditary dictatorship system, or Egypt’s reversion to a military dictatorship – all countries Obama (and Bush before him) call ‘allies’ – well, most rational people would argue that that is “anti-Americanism” right there.
Furthermore, there is a better way to deal with the Middle East – first, note that controlling the region’s filthy sour heavy crude means little in the modern world; it’s no longer a ‘national security’ issue. What we instead should do is extend the Pakistan-India policy to the Saudi-Iran conflict – i.e. don’t back one side or the other, but push for peace talks, and get rid of our military presence (notice we have no military bases in Pakistan or India?).
Sure we can continue to support Israel, but we should think of them more like South Africa, and pressure them to reform their apartheid system and give Palestinians equal voting rights in a unified country, as happened in South Africa – which is still a viable country, isn’t it?
As far as NATO and Europe, only a paranoid idiot would believe Russia is going to invade – so cancel our involvement with NATO, and take that $100 billion Euro-military slush fund and turn into into a $100 billion domestic infrastructure repair slush fund. Europe can pay its own bills, we don’t need to play NATO Big Brother any more.
Those are better foreign policy solutions than the stupid counterproductive policies the Democratic and Republican establishments have been following for the past few decades, but you claim people who dislike stupidity are “anti-American”? What kind of drivel is that?
Face reality: marching in authoritarian lockstep to the foreign policy dictates of the “Great Leader” is not the American way, and never has been.
The shoe is far too small. In fact, my foot doesn’t recognize the shoe. Wiki continues:
I assure you, I do not have anything like “an allergic reaction” to America. Neither does Glenn. We both worship the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment.
Indeed, we’ve both been accused of being “U.S.-centric,” or something similar, because we often tout the U.S. approach to free speech as generally the best. Moreover, despite their great moral failings, being old-ish white males & etc., I regard the Founders as political geniuses.
Given the way Glenn has often cited the Founders, I’d guess he also holds them in qualified esteem.
Anyway, the “anti-American” epithet is nothing but a snarl word in the vast, vast majority of instances in which it is deployed. Including your use and Truth&Freedom’s.
The anti Americans are irrational as well:
“I regard the Founders as political geniuses.
Given the way Glenn has often cited the Founders, I’d guess he also holds them in qualified esteem.”
Are you referring to the slave owners? Those who recommended the forced removal of native Americans?
How does it work in the anti American club? Founding fathers, many of them slave owners, who were part of a genocidal policy against native Americans are geniuses to be esteemed. But the Obama administration that is bombing ISIS and the Taliban, (two organizations with clear genocidal policies, one them proudly enslaving women and children) is a terrorist state?
I wouldn’t know, not being a member of that club or even knowing what it is.
But for myself, I can observe Obama is no fucking political genius. He hasn’t anything remotely like Publius or the Bill of Rights to his name.
Nobody asked you whether Obama is a political genius. I do not care whether he is a genius or not. However, I am 100% sure a slave would have not called Jefferson a genius and a slave in ISIS territory would be happy if Obama bombs his captors. Again, an irrational idiot: slave owners, promoters of genocide (100% true): Geniuses to be esteemed.
Killer of slave owners and “genocidaires” : a leader of a terrorist state.
You are losing it!
Yes, that gets to the nub of your confusion. I had said I admire the Founders as political geniuses (acknowledging that they had great moral failings). From there, you made some association with Obama that for incoherent reasons meant I should also admire him.
He’s not a political genius, so no, I do not admire him as I do the Founders.
The rest of your prattle is irrelevant. You cannot demonstrate that anyone to whom you apply the label is “anti-American, ” using your own criteria.
And now — and knowing that I’ve almost certainly annoyed many readers by engaging your asinine bilge to the extent I have — and having repeatedly demonstrated your intellectual deficits, I shall disengage you in this article’s threads. I leave you with the only language you appear to comprehend:
YOU ARE A DUMBASS!!!
Actually you are the dumbass. You strongly believe you are smart while in fact you are very narrow minded individual who “feels” you always win arguments and always “demonstrates” others “intellectual deficits”.
You are full of irrationality and contradiction. You call slave owners, promoters of genocidal policies whom you “admire” “political geniuses” that ought to be “esteemed” then you call a killer of slave owners and mass murderers the leader of a terrorist state.
I fully demonstrated that you, Greenwald and Chomsky are anti American. I also demonstrated that you are an irrational idiot. I concede that Greenwald and Chomsky might just pretend to be anti American so they can be provocative and enrich themselves. You are just a little dot in the game who jumps and screams after the big boys. The funniest parts is when you make a fool of yourself and you write “I repeatedly demonstrated”. You demonstrated you are an idiot. That’s set. An irrational and laughable idiot.
So do oldish Latino,Asian and black have moral failings or is it just reserved for whitey?How about that southern black vote for the hell bitch vs BS,the old Jew from NY?Sheesh.Incredible the silence.Unless the only Southern democrats are all black lesbians or LGBT,very vocal supporters of HRC,and they stacked the polls.Or maybe its because all the black males have been clintonized into felons and can’t vote.sheesh. We are all made of clay you know!Or do you?
How about the boy toy Rubio(HRC future running mate),is he vulgar?The little dickhead started it.
And look at the silence on BS winning dem states,a sign of his electoral ability compared to her dismal showing in most dem states.
MSM criminals.
WTF?
Well,I guess truth is too much for you.You don’t think that the hell bitch to secure an election wouldn’t nominate the rethug boy toy Latino for vp as ammunition against the alleged racist Trump?Of course it would be a new phenomena,but today all things which were once sacred are in flux.
And that black or Latinos could be racist is wtf?
Ah,the waste of a mind,hung up on convention and fallacy.
Honestly, you don’t have to assure anybody of anything. Anybody with half a brain can see that Glenn is far more patriotic, without even trying, than most journalists I can think of. Criticizing your country doesn’t mean you’re anti-“your country” and everybody with a pea-sized brain, even with the integrity of a deadly virus, can see that. Stop explaining yourself to these mo-fckers.
And you had a 1/4 of a brain you would know the huge difference between criticizing your country and portray your country as the greatest evil, a terrorist state whose population like torture.
People who claim to be patriots and attack others for a lack of patriotism are merely following a very old authoritarian recipe, well stated by this guy:
“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
I think “denouncing the peacemakers for lack of patriotism” is what those particular posters are all about.
However, the fact is, the United States must reduce and redirect its massive overseas military budget to more pressing domestic concerns (infrastructure, manufacturing, education, etc. – everything that makes a nation strong, in reality), and that will require a shift towards diplomatic, rather than militaristic, solutions to foreign policy conflicts.
Yes, this will cause financial pain, and a loss of political power, to those who have a vested interest in preserving these bloated Cold War-era budgets – so they are doing all they can to prevent this from happening – but happen it must.
“However, the fact is, the United States must reduce and redirect its massive overseas military budget to more pressing domestic concerns (infrastructure, manufacturing, education, etc. – everything that makes a nation strong, in reality), and that will require a shift towards diplomatic, rather than militaristic, solutions to foreign policy conflicts.”
What is wrong with that? Has anybody questioned your patriotism for demanding a change in the US foreign or budgetary policies?
Education is the most vitally important priority today, educating the next generation of high school students “American Civics” since their parents and teachers are not doing it. Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan nominee) actually offers free civics education to teachers, parents and citizens at http://www.icivics.org.
The one thing Trump and the establishment parties do have in common is that they all have contempt for the constitutional “rule of law” designed by the Founding Fathers – which they took an oath of office to uphold. Many (not all) mainstream press and media outlets despise the American system as well.
Maybe this generation of voters can’t be saved but we can educate the next generation of voters. That’s the real State of the Union.
The biggest reason the ruling neo-con elites (both parties) can’t stand Trump is that they are afraid that he would “do a deal” with some other country rather than bomb them. Can’t have that now can we?
What many observers are missing is that this is a populist uprising that is using Trump just as he is using the uprising. Trump did not cause the anger at the Republican establishment, it was already there.
The USA has been on a “war footing” since 1945. The USA leadership have never wanted real peace. The old USSR fell and so we then attacked the middle east to keep the ball rolling. Now that crazy Trump is talking about negotiations! Is he crazy? We need to sell weapons!
The “man and woman in the street” (and more are really living on the street every day) see jobs being lost overseas due to US regulations and laws. The USA is Trillions in debt with unfunded liabilities estimated at 250 Trillion or so. (hell, a few more Trillion and we will be talking real money)
Any objective observer sees that the USA is fast becoming a dystopian police state if it is not already one.
With the above an much more (no time to type out much today, I have things to get to) one wonders why so many observers can’t see a populist uprising is happening. Hell, it had to come. Trump is no angel of mercy — he is just riding a wave. The “America First” non-interventionists like Senator Robert A. Taft of the “old right” are what many are looking for today but there are no non-interventionists to be found. Warmongers all.
The people cry out for peace and common sense but there is little to be found in politics. Only the comedy of errors that is all too human. And people wonder why libertarian anarchists shake their head in disbelief at all the idiot state-worshiping fools around us.
Oh well, everyone go out and vote and pretend that means something.
You are way, way, way oversimplifying a convergence of
multiple motivations into a desire for “peace and common sense.”
A huge part of the frustrations and acceptance of bigotry
on the part of people in the fake U$A stems from the
shared belief in the falsehood of “american exceptionalism.”
Much of the economic inequality and decline stems from an
economic religiosity which is largely supported by predatory
militarism and the very, very dangerous love of
lifestyles based upon a carbon-spewing, chemical dependent
power lust.
The fall of the USSR was largely the result of a religious crusade
which included the slaughter of over a million people
in Southeast Asia whose lives were ignored and forgotten
in the name of religious capitalism.
This is the same kind of mentality and spiritual degeneration
which was behind the Romans, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Hitler,
only now it is largely driven by a corporate class dependent upon
petroleum and other chemical pollutions.
The smug desire for global domination of resources
for private profits,
of which there will NEVER be enough,
is the shared agenda of most of the “leaders” in this
hollowed out desperation which is now a global infection.
The huge majority of people in the fake U$A reinforce this
corruption every time they vote for democrats and republicans.
Libertarian anarchy is NOT the answer. That is what is already
in the drivers seat masquerading as democracy.”
Integration and responsibility are what is severely lacking.
Instead of railing against Trump, you might consider using Trump as a battering ram to wedge open the discussion. Things like:
Should we bring the troops home from Afghanistan?
Would Trump support Black Site Prisons?
Should NASA send men to the moon again?
What will Trump do about inversions?
What is Trumps view on the environment and the BP Gulf Spill?
When Trump talks about it, it’s news, it gets air time. Meanwhile Code Pink and other liberal do-gooders get marginalized.
Ask Trump questions about things you care about. At least Trump will talk to you. Hillary hides form the press and refers you to her focus-group written policy papers. (Even Dana Milbank calls it mush.)
The only positions of Trump that the MSM trump-ets are ones they think the voters will dislike.
But the morons are so inculcated in their false narrative,they refuse to see that the public like them.
Please keep it up,MSM.
How come they didn’t castigate Rubio for his sex obsessed putdown of the Donald,but trump-eted his response?No problem down there,seems pretty mild,to me,compared to the baiting.
And yes,talking to Vlad,Kim,Bashar or whomever the zionists finger as the bad guy sounds most refreshing,but the MSM hate it.
Send Musk on a lunar one way ticket.Another crime,the privatization of the space program,tax dollars for corporate boondoggles.
“……To all new readers: Craig is engaged in his usual whataboutery. It’s his favorite fallacy among several……”
This is an all to common reply by Mona. Quite a few people on this site wonder why I post at the fair and balanced Intercept. I just try to provide the “other side of the story” on issues that the billion dollar baby staff at the Intercept doesn’t cover like the role of Pakistan in the war in Afghanistan. I consider my posts to represent the rest of the story for the radical leftists that only get their information from the Intercept. Examples follow:
Greenwald could obviously use some help identifying how many civilians Assad or the Russians have murdered in Syria. Every news outlet – except the Intercept and RT – publishes at least something about the humanitarian crisis created by the Assad regime, and the Russian bombings in civilian areas which have contributed significantly to the ongoing refugee crisis and civilian casualties (not to mention Muslim anger). Additionally, the well paid staff at the Intercept obviously are poorly informed on the hospitals that Russia bombs in Syria (this was pointed out embarrassingly enough by another publication) – but all of the staff are very well informed about how Putin controls the internet in Russia. On that they are experts – and no doubt, that is a huge issue.
I can also help Glenn locate Sri Lanka on a map – and help the intercept staff determine how many people died in that civil war which ended with the Tamil Tigers being completely wiped out in 2009. Expanding their horizons can actually help create a more diverse staff and help them get beyond Israel – a thriving democracy.
I suspect that many people who read the Intercept are understandably upset by the very low flow of information at the Intercept on the Chinese mistreatment of their Muslim population in western China (Ughirs). The staff could also use some help with the ongoing civil war in the Congo which began in 1996 and is exploited by the Chinese for raw materials; the oil for blood program carried out by the Chinese in Darfur; the civil war in South Sudan; the “Workers” Party corruption charges in Brazil which goes all the way to the defiant the defiant de Silva; and the tens of thousands of Muslims killed in Chechnya by Russia in the 90s (contributing significantly to world Muslim anger which has resulted in the targeting and murder of mostly Muslims……….by angry Muslims).
I just try to help Glenn out wherever I can (Mona). After all, an informed population will be able to make a better decision between the xenophobic fascist bigot, Trump and the AIPAC ass-kissing neocon, Hillary Clinton.
Thanks and God bless America
Your self appointed mission is a worthy one. However, while your attempts to restore balance are praise-worthy, I feel that some of your posts are starting to show traces of ‘extreme leftism’ and I worry that spending too much time here might be the cause. Please don’t take this the wrong way. You haven’t changed your basic views, but you sometimes appear less rigid and open to discussion of contrary viewpoints. Perhaps that’s just a tactical adjustment, but leftist ideas are insidious and their influence can often be sub-conscious.
Remember, as Nietzsche said, “and when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you”.
Thanks Benito. I’ve decided to take the unusual step of admitting myself into a PC anonymous facility in Boise, Idaho. This is a Trump sponsored clinic for the filthy rich. Luckily, I received a scholarship. When I complete the required 10 weeks of rehabilitation, I hope to write demeaning and libelous ads for a SuperPac in support of a Trump candidacy.
That’s the core of your folly. Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept are the other side of the story. They show all the clothes the naked imperial emperor isn’t wearing.
You constantly engage in whataboutery in a vain attempt to change the conversation from the topics and facts presented at this site, above and below the line.
It hasn’t worked, and it’s not going to.
“Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept are the other side of the story. ”
Good one. I needed a laugh.
Glenn does good work and this very post was lauded over at Rothbardian Central, but there is much more to the story than provided by the Intercept vs. Mainstream Media. Much more. Unfortunately, few readers here will ever realize that.
But on the bright side, they say that ignorance is bliss.
Hello Mark. Yes, I’m sure the Rothbardians, including you, feel Glenn and The Intercept do not tell enough of the “real story.” Nevertheless, my point to Craig stands — this site is an alternative to the dominant narratives and enthusiasms that Craig feels it outrageously ignores.
Mark makes a great point
“…..Unfortunately, few readers here will ever realize that…….”
Thus my motivation to help bring the truth to the less fortunate.
Craig, trust me on this, you are not a Rothbardian. Mark’s point which you cite as “great” is the lack of Rothbardian arguments at this site. I am very certain that a great deal of Rothbard and his disciples would be most displeasing to you.
Never said or implied I was. But on that one point, he was right on the money
No, Craig. What Mark feels is omitted about the MSM at The Intercept is not what you think is omitted. At all.
Hi Mona
Your responses are always worth a fortune to me. At least you didn’t call me a Zionist – something I would deny in a heartbeat.
Have a great Saturday
Pakistan is at war with Afghanistan (too*)!? That is breaking news, Craig.
*too=Obama officially, iirc, ending the US war in Afghanistan after they killed OBL in Pakistan … but you know how that goes these days.
So, you fancy yourself like the next Steve Harvey show now (‘open minded’ to boot.) and … now here’s CraigSummers with the ‘Rest of The Story’.
Sufi suggested I create a blog and call it the Un-Intercept. This seems kind of catchy to me like the un-cola. Who knows, maybe a new career?
Ladies and Gentlemen, friends and neighbors, it gives me great pleasure to present for your enjoyment;
CraigSummers, The Un-Cola Nut … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXmc7DG4uu8
There you go, Craig. We now have a ‘The Un-Intercept’ movement.
Go for it.
I’m thinking millions of hits. I owe it all to you Sufi. On my blog, you will represent the Muslim viewpoint. We don’t need radicals like Murtaza.
“……CraigSummers, The Un-Cola Nut…..”
OK…..it’s not bad….uh, some things might need to be “reevaluated”, but it is a good first attempt. Thanks.
The Pakistani govt. attacks the Taliban in Pakistan regularly.CS was being a little truthful,but the its not the Afghan govt.Pakistan is fighting,although there is bad blood between them.
“Greenwald could obviously use some help identifying how many civilians Assad or the Russians have murdered in Syria.”
This a good example of the State Department-Pentagon PR line being foisted on the American public by the corporate media, but it is simply not an honest narrative.
First, good evidence points to the civil war in Syria – and the rise of Islamic State group in the region – being largely initiated by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and possibly Israel. A series of covert programs to funnel arms and money to anti-Assad forces, with the goal being the destabilization of Syria and the overthrow of Assad, were initiated around 2011-2012.
The plan blew up in their face, as so many have done before – the Islamic State group had their own agenda, such as launching terrorist attacks in Europe, and soon turned on the hand that fed them, in a replay of covert support for Islamic anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan in the 1980s, a program that gave rise to Al Qaeda in the 1990s and resulted in the 9/11 terror attacks. In another monumentally stupid foreign policy move, the attacks (and a pack of lies about WMDs) were used to justify an invasion of Iraq, which destabilized that country and created even more terror groups and civil warfare.
By the way, notice how craigsummers avoids mentioning the Saudi bombings of Yemen with American-made cluster bombs, which have killed thousands of Yemeni civilians?
Getting back to Syria, notice that Turkey had been buying oil from ISIS for several years with no American or British criticism; that money is what allowed ISIS to continue its efforts to overthrow Assad. Like Assad or not, this strategy resulted in massive civil war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the region for Europe, causing huge problems for every European country.
Russia’s intervention, it must be said, has done much to stabilize the situation, has cut off the ISIS-Turkey oil smuggling route, and now – as we can all see – has resulted in a regional cease-fire and a stabilization of the situation.
Any rational view points to the worst actors in the region being Turkey (NATO member) who is bent on repressing its Kurdish population, and Saudi Arabia, who is slaughtering people in Yemen in a bid to put its preferred dictator back in power, and engaging in general “we hate Shia Islam” behavior.
All in all, American foreign policy in the region has been incredibly stupid and shortsighted, and needs to fundamentally change.
The US should adopt a foreign policy for the Middle East that treats Saudi Arabia and Iran in an identical fashion, rather than trying to back one side over the other – a good example is the US attitude towards Pakistan and India, in which we favor a peaceful resolution of their differences, rather than giving all our assistance to one side.
“……First, good evidence points to the civil war in Syria – and the rise of Islamic State group in the region – being largely initiated by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and possibly Israel. A series of covert programs to funnel arms and money to anti-Assad forces, with the goal being the destabilization of Syria and the overthrow of Assad, were initiated around 2011-2012…….”
Good evidence which you are not going to provide because the US did not funnel any significant arms to anyone for the first couple of years of the war – especially ISIS. What the Arab nations do is not controlled by the US and please provide evidence that Israel was involved in your grand scheme. Additionally, ISIS was NOT created by the US in Iraq or Syria.
“…… the Islamic State group had their own agenda, such as launching terrorist attacks in Europe, and soon turned on the hand that fed them, in a replay of covert support for Islamic anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan in the 1980s, a program that gave rise to Al Qaeda in the 1990s and resulted in the 9/11 terror attacks……”
More bullshit. First of all, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan creating a flood of refugees into Pakistan. The war ended up killing 2 million people. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia funded, trained and supplied the Muhajadeen who eventually sent the Soviet dogs running back to the USSR. The refugees in Pakistan later became the recruiting grounds for the Taliban who were funded, supplied, trained and supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (not the US). Pakistan still supports the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Radical Muslims did come to Afghanistan to help fight the Soviets although their numbers were quite small compared to the Afghan resistance. They did later become al-Qaeda who operated and trained in the terrorist camps which were under the auspices of the Pakistan intelligence services. The Taliban turned a blind eye to the terror camps which is why the US rightfully invaded after 911 when the taliban would NOT turn over Bin Laden.
“……Getting back to Syria, notice that Turkey had been buying oil from ISIS for several years with no American or British criticism; that money is what allowed ISIS to continue its efforts to overthrow Assad. Like Assad or not, this strategy resulted in massive civil war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the region for Europe, causing huge problems for every European country…..”
The massive civil war was initiated by Assad who promised reforms early in his tenure as dictator in chief, but never delivered. When peaceful protests associated with the Arab Spring erupted across the country in 2010, he crushed the protests with brutal military violence. He attempted to do exactly what his pop did in Hama in 1982 which resulted in the deaths of 10000 to 20000 people. Assad ALONE is responsible for the civil war in Syria – and he must take the largest responsibility for the massive amount of deaths and refugees which could have been easily avoided.
If Turkey is profiting from oil trade with ISIS, there are no links to the US. In fact the US has been bombing ISIS oil trucks over the past year.
“……Russia’s intervention, it must be said, has done much to stabilize the situation, has cut off the ISIS-Turkey oil smuggling route, and now – as we can all see – has resulted in a regional cease-fire and a stabilization of the situation…..”
Intervention by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia (from nearly the beginning) has helped prop up the dictator and keep him in power. Without their “help”, Assad would have fallen from power a long time ago. That is the biggest stumbling block to resolving the Syrian crisis – the refusal of anyone to accept a deal where Assad remains in power. Quit making the Sovie…..er Russia into heroes, please. They have a military base in Syria so they have a significant stake in the outcome which is why they have intervened.
“……The US should adopt a foreign policy for the Middle East that treats Saudi Arabia and Iran in an identical fashion, rather than trying to back one side over the other – a good example is the US attitude towards Pakistan and India…..”
I seem to recall that the US just signed a nuclear agreement with Iran and is ending the sanctions against a state supporter of terror. On the other side of that, Pakistan has continued to fund and supply the Taliban while providing them with a safe haven in Pakistan. I have no clue what you are talking about in this case. You cannot turn a large supporter of terrorism against your allies (Iran) into an equal opportunity partner.
Thanks.
Why are you ignoring the Saudi use of American-made cluster bombs in Yemen? As far as the links between Obama, the Saudis, and ISIS, see this article in the Atlantic:
“‘Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback
U.S lawmakers encouraged officials in Riyadh to arm Syrian rebels. Now that strategy may have created a monster in the Middle East.
Steve Clemons Jun 23, 2014″
So why isn’t Saudi Arabia on the state sponsor of terrorism list, then? Arms and oil deals trump everything else? Do they – or Israel – really deserve the title of “ally”? Not any more than Iran or Syria does, in any rational view.
And, yes, Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden got his terrorist training and his ideological base; sure it was also the Soviet Union’s Vietnam but it really played a minor role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite what the Reagan fanatics (of whom you seem to be one – or perhaps an Israeli fanatic?) want to believe. For the rest, you’re just regurgitating the same stupid boilerplate foreign policy nonsense that’s been coming out of Washington think tanks for the past few decades – a ruinous, disastrous policy run by incompetent apparatchiks who’d have fit right in in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union – the same Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan.
Face reality – the Middle East just isn’t that important to America’s national security in the 21st century. The region will have to sort out its problems by itself, with America serving to promote diplomatic over military solutions.
And if you want to respond, please start by discussing Saudi actions in Yemen, and their illegal use of American-made cluster bombs against civilian targets – which, by law, should trigger a ban on arms sales and other sanctions.
“…….And if you want to respond, please start by discussing Saudi actions in Yemen…..”
Excuse me but I’ll respond on my grounds – but thanks.
“……As far as the links between Obama, the Saudis, and ISIS, see this article in the Atlantic…..”
According to your link:
“……McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces…….”
McCain has always supported arming the Syrian rebels, but not al-Qaeda or ISIS. The Saudis may have armed ISIS and al-Qaeda to dispose of the Assad regime, but that is not the US, OK? From your article:
“…..ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, has denied allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS. But there are also signs that the kingdom recently shifted its assistance—whether direct or indirect—away from extremist factions in Syria and toward more moderate opposition groups……“ISIS has been a Saudi project,” one Qatari official said…….United States, France, and Turkey have long sought to support the weak and disorganized FSA, and to secure commitments from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to do the same. When Mohammed bin Nayef took the Syrian file from Bandar in February, the Saudi government appeared to finally be endorsing this strategy. As The Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote at the time, “Prince Mohammed’s new oversight role reflects the increasing concern in Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries about al-Qaeda’s growing power within the Syrian opposition.”……..”
So the US talked the Saudis out of supporting ISIS which kind of undermines your principle charge against the US. You go on to say:
“…….So why isn’t Saudi Arabia on the state sponsor of terrorism list, then?…..”
I can certainly understand your point from your simplistic world view. It’s a complicated geopolitical picture in the ME. For one, the Saudis are locked with Iran for regional supremacy so bringing down the Iranian ally, Syria undermines the reach and power of Iran. That makes sense from the Arab and US point of view which is why the US planned tyo arm the opposition. Just in case you missed the news over the past 40 years, Iran is also an enemy of the US (and visa versa). Iran also funds and supports the terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah who Iran created (Hezbollah that is). Hezbollah was responsible for murdering 240 US soldiers in Lebanon. So the US, Israel and the Saudis are allies on one side of the geopolitical spectrum aligned against Syria, Iran and Russia on the other. Russia’s involvement stems from anti-Americanism and an important naval base in Syria. Russia’s involvement is a geopolitical consideration also.
“…… sure it was also the Soviet Union’s Vietnam but it really played a minor role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite what the Reagan fanatics (of whom you seem to be one – or perhaps an Israeli fanatic?) want to believe……”
Irrelevant to the discussion.
“…….For the rest, you’re just regurgitating the same stupid boilerplate foreign policy nonsense that’s been coming out of Washington think tanks for the past few decades – a ruinous, disastrous policy run by incompetent apparatchiks who’d have fit right in in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union – the same Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan……”
That’s just your opinion, but not really a response to my previous post. Just to point out one difference, the collapse of the USSR led to the freedom of 14 countries many of which beat a quick path to NATO and/or the EU.
“……. Face reality – the Middle East just isn’t that important to America’s national security in the 21st century. The region will have to sort out its problems by itself, with America serving to promote diplomatic over military solutions……”
You mean diplomatic solutions like Russian bombing in Syria and support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine? You seem to believe that Russia is crucial to forcing a solution using military means in Syria (at least according to your first post). In reality, what you are advocating is total bullshit.
“……And if you want to respond, please start by discussing Saudi actions in Yemen, and their illegal use of American-made cluster bombs against civilian targets – which, by law, should trigger a ban on arms sales and other sanctions…..”
I am not a big fan of Saudi Arabia or their war in Yemen. Their war in Yemen actually empowers al-Qaeda because the Saudis are fighting the Houthis – an enemy of al-Qaeda. The Houthis have been armed by Iran and this is a part of the regional Shia-Sunni struggle between the Saudis and Iran. This is not helping the US policy of droning al-Qaeda operatives and leaders which I fully support. I sincerely hope that the Saudis quit bombing the Houthis using cluster bombs or not. I find it interesting among supporters of the Assad regime and Russian involvement in Syria how you seen to forget that Assad has been charged with all kinds of war crimes against his own people while Russia has bombed hospitals in Syria. Care to explain your position on that?
Thanks for your response.
“Care to explain your position on that?”
Sure – you might as well launch a tirade against the United States for bombing hospitals in Afghanistan, right? That’s the kind of thing that happens in shooting wars, which is why rational people press for cease-fires and peace-talks, they don’t funnel arms secretly to the combatants. As far as human rights abuses, there is not a single country in the Middle East without a terrible record on that issue – Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran – so, I say, one standard for all of them – but we can’t demonize Assad and prop up the House of Saud and ignore Israel’s actions against Palestinians without being called blatant hypocrites, can we? So that’s my position on that.
And no, I don’t agree that “The U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel” should be allies on one side – let’s put an end to that, entirely. They can solve their own problems, we can serve as mediators, but allies? Forget about it – that’s old history, they’ve screwed us over too many times.
There’s little justification for not placing Saudi Arabia on the state sponsor of terrorism list, and again – use of American cluster bombs against civilian targets in Yemen is a violation of US law that should trigger sanctions. You can’t have double standards on such issues without being ridiculed.
As far as Syria, if Russia hadn’t intervened, ISIS would have gained more and more territory, and with Turkish aid and cash flows, they’d have taken over Syria, and aided the Turkish repression against Kurds – please don’t tell me you view that as a preferred outcome? Now, there’s a cease-fire in place, which is a step in the right direction.
Trying to engineer regime changes in the Middle East is what’s really idiotic, as Bush’s neocon debacle in Iraq should have made clear.
Again, why can’t you understand a policy shift that treats Iran and Saudi Arabia the same way – not as allies or enemies, but rather as potential trading partners, who should resolve their differences in a peaceful manner, as Pakistan and India are starting to do? And calling Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism and an enemy of our allies” misses the point.
Of course – and I suspect this may be your main concern, perhaps as a patriotic Israeli citizen? – this would mean America would have to treat Israel the same way, and that would mean the end of the exclusive relationship; Israel might have to grant the Palestinians human rights and be subject to the same kind of IAEA inspections of its nuclear weapons program that Iran underwent.
In that case, Israel would have to explain its nuclear weapons program to the world, which it doesn’t want to do. However, rationality demands that Israel make public its nuclear weapons program – yes, I understand the reasons Israel feels it needs its nuclear weapons program, but it’s time for transparency and full disclosure, isn’t it?
What you believe the US role in the Middle East is your opinion. I have no problem if you believe that the US should be on a diplomatic mission while you support Russia bombing in Syria. But, you really shouldn’t complain about the Saudi military bombing Houthis while you support Russia killing innocent people in Syria and bombing hospitals. You begin to look a lot like a hypocrite in that case. Perhaps as a Russian citizen, Putin makes you feel patriotic by initiating a civil war in Ukraine, stealing the Crimean Peninsula which violated its own signed agreement with the Ukraine government and intervening on behalf of one of the most brutal dictators in the world.
Your charge that the US was behind arming ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria is false. If you read your own source, you would have seen that. And you simply pulled out of your ass the charge that Israel might have also been behind arming ISIS. That was a dishonest charge which displayed your anti-Israel bias.
The US did not turn a blind eye to Turkey buying oil from ISIS. The US has been bombing ISIS oil trucks at least over the past year.
The worst actors are not the Saudis or Turkey. The worst actor is Assad of Syria accused of numerous war crimes by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions of refugees have been created because of Assad’s decision to brutally crack down on peaceful protesters associated with the Arab Spring. That is exactly what led to the current situation. Russia, Iran and Lebanon worsened the situation by intervening on Assad’s behalf and propping up the dictator. No other country even comes close to taking that award from Assad.
“…….Of course – and I suspect this may be your main concern, perhaps as a patriotic Israeli citizen? – this would mean America would have to treat Israel the same way, and that would mean the end of the exclusive relationship…..yes, I understand the reasons Israel feels it needs its nuclear weapons program, but it’s time for transparency and full disclosure, isn’t it?……..”
Completely irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to discuss the IP conflict, I am only too happy to accommodate you, but you originally went off on an anti-American rant about the US role in Syria which was completely false.
Thanks.
Ok. Trump has his bad side, but at least things are getting dragged out and talked about. The good thing is I don’t have to deal with him, the Establishment does. Day in and day our for four long years, they will have to put up with his Trumpish majesty.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of oligarchs. (Oil-agarchs?)
Well he’d better be good;I can see “Dump Trump”signs already.
The troll originally known as “lenk” is at it again:
lenk knows very well that I have evidence from a Pew poll, not to mention all the torture enthusiasts supporting various GOP candidates who are having a contest to see who can rhapsodize most gloriously about more torture methods and circumstances to torture “Bad People.” lenk knows all this because I set it all forth in a discussion beginning here.
lenk (aka, truth&Freedom) is also on about various other bits of silliness about me and Glenn Greenwald, including a claim that we are this thing called “anti-American.” That is a snarl world with no serious meaning, and is meant to suspend rational thought — to misdirect from the facts presented by people lenk does not like.
lenk serves a purpose, however. He’s a useful springboard for discussion and often inspires people to provide interesting links and arguments. One should simply ignore most of his actual, insult- and fallacy-laden content and read the replies.
You can call me Lenk or Susie if that makes you happy. Whatever that means it does not change the fact that you are idiot.
It is a free world. You can believe Earth is flat or violent movies are responsible for violent crimes.
There is absolutely nothing in that research that conclude that Americans or Ugandans or an average of 40% of the people in the nations surveyed “like” torture. Calling me lenk, troll…does not change the obvious fact you are incapable of understanding basic statistics. Therefore, you are an idiot.
There is a huge difference between asking:
“Mona, do you like torture?”
And: “Mona would you torture the guy who kidnapped your son to save him while you know his henchmen are about to kill your son?” 99% of mothers would say yes in order to save their son.
The fact that you impulsively conclude that Americans like torture based on that research prove my point that indeed you are anti American.
You are such an idiot that you cannot even notice how irrational you are. You actually believe that more than half of Ugandan or Nigerians like torture after spending years being victims of torture and fighting against it?
Yup. As long as it is done to “them over there.” Just as a majority of Americans love torture as long it is done to “those guys.”
“Impulsively” does not mean what you think it does. And again, “Anti-American” is a meaningless snarl word, meant to cause readers to suspend their critical faculties. You continue to beclown yourself by using it, along with the rest of your cascade of name-calling.
“Yup. As long as it is done to “them over there.”
Was it the question they asked them? An idiot, indeed. If you had any “critical faculties” you would analyze a survey before you draw conclusions out it. It is an undeniable fact. You are an idiot.
So, you posed hypothetical questions to defend a spin on poll results when you had not read the actual polling questions — hypotheticals that did not track the questions actually posed. And now you ask me what was the question asked. (There are two.)
And you do this while continuing a Tourette’s-level of spewing the word “idiot” at others. Well, then.
Great article!
Is this not irony: fascists admonishing other fascists, thus a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black?
Imagine Mr. 47% knocking someone for inherited wealth, at least Trump actually did build some buildings while the 47 percenter built nothing, and was in fact a complete predator destroying jobs, companies and the lives of our fellow citizens using the benefits of deplorable tax laws. Tax laws signed off on by our corrupt political officials, which are paid off in campaign money and real wealth reward when they are hired after they do not want to run for office anymore as it is their collect on corruption time.
You nailed that one .. as pointed out by David Stockman .. Mitt Romney Is The Real Super-Fraud: Here’s The Proof, Chapter And Verse .. http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/mitt-romney-is-the-real-super-fraud-heres-the-proof-chapter-and-verse/
“Is this not irony: fascists admonishing other fascists…”
No. It’s hypocrisy. Irony would be calling Bernie Sanders a fascist, when he is basically the opposite.
Yes, certainly hypocrisy and thanks for the narrow definition of irony.
Ah,but Bernie is a Zionist;The definition and epicenter of fascism today.
Glenn … you’ve outdone yourself .. you’ve nailed the hypocrites just like Donald Trump is nailing them. Trump takes neoCON Zionist policies to the extreme and they scream, “STOP IT UNCLE DONALD.” hahaha .. Is this really miss-emotion when I laugh when I should cry?
Thanks for yet another common sense destruction of the hypocrisy of the ruling elites from GG.
To Glenn Greenwald:
When you are referring to me, be advised I am not the typical commentator here who is on his knees accepting whatever arguments you are presenting. I am not Mona, Kitt…or the others. I believe you are an anti American propagandist who makes money by being provocative. You are not even an investigative journalist. You receive data, you publish them and you make money out of that process. You are a typical capitalist like many US corporation executives such as those in Sony.
This is your statement:
“The notion that the U.S. intelligence and military community will collectively rise up in defiance of the commander-in-chief if they are ordered to obey polices that are illegal is just laughable.”
The idea is not laughable at all because you even reported statements from high ranking officers who recognized the US committed war crimes and it was wrong. If you had any knowledge of military structures and traditions, then you would know that ONE leader in a division is capable at convincing 100,000 soldiers to disobey an illegal order. So, when you stated
“Some likely would, but nowhere near enough to preclude the policies being carried out.”
It means you are completely ignorant of how an army works. It will only take a handful of leaders to stop a policy. Not the whole military. When ONE helicopter pilot noticed a war crime, stopped it and reported it he started a process of questioning the policy of being at war with those people.
If you want your statement to stand among those who understand how armed forces work, then you have to redefine war crimes, terrorism…as you like to do. For instance, you have to state that bombing Syria is a war crime because the US is bombing that country because it is predominantly Muslim. That argument would certainly stand among your followers who are mostly idiots, but it will definitely be laughable among those with basic understanding of international laws.
All of our wars in the Middle East are wars of aggression, which are war crimes. Any soldier who deployed to those war zones participated in war crimes and that’s before we even examine the many individual incidents that are way too numerous to mention. All of these were crimes against humanity.
So stick it in your ear. You’re defending something that is wholly indefensible and, besides making you look like another brainwashed, goose-stepping military dick, it could indicate serious psychosis.
Get help for that PTSD Gunny and don’t go back into any more of our war zones. Each time you do, you become deeper enmeshed in these horrible crimes and it is clearly bothering your conscience.
Let me know when you learn what war crimes mean.
Are you denying that our invasion of Iraq was a war crime?
In reality, the neoCON Zionists are bombing Syria (Assad) to carry out “The Greater Israel Project” for Israel and World Zionism. Google it and get real .. I suspect you already have a clue.
Er.. what if he is the one giving the illegal order? Then it will be up to his superiors to stop him. Ultimately, all authority reverts to the Commander in Chief.
There is a reason that armies are structured as hierarchies. In traditional warfare, large groups must be mobilized to respond quickly to threats. There is no time to vet information, or arrive at a consensus – your army will be destroyed before you can even act. Soldiers understand this and make a conscious decision to relinquish authority to their commanding officer. If they are told to fire upon a building, they don’t ask who is in it – their delay might endanger their entire unit.
Civilians who ultimately approve the decisions to conduct illegal wars have no such excuse. When Congress abdicates its responsibility to sanction any foreign war, it is in direct violation of its duty. When the people who elect their representatives do not hold them accountable for this dereliction, then they share in the responsibility. When journalists tell lies that help to start wars, they are also acting directly against their duty.
So when an entire society fails in its duties, it is ironic it should then blame the individual soldier who follows his or her duty.
Soldiers have a manual that tell them what is illegal and what is not. For Greenwald’s statement to stand he has to redefine what is illegal and what is not. Bombing Syria is probably illegal for Greenwald, but it is not illegal under a NATO Soldier’s manual or under International laws.
“If they are told to fire upon a building, they don’t ask who is in it – their delay might endanger their entire unit.”
That is false.
1) Before the soldier can open fire on that building he has to ask for permission.
2) the soldier can only open fire on that building without asking permission to defend himself
3) if the soldier notices that the building is a school, or a hospital or a church… that does not represent any danger to him or his troops HE MUST REFUSE TO OBEY.
Yes, and this is Benitos’ very point. If told to do it, or that they may do it, and it’s illegal, they usually will do it.
Mona is an idiot:
“I then pointed out that the international human rights community doesn’t give credit for not committing war crimes when documenting the war crimes the U.S. commits. Thus, your invocation of what you imagine “human rights supporters” should note (unless they are this thing called “anti-American”) as “noble” is inane.”
This is after she called a soldier who stopped the My Lai massacre a hero. Why did you call him a hero? Because you are a human right supporter and he did something noble?
Calling you an idiot is not an insult. It is a fact. If I was referring to your gender, your sexual orientation, your age, your disability, your race…then it would be an insult. You are insulting others by systematically calling them Zionists. Extreme human rights violations, invasion of a sovereign state, murders are all associated with Zionism. Yet, you casually refer to whomever you do not like as a Zionist. What is more insulting? An idiot or a Zionist?You are an idiot who strongly believe you are always right and everybody else is wrong.
Stating Americans like torture is a stupid and anti American statement for which you do not have any scientific data to back it up. You would torture me if you know 100% I am the one who kidnap your son and my henchmen are about to behead him. Does it mean you like torture?
Calling me a troll does not change the fact that you either distort what you read or you are incapable of understanding what you are reading. That does not make you “sophisticated”.
My dear lenk, please be advised that “Zionist” is a political term, an ideological descriptor, while “idiot” is, well, not.
When I use this political term I refer to those persons who support the results of what’s described here. That is, persons who take the political position at this political site that Zionists had the right to violently steal Arab land and to ethnically cleanse their villages and towns, and to now maintain an ethno-religious, Jewish, super-majority in the entity call the State of Israel. Such person post quite a bit here, and, you see, they are — wait for it! — Zionists.
By contrast, you promiscuously hurl childish insults such as “idiot,” “dumb ass” and unserious trollish crap such as that. You’ve had multiple accounts banned for being such a bad faith, crapflooding troll, yet here you are — again — doing the same thing. (Tho the “Dumb ass!!!!!” inanity has been missing lately.)
Of course I do. As you are well aware, below I extensively discussed this Pew poll showing that the U.S. population is the world’s greatest torture lover exceeded only by Uganda (!!!) and Tanzania. (The hypo you manufacture was not used in the question asked of poll respondents.) Moreover, Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP clown car are having contests at their “debates” to see who can sound more enthusiastically smitten with heinous torture — GOP supporters, including Trump’s — eat that vicious pro-torture mania up.
Now lenk, you do serve a purpose here: as a foil allowing me and the many smart others here to debunk your sophistry and thereby link to and discuss timely and important matters. So, you do serve that limited, acceptable purpose.
1) Who the hell is Lenk? What does it mean?
2) if you believe John, Susie is a Zionist then by any means call them whatever you want but,
3) be ready for others to call you an idiot when you are incapable of understanding basic statistics. There is nothing childish about using the proper term to define your ignorance. Here is a test for you to work on your understanding of your surveys:
Do you like cow meat? NO
Would you eat cow meat if there is absolutely nothing else to eat? Yes
Idiots like you would conclude that the individual likes cow meat based on the second answer. The second question has nothing to do with whether the individual likes cow meat or not. Again, if you are a mother you would probably torture somebody to save your son’s life. Does it mean you like torture?
You keep posting various restatements of this irrelevant, hypothetical form. It was not asked in form in either of the two questions in which Americans demonstrated they like torture.
But this sort of slip-shod “reasoning” is not new for our lenk.
I am not sure how old you are (do not really care), but you will never be able to improve your understanding of basic statistics. It will take a lifetime. You are really honestly a complete idiot in statistics. Americans, Nigerians, Indians… never demonstrated they like torture because none of these people were asked questions in order to demonstrate such thing.
Have ever had a simple class in statistics? There is no way you can be that stupid.
Yes. They were.
You’d know this had you read the two relevant questions Pew posed.
[Ignoring yet another irrelevant rant about statistics. This one is a constant farrago of fallacies, factual errors and mindless name-calling. This mix I seldom substantively address.]
If two politicians are arguing, their goal is not to win the argument, but to make their opponent appear slightly more discreditable than themselves.
However, if people adopt anonymous screen names, then what is the advantage of sliming the other person? Shouldn’t the argument itself then become more important, divorced from the identity of the people engaged in the argument? Yet observation indicates the opposite; people become more abusive when protected by anonymity, not less. I have never understood this, so an honest question: what do you feel you gain by name calling?
1) I am not a politician
2) Benito Mussolini (here not the late dictator) is funny. Why? He plays with words and make me laugh. I cannot call him intelligent or stupid because I never pay close attention to his arguments. What do I gain by calling you funny? Absolutely nothing. It is a fact that you make me laugh and I believe you are funny. That’s set.
But calling someone an idiot diminishes your victory if you win the argument, and magnifies your defeat if you lose. So I don’t see an upside.
No it does not. Your argument is flawed. Why?
I call you funny because you make me laugh. That is a matter of fact. Susie might not find you funny at all, but I do find you funny so I call you funny. This is not an argument. This is a fact that to me you are funny.
Ugandans, Americans, Nigerians, Indians like torture.
That is a very strong statement. It is based on what?
It is based on the answer to the following question:
Would you torture somebody in this specific situation?
Since most of the respondents said yes, then the conclusion is that they all like torture.
Only an idiot would find that conclusion valid.
“Would you torture somebody in this specific situation?
Since most of the respondents said yes, then the conclusion is that they all like torture.”
——————–
Approving torture in specific situations was implied, no?
Yes, it was. But in statistics the answer to that question cannot used to conclude that the respondents “like” torture. You might not like certain food, but you might eat them in certain circumstances.
The police would make sure somebody who rapes a teenage girl is kept at a distance from this girl’s father. Why? It does not matter if the father is a law abiding non violent citizen with a clean sheet. The police and most of us understand that father could become violent in this specific situation.
If you ask a Nigerian living under the terrorism of Boko Haram whether it would be justified to torture a Boko Haram member to prevent terrorist attacks. What kind of answer would you realistically expect when Boko Haram has been massacring villagers? However, you cannot use that answer to conclude that a nation that spends decades fighting against torture and still fighting against it “like” torture.
The “specific situations” were 1. the U.S. torturing terrorist suspects in the decade or so after 9/11, and 2. the respondents’ own government torturing terrorist suspects. That’s it. No imminent attack. Just “terrorist suspects,” as the U.S. has done. (lenk didn’t read the actual two questions — he’s making up his own — so he doesn’t know what he’s actually addressing.)
Look at the crowds ecstatically cheering at GOP debates or Trump rallies during the competition to see who will promise the most and worst torture. To say these….aroused people “love” torture is almost to understate.
Again you are an idiot. The problem with idiots is that they cannot notice how stupid they are:
“lenk (I guess me) didn’t read the actual two questions — he’s making up his own — so he doesn’t know what he’s actually addressing.)”
Question 1: “In the period following the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the US government used interrogation methods that many consider to be torture on people suspected of terrorism. Were these methods justified or not justified?”
Question 2: “If the (survey country) government used torture against people suspected of terrorism to try to gain information about possible attacks in our country, do you think this could be justified or could not be justified?”
Again in statistics the way you FRAME a question can affect the answers. You are a complete idiot. The questions are framed in a specific situation: to prevent attacks. The researchers themselves explained their point:
“VIEWS about America’s post-9/11
interrogations are strongly CORRELATED with how people feel about the POTENTIAL use of torture in their own countries. Across the nations surveyed, a median of 40% believe their own governments
would be justified in using torture against people suspected of terrorism in order to GAIN INFORMATION ABOUT POSSIBLE ATTACKS. A median of 45% oppose this idea. Compared with other nations, Americans are generally more supportive of using torture in this TYPE OF SITUATION.”
Look at the young black teenagers cursing and fighting at rappers’ concerts during the competition to see which rapper is the most “gangsta”. To say these..aroused black kids “love” violence is almost to understate.
This is how ignorant your last statement is.
It is the collapse of the Republic; the Empire is just getting started.
When Trump says that Mexico will pay for the Wall, he means it. All he needs to do is command Wall St. to make it happen. The United States controls global capital and can extract payments from whomever it wishes. Up until now it has refrained from doing so directly. However, the US has a sizable national debt, and there are many countries out there with excess dollars – so it’s time to bring them home.
The Wall may be the first step. The next, more important step is to tax the Middle East for the Pax Americana – the US military force that brings peace to the world. I would suggest that all countries which produce oil should pay a tax of $10/bbl to the United States. This would produce about $275B in revenue a year – less than half the annual deficit, but it’s a start. Perhaps, the US could introduce a savings tax – say 0.1% per annum on all the world’s bank deposits. If that’s too difficult to calculate, simply tell other countries they must turn over 10% of all they collect in taxes to the US every year. There’s lots of opportunity to be creative and Trump will have the best people working for him.
The US shouldn’t become greedy, however. Tax the rest of the world enough to pay for the US military, but no more. You don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Didn’t the Roman Empire call that “tribute,” Duce?
“Golden eggs” do make it sound a lot less demanding, like it just laying there – so the US took it.
Wow, it “does” and that “was” some weak-ass proofreading. Plead early hours (MST) and no caffeine.
My advice is to never issue a correction – it only draws more attention to the original mistake, which I hadn’t noticed. Never explain what you can successfully cover up. If it works for the US government, it should work for commenting.
Hahahaha. What a pipe dream. Peace to the world? WTF? What peace? The planet is going up in smoke. Tax the Middle East?? Most of them want the American military out of there and are not going to pay to keep them around. Do you seriously think the world is going to pay a tax to the U.S? Not bloody likely! All counties that produce oil. mmm.. Behind the U.S. Saudi Arabia. Good luck there. Next Russia. It’s hilarious to even imagine their response. Then China, your second largest trading partner. Then Canada, your largest trading partner. Then 3 OPEC members followed by Brazil and Mexico.
Nobody wants to pay tax. But then you find your bank accounts frozen, and the tax automatically deducted. So you become resigned to the inevitable. Some countries may not like it, but that’s why the US maintains the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Many US citizens aren’t happy about paying $1Trillion to upgrade their country’s nuclear arsenal but they keep paying taxes since they prefer not being in jail. So they’ll be pleased to learn that others will be paying. This proposal is definitely an election winner.
He is going to make Mexico pay for the wall by taxing all the goods made in Mexico that come to the US.Protectionism.At average 1$ per good;Wall financed in 6 weeks?
And they all used to be made here,employing Americans of all shape color or form.
Screw this sh*&t.
Mona is an idiot.
A Pew research conducted a poll in different countries asking the two following questions with regards to the use of torture:
1) Would your own government be justified in using torture against people suspected of terrorism in order to gain information about possible attacks?
A median of 40% say yes.
2) In the period following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks …the US Government used interrogation methods that many consider to be torture on people suspected of terrorism. Were these methods justified?
Justified: Uganda (68%) Tanzania (58%) US (58%) India (57%) Kenya (57%) Israel (56%) Nigeria (55%) but Russia (18%)
Mona conclusion:
1) “Americans like torture”
2) “Israel is right behind us. Israel likes torture too.”
3) “Uganda likes torture even more” and she linked the Ugandan anti gay laws to back her claim.
Mona is so “sophisticated” that she cannot understand that how you frame a question in statistics might produce different results. According to Mona, Ugandans or Nigerians who have a history of being tortured by their own governments love torture. Nigerians probably love Boko Haram that takes pleasure at torturing them.
How can a lawyer who describes herself as being “sophisticated” be so stupid is beyond comprehension.
Public opinion is very hostile against gays in Russia. The government passed laws against “non traditional sexual relationships”. Hate crimes, discrimination against gays are rampant in Russia.
Mona’s conclusion:
Ugandans attitude towards gays prove my point they like torture
About Russia?
Russia has a similar attitude towards gays, but only 18% of them believe the use of torture by the US government after 2001 was justified.
From the department of “you can’t make this shit up”.
This, from the mouth of the architect of the Stellar Wind and Drone programs..Michael Hayden..
quote”Here’s what Hayden had to say about Trump’s promise to kill family members of ISIS:
“God, no! Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act. You cannot—you are not committed, you are not required, in fact you’re required to not follow an unlawful order. That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict. There would be a coup in this country.” unquote
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-28/military-would-revolt-against-trump-former-cia-director-says
A coup. right. Says the one who also said…”we kill people based on metadata”
Is there any doubt this country has now hit the bottom of the moral abyss? Any one else gagging on the stench? Excuse me now, I’ve got to vomit.
I love Glenn Greenwald, but he totally took his eye off the ball and swung & missed on this one. The reason the establishment hates trump is that he’s not a neocon — he’s opposed to the TPP and similar agreements, for example, and has said that the Iraq war was a stupid mistake and that it destabilized the region. These guys think that Trump is NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH, and they’ve said it publicly. Unfortunately, this column focuses on superficial distractions instead of the real issue here.
Glenn’s not just talking about conservatives here…he’s talking about the vile hypocrisy of many of those who attack Trump…across the political spectrum.
I’m talking about the Republican establishment, not “conservatives,” whoever they are. THAT’s the important attack on trump, this stuff is a distraction, as I said in my first post. I fully agree with what Glenn wrote, it’s just not the main issue here.
The main issue,as always,is Israel.
Trump is now a renegade,outside the pale of reason for the psycho criminals.
Go Trump!
Great article. From another angle, Trump has removed the moorings of American Exceptionalism from phony and pious morality. Trump: “kill the family–end of story”. American Exceptionalism requires a moral patina or even denial around the same murderous actions as Glenn has so righteously pointed out. What the warmongers did was re-establish a moral ground for their advocacy of wanton destruction which Trump had stripped away.
Yes indeed…he has done Christians a big favor…stripped the far right of it’s self righteous facade altogether. Now on to the fascist left as well…
But are Americans big enough boys and girls to be real citizens? Are they ready for democracy?
Coincidentally, I read Glenn’s thought provoking article immediately after watching Bill Maher’s show tonight in which he subserviently interviewed a Muslim woman who, like Hirsi Ali, goes around Canada denouncing Muslims for their “backwards” thinking etc etc. After drooling all over the lady, Maher then spent the rest of the show denouncing xenophobia among the Republican candidates one right after the other. He never even heard me shouting at him from my couch – that guy is just plain hopelessly deaf. Ben Affleck tried to set him straight and I’ve been screaming at my TV for so long now ………..he’s as hopeless as the rest of the country that Glenn describes…………we’re gonners. Only reading the Intercept – and a few other sites – gives me the hope that I may not be crazy after all.
Bill Maher has a show because he trashes Islam…and cheers Bibi Netanyahu.
If it was the other way around, there’s no way that he’d have a TV show.
Totally hypocritical to call himself ‘Politically Incorrect’ when he’s the most politically correct loudmouth out there.
Excellent article as always Glenn. Thanks for being one of the few media figures left among the media that actually merits the term, independent journalist. Now if only more people would read your work, so perhaps some of them would be persuaded to not give the corrupt political Establishment the mandate of their vote, and instead vote for decent people like Jill Stein.
Amen!
Yeah Glenn preach it brother! Right on….
Beautifully written. Will you submit it to one of the major papers as well? As many eyes as possible need to see this.
I agree. Unfortunately, I have grave doubts that Glenn’s piece would make it into any of the major US newspapers. I favor a syndicated international publication in as many languages as possible. That might be more effective.
The corporate media won’t touch it. They hate Greenwald with a passion.
Well, Glenn has written about that which has disturbed me so much about that obnoxious billionaire and his campaign. The mindset of the populace that would embrace these views is quite disturbing. The fact that things such as torture and the killing of civilians have occurred under both “parties” is disgusting to say the least. And the climate of racism – and sexism – that his campaign has tapped into troubles me greatly. I can barely fathom how anyone could espouse such heinous views, let alone so many folks. Not a hopeful sign at this point.
And as for the fact that many/most of the other candidates share similar “views” ; I just shake my head and wonder why we can’t do better. Then I start praying.
Chris Hedges:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302
This was almost good, but in the end it was not good. You didn’t work hard enough to find your “insights”, and you know it.
Thorough coverage about who exactly these neocons are and what they represent.
CTRL + F PNAC
CTRL + F ‘New American Century’
CTRL + F ‘Foreign Policy Initiative’
no results found, huh
Perhaps I’m obsessed with this particular group of neocons, but why is the Intercept following suite with other news outlets reporting on the ‘letter’ without offering more context of who exactly these people are? Meaning, that this is literally another PNAC letter (like the one to Clinton in 1998 telling him to take out Saddam), just under a new umbrella.
Jon’s article catalogs each one and the worst things they are known for but also does not tie them back to the think tank that spawned them all in the first place (and started the letter writing ‘tradition’)
Why would this article explain groups that the vast majority of likely readers already know quite a bit about? Greenwald has been writing about neoconservatives for 10 years or longer and has, in fact, written about, e.g., PNAC here. But the above article is not about neocon groups per se.
Most of Greenwald’s regular readers need no tutoring in these organizations. We’ve already got the dots pretty well connected.
‘the vast majority of likely readers already know quite a bit about’
that’s a pretty strong assumption.
‘Most of Greenwald’s regular readers need no tutoring in these organizations. We’ve already got the dots pretty well connected.’
are you trolling?
Plus, how is just mentioning that this is clearly a new ‘PNAC letter’ in a long tradition ‘tutoring’ people on ‘these organizations’? It’s simply a more detailed contextualized characterization of something happening in the present. I’m not asking Glenn to give his readers a history lesson on the founding of PNAC, I was just wondering why the organizations name and history is not mentioned on now the 3rd article covering this letter on the website.
Not really. It’s evidence-based. As one who has been active in Glenn’s comments section since he began blogging in ’05, and who knows what he’s written about in that time, and who also is very familiar with the commenters here (several of whom I count as friends), I know the above article did not need a PNAC tutorial. His regular readers already know about PNAC.
Mona,
GG’s PNAC article is a superb summarization of what the neocons have wanted and what they have achieved (which its almost all of their wants). Thanks for the reference.
Glenn Greenwald is an American Treasure. I’d love to see him and Chris Hedges and who knows else get together.
Thanks, Glenn. Awesome as usual.
Ok baby…if this scumbag Trump can use the 1st Amendment to virtually challenge the moral foundations of humanity…so can I.
For those who see what is coming should the depravity of this assault on every value our heretofore generations gave up their lives for… you better get a grip on reality. For those who support this cancer that threatens to muster in full blown Fascism in America.. you are facing a bloody civil war. PERIOD
Whether Trump is aware of it or not (I suspect not), he has pulled the mask off the hidden face of US/NATO Empire. As much as I find him repulsive and a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder, I’m enjoying watching the imperial gate keepers scramble to put the mask back on. That includes the shameless media personalities.
That the Trump legions are having none of it reveals the success of generations of dog whistle politics. They are elated feel free to be as crude, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic and violent as they like and be spurred on by their hero.
Both parties and the corporate state establishment as a whole stand naked before the world as the death cult that it is. This is the culture they have nurtured and they are desperate to distance themselves from it now that it is out in the open. Good luck with that.
Ruh oh raggy? Looks like they are in open revolt over at DKos. Markos set down the law that as of March 15th, if the “math” looks more promising for Hillary as opposed to mathematically impossible for Bernie to win, then he was starting to ban anybody who critiques Hillary Clinton in anything other than his subjective approved soothing tones. What a fucking embarrassment that guy is becoming. I’ve been around for a longtime, and Kos basically became popular as a rabble-rouser willing to spout some shit (usually against Republicans). He basically got uninvited from being a guest on most TV programming because of it. He claims he lost interest in doing those sorts of appearances if I recall correctly.
People are rightly pointing out–so long as Bernie chooses to fight on (just as Hillary did against Obama)–and notwithstanding Kos’ mathematical prognostications and arbitrary line-drawing, there is value for the Democratic Party in having that debate all the way to the convention.
And they are basically saying “fuck it, ban me” but we will not telling what we see as the truth about Hillary Clinton and particularly where we have evidence to support that opinion or contention.
Must be so nice for Markos to have cashed out on Vox or whatever it was he recently sold and has now settled into the role of “soothing tones” progressive online “activism” and horse-racey data crunching for a living.
“Oooooohhhh no fellow Kossacks we must not storm the gates any longer, we must rally around the Queen for the sake of the Supreme Court.” Like I said, embarrassing. He better pray to doG that Hillary Clinton smokes Trump or his little orange business model is going straight in the tank from the interwebs being overloaded with “I told you so’s”. And I’ll be laughing my ass off.
I’ve been watching that too, rrheard. Very exciting.
Daily Kos is only interesting to read when they are fighting, or when the D’s are out of power at the White House; during most of the Obama admin it was the All Apologies network.
Even if he is elected, how soon can he be impeached?
I say give him one full term. I mean, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler built the Autobahn. It was after they’d been in power for a few years that things went south.
Tell that to their victims. I’m sure they’ll consider your point of view.
On the other hand, I’d submit if you were there the day they were murdered and tortured, you wouldn’t shame your self with those words.
Do you feel as bad about all the innocent people who’ve been killed by the US government or our “closest allies” we supply with weapons over the past 8 years?
You running around shaming all your buds, hmm?
Concern troll for foreign victims made irrelevant,as it was long ago and far away,with murder for hegemony current and world wide, and by those victims subsequent reversion to their enemies tactics and methods.
Do you feel for those murdered and tortured today with the same fervor,or are you shamelessly selective?
It seems clear that the fear-mongering over the last 15 years has a lot to do with the depth of Trump’s support. 73% of authoritarian types believe that ISIL is a serious threat to their lives, and authoritarian types make up the bulk of Trump’s supporters. There are some interesting charts and graphs here: http://goo.gl/47lP7w
Glenn – you and your blogs are the modern day equivalent of Thomas Pain and Common Sense.
A good laugh, at best. The article opens with the distinct, acrid rind apportioned to a statement of disgust, however the flavor a few paragraphs deeper has a nutty, deeper flavor belying more than complex microbial action. The author’s own unambiguous recognition of the “French cheese” reality of American politics is welcome and forthcoming, namely that it stinks and is nonetheless delicious to the connoisseur.
Oh Glenn, you were doing so brilliantly right up until your last sentence which concludes that the “U.S. establishment guardians” simply lack “self inspection.” There is no lack of coherent strategy in condemning Trump for his “morally reprehensible positions.” Yes, Donald trump has shamelessly adopted positions in regard to immigration, torture, and extra judicial killings of terror SUSPECTS and their families. True also is that many of the establishment guardians are taking this opportunity to hypocritically distance themselves from those policies even though they have long since been employed by them. In the doing however, they are doing that which they believe is politically advisable. From the elite’s perspective, the upcoming presidential contest of Hillary vs Donald boils down to the devil you know vs the devil you know. Both can be counted on to act in their own political interest by incrementally advancing that which is deemed to be in the best interest of the transnational capital class abroad – and in a way that is meant to expand that which is deemed morally acceptable to a morally defunct and ethically malleable electorate. There is absolutely no political downside to U.S. establishment guardians distancing themselves from Trump because, in the doing, they are lending legitimacy to the carefully crafted perception that he is his own man.
Although Donald Trump’s highly charged popular rhetoric would suggest that he would be willing to attempt to use his executive clout to unilaterally deport 11 million illegal aliens; he is smart enough to understand that such promises are the easiest break as there is a ready fall guy to blame for his failure. So, too, the bellicose promise to ban all Muslims from the country has a built in qualifier that astutely takes into account that America’s foreign policy relies heavily on the co-operation of the Saudi led Gulf Co-operation Council – absent their cooperation, it would be impossible to keep oil prices lower enough to undermine state resistance to its global economic agenda of creating new, and defending existing, markets on behalf of the self-same transnational capital class. Donald’s promise to eradicate ISIS will require the cooperation and goodwill of Sunni and Shia leaders from across the Muslim world. As he is opposed to the strategy of regime change, he can be expected elicited the aide of Muslim depots. Donald Trump is not a threat to the established order. Rather, he brings a level of options to the table that a continuity candidate like Hillary cannot openly endorse in her race against Sanders but would be compelled to employ nevertheless if circumstance warrants them.
Karl, you claim Greenwald went astray at the end, yet ultimately you just echo Greenwald’s main points, making us all wonder what the problem was.
Not before you misquote “self-examination” as “self-inspection,” which happens immediately. And you claim that last bit of Greenwald matters while providing no reasons to think it matters.
And you write that Clinton-Trump “boils down to the devil you know vs the devil you know,” which is either some kind of brilliant koan or just a typo. I’m hoping for the former!!
Slow down, you move too fast. You got to make the morning last.
In this case “self-examination” and “self -inspection ” have identical meanings; but hey, thanks for the correction nevertheless. The “U.S. establishment guardians” understand exactly what they are doing (as conveyed with the term “coherent strategy”). No amount of “self examination” is going to bring conscience into the equation. These are self-interested political animals whose professed values are always up for sale to the highest bidder at any moment in time.
This was no mistake. Both Trump and Clinton will predictably do as they are told if for no other reason than vested self-interest. Both are driven by an insatiable lust for wealth an power.
I know that people like yourself need everything spelled out in black and white as logical inference and deduction are always a challenge. However, I have faith that the average reader has the intelligence to rightly infer that which was intended.
Thanks for clarifying, it’s an interesting take.
I disagree that Trump is a “devil we know” though, as a president, because he has never held elected office at any level….would be starting right at the top, too! Would be the first that distinction applied to since Eisenhower.
It’s so messed up, why even bother trying to make sense of it anymore?
“answering that question requires what U.S. establishment guardians most fear and hate: self-examination.”
Oh, answering that question requires a good deal more than mere self-examination, and therein lies the problem. Merely acknowledging the roots of Trumpism won’t do jack to stop him. Frankly, many of the ‘ordinary’ people I know who favor Trump are quite self-aware regarding the man’s moral and ethical failings, and the cruelty of his purported policies (such as they are). ‘Self-examination’ apologias from a few elites they used to revere won’t affect them at all now.
They don’t fucking care. They feel their lives are shifting inexorably downward, their savings are decreasing in value even if they spend nothing (courtesy of effective negative rates & extortionate fees) and they know they’re out on their asses when their first family member gets an inevitable cancer or aging-related chronic illness. Their younger relations are too in debt to help (and probably would do so only grudgingly; it is a major effort to care for the ill and the shattered).
What do they have to lose in voting for Il Drumpf- fey? Why would they even hear any pundit’s mea culpa?
The high-toned hysteria is amusing at least. Our erstwhile Lords Temporal do scuttle just like cockroaches when they’re frightened………. don’t they?
Agility and flexibility, Fluffy … the hallmarks of Trump University.
*the real irony is Trump would probably agree with much of what Glenn writes … and disregard the rest.
Perfect analysis. Bravo. Just because the Mean Girls have sharpened their claws against one of their own who dared call them out on some of their grievous offenses, it does not mean that they are any better. Bitter in-fighting among the vicious elite is all it is, playing out in that sparkling Capitol of capital. Disgusting all the way around.
But Trump calling these frauds and criminals out repeatedly at least gives us some twisted pleasure; their shock and hollow outrage in reaction to him tells us all we need to know.
I have read a good deal, about how America could became oppressive. Well here we are the cliff is very near, But like lemmings we all jump over the cliff, all too willingly. So long Liberty, so long freedom. I loved it while it lasted.
the picture of Clintons and trumps reminds me of what ventura said about how politicians are like pro wrestlers, they put on a show. the Koch’s want a republican for they’re pipeline. if I cant vote for Bernie, why bother?
Scalia’s suitable replacement seems like a good reason.
Another extraordinary substantive synthesis by Greenwald.
… unfortunately, all the well-meaning and well crafted arguments wont budge a lifetime of brainwashing.
… wasting your time Glenn – they just dont get it.
for example … God Bless America.
Tell us O Tell us, brave freethinking owen, how YOU alone escaped the brainwashing. However did you do it? Was it your superior intellect? Your dauntless courage? Which is on display in this brave comment. For it indeed takes great bravery to act like one is the only one in the Intercept comments section who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, yay verily.
Please hurry with your answer brave freethinking owen, Glenn needs to know, because he’s suspending his labors, he’s not going to put up another article after what you wrote, knowing he would merely be wasting his time, unless you can give him a reason to go on.
@Vic Perry –
Hello —- I know you try to ‘get it right.’ Now I can’t speak for owen of course, but I believe there IS indeed some truth in what he says. I think most of us agree that the msm has been propagandizing for ages. And if you follow what Glenn just wrote, this mindset didn’t just happen onvenight.
Also, I don’t know if anyone remembers but there was a study and a fine article about it that was in the Boston Globe. The central idea is that “facts backfire, ” so often trying to counter what is seen as ‘irrational’ with facts and evidence doesn’t often even work. I’d give a link, but the last time I tried to access the article it was behind a paywall and I could not.
So Vic, don’t be too hard on owen; he’s really shaking his head like many of us.
… sorry for the delay getting back Dearest Vic (the weekend starts earlier here and i have been otherwise occupied)
… thank you for the question – and yes, you do deserve an explanation.
i escaped the brainwashing because i dont live in the U$A
… which is a very convenient way to avoid being brainwashed by your Founding Fathers bullshit … your Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag every morning in school bullshit … your In God We Trust / God Save America bullshit … outside your When i grow up i’m going to use Thomas Jefferson as my online alias bullshit … your Star Spangled Bullshit … all of it missed me, because, i grew up outside – not only the U$A – but far enough away from all of North America to avoid the brainwashing.
… plus the fact that i have lived without television most of my life helps too.
i hope that adequately answers your most delightful question.
… enjoy your Sunday … i hope your Church Choir is in fine voice.
x
… Vic Perry, having had a few more minutes to consider, i think your question exemplifies with great precision the point of my argument.
that YOU had not even CONSIDERED that i might be from OUTSIDE the U$A is THE POINT
we (out here in that phantasy-land called the “Rest Of The World” ) describe this phenomena as “American Exceptionalism”
… and Dear Vic, the U$A has ONLY 4.4% of the global population.
… and unless you are part of the 1% with all the wealth (which is unlikely – because if you were you would already know of American Exceptionalism – and not give a shit about it) then being from The Land Of The Free (yawn!) is not going to help you when the multiNational corporations completely lift off from The Home Of The Brave (yawn!) and y’all become the people with a fracked-up land mass (formerly the food bowl), poisoned rivers and lakes (formerly your fresh water supply, and a couple million people coming off antiDepressants all armed to the back teeth with 4th Amendment Brand hollow-point ammunition locked and loaded in their automatic weapons.
… then – from across the ocean – we’ll see: The rockets’ red glare, The bombs bursting in air
… but it will all be OK, because … In God You Trust.
x
PS. i’m sure Glenn already knows all about it – so dont worry about hime being unable to go on without my reason
Where are you from Owen? I haven’t seen offer anything substantive of your own. The best that can be said about your self professed enlightened perspective is that you seem to thing it gives you the right to make sweeping judgements of every American and their God.
hi Karl.
i dont recall claiming to have a “self professed enlightened perspective” !
… and given that ‘self professed’ means ‘self professed’, i guess you must be suggesting my enlighten perspective is self professes – which i contest (maybe i could fashion a good haiku for you with that … sorry i cant match your much admired koan from the post above … i’m just not groovy, hip and Zen enough i guess)
… but thanks for suggesting i’m enlightened OR am i missing your barb.
… as for substantive offerings, i would have thought Trump leading in the Republican race (which is a huge part of what the item on which we are commenting is about – correct me if i’m wrong – sweet and wise Karl) would mean that i am being substantive (or do you have some alternative definition of substantive – not “having a firm basis in reality” – of which i am ignorant?).
… and as for your charge that i have no right to make sweeping judgements of every American and their God … well you see Karl, i base that on something another poster – coincidentally also called Karl – says in his post.
… “Both Trump and Clinton will predictably do as they are told if for no other reason than vested self-interest. Both are driven by an insatiable lust for wealth an power.”
.. now put the pieces together Karl … “Both Trump and Clinton … blah blah …an (sic) power” … and considering that these are the two candidates most likely to seek the seat of power at the next U$A Presidential Election … i suggest that by the argument presented by this other Karl’s post, that i can conclude that this represents the vast majority view (never all Karl – that’s never the case in any situation … which i stupidly asssssssumed you would know – my bad)
… must be too late on a Sunday here in The Antipodes (wow – you still doubt that i am outside the U$A … how wonderful).
for the record – have some awesome and agreeable friends amongst y’all there in God Bless America.
… and scarily, you might even find some posters who think i have a point worth considering (those traitors … how dare they !!!).
happy Sunday … peace and love Karl.
xx
Owen, I thought you were self-righteous, but I would never have accused you of being as pretentious as you have really shown yourself to be, once you had a chance to write a few paragraphs.
You act like propaganda, or nationalist delusion, is strictly an American phenomenon.
Would that it were so! The world would be a simpler, safer place if we were the only idiots.
While state torture is abhorrent and apparently ineffective, it pales in comparison to the U.S. state war crimes that have been perpetrated in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria in the last 15 years. The later category of crimes have killed over 1 million people, caused ancient civilizations to be obliterated and thrown into chaos, and drained the U.S. treasury of approximately $5 trillion dollars. Torture, like abortion and the death penalty, appears to have become a modern political wedge and symbolic issue, that establishment war mongers as diverse as John McCain and Barack Obama can agree about even as they launch immoral and illegal imperial wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and (if they had their way) Syria. This diverts the knee jerk establishment Huffington Post “liberal” sector of our society which likes to feign outrage over torture, Abu Ghraib, the prison at Guantanamo Bay while it tolerates the conquest of Iraq and Libya (and apparently elects a strong supporter of the former and main cheerleader of the later [Hillary]). The irony in this group’s claim that Donald Trump is the embodiment of their faux liberal dissent is that Trump opposed the Iraq war, openly states the obvious fact that Bush knowingly lied the U.S. into this war, and regards it as a catastrophic moral and economic waste of blood and treasure. Obama, on the other hand, supposedly a (private) critic of the Iraq war before he became U.S. Senator as President, later said – after saying that he “happened to oppose” the Iraq war – that Russia’s bloodless annexation of Crimea was much worse than U.S. actions in Iraq, “we did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.”
The point is that while The Donald may be stylistically absurd, his positions are far less dangerous to human life than Obama, widely regarded by the establishment as “liberal”.
Astute analysis!
Donald Trump has reportedly reversed his position on ordering the military to use torture against America’s enemies and to target family members of suspected terrorists, policies he has advocated while on the campaign trail.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/04/donald-trump-torture-position-statement-military-law
Glenn,
This a one of your best analytical essays. You have stimulated a terrific thread of commentary by many sound responders. You are spot on that Trump holds up a mirror to the political class of both major parties. They realize that he has unmasked them as hypocrites and they are furious that he should lay bare their posturing. In my lifetime of 80 plus years I haven’t seen a better time for an alternative to the tweedledee repubs and tweedledum dems to come center stage. Both parties have led this republic into dire times. I hope that the disaffected voters of both parties will recognize that a Green or other independent party is where their efforts and money should be devoted. Real hope and change is beckoning.
thx, Doug, for the blinders check. We obviously haven’t looked into things fully.
“……..Both parties have led this republic into dire times. I hope that the disaffected voters of both parties will recognize that a Green or other independent party is where their efforts and money should be devoted…..”
There certainly are a lot of rightfully upset people from both parties, but no one who hasn’t been on drugs for decades will vote for the green party
Then you may vote for the Greens?
Yea, maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned drugs. OK, based on decades of drug use, I probably will vote green
“…but no one who hasn’t been on drugs for decades will vote for the green party”
Sure, because civil liberties, human rights, a more peaceful foreign policy that doesn’t involve bombing half a dozen nations at once and the maintenance of 1000+ military bases on foreign soil, protecting the environment, and social welfare programs are so extreme that nobody else is doing it. (Checks European, Canadian, and almost every other industrialized country’s policies) Wait a minute…
Will the rethugs,illiberals and the MSM let that change occur?
Stay tuned!
Mr. Greenwald
This is another classic example of the Intercept’s selective concern for civilian (including children) deaths in warfare.
“…….Then there’s the feigned horror over Trump’s proposal to kill the family members of terrorists. Though they claim they don’t do it deliberately, the fact is that this is something both the U.S. and Israel, among others, have routinely done for years: They repeatedly bomb people’s homes or work places, killing innocent people including family members, and then justify it on the ground that a terrorist was among them……”
This is just more classic anti-war propaganda. It’s well recognized that civilians are going to die in a war zone. Even the Geneva Conventions recognizes that possibility. In fact, over 70% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are attributed to the Taliban (just 2% to NATO). Of course, it would be nice if no one died – but no one, not even you provide a solution on how that is possible other than cut and run, build a wall around your country and live in fear.
Drones have effectively thinned the ranks of top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In recently released papers found at Bin Laden’s hideout:
“……….Western security sources at the time spoke of “very creative espionage” directed at the organisation and how drone strikes had “hollowed out” the organisation.……..One associate, probably Atiyah abd al-Rahman……acknowledged troubles replacing an ineffective leader for external operations, saying some of the best candidates were dead……Al-Rahman was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan close to the Afghan frontier three months after the death of Bin Laden…….”
Drone warfare has been conducted in Pakistan to eliminate Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. The Pakistan Taliban brutally murdered 10 climbers of various nationalities in retribution for drone attacks. This is a good indication of the effectiveness of drone strikes in taking out Taliban leadership:
“……..Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan claimed responsibility for the attack, saying their Jundul Hafsa faction carried out the shooting as retaliation for the death of the Taliban’s deputy leader, Waliur Rehman, in a U.S. drone attack on May 29……..we wanted to give a message to the world to play their role in bringing an end to the drone attacks,”……”
You will remember that the TTB attempted to assassinate Malala at age 14, and also attacked a boys school in Pakistan murdering over 140 people most of them children although there was not a word from the Intercept “journalists” on that incident.
Considering how the over thirty journalists perpetually ignore the deaths of innocent civilians from Russian bombing in Syria; give the brutal TTB and Afghanistan Taliban a free pass on targeting children; and ignore Islamic terrorism in general, this seems far more driven by politics than human suffering. Human suffering appears to mean something to the Intercept when it is politically expedient. For example, dead Palestinian children are featured at the Intercept while dead Jewish children are ignored.
That Palestinian children die at an obscene rate compared to Jewish children might have something to do with it.
But then CS does not understand proportion.
He only knows exception.
“……[CS] He only knows exception…….” my insertion in brackets
“He” only knows whacked out far left wing propaganda.
How many children where slaughtered in Gaza 2014? ~500 or one per hour.
How many Israeli children died during the same time period? 0.
Israel uses the same disproportion used by the Germans in WWII.
Why? Because Israelis view Palestinians as less than human – much as the Germans viewed Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Romanians, etc.
3 weeks of slaughter in Gaza
“…….Israel uses the same disproportion used by the Germans in WWII……”
What do you mean by that? The Israelis are gassing the Palestinians, or cooking them in ovens? I know the Jews had it coming because they were always firing rockets into Berlin in the 1930s. Maybe they are poisoning the Palestinian wells, harvesting Palestinian organs or using Palestinian children’s blood in Passover rituals? By all means, fill me in on how the Israelis use the same disproportion as the Germans, nuf. I’m interested on your take.
Study up on reprisal killings by the Nazis in their occupied territory.
One German soldier killed meant at least 10 civilians were shot or hanged as a matter of course. The Romans did something similar with crucifixion.
Now, about 500 Palestinian children dead vs zero Israeli children dead … during a 3-week period of very recent history.
Perhaps each of the Oscar nominees will open their gift bag and use the 10-day, $55K trip to Israel, to ask about the slaughter in Gaza … What a great opportunity, to travel to the only democracy in the ME, and it is all courtesy of the people who run Hollywood. (Joe Biden can fill in the details)
Fuck off Craig, i rarely even glance at your pallid posts.
nuf BS
“…….Now, about 500 Palestinian children dead vs zero Israeli children dead…..”
You should try to test your memory a little by remembering that Operation Protective Edge ultimately resulted from the kidnapping and execution of three Israeli TEENS by two members of Hamas (and rocket fire from Hamas in Gaza):
“……..The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which increased after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank was launched following the 12 June kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members.[28][29][30]………” WIKIPEDIA
“……..A senior Hamas official boasted during a conference in Istanbul on Wednesday that the group’s military wing was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June…….” HAARETZ
“…….Hamas leader Khaled Mashal admitted for the first time in an interview with Yahoo News on Saturday that Hamas militants were behind the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers in the Hebron area in June, and claimed that the political leadership was “not aware of this action taken by this group of Hamas members in advance.”……” (YNET NEWS)
So your statement is completely false. In addition, rocket fire resulted in the death of one Israeli child and 11 Palestinian children in Gaza (Wikipedia dispelling more of your bullshit).
“……..Most Gazan mortar and rocket fire hit open land, more than 280 fell on areas in Gaza,[41] and 224 struck residential areas.[42][43] Militant rocketry also killed 13 Gazan civilians, 11 of them children.[44][45] ……”
The execution of the Israeli children led to mass arrest of Hamas operatives in the West Bank and a crackdown in Gaza by the IDF. This was followed by indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel. Hamas was simply responsible for the war that followed. They had planned years for the coming war after their humiliating defeat during Operation Cast Lead. They had spent a fortune building tunnels to enter Israel instead of providing any kind of shelter for their constituents (you know, the ones that elected Hamas to power). Their population was helpless in the face of IDF retaliation i,e., the sacrificial lambs for their international propaganda campaign.
“…….Fuck off Craig, i rarely even glance at your pallid posts……”
You are a whiney little pecker, aren’t you.
Thanks for your reply
To all new readers: Craig is engaged in his usual whataboutery. It’s his favorite fallacy among several. And he is miffed at “classic anti-war propaganda.” For Craig, anti-war messaging is a bad thing. He’s also an unapologetic defender of the soundness of torture.
Carry on.
“……To all new readers: Craig is engaged in his usual whataboutery. It’s his favorite fallacy among several……”
There is no whataboutery to it, Mona. The article by Greenwald addresses civilian casualties. I gave reasons why civilians are killed. I would say that my post was very pertinent to his article.
I just try to provide the “other side of the story” on issues that the Intercept refuses to cover or is clueless about. I consider my posts to represent the rest of the story for the radical leftists that only get their information from the Intercept. For example:
Greenwald could use some help identifying how many civilians Assad or the Russians have murdered in Syria. Some idiots still believe the US is at fault in Syria. He obviously knows (or cares) nothing about the hospitals that Russia bombs – but he is very well informed about internet censorship in Russia. On that he is an expert. I can help him locate Sri Lanka on a map – and help the intercept staff determine how many people died in that civil war. He could also use some help with the ongoing war in the Congo, the oil for blood program carried out by the Chinese in Darfur and the 100,000(+) Muslims murdered in Chechnya by Russia in the 90s.
I just try to help Glenn out wherever I can, Mona
Thanks Mona (and nice rebuttal again)
Greetings, CraigSummers – edited this for readability (as-if) and restored capitals to the big “C” “S” because the lazy-leftists demand it.
The formatting tool used?: TortureMongerTools, LLC
____________________________________________________________
Mr. Greenwald,
This is another classic example of the Intercept’s selective concern for civilian (including children) deaths in warfare.
This is just more classic anti-war propaganda. It’s well recognized that civilians are going to die in a war zone. Even the Geneva Conventions recognizes that possibility. In fact, over 70% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are attributed to the Taliban (just 2% to NATO). Of course, it would be nice if no one died – but no one, not even you provide a solution on how that is possible other than cut and run, build a wall around your country and live in fear.
Drones have effectively thinned the ranks of top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In recently released papers found at Bin Laden’s hideout:
Drone warfare has been conducted in Pakistan to eliminate Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. The Pakistan Taliban brutally murdered 10 climbers of various nationalities in retribution for drone attacks. This is a good indication of the effectiveness of drone strikes in taking out Taliban leadership:
You will remember that the TTB attempted to assassinate Malala at age 14, and also attacked a boys school in Pakistan murdering over 140 people most of them children although there was not a word from the Intercept “journalists” on that incident.
Considering how the over thirty journalists perpetually ignore the deaths of innocent civilians from Russian bombing in Syria; give the brutal TTB and Afghanistan Taliban a free pass on targeting children; and ignore Islamic terrorism in general, this seems far more driven by politics than human suffering. Human suffering appears to mean something to the Intercept when it is politically expedient. For example, dead Palestinian children are featured at the Intercept while dead Jewish children are ignored.
“Your perspective on life comes from the cage you were held captive in.”
– Shannon L. Alder
Are these the very same “Taliban leaders” that the Afghan officials are planning to meet with next week to begin “peace talks”? Sure is a good thing we’ve been droning them–along the way we’ve killed quite a few civilians who simply wanted to live their lives and not be bothered by anyone. We’re pretty special, aren’t we! https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afghan-official-date-expected-for-kabul-taliban-meeting/2016/02/23/76c40b3a-d9f0-11e5-8210-f0bd8de915f6_story.html
David Hart
“……Sure is a good thing we’ve been droning them–along the way we’ve killed quite a few civilians who simply wanted to live their lives and not be bothered by anyone…….”
You really need to get your background information in order. The Pakistan government has provided a safe haven inside Pakistan for the Afghanistan Taliban. That’s why the war came to those people who wanted “to live their lives and not be bothered by anyone”. Comprende?
The Pakistan government funds and supports the Taliban for geopolitical reasons. The Taliban are also responsible for 70% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. NATO is responsible for about 2%. Background reading is a must in that neck of the woods.
You are pretty special aren’t you?
Thanks.
Hi Sillyputty
I never realized how good that was until I read it for a second time (you are welcome for capitalizing your name).
It’s that new tool, TortureMongerTools, LLC – it makes even your comments somewhat visually palatable.
“Old dog, no new tricks?”
Those “war zones” should not have been war zones in the first place. No one today, not you, not President Obama, not anyone in the US military or state department can adequately explain what the hell we are even doing in Afghanistan, other than killing people and wasting money. What one thing have we accomplished in this “war zone”? People such as yourself are disgusting.
Well, how about minerals and poppies?
What are we doing there? We are trying the prevent the locals from deciding what goes on ion their country! Imperial hegemony is the descriptor!
“hollowed out”?
According to the US government-
-al Qaida had an estimated 10,000 members in 2001
-al Qaida has an estimated 50,000 members in 2016
Hollowed out my ass.
Thinning the ranks at the top?
Yeah.
Leaderless organizations always grow and flourish, right?
And, of course, that’s just al Qaida.
ISIS and all the other terror groups are just further proof the GWOT is the most counterproductive effort ever… unless creating terrorists is the goal… can’t spend trillions without an enemy after all.
But don’t tell your fellow neolibcon propagandists who want us all to believe our policies are working.
I see below you’re still denying the US orchestrated regime change effort is responsible for any of the carnage in Syria too… talk about idiocy!
Still planning on maintaining the “until the government admits it, it didn’t happen” denials until the documents are declassified in 30 years?
Maybe we should ask one of the people here that you’ve convinced about anything?
Oh yeah… there aren’t any.
Altohone
“……ISIS and all the other terror groups are just further proof the GWOT is the most counterproductive effort ever… unless creating terrorists is the goal… can’t spend trillions without an enemy after all……”
I didn’t write what the US government found at the home of Bin Laden. Nor did I threaten the continued killing of innocent civilians if the “ineffective” drone campaign continued. You need to address your argument to those folks. Don’t wait too long. Drones are continuing to terrorize the terrorists.
“……I see below you’re still denying the US orchestrated regime change effort is responsible for any of the carnage in Syria too… talk about idiocy!
Still planning on maintaining the “until the government admits it, it didn’t happen” denials until the documents are declassified in 30 years?…..”
Well, until the documents are declassified in 30 years, you are fucking wrong – unless you got something else?
“You will remember that the TTB attempted to assassinate Malala at age 14…”
Malala Yousafzai…wise beyond her years. Of course, Craig, if she had been injured in a drone attack instead of by the Taliban, we would never have heard of her…would we?
“……Of course, Craig, if she had been injured in a drone attack instead of by the Taliban, we would never have heard of her…would we?….”
No, but the Taliban attempted to murder her. Can you not see the difference? I’m not saying that killing her because she happens to be near a terrorist is a welcome result, but targeting and attempting to murder a child because of her viewpoint is a whole lot different – and the primary reason she is an international celebrity. The difference just seems so basic.
“…why a message grounded in contempt for the establishment resonates so strongly, why anxiety and anger levels are so high that the ground is so fertile for the angry strongman persona he represents. That’s because answering that question requires what U.S. establishment guardians most fear and hate: self-examination.”
!
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but could Trump be playing the GOP and Aiding HRC into the White House? If Trump goes after Bill her ratings go up . Trump is the vulgar one as she’s business as usual?
I’d hate to see what you would tell us if you were one for conspiracy theories.
No one wants to condemn torture, as the idea of torture, the seed of it, subtle and extreme, is subconsciously sprayed on us everyday. The elite’s actions, and their supposed devotion to a man on a cross, being, ah, tortured, is one that forever fucked with in our heads. The elite admit that the tools and methods of the war masters need nothing more than tweaking and throttling to be justified. They wave Christianity and left hook Sadism. It is obvious that the elites enforce through the fist while speak of the dove branch. There nothing we can do until we turn off by not voting, not watching, no participating in their carnival. The Empire, and it’s ego driven circus to maintain control, will eventually begin to eat’s own tail. Whether we are eaten alive with them or just fall further into their slavery is up to us. They torture us everyday, in all aspects of our lives, they feed and get off on it. We are numb to the extent of it, and oblivious to it’s abusive deterioration of anything we hold good and moral about ourselves as people.
Nonsense.
Totally and obviously out-of-context, btw…but nice try.
To be fair, Sulzer took the first phrase of the comment and ended with “…” so you can say it is unfair but not “out of context,” if “context” is to mean anything.
You see context where there is none. The second part of that sentence does not modify the meaning of the first part (but rather explains why) and so the first part stands alone. So if you think I am saying that those six words are nonsense, then your criticism is mistaken. On the other hand, perhaps the ellipsis implies that I am saying that the whole paragraph is nonsense.
The worst part is that we are all PAYING for their corruption, war crimes, fraud and abuse with our tax dollars!
It’s like they’re running a sanctioned criminal syndicate with nice suits and ties and a wink and a wave.
“Never give a sucker an even break”, eh?
Great the-emperor-has-no-clothes piece, although I think “cultural” is more accurately all-encompassing in this clause than “rhetorical”: “ … he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid … ” Trump is the ultimate personification of us – mainstream American culture – on the grandest stage in the world. Everything about him, from his narcissism, bullying and ethnonationalism to his greed, hucksterism and shallowness, exemplifies the rot of American society projected from a ginormous magnifying glass like never before. We made him. He is us, and we are him, and now it’s coming to fruition. Stock up and strap in.
I think it is very simple: when the GOP establishment pandered to the the crazies in order to increase support for its chosen candidates, eventually it attracted the candidates who can better gather up the crazies. We have about four such candidates this time, but one of them is just a lot better at it.
A systemic condescending superiority complex by establishment GOP Party Leaders and their spineless puppet candidates are killing the GOP Party and Mitt Romney personifies this disaster. These GOP mini dictators are now taking steps to muzzle and manipulate their own GOP voting members because they do not agree with their own GOP voting results. The GOP Party is also obsessed with destroying TRUMP because the GOP voting members prefer TRUMP. The GOP Party should not be campaigning in America. The GOP Party should move to CUBA where mini dictators and dictatorships belong. IDIOTS!
America is not a dictatorship, at least not yet anyway! Voters’ choices are Americas’ choices. Americans are lucky to live in a country where they can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom and it must be protected. When party leaders, of any party affiliation, lose their moral compass it’s time for all American voters to take a stand! Don’t let corrupt parties and politicians destroy America. Every American and every honorable candidate must say NO when corrupt campaign strategies are used to control voters and discredit innocent candidates. Corrupt campaign strategies and all who support these strategies are the real threat to ALL Americans and Americas’ hard fought for Freedoms.
Thank you, Donald Trump, and every honorable candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters choices and a path to a better America for ALL Americans!
Don’t panic; lighten up; if you can’t have fun with it, have a little faith; American voters know exactly what they are doing. Trust in American voters’ ability to make the right choice for ALL Americans.
TO DO LIST: Build another wall to keep Americans refugees out of Canada. Canada will pay for it.
Parody, right?
I think that is the intent, but perhaps it is really a parody of parody of a parody.
And what does Clinton have to say? Torture if necessary, just don’t call it “policy”:
Nothing you wouldn’t hear from the GOP… “America doesn’t torture….but we will use “enhanced techniques” if we feel the need to…everything we did was legal, because nobody was prosecuted”
And on prosecuting torturers, true to form, here again is Hillary Clinton coming out against legal accountability,
Just as they would under Trump, people “were doing what they were told to do” says Clinton, so why make a federal case out of torture???
(Astute readers might notice that Sanders misses a chance to differentiate himself more by not calling for prosecutions either.)
its not a policy but military leaders have that all encompassing INITIATIVE to do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission
they may not approve it but they “tolerate” it as long they can deny it. and when you get caught, you are on your own
I think Trump represents the voice of US’s inconvenient truths out in the open for all to see in their infamous glory. We all express outrage at these ways that the US fights it’s illegal wars. It, maybe, keeps us sane as we live in a nice comfortable town or city with the chance of being attacked almost nil. I have never liked the policies of our country but I have never been attacked and I didn’t have to go to the ‘Nam. So Americans need to listen to the hard facts that the US govt does to keep us “safe” and decide if your peace can be worth all the carnage inflicted on the rest of the planet. I would like to believe we could be more peaceful and use limited resources to solve the other crisis’s in an overcrowded world. Maybe these are just pipe dreams of a peace loving hippy but it’s something worth considering, well someday anyway.
Americans love torture. So Trump’s hearty embrace of it can only endear him to most Americans.
From Pew:
We endorse torture more than any other Western nation. More than South America, Europe, Australia, or any Asian country. The only country to be reported as greatly surpassing our love of torture is Uganda.
The nation right behind us is, of course, Israel. Israelis like torture, too.
Did you read the report or even understand it?
“Across the nations surveyed, a median of 40% believe their own governments would be justified in using torture against people suspected of terrorism in order to gain information about possible attacks.”
Do you understand what that sentence means? Do you understand what “framing” means in statistics? You always have to look at how a question was framed when evaluating the answers. You also omitted a very important part in the sentence:
“Compared with other nations, Americans are generally more supportive of using torture IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION…”
“The nation right behind us is, of course, Israel. Israelis like torture, too.”
The question was not whether these people LIKE torture. The question was whether the interrogations techniques used by the US were justified. That is a huge difference. These are the top countries that believe they were justified:
Uganda (68%), Tanzania (58%), US (58%), India (57%), Kenya (57%), Israel (56%)
The research was never about who likes or does not like torture. The question was: would they accept torture in a specific situation. You really did not understand the research (because you are an idiot) or you just attempted to distort it?
None of that makes any difference at all in regards to whether or not Americans not only condone, but encourage torture. Torture is torture. There are no excuses, there are no “Ifs or Ands or Buts about it” which make it acceptable, excusable or not worthy of condemnation and prosecution. Your “rebuttal” or instruction to Mona powerfully brings home the point that Mona made in her comment and her take on the polling.
Big Dummy! This is not a rebuttal. The research had nothing to do with whether or not people in different countries LIKE torture. It was whether people would accept it in certain circumstances. The research does not provide any information to conclude that
“people like torture”.
Oh…so torture is OK for you if the situation is…special?
So…American Exceptionalist of you.
Mommy! EVERYBODY does it…
No answers or analysis would resolve your lack of understanding. You need a brain transplant to repair your stupidity. Sorry I am not a surgeon.
The current election is a testament to the influence of Mr. Greenwald. He has long admonished Americans for hypocrisy and criticized the gulf between their self image as a shining city on a hill and the gritty reality of running a global empire.
The United States seems to have taken this to heart, and is rejecting any leader who wears a false mask of sophistication or poses as a person of principle. Mr. Trump has honestly declared his willingness to kill innocents, discriminate against whole sectors of society, and even entire religions. No one doubts that he is speaking the truth.
As Mr. Greenwald points out in this essay, Mr. Trump is not proposing to change anything of substance – other than eliminating popular euphemisms. Enhanced interrogation will be rebranded as torture. Extraordinary rendition will be rebranded as kidnapping. Humanitarian intervention will be rebranded as pillaging and plundering.
This is a momentous election, as a number of popular euphemisms hang in the balance.
I usually think you are quite clever and disciplined, but
when you say, “No one doubts that he is speaking the truth,”
I have doubts about your mental state Madame!
Maybe some Chianti will get you back on track.
Hypocrisy is useful only so long as the majority of people can be fooled. The main problem of this generation is the enormous quantity of information available on the internet. This makes it much harder to project false virtue.
At some point, it becomes more beneficial to tell the truth – because however ugly, people recognize it as the truth.
Believe me, I’m as eager as anyone to stanch the flow of information. However, I fear it will be difficult to find our way back to the Garden of Eden.
But, but, but… I thought this train was going to land in the garden
after we went over the cliff…… Isn’t that why we are
rushing ahead faster and faster?
And here I thought you were devoutly religious!
No doubt with their arms reaching for the ground …
Wow… talk about guilty by association. Was this article a Trump expose or a hit piece for Bernie Sanders on the Clinton’s?” Hillary is not being pulled to the right because she’s an arch conservative…she’s being pulled to the right because the American people are greedy; they want lower taxes and all the services including a global military that government can offer. AM radio has sold them a bill of goods for 15 years now, and all those White Males in their 40’s on up are angry they were promised the American Dream and find themselves poor and working for 15 bucks an hour with no hope of being millionaires. Am I surprised the Clinton’s knew Trump or Giuliani? I’d be more horrified if they didn’t because living in New York and hanging with the rich and famous does not make you an awful person, it makes you a networker, an insider and and to get things done you have to at least know who your enemies are and keep them closer than your friends.
Hillary is not being pulled to the right. She started out way off on the right and has been pulling from there for decades. She seems to have pulled a lot of Ochsian “Liberals” through the cascading belts of apologia, into her netherworldly orbit. Trump, Giuliani, and Bloomberg are in no way Hillary’s enemies. They have exactly the same goals and extremely similar methods of achieving those goals, all of which involve stomping on as many necks as possible.
The photo in the header is Fascist Group Portrait, Minus the Lady.
what a bunch of mealymouthed drivel, Tim.
Yeah the Clintons are so brave, keeping their “enemies” in New York close…..and their mutual money sources closer, right?
No…not guilt by association…guilt by actions and words…or inaction and silence.
Suggest you look up a definition of guilt by association.
Here’s Glenn on the torture report back in 2014
Exactly!!
Brilliant piece. Trump’s popularity isn’t an aberration; it is the direct and consequent effect of the Republican political/cultural agenda of the last thirty six years.
When pundits talk about inchoate anger directed towards the establishment (as embodied by Trump), they ignore the prevailing theme of Reagan onward Republicans. Government is the problem. Welfare queens are the problem. The 47% takers are the problem. The impoverished are the problem. Soft-hearted liberals are the problem. Weakness is the problem.
Only the strong can lead. Reagan faced down the Soviets but Clinton couldn’t stop Osama bin Laden; when, with Moussaoui in custody, the FBI didn’t uncover the 911 plot it was because they paid too much attention to legal niceties and refused to act as macho interrogators. The invasion, torture, militarism, of the Bush era — those wearing “big boy pants” as unrepentant (and unprosecuted) torturer Jose A. Rodriguez alluded — always seemed to depend upon this machismo culture of the gutty warrior — the Jack Bauer — who acted virtuously despite the feckless pusillanimity of bureaucrats and liberals.
Trump appeals to this strongman dynamic. He has only one political task — the only thing he must portray — in the face of opposition and condemnation. He must defy. The more squeamish his opponents, the more success for him. Bush is low energy, Sanders weak for allowing BLM protesters to interrupt, Rubio a little man, Obama a socialist immigrant, Romney a failed candidate, the Pope unchristian, women either sex objects (including his daughter) or hormonal nags, all others becoming cardboard cutouts for ridicule or selective praise as he decides in his grand morality play of strength über alles.
Trump is the quintessential political fabrication — the Republican’s Frankenstein monster — constructed after decades of political bullying and intentional subversion.
TRVTH.
Best part: Ari fucking Fleischer. I was roaring.
What’s the difference between Ari Fleisher and Robert Gibbs? Looks like about 25 pounds.
Large turd and larger turd.
This is fun, a Romney memo from “a brain trust of conservative lawyers, most of whom are veterans of the George W. Bush administration”:
Yes, Romney’s “We’ll use enhanced interrogation techniques which go beyond those that are in the military handbook right now”
…is so much less of a scandal than Trump’s “They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger”
@ JLocke
And just to be precise, there is a lot of dispute internationally about whether or not some of the practices still permitted in the Army Field Manual should be considered “torture” under international law as well.
My go to theory is this: if the things in the Army Field Manual were done to your teenage daughter or son, would you consider them “torture”. If so they are “torture”. I think there is little dispute internationally that some do. They are most certainly inhumane and degrading and run afoul of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Here is the gist of what is “torture” under international law:
If the methods employed in the Army Field Manual weren’t calculated to cause “severe mental or physical pain” I doubt they would have any “coercive” force and wouldn’t be used as an interrogation tool. That’s kind of the entire point–as ugly and immoral as that point may be.
In any event, there are many who hold to the idea that the best “interrogation” methods are ones that are patient and don’t involve infliction of coercive levels of pain or stress–whether mental or physical.
Simply put, you deprive someone of sleep for 5 days or more they can lead to psychosis. Prolonged sleep deprivation can have all sorts of deleterious cognitive effects as well as physical effects and you do it long enough it is “torture” in ever sense of the word–physically, morally and legally.
The idiot has spoken.
“My go to theory is this: if the things in the Army Field Manual were done to your teenage daughter or son, would you consider them “torture”. If so they are “torture”. I think there is little dispute internationally that some do..”
Hey idiot, read the old Army Field Manual and read the new one. They are both available online. See what they state about sleep deprivation.
Yawwwwwwn. I have. Man you are dumb. And I agree with those organizations below.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/25/obama-administration-military-torture-army-field-manual
Here’s a little bet for you coward: let me interrogate you for 15 days employing only the Army Field Manual techniques. We’ll tape it, with properly signed legal releases from your attorney, and we’ll share the cost of an on-call paramedic, and if at the end of the 30 days you don’t state that I “tortured” you, I’ll pay you $5,000.00.
You know where to find me.
Make it $50,000, You pay the full cost of the paramedic. If you agree we can start next week. Not a joke. If you are really serious I will send you my email, post address so you can send me the contract.
$50K?
We could start a GofundMe . . .
I’ll chip in $500 and bring the video equipment.
I cannot wait to start!
Why $50,000K? And why should I pay the full cost of the paramedic?
If you think you know so much about the Army Field Manual and are so confident it isn’t “torture” you should be willing to put your puny mouth is, right next to your puny weekly salary, right next to your puny pseudonym just to prove me wrong. I can’t imagine you take home more than $10K a month so $5K should be more than enough incentive for you to burn two weeks of paid vacation. And let’s make sure it’s public and see if OPB will tape and air it at some point. I’d like America to see on tape exactly what the Army Field Manual interrogations practices include.
And usually in the past (not that I’ve ever had a single solitary taker), and to avoid dumb dumbs like you wasting my time, I make sure that they agree to donate the money to the charity of their choice, as a function of the legal contracts we’ll have to sign. That way if you feel that you have been tortured, but aren’t willing to honestly say it on tape, that you don’t stand to make money personally to prove you are right and I am wrong.
Oh yeah, and if at any point you ask for any one of the Army Field Manual interrogation types to stop, and I mean literally if you utter the words “stop”, cry or beg, the game is up and you lose. Because if it isn’t inhumane, degrading, coercive or torture, then you should have no reason whatsoever to ask for it to stop, cry or beg.
The deal is the deal. You know where to find me. I have lots of free time this summer. You can contact me directly any time you’ve got a lawyer willing to review and sign off on whatever I draft up as releases.
I only read one sentence in your comment. I automatically assume the rest is boring. $5,000 is nothing but a first class ticket. 50,000 US dollars and you pay the cost for paramedics. If you are too broke to provide that deal, then move on. My advice: bet with people at your financial level. Stay away from the big boys.
@rr: “And just to be precise, there is a lot of dispute internationally about whether or not some of the practices still permitted in the Army Field Manual should be considered ‘torture’ under international law as well.”
Do you have any cites? I’ve been reading FM 34-52 and I’d be interested to now which specific practices are being challenged.
@ Doug Salzmann
Just go to my link above and clink on the internal links to all of the organizations cited and they go to their policy papers that state the methods they still have a problem with and why.
Gets it just right, as per usual, and to piggyback on the Goldilocks ref.
If Frankentrump is willing to say this stuff right out loud, imagine what horrible shit he would consider “black” ops.
I’m actually starting to conflate house of cards episodes with this election. SMH
Then you’re going insane…
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” Says lauded establishment figure.
Fantastic article. The whole “they won’t follow illegal orders” headline just left me speechless, but the “expansive use of torture” is a phrase that none of these signatories should ever be allowed to walk away from.
too true:
…Rosa Brooks forgot to include the America’s judiciary in with those that can’t be bothered. And I don’t expect Obama to have any incentive to fill the empty supreme court seat with someone who wants to bother.
Excellent article. Every candidate running on both sides are frauds. Trump is the least fraudulent, although he is still a fraud. The reason he is able to insult his GOP opponents on stage, and elsewhere, is because Marco, Ted, et al., try to cultivate a semblance of respectability, civility,etc. But, they are all lying, so why go along with it. Sometimes the best way to deal with a bullsh*ter is to insult him. He’ll do the same to his Democratic opponent if the election process makes it that far. I fear that the United States will not learn the lesson of ancient Athens? When a society replaces a standard of truth for mere semblance, then that society is on the pathway to doom.
The last time Americans were surveyed about torture, I believe half or so said it’s justified often or sometimes. I wonder if Trump has changed this and in which direction. It’s plausible the association of torture advocacy with someone as loathsome as Trump might make torture taboo again, or one could only hope.
I could say basically the same thing about deliberately targeting civilians. North Americans are much more prone to justify it than virtually any other population in the world, according to a Gallup poll from about 5 years ago.
I am outraged.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is not moral outrage that increases people’s reputation, but consistency between stated moral positions and actions. In other words, honesty and consistency increases people’s reputations.
Unfortunately, this observation doesn’t require a paper published in Nature that costs $32 to read, or an article in the NYT–which are the things typically used to boost peoples reputations absent consistency between stated moral positions and actions.
If there is a need to tie morality into evolution, then let me explain why morality is sexy as hell–and you really don’t need $32 to understand the relationship between sexy and evolution.
Morality is super sexy because there is no objective moral truth. Morality is created and propagated by individual humans. There is no greater creative act than the creation of morality, and no greater act of power than the propagation of morality.
Morality is bondage that is willful accepted, not out of weakness, but strength. No nets. No safe words. No games. Morality is not play acting. It is as real as real gets. Morality is the forgiveness that invented forgiveness and yet never forgives.
Morality is power and will and arrogance and frailty and contradiction and the death of all gods.
The death of all gods is the distinction between a preacher and a creator of morality. A preacher just repeats what they are told, hoping that others will repeat what they are told. A creator of morality is an artist that knows a specific morality cannot be imposed or taught.
Most moralizing is really just preaching used to control other people. Morality not as art and enlightenment, but as commandment.
The greatest moral act is to encourage the creation of individual morality. An art that creates artists. A morality that is pregnant with its own destruction.
Morality is art made flesh.
I have noticed one thing, whereas “liberal” is a term that has long been abandoned by people in the US who are concerned with the welfare of their fellow humans, in favour of “progressive”. Now Clinton threatens to put an end to that label as well. Where will people who are interested in health, education, equality, social mobility go?, now that Clinton is the picture of a “progressive”?
And all of that pales in comparison the $139M in total that both Bill and HRC combined to pull in from 2007-2014.
She’s a corporate hack and what makes it even worse (how is that even possible) is she has Kissinger on her Foreign Policy team. Sick.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b48dbe64654146298c3cc6a87d86acb3/clintons-paid-357-percent-federal-tax-rate-between-2007-14
Yay Glenn! Keep calling them out. But don’t forget Clinton’s “humanitarian intervention” sham and her advocacy of new cold war, replete with nuclear arms build-up and militarizing Russia’s borders in Europe and Asia. Robert Kagan and the other neocons are being welcomed into the Clinton camp because they find Trump’s policies on Russia and wars of choice too milquetoast!! We have a choice between a racist fascist torturer and someone insanely upping the risks of confrontation with the second greatest nuclear power and who seems likely to launch one “humanitarian” war after another. War can’t be humane. Rwanda and Congo are arguably exceptions. But didn’t the Clintons stand by as 100,000s were slaughtered in Rwanda because intervention was “too risky”? Where were Hillary’s calls for intervention in the Congo where more than five million have died? Evidently “humanitarian” in Clintonese means intervening in regions with lots of oil.
“The notion that the U.S. intelligence and military community will collectively rise up in defiance of the Commander-in-Chief if they are ordered to obey polices that are illegal is just laughable.”
An anti American would think it is just “laughable” but a supporter of human rights would find it noble that the US military refused to shoot on Iraqi looters as requested by the Bush administration in 2003. History is loaded with examples of armed forced refusing illegal orders. As a propagandist you would probably blame the Syrian civil war on the US without even mentioning high ranking Syrian officers who refused to shoot on civilians as requested by Assad and decided to fight Assad instead.
It is really weird that those who describe the US as a terrorist state whose governments and people lack basic moral values still hold their US citizenship tightly and finance the same government they continuously blame for illegal policies.
Do you have a citation? That’s a rare find, BTW. Congratulations.
“Do you have a citation? That’s a rare find, BTW. Congratulations.”
“There just is not sufficient justification to shoot somebody because they’re carrying a computer out of the old Ministry of Education building.”
US Army Col HR Master.
http://www.businessinsider.com/l-paul-bremer-was-embarrassed-on-first-and-last-days-in-iraq-2014-8?IR=T
“There just is not sufficient justification to shoot somebody because they’re carrying a computer out of the old Ministry of Education building.” US Army Col McMaster
http://www.businessinsider.com/l-paul-bremer-was-embarrassed-on-first-and-last-days-in-iraq-2014-8?IR=T
Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr…deeply religious southern boy, pointed the guns of his helicopter at fellow US troops to stop the My Lai massacre. He was vilified. Colin Powell, who helped whitewash My Lai, became a general.
Chelsea Manning got 30+ years for revealing American atrocities in the Collateral Murder video from a ticket-punching bimbo. The perps still walk free.
Now go cheer for Trump or Hillary…same thing in this regard.
“Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr…He was vilified”
After being vilified he received the United States Army highest award for bravery without direct combat.
Colin Powell who was not responsible for the My Lai investigation stated himself many times that the US military including his unit was responsible for war crimes in Vietnam.
Many US military personnel have revealed war crimes ( including murder) in Iraq and Afghanistan and are free. Some soldiers got punished for revealing war crimes too late. Manning is not in jail for revealing war crimes. He is in jail because he is stupid. Feel free to join her.
Criminals do get away with crimes. So find better examples to make your point that is if you have a point.
Hugh Thompson was viciously vilified and ostracized for his testimony against the soldier murderers. The U.S. military despised him, as did many civilians. He suffered terribly from a stress disorder and had a very hard life.
That medal came 30 years later. He told 60 Minutes one shouldn’t do the right thing expecting a reward, because it doesn’t necessarily come.
Thompson is a hero. You should be ashamed for diminishing and dismissing his unjust suffering.
Nete: “Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr…He was vilified”
Me: After being vilified he received the United States Army highest award for bravery without direct combat.
That is 100% true!!!
Mona: “You should be ashamed for diminishing and dismissing his unjust suffering.”
How did I diminish his unjust suffering?
Was he vilified? Yes and I acknowledged it.
Was he honored for his heroic gesture? Yes and I acknowledged it.
What is wrong with you? You are really an idiot.
Greenwald is the one who should be ashamed when describing as “laughable” soldiers defiance to follow illegal orders.
Yes it is!!! (Gee, do you think lotsa exclamation marks make a point more true?!?!!!!????) As it’s also true that it was 30 years later, after a deeply hostile military establishment that accepted and covered up war crimes had made his life hell. You know, the same military Greenwald knows often follows orders to commit war crimes.
That examples of U.S. soldiers refusing to commit particular war crimes exist does not detract, even sort of, from the war crimes and violations of human rights that the U.S. military and CIA have been more than happy to commit. Moreover, actual international human rights organizations don’t give brownie points to the U.S. for the times it did not commit war crimes.
By the way, what does it mean to say someone is “anti-American?” Is that different in moral substance from “anti-German” or “anti-Lithuanian?”
The idiot has spoken!
The example is not to exonerate the US for the war crimes it has committed. This is an example that contradicts Greenwald’s statement.
“By the way, what does it mean to say someone is “anti-American?” Is that different in moral substance from “anti-German” or “anti-Lithuanian?”
Very easy question Paul Hollander answered years ago. Anti American is the impulsive criticism of the US economic, social, political and cultural values. Example Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald or you. I concede Greenwald and Chomsky might just pretend to be anti American so they can make a fortune by being provocative.
As opposed to Greenwald, or Chomsky a patriot is Hugh Thompson and many others in the US military who saw war crimes committed by their fellow citizens and decide to stop them and testify against those citizens because they know it will improve their own military and their country. I am a patriot and I think it is wrong to provide so much military support to Israel without demanding that it abides by international laws. Anti American like you or Greenwald would state the US military is “happy” to commit war crimes, or suggesting the US is bombing countries just because they are predominantly Muslims or Americans “like torture” ( which was not even the point of the Pew research)
If you start blaming Merkel or the Germans for the millions do deaths the Nazis caused years ago, then yes you are on path of being Anti German.
First you wrote this:
I then pointed out that the international human rights community doesn’t give credit for not committing war crimes when documenting the war crimes the U.S. commits. Thus, your invocation of what you imagine “human rights supporters” should note (unless they are this thing called “anti-American”) as “noble” is inane. Amnesty doesn’t wax all impressed when people refrain from murder — they’re supposed to do that.
So then you claim:The example is not to exonerate the US for the war crimes it has committed. This is an example that contradicts Greenwald’s statement.
Aside from the fact that that was not the point of your original sentence, it’s wrong. One instance of failing to follow illegal orders doesn’t erase the many times illegal orders have been followed.
There’s nothing “impulsive” about anything I write about my country. And I’m reasonably sure the same is true of Glenn and Chomsky. That’s a silly definition of something I suspected was a silly objection on your part. I was right.
Note to new readers: This peevish troll,
“Truth&Freedom,” promiscuously spews juvenile insults and calls people names. I very seldom reply to any of that. My replies to it are for the [purpose of others, not for it’s own enlightenment.
And that is bad because…?
If I were to criticize Russian economic, social, political and cultural values, would I be engaging in a transgression against political correctness? Why should US economic, social, political and cultural values be above criticism? To even suggest it sounds grotesquely arrogant.
Me, in the article:
Him: Hey, I found a few examples of military members over the years refusing orders, that disproves what he said, right?????
It’s the internet. What are you going to do?
@ Glenn
Notwithstanding you will likely be accused by your usual detractors as engaging in armchair psychology, I think this is one of my favorite meta pieces you’ve written in a long time. It is 100% spot on about America’s elites AND the American public. This nation really is in decline in many many ways.
And if there was ever a more obvious, but still quite insightful sentence you’ve ever written, I don’t recall what it was:
America’s at an inflection point. People will understand that America’s decline isn’t partisan, it is bipartisan at the political level. The real fight is to get the majority of US citizens to see the important fights are up vs. down, not left vs. right. Only then can they maybe mobilize/organize to change the direction of this nation. To reform it rather then revolutionize it. But I don’t think there is much dispute that America needs to undergo some real fundamental changes (politically, economically, socially) or our decline will continue if not accelerate.
Hillary Clinton, like Pres. Obama before here, are placeholders in the sense they are trying to perpetuate the status quo, but with a “kinder, gentler” face. But as has been discussed for many years under your columns, what their real function is, is to “normalize” a declining quality of life, to “normalize” all the horrific shit we do as a function of our “foreign policy” (i.e. attempts at perpetuating our nation’s military and economic hegemony, which will necessarily slip away as history has indicated is always the case for societies that play at empire), to “normalize” global neoliberalism . . . .
“This nation really is in decline in many many ways.”
The idiot, as usual blindly repeats what Greenwald states. Greenwald who is making a fortune thanks to the US he cannot stop bashing must be right if he says the US is in decline. How is the US is in decline? Did the economy get worst? about life expectancy? About innovation? Do we have to vote for Trump? do we have to vote Clinton or Sanders?
Yawwwwwwwn. Flouncy flouncy time over with your French and IDF pals and have nothing better to do that illiterately stalk me.
To be precise since you don’t appear to be a native English speaker. Stated properly: Did the economy get worse?
Thankfully you don’t get to vote for anybody in an American election if you aren’t American. We’ve got plenty of morons in this country who exercise their right to vote. We don’t need people like you making our situation worse (see how that works, difference between worse and worst) with your flouncy flouncy Frenchified opinions on things.
I thought you were a lawyer. Are you a grammar teacher now? Sorry to disappoint you, but I do vote in US elections. And if I thought the US was a terrorist state, then I would run away from that country and stop financing its government. I would not be an idiot like you who spends his days whining and complaining about the crimes he accused the nation he depends on of committing.
Since you seem to have an impeccable understanding of the English language, maybe you can describe the word “economy” and present your clear scientific reasoning, backed with data that supports your point that the US is in decline economically. You can present those data to the world so you can be famous.
I love when you get upset and start brandishing your license or your knowledge of this or that. You have no idea how stupid you are! Lol If it bothers you that others reply to your comments, then I guess you have to ask Greenwald to ban me because poor rr is not man enough to face an unknown individual online.
Nothing you write bothers me in any way. Particularly someone who employs exclamation points and types “lol”. You are nothing more than a pseudonym in cyberspace to me. Your opinions and thoughts have absolutely zero effect on me in the real world. I come here for fun and amusement and to blow off a little steam.
I actually think it is kind of cute in a weird sort of way that you think anyone here gives a flying crap about what some barely literate tool like you thinks about anything, and that you seem to like to stalk me. This may come as a surprise, but I’ve been commenting under Glenn’s work for a very long time and been stalked by way more creative people than you. It has never amounted to anything.
More importantly, I’ll pass on wasting my time proving anything to you, other than that which I want to prove to you. This may come as a surprise to you, again, but the only value I place on your opinions is as a platform for me to mock you for my amusement. Nothing more.
When I intend to prove something with data I do, but not for your benefit. And as far as America’s “economy” being in decline, I don’t mean that necessarily in the sense of national GDP which may be continuing to decrease albeit at a slower rate than it has in the past.
By economy, I mean as a function of per capita GDP of its citizens–mean not average–which of course has fluctuated over time. And as a function of its buying power and/or inflation.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita
I’ve never asked Glenn to ban anyone. And I’m certainly “man enough” to face a nitwit like you anywhere at any time under any circumstances. All you’ve got to do is come out from behind your pseudonym, you know, and “act like a man” with all the consequences that might entail instead of hiding behind your little pseudonym (something I don’t do obviously–rrheard being an abbreviation of my legal name–Ronald R. Heard).
Any time you’d like to discuss, face to face, any topic of your choosing I’m happy to do it. I’m really easy to find in the real world. My guess, like most, is you’d take a very different tone with me in person. I don’t hide the reality of who I am on the internet. Only cowards, and people who have legitimate reasons to be concerned about employers retaliating against them in their places of work based on their opinions and statements on the internet, use pseudonyms (well and fiction writers). I am under no such constraints which is exactly how I like to live my life–unlike you apparently. I’m guessing that makes me more of “a man” than you, but hey you are entitled to your opinion in that regard and your reasons for hiding behind a pseudonym. My experience is that most people do it so they won’t be held accountable for the smack they talk to other human beings. Smack they would never ever ever have the courage to say to their faces. I on the other hand choose not to live my life that way, that’s why I post under my real name. And I don’t care about what anyone thinks about me except my family, friends and colleagues (and the latter to a much lesser degree).
Any time you want to “man up” I’m easy to find. Just knock on the front door, I’m usually home. My dog might try to lick you or pee on you (he’s a pretty good judge of character actually and intuitively knows which is appropriate), but if you can survive that, I’m sure we could have an interesting conversation.
“Any time you want to “man up” I’m easy to find. Just knock on the front door, I’m usually home. My dog might try to lick you or pee on you (he’s a pretty good judge of character actually and intuitively knows which is appropriate), but if you can survive that, I’m sure we could have an interesting conversation.”
I keep making similar invitations, as I, also, am easy to find. None of these nasty yo-yos has shown up at the door, yet — which goes a long way, IMHO, toward validating your analysis.
@ Doug Salzmann
Yeah, it’s boring. Tough talk behind a pseudonym. If there is anything more transparently cowardly in the world I don’t know what it is (except for the one legitimate reason I stated–which also includes whistleblowers).
It was one of the first things that attracted me to Glenn’s work. He is whip smart, and didn’t feel like he should sugarcoat or soft peddle his opinions just to appease some sort of “civility” or “decorum” standards within the political, legal or journalism world. I’ve always respected him for that, even when we disagree, and I’ve told him as much.
I’m sure he’s paid a price in opportunities in life. But it’s the mark of ethical courage, in my opinion, to be able to stand for what you believe openly even if that means it limits your economic opportunities in life.
It’s funny in a way actually. If you met Glenn in person he is very polite, open and unassuming. He doesn’t appear to have an arrogant bone in his body. For those around here who have met me in real life, and there are quite a few–I’m outgoing, very sociable, all I want is to have fun and I am totally non-confrontational unless pushed. I have a very thick skin and am willing to take a lot of verbal abuse in the real world without reacting.
I can tolerate almost any type of human disagreement and in real life I’m almost always a peacemaker because it’s my nature to want to help people solve problems without fighting. I’m basically a pacifist. But not the Gandhi type. I absolutely believe in my right to defend myself against any interpersonal violence, and if you come at me rhetorically with disrespect or denigration, I’m going to take it until you hit my redline and then you will get it back in spades. I do not scare easy nor do suffer fools or dickheads. I’ve got plenty of scars and a couple of missing teeth to prove it. I’ll take a physical beating before I’d alter who I am and what I stand for, and have. I’m loyal to a fucking fault to family and friends even when we fight about stuff. That’s the way I was raised. You never sell out your family and friends even when they are pissing you off. And when you’re done fighting you forgive and get on with being family and friends. But nobody fucks with my family or friends and gets away with it if I have anything to do with it.
I’m getting a little older and don’t like to scrap much any more, but I am who I am and I will not tolerate people putting there hands on me or disrespecting people I love and care about. I’d take 10x the personal abuse that I’d let be delivered to another before I’d step in.
The internet is just sport, amusement and a place to vent to me. I never take it too seriously.
“their” not “there”
Oh yeah, and not only is Glenn very nice in person, he’s also much shorter than he appears on TV. : )
Just fucking with you Glenn.
Wow such a long (boring) reply for somebody who considers my comments as “amusement”.
I love your comments. They represent idiocy. The best part is when you get mad and you start shaking and talking about your whole life as if somebody here gives a damn about it. I am so scared now, Ronald Heard is going to beat my ass. LOL LOL LOL.
Again, since you have an impeccable understanding of the English language you must know that the word economy is not just about GDP per capita and inflation. It is also about employment, innovation, trading, movement of capital…. So whenever you state the US economy is in decline you better bring solid data to back up your claim. If you do not, then be ready to be called an idiot. Your long and boring rant prove my point.
It is hilarious how you keep demanding data from people who can out-argue you with .001% of their brain cells, while at the same time boring us all with dumb ad hominems and dreary, false conventional thinking.
You can start with losing our AAA bonding. After that you can look at the 19T in debt. Decaying moral standards.
Libs are running on the platform that the country has steadily grown more economically polarized, with the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Conservatives are supporting Trump. This is enough evidence even for a french man.
Then I call you an idiot. Why?
1) Losing the AAA bonding did not affect investors perception
2) Debt. Let’s say you have $2M in debts, but your house is worth $1.5M and your investments are worth another $1M. Are your debts really a sign of your economic decline?
3) Decaying moral standards? Such as minorities can vote now, run for office, get to the streets and demand respect for their rights? Respect for gay marriage…What exactly do you mean?
I wish I could convince my well-meaning relatives who will vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee (but are voting for Sanders in the primaries/caucuses) of what you’ve written here. I cannot and will not vote for Clinton ever, for anything and that’s always been the case since she became politically active.
Agreed, rr. This piece is so well aimed. Marvelous writing.
What Trump has been doing – farting in the halls of Republican power – has been a winning strategy for him, but it has infuriated the rest of the Washington political and media establishment, who operate on the basis of smokescreens, false narratives, and basic propaganda – not on the basis of shock-tactics.
For example, by pointing out that Bush failed to heed or act on multiple warnings of terrorist hijackings in the months leading up to 9/11, Trump enraged the entire neocon establishment; when Trump said that Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, he not only pissed off the neocons but also infuriated the New York Times (who printed all the lies about WMDs with no real vetting or investigation, to Cheney’s delight) as well as those ‘liberal Democrats’ who went along with the illegal and ultimately disastrous war.
This of course has led to a backlash, such as the NYTimes threatening to make public Trump’s “real views” about illegal immigration.
However, those ‘real views’ are shared by all the top financial backers, such as the Koch Brothers and their sock puppet, Ted Cruz: illegal immigration is great, because it provides a source of cheap labor that can be used to drive domestic wages down in the US labor markets – and these views are obviously shared by the leading financial backers of Clinton, Cruz and Rubio. That’s the corporate agenda behind NAFTA and TPP as well – ship the manufacturing jobs overseas to cut-rate labor zones, close domestic factories, break unions, and create a large pool of unemployed people who will work for less; concentrate all the wealth in a few hands; legalize massive bribery in political campaigns, control all media outlets under the umbrella of a handful of corporate conglomerates – again, it looks a lot like the system under Leonid Brezhnev in the Soviet Union – notice all the crumbling domestic infrastructure, the Black Sea villas being the equivalent of the guarded gated elite communities?
All in all, the system is so rotten with corruption, young people are saddled with so much debt and so little economic future, military spending remains so ridiculously high (in another close parallel to the fading days of the old Soviet Union) that the entire federal government and Wall Street financial structure appears headed for another massive collapse.
A rational policy to stop this from happening would have to include a massive cut in defense spending (for example, dissolving NATO and shutting down military bases across the Middle East), putting all that money back into domestic infrastructure, rebuilding the domestic manufacturing sector by restructuring all the NAFTA-type deals, replacing the Glass-Steagall rules that separate commercial and investment banking, breaking up the corporate media conglomerates under anti-trust legislation – all of which seems extremely unlikely in the current political environment.
Thus, the best option is for the individual states to take the lead on all those issues, by working together to oppose the idiotic policies of the federal bureaucracy and its hopeless corrupt and incompetent apparatchiks. For example, look at California – a good policy on renewable energy, a strong technology sector (which is being attacked by the FBI, incidentally) – but what California needs from the federal government is not more idiotic military adventures in Europe or the Middle East, but rather a multi-billion dollar fund for infrastructure repair.
Nicely said. Your rational policy of remedies of course points towards Sanders, even though he has still not connected his foreign policy/military spending dots very well in his messaging. And needless to say the Dem. establishment has been more successful at cracking down on ‘rational policy’ alternatives than has the GOP. This dust-up on the GOP side has allowed the Democratic establishment to hide. So far.
So true, CO. Dems have gotten away with having hardly any debates, thanks to The Unlikable One and her henchmen and henchwomen.
Very good presentation of the sorry state of our nation.
All this Trump feeding frenzy of the past few days begs the question–what is the real reason Trump is now unacceptable? In a field of GOP candidates openly pledging to commit the most heinous and bloody war-crimes, Trump’s sin is solely one of degree. What actually makes him unacceptable is the fact that he’s winning.
I think none of this will work against him. He will likely be the nominee, where he has a better-than-average chance of defeating Clinton in the general election. I think he’ll very likely be running to the *left* of Hillary on some issues. He already is, on the trade issue.
View Romney’s GOP-establishment attack on Trump as the prequel to the sort of Dem-establishment attack Hillary will mount. Albeit less successfully, because it’s Hillary.
Obviously the Republicans haven’t put all their money into politics to have Trump dismantle global trade deals, …and what will a Clinton – Trump election do to the people in the Democratic party who think Mrs. “we came, we saw, he died”….(but don’t look at the emails in my basement) – “single payer health care will never ever happen” – Clinton is a “progressive”?
There is a real loathing of Hillary Clinton in America and not just on the right.
Many progressives and supporters of Sanders will not swallow Sanders losing the nomination, especially if Clinton’s “Super Delegates” are the deciding factor and a Grand Jury is within inches of indicting her.
Sanders will have a problem if that scenario arises and he tries to take a plumb speaking slot at the convention and herd all his supporters into the “Clinton pen” of more perpetual war, Wall Street (again) heading up the Treasury Department, a sudden switch back to supporting the TPP etc.
I predict Sanders supporters will walk out of the convention in Philadelphia and many will support Trump just to give Trump the chance to go after Clinton with his new attorney general (he has sworn to do so).
Also, many support his (apparent) unwillingness to kiss Bibi’s ring as he insists that finding a peaceful and JUST settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian quagmire is a top priority for him and he intends for the U.S. to be a “neutral” negotiator in the matter (which is causing Neocon Republican/Democrat establishment heads to explode nationally).
Considering that Ret. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is advising Trump on foreign policy and suggests better relations with Russia, this also gives progressives more hope for a peaceful world:
http://www.rferl.org/content/donald-trump-adviser-flynn-advocates-working-more-with-russia-islamic-state-republican/27577129.html
Both conventions will probably be the ugliest in history as more and more Americans are refusing to drink the Dempublican Koolaid.
There is a definite whiff of an “Anybody But Hillary” campaign brewing. And a Trump ascendancy appears to be the only path toward that end save Sanders pulling out an upset over Clinton within the next few weeks.
Conventions would have to be pretty ugly to surpass 1968, but this might be the year. I agree with a lot of your view, but think Sanders (if he doesn’t prevail) will go gracefully and he’ll convince the bulk of his supporters to go to Clinton.
Regardless of how it plays out this cycle, hopefully the Sanders campaign has brought in a bunch of young hotheads and this will bear fruit over the longer run.
Salzmann, I came here to read The Intercept, not Truth Dig.
Aww, diddums.
Glenn’s fine piece is right up ^ there, above the line. Down here, we reflect, object, analyze, expand upon . . . well, it should be obvious.
Now, go learn the manners your mother failed to teach you.
“Down here we ” cut/paste, not just snippets but, voluminous text because that is what is necessary to get our point across to those who don’t know what’s really going on.
Yeah, and even that is hopeless with some of the most defiantly-ignorant cases.
As usual, Taibbi has an entertaining and informative take on the whole Trump thing:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/revenge-of-the-simple-how-george-w-bush-gave-rise-to-trump-20160301
Too true:
Excellent piece, Glenn. I would just add that Chris Hedges’ post, this week, looks at Trump’s appeal to a rather larger portion of our mainstream and, as usual, he paints a masterly picture:
Less please.
I don’t know about Hedge’s emphasis on ‘college-educated’ vs. ‘lower-class’ – both groups are getting screwed over by the establishment.
I think a bigger issue threatening the Democratic and Republican establishments is the serious generational anger going on here, mainly targeted at the Baby Boomers – people who enjoyed essentially free college education on one hand, or the non-college option of robust well-paying blue-collar manufacturing jobs when they themselves were young adults – all of which has been destroyed since.
When the Baby Boomers got into the driver’s seat, they gutted the American education system and shipped all the jobs overseas, and now their retirement packages are riding on the backs of young people paying off their student loans and investments in offshored companies. The nation they are handing off to their children and grandchildren is a sorry affair – blown-out cities like Detroit, huge student loan debts, crappy service-sector jobs, crumbling streets and bridges, homeless people everywhere you look – and the younger people know this. They know the media is rotten to the core, both liberal and conservative – for example, NPR ran some crap syrupy story about “giving advice to young people on how to pay off their student debt” the other day – enough to make one want to puke.
Voter turnout in the under-30 group is at historic lows – the only candidate that has spoken to their concerns is Bernie Sanders, who has been under constant corporate media attack, and if he’s not on the ballot, they might not bother showing up at all. “Why bother voting? We’re going to get screwed over either way, after all.”
It reminds me of an interview I heard recently with a young woman in China – “Why bother having kids?” she said. “They’d just end up being poisoned by all the crap in our air and our food, anyway.”
The disillusionment is well described in this article from some random source:
“Hillary supporters are pessimistic and politically blind. There’s no other way of putting it. They are mostly Baby Boomers, many of whom base their votes on an assumption of Republican narrative dominance. . .”
“. . .Hillary Clinton is continuing the cycle. She’s repudiating the left—this time, targeting Sanders for being unrealistic on economics. The most recent example of this is Clinton surrogate Paul Krugman’s latest attack on a study supporting Sanders’ proposals which lacked any substantive analysis. Clinton is spreading the narrative that the left and economics are not compatible-even though Sanders’ proposals look an awful lot like FDR’s New Deal. . . ”
“. . . Clinton is resorting to these tactics because she’s ignoring the defining issues of our time: the wealth gap and systemic corruption that have resulted from years of a laissez-faire regulatory approach to the economy and campaign finance.”
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/hillary-clintons-betrayal-of-the-american-left.html
“When the Baby Boomers got into the driver’s seat . . .”
Oh, gawd. This intergenerational resentment has exactly no basis in reality and is likely the result of the corporatocracy driving a couple of generations of students into “STEP” programs that resemble work permit training much more than meaningful education.
What percentage of boomers do you imagine are, or ever were, in the drivers’ seats? Do you think the 1% or the 0.1% are a recent phenomenon?
Do you think people driving the system would have arranged it so that most elderly boomers (65%) rely upon Social Security for the majority of their income and that, for a quarter of them, SS is their sole income?
Would they have further “rigged the system” so that Medicare premiums, along with “supplemental” insurance consumes, on average about a quarter of those SS checks?
And so on.
Take your unfounded anger at your elders and shove it up your young ass.
The coolest thing about punk rock in the 70s is that it was created by some baby boomers who couldn’t stand the majority of baby boomers.
Yeah, they have had a disproportionate influence on the understanding of American history. Look at this thumbnail sketch:
50s —- the innocent years —- their childhood
60s —- the rebellious years —- their teen years
70s — the hedonistic years —- their twenties
80s —- the materialistic years —- their thirties
90s —- I work for a living, damn it — their 40s
00s — the fearful years — their 50s
10s —- the get off my lawn years — their 60s
“The coolest thing about punk rock in the 70s is that it was created by some baby boomers who couldn’t stand the majority of baby boomers.”
That may well be the coolest thing about it. It was certainly mostly crap music. Infinitely superior to hip-hop, of course, but crap, nonetheless.
Of course, I think the finest period in the history of music died with Bach, in 1750, although Mozart, Chopin and Tchaikovsky were pretty good amateurs. ;^)
Punk was crap? I suppose you’d lump X in that category of “crap?” Okay.
“I suppose you’d lump X . . .”
Dunno. What is or was X?
I’m afraid popular culture has interested me less and less as the decades have passed. And it never interested me much, ever.
p.s. I’m 50 and my generation is so invisible nobody bothers to attack us……win some lose some I guess
You might find this interesting.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/millennials-us-foreign-policy-next-generations-attitudes-toward-foreign
I haven’t read the full white paper yet. But, in addition to the paper, I have a couple of random thoughts.
1. There is some convenience in categorizing groups of people by their birth years and relative ages, but I hold the thought There are often more differences within a group than between groups. close by.
2. I’d have to dig to find it, but I do recall reading a discussion about the narrowing of the idea that a generation might equal some fixed number of years; say, like 20. That technological change has narrowed that span to something like, say, 7 years. That doesn’t strike me as infeasible. I have a brother 13 years my junior; the world in which we experienced our “critical years” (14-24 as speculated by CATO’s white paper) was quite different, even though, technically, we’re both in the Baby Boom demographic.
3. Given the CATO discussion, I see opportunities for political overlap/co-incidence between Millennials and Baby Boomers. For example: They had Iraq/Afghanistan follies – we had Vietnam and the Cold War follies. If you trace the beginnings of drug legalization and environmental conservation you can find inchoate beginnings back in the 60s – if not earlier. We share more than we acknowledge. And, I think that’s probably true for the other age demographics, as well.
4. I can have my own resentments about the choices of “The Greatest Generation” and how they have influenced my choices and prospects over time. I don’t see much advantage in nurturing those feelings. If for no other reason than it is too easy to politically exploit those resentments inter-generationally. There might not have been much to be gained by exploiting those natural resentments (youth for their elders) in the 70s, but given an avaricious Wall Street, climate change, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few in the 00s, there are political advantages to promoting and supporting those inter-generational resentments now.
In any event, I try to avoid “characterizations” that serve to divide would be allies. Ultimately, I had to “mute” Ms. Wood so as not to allow her resentment to interfere with my desire to push the wheel in precisely the direction she seems to want it to go.
All generalizations about populations are suspect; I sometimes indulge in them anyway. I used to talk way more smack about boomers in the 90s; it was still fun then.
It’s permanently annoying that when boomers were young the attitude was “the young are the future, we need to listen to them, we need to lower the voting age constitutionally” — and that was the end of that: every subsequent generation of youth has been treated the normal way: i.e. why would anyone listen to these semi-literate bubbleheads with their horrible music? Boomers were in favor of the wisdom of youth for precisely as long as they were young and not a second longer. Which is a normal attitude, but it’s a drag when they can exert the power of numbers.
Here is one legitimate point about age in politics: It is remarkable how consistently the polling of certain issues or candidates demonstrates support or resistance rising or falling steadily with age difference. And just to be clear: my own generation tends to dismal political attitudes, being almost as old as the average boomer, it is also almost as bad as the average boomer.
This intergenerational resentment has exactly no basis in reality and is likely the result of the corporatocracy driving a couple of generations of students into “STEP” programs that resemble work permit training much more than meaningful education.
I think you are correct that the blame should be less generationally proportional than economically so, still, I am increasingly coming across pieces like this one, filled with understandable rancor and bitterness:
https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/the-baffling-reason-why-so-many-millennials-hate-baby-boomers-92e827a11296#.4f7eg1x8u
It was astonishingly vitriolic and I object to much of the characterization, from a specific point of view, but it is hard to argue against the generalizations.
This is, in fact, what the millenials are facing. And if we do nothing more than get mad at them for it – engaging, if you will, in the stereotypic get-off-my-lawnism – rejecting their attempts at grappling with their reality because they make us uncomfortable instead of joining them in their anger and frustration – refusing to show them that broad strokes are most often inaccurate ones, then we give in to the typical tactics of divide and conquer that have been so successful all along in keeping the power elite well-marinated in their ill-gotten gains.
Most millenials I know aren’t quite as willing as Ms. Wood to cast stones at every graying head they see, but they do need us to accept and reinforce their efforts to make the world they are now inheriting a better place. Otherwise they will rise up and we may get caught in the middle whether it’s explicitly, personally, our fault or not. That’s just how anger works in humans.
p.s. Thanks for posting the Hedges piece.
@Pedinska: It’s certainly true that my patience with the generational responsibility fiction has grown thinner with each repetitive exposure.
Having fought this battle for twice as long as most of them have been alive, I reserve the right to be pissed off at willful ignorance.
In some settings, one-on-one or one to a few, in a seminar, a classroom or a salon, it is possible and sometimes valuable to do as you suggest — take advantage of teachable moments. If, that is, you can make them all turn off their smart phones for the duration.
You also need to remember, Pedinska, that I don’t have much hope for their ability to make their world a better place. In my view, the 0.1-percenters of my generation, the ones that have followed us, and all that preceded us, at least as far back as the Industrial Revolution, have set us on a course that is incompatible with sustainable civilization. As we live in an oligarchy, “the people” have little chance of changing that course — and most of the 40-and-younger people I know are not only entirely clueless about world affairs, population ecology and the inevitable consequences of a permanent energy and resource crunch, they are also quite uninterested; it is the latest gadget or coolest app, or birthday parties and weddings that occupy their attention.
Except, of course, for the relatively brief periods when they imagine that some pseudo-outsider, phony revolutionary — an Obama or a Sanders — has arrived to save them (this time from usurious student loans, I guess), during which periods they act like all followers of personality cults , simultaneously vacuous and hyper-defensive.
Yeah, I’m grumpy.
Well, not being a Millennial or a Baby Boomer, rather being the bastard child of Vietnam on one hand, and the Cold War on the other (they called us X), I really have no horse in this race – not voting is idiotic (aka Millennials), but there also wasn’t any real effort to preserve low-cost college education for young people (aka Boomers) – and this does cause inter-generational conflict.
Kind of a breakdown of society thing, you know? People not looking out for each other, kids dumping their parents in decrepit nursing homes, parents raiding their kid’s college funds for luxury vacations, kind of thing. . . societal malaise. Like Brezhnev’s Soviet Union, again.
I mean, what does a Baby Boomer have to say to a Millennial when they ask, “How come you weren’t saddled with huge debt when you got out of college?” – and if you actually look at who runs the retirement portfolios and 401ks for the Baby Boomers – well, State Street, Vanguard, Fidelity, BlackRock – the same Wall Street gang behind NAFTA, student loan bundling, etc., and even if a lot of Baby Boomers lost their slot on the gravy train, that’s the game.
And what does a Millennial have to say to a Baby Boomer when they ask, where’s your political activism? Why aren’t you out voting? Why, when I was your age, we were in the streets protesting the Vietnam War, and our mantra was “Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30″? And then Jerry Rubin, student radical, ran off and became a Wall Street speculator. . . and the majority of the hippies found yuppiedom.
Ah well let the debate continue:
https://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/baby_boomers_ruined_america_why_blaming_millennials_is_misguided_and_annoying/
Nah, let’s end the debate. Generations blaming predecessors (which results in entirely predictable and justifiable hostility from the vast majority of the “blamed” generation who are actually blameless) is the sort of thing the 0.1% love, just as they love natives blaming migrants, whites blaming blacks, Christians and Muslims demonizing each other — it keeps the the schmucks’ attention diverted from the real game, which the Owners always seem to win.
The socioeconomic issue that counts is class. The essential conflict is between capital and labor. That has been the case since — well, see Marx — and is now at a point where it must be resolved if civilization is to survive, because global capitalism, dependent upon perpetual growth of markets and consumption, is incompatible with the survival of civilization, and probably with the survival of the species.
Yes, divisions in American society are on the rise – racial and economic and generational, and sure, some will try to exploit these factors politically – but the gaps are pretty obvious, and ignoring them is not a good idea.
For example, is it the ‘average white person’s fault’ that prisons are disproportionately full of black people imprisoned on inflated drug charges, or that unemployment in black urban zones is so high? Well, no, but the result is an economic gap and rising resentment and racial conflict.
In fact, what has been happening to the ‘middle-class whites’ who support Trump is what has been happening to black communities for decades – loss of jobs, less homeowners and more renters, persistent poverty and few hopes of an economic future.
The fact is, young people’s disenchantment with the political status quo and their lack of an economic future is a major factor – and it is one more reason why an establishment political candidate like Clinton could lose to an outsider like Trump in a general election.
And by the way, the business about Marx and global capitalism is a failed line – take Venezuela’s socialist Hugo Chavez – after two decades, his country remains a fossil fuel pollution zone, just as it was under the capitalists. Norway, the socialist paradise? One of the world’s major contributors to global warming. Germany, a capitalist economic system? Leading the world in the transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear and towards renewable energy. Yes, I read Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” too, but unlike her previous book, “The Shock Doctrine”, that argument makes little sense. It’s just not the central issue.
Spouting some worn-out old Marxist doctrines about “capital and labor” will do nothing to solve the fundamental ecological problems facing human civilization; the only way to do that is to implement technologies that will allow humans to live in harmony with nature (i.e. renewable energy, birth control, clean manufacturing, biodiversity conservation, etc.) The ecological disasters of the old Soviet Union, for example, is where authoritarian Marxism gets you – not much different from the ecological disasters of the capitalist fossil fuel industry run out of Wall Street.
And yes, the debate should continue, regarding why young people in America are facing such a crappy future – here’s some more food for thought:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0301-housing-economy-20160301-story.html
“Developers have been catering more and more to affluent baby boomers, building larger and more expensive dwellings, which makes buying a first home even more difficult for young adults. Surveys by the National Assn. of Home Builders show that less than 20% of new construction in recent years has been for entry-level properties.”
No one is blaming you personally, of course – but the general sense of resentment among young people is not so hard to understand, is it?
Excellent article, Glenn. The hypocrites are now seeking refuge in that bastion of acceptable corruption: Hillaryland.
Excellent analysis of the fake U$A.
As disgusting as Trump is,
his greatest offense is that his words are a more open
expression of what underlies the shared agenda of
democrat and republican leaders.
He isn’t lying the way they insist that their candidates must.
His disgusting posturing is what you will find if you make
a slight scratch in the surface of both corporate parties.
Trump is the epitome’ of the
“deregulated” imperialist corporate owned world.
The fake U$A and its Versailles on the Potomac are replete
with would-be Trumps and
they are insistent (in lying) that they are appalled by what
the Trump mirror shows that they are.
This is a blood-drenched, sadistically self-serving masquerade
and Trump is just a little more inTOXICated than the other
corporate courtiers.
The only questions remaining are,
will Sanders help people escape this toxic environment or is
he there to keep people from leaving and
will the voters ever repudiate the corruption if Sanders
turns his supporters over to the would-be Trumps?
The election of Trump is dependent upon whether
“progressive democrats” can imagine themselves as being
more than the craven democrat masquerade will allow.
This is funny, here’s Jennifer Rubin in 2013 in the Washington Post, in praise of torture
Now here’s Rubin, today, in the Washington Post, criticizing Trump, for saying he’d use torture:
It seems that the enhanced interrogation techniques that even two CIA agents and a former attorney general found useful, …have transformed into war crimes that put 20 year old soldiers in peril and harm America’s stature in the world.
What’s rich is to see is the Bush administration’s neocons head on over to camp Hillary. How are the hard core leftists(the people who think Hillary represents them, but never have been more wrong) going to square that circle of having the very people in your camp, that they, only eight years ago loathed, hated, and denounced.
Er, which “hardcore leftists” have ever said they think Hillary represents them?
They show up at her campaign rallies, and write about her in the press. Not hard to find them.
Clinton’s supporters are not “leftists.”
They are, at best, delusional and willfully ignorant
hypocrites and/or liars.
If you accept the notion that they are leftists, then you are
also delusional.
Like who?
Those known “reds” Blankfein and Dimon?
They already are:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Trump is only a reserve of the establishment
http://bit.ly/1Qpmu5c
The one order coming from Trump to the troops that might conceivably be refused is the order to drop nukes. I believe (and hope I’m right to do so) that the Pentagon has people with enough insight to know what a horribly bad idea that would be.
I always said, no daylight between any of them.
Fantastic article.
Ditto.
What kind of morally-reprehensible person or entity would ever propose – much less carry out – torturing of ‘terrorist’ prisoners?
“Jerusalem, Feb 24 (EFE).- HaMoked and B’Tselem Israeli NGOs denounced on Wednesday the abuses and systematic torture methods used against Palestinian prisoners by the Israeli internal intelligence service in Shikma prison, located in the southern district of Ashkelon.”
http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/3645527_israeli-ngos-claim-palestinians-systematically-tortured-during-interrogation.html
“An attorney for Amiram Ben-Uliel, a Jewish extremist who earlier this year allegedly confessed to the firebombing murder of a Palestinian family last July, accused the Shin Bet security services of torturing his client by “stretching his limbs like in the [Spanish] Inquisition.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/duma-suspects-attorney-shin-bet-tortured-client-like-the-inquisition/
“Israel Tortures Palestinian Children; Keeps Them In Outdoor Cages In Winter: Rights Group”
“Following a November 2015 report by the independent, in which it quoted NGO rights organization the Palestinian Prisoners Club (PPC) that at least 600 Palestinian children have been arrested in Jerusalem alone in the first half of 2015 and that roughly 40% were sexually abused, a new January 2016 report was also issued by the Independent, this time saying that the Israeli government is torturing children and keeping them in outdoor cages during winter time.
The Independent cited a report published by The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) saying that “children accused of minor crimes were subject to public caging, threats and acts of sexual violence and military trials without representation.”
Upon a visit by Israel’s Public Defender’s Office (PDO) lawyers, shocking details of happenings in the detention facility was uncovered.
“During our visit, held during a fierce storm that hit the state, attorneys met detainees who described to them a shocking picture: in the middle of the night dozens of detainees were transferred to the external iron cages built outside the IPS transition facility in Ramla,” the PDO described the scene on its website.
“It turns out that this procedure, under which prisoners waited outside in cages, lasted for several months, and was verified by other officials.”
The report said the incident in Ramla was just one example of a broad range of abuses being suffered.”
http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel-tortures-palestinian-children-keeps-them-in-outdoor-cages-in-winter-rights-group/212808/
The Republicans, who were in power when the US government committed torture, but who now are criticizing Trump on the issue, also are doing a bang up job on the Flint poison water issue:
Rubio and the Republican governor, like Obama and Clinton, seem to think that “talking about” holding people accountable is the same as prosecuting people for poisoning children, torturing prisoners, etc.
Prompted me to go dig for this:
Zaid is correct. Trump is functioning – as per last night’s debate – as a scapegoat. But, Trump is a scapegoat for more than just the GOP. He is also a scapegoat for the Neocons slithering over to Hillary Clinton’s side, and he is a scapegoat for the Democratic Establishment/Intelligentsia (to include the cheerleaders and supporters) who have become equally morally corrupt.
I assert that Trump is the scapegoat for the American Id; not just that of Republicans. If I bound American political realities and foreign policy to the time frame from the Kennedy assassination forward, regardless of Party, I see the threads of Trump everywhere I look. To me, Trump is merely a mirror reflecting all of us – to one degree or another – back at ourselves.
Well said, TallyHo. It’s most important to note that Trump is not a scapegoat for just he GOP. He is a scapegoat for the 2 party duopoly at large.
The link to the Guardian story about Trump’s heinous actions, and beliefs about, the innocent black men imprisoned for a violent rape they did not commit — The Central Park Five — is horrible reading. The man literally cannot accept a reality that doesn’t align with his racist worldview.
I’ve read that some 20% of Bernie supporters will vote for Trump if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination. This boggles my mind. How could anyone who grasps what Bernie is about vote for a putrid sac of authoritarian pus like Donald Trump?
“How could anyone who grasps what Bernie is about vote for a putrid sac of authoritarian pus like Donald Trump?”
Maybe because they believe that Hillary is worse than THAT?
She is more likely to gleefully start WWIII with Russia or China.
I want to see her perp-walked and convicted.
re: that 20%
There are some who would be happy to just burn it all to the ground. Threads of that sentiment weave all though the Guardian piece on the “secret Donald Trump supporters.” And, there are moments/days I’m tempted to join them.
Blow it up, burn the remains, bury the remnants, and salt the earth on which it stood.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out
Yeah, I read that. It makes no moral sense.
It means lots of Americans can see the Wall Street crowd circling the wagons around the candidates many ordinary Americans have already rejected. It means when neo-cons openly take the side of the supposed “leftist, progressive” Clinton, lots of unhappy potential Democrat voters will say “hey I got excited about Sanders, not because he’s nominally a Democrat, but because he promised to stop the sham.
None of that is persuasive. Given a choice between Stalin or Hitler, I wouldn’t vote for either.
No, but in the event you would not have been given a choice, it would have been imposed on you.
That may have been true in the case of Stalin or Hitler but it isn’t in 2016. There are other candidates on the ballot besides Democrats and Republicans. We really have to stop treating third party candidates as if they don’t exist. They do and they should be explored because viability, like Rome, isn’t built in a day.
Yes. Sadly true. In the US, you can reject either of the candidates the two-party duopoly foists upon the public – not vote, vote 3rd party, write in “Mickey Mouse” – and the ultimate winner of that duopoly contest will indeed be imposed on you. And, should admit that you rejected the duopoly’s choices, you can also look forward to being smeared as a “spoiler” for the loser and/or blamed for some series of heinous outcomes attributed to the winner. The American political system; what’s not to love?
Paranam Kid and you are correct that’s how things are now, and likely how the two parties wish to keep it in perpetuity. But I would argue that the fact that there are now candidates in both parties that are deemed unacceptable to the elite, and that both candidates are doing far, far better than the elite were prepared for, offers lots of evidence that the electorate is searching for other answers. How that will manifest in change is anyone’s guess, but I think the traditional narratives, especially wt blame, are far enough past their “use by” dates that the majority of people are now aware of the odor of rot, if not exactly able to appropriately label its source.
p.s. As you know, I have my “burn it down” days too. It won’t just be millenials manning the barricades and guillotines. I have a particularly sturdy pitchfork, should the call come, and I’ve been practicing on the compost pile. :-s
Mona – “None of that is persuasive.”
It’s not persuasive to me either, but obviously it is to many Americans, I thought you were asking the question why:
It is not unpersuasive. Give us Bernie or we’ll give you Trump is just what the political class fears most so guess what the public is inclined to do; time to lance this boil.
Indeed. If the Democrats don’t want a Republican president, perhaps they shouldn’t be so insistant in nominating one.
Amen. Yes indeed, ‘Murka. When you pitst a Republicam ‘gainst a Republicam, the Republicam gonna win, ev’ry time
Trump makes us cringe, because he says things without any ‘political correctness.’ Does anyone believe that the Dems really, sincerely promise anything different or better?
Hillary is even more scary because she has all the networking and support to make what Trump promises actually come true.
What kind of morally-reprehensible person or entitiy would ever propose – much less carry out – going after the relatives of ‘terrorists’?
“JERUSALEM, Israel — The IDF demolished the homes of two Arabs awaiting trial for murdering five Israelis on the same day last November.
Home demolitions have proven an effective deterrent, despite what critics say is unfair punishment of the terrorists’ families.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2016/February/IDF-Demolishes-Two-Terrorists-Homes
What kind of person? The entirety of the past two regimes, the present one, and all their parasitic hangers-on.
Indeed. While Trump’s rhetoric and actions are beyond the pale, there are disturbing echoes among other candidates. Trump is not the one who called poor parents “deadbeats” . Trump did not exult “We came, we saw, he died” after a foreign leader was attacked and killed by an armed mob. Trump did declare bankruptcy several times, despite his assets, but he did not say that a net worth of several million was “dead broke”. All those belong, not to Trump or a Republican, but Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(Incidentally, one thing that Trump is facing criticism from media and the Republicans are his opinions on war. Trump said he opposed Iraq (if he did, it’s news to me) and viewed Bush’s actions as impeachable (a view to the right of Nancy “Off the table” Pelosi, to say nothing of both Clintons). He favors ending aid to Syrian militants (unlike Clinton, who was told by a State Department official that “AQ (Al-Quaida) is on our side in Syria”, and trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, as opposed to Supercharging them (as Clinton did).)
yep!
Great piece. All equivalence is not false equivalence, and in some important ways Trump is just the baddest Bad Cop yet.
The faux outrage masks one of the real reasons the party insiders are afraid of Trump, he’s made noises he’s not entirely on board with the imperial project, he might actually bring troops home and spend money on things that improve the lives of Americans, and he’s completely unconnected with the torture crimes, if he wanted to, he could prosecute the whole lot of Democrats and Republicans responsible.
Trump might do better than Obama on war, torture, …or not, who knows. Maybe if America had a foundational set of laws, a tradition of prosecuting war crimes, a culture of peace instead of permanent war, then Americans wouldn’t have to worry that the next president will use all those “unitary executive’ powers that have been accruing.
Trump is blowback from decades of stoking fear from the media and politicians. Trump is the father figure who is promising to deliver people from these fears. Humans are not meant to experience chronic fear 24/7 year after year. We don’t make good decisions in such a state.
Awesomely wordsmithery, Glenn. Thank you.
Weird, I could have sworn that I put ‘Awesome’ not “Awesomely.”
Awesome wordsmithery, Glenn. Thank you. Obliterative wordsmithery.
I’ve been waiting for Bush and Obama to hold hands at a press conference and say together, “Trump is our fault.” I’ll keep waiting.
Americans, as Tocqueville posited have all prerequisites of a fascist man, alienated, unconnected to society and largely estranged from family usually scattered all over the country, with severed human bonds replaced by artificial precarious relationships with cartoonish flat TV characters called friends or acquaintances negotiated by money or influence, full of uncertainty, fear of authority and loathing of change, covering up horrible spiritual emptiness and loneliness with quasi-religious patriotic, highly emotional desire to belong to glorious to an artifact called USA.
But fascism in a pure form is not a threat in US, at least not today, simply because it is a phenomenon of a nation-state which US never was. US was always an imperial state working hard to prevent true nation-building via pushing commercial culture in order replace original national cultures of American people including natives, Mexicans and of African origin.
The Trump performance on political puppets stage is nothing but an orgy of extreme ignorance and anti- intellectualism drawn from depths of brutal animalism of American fascist who rejects reason, individual morality and self-determination and craves sensation of absolute power embodied by a leader.
But Trump is not that leader. He is a phony opportunist, a sewage excretion of his personal puny psychopathic insecurities for profit and fame with no other grandiose program, idea or thought behind it. But he made himself effectively a mirror, a vomitory of a fascist American society that through him can bask in its ugliness, ignorance and narcissism of exceptional mediocrity.