Donald Trump Actually Talks Sense For Once in REEP Debate #5

Let's first be honest and point out that - as Guardian UK columnist Richard Wolffe put it, this fifth Reepo “debate” was "about as convincing as the gondolas gliding along the supposedly Grand Canal outside the  (Venetian) casino."  If you've ever been to the Venetian you know what Wolffe's talking about, including the faux blue skies and the whole artificial setting, e.g.


A Venetian gondolier - from our trip to Vegas in 2006.

So it was almost to be expected this debate would reflect the artifice of the environment. We beheld Trump, for instance, "ambling in like the character he plays on 'The Apprentice': the judge on a reality show."  And where other candidates embraced the audience as potential voters, "Trump weakly applauded them as apprentices aspiring to his hiring." You had to admire his chutzpah.

But the main takeaway is that most of these guys believe the American people (or at least those who actually vote) are a bunch of whiny little 'fraidy cats or infants, e.g.

"Pwotekt me, Mista Goopa!"

 And can be drumbeaten into the GOOPr fold by manic, unhinged rhetoric spewed out in a hawk fest more appropriate to the meeting scene in 'Dr. Strangelove'. (Google to learn the connection if you never saw the flick.)

There was Jeb! boasting how he wanted to "increase defense spending" to fight ISIS despite the fact we are now spending $667 billion a year. WTF does he want? Another $3 trillion squandered like his dumb bro pissed away in the Iraq War?  In any case, the last thing we need is another Bush in the White House to complete the descent of this country into 2nd class nation status. And then there was Cruz who intended to "carpet bomb" Raqqa - the HQ for ISIS -  but which actually is a city of over 400,000,  with mostly civilians. Collateral damage, anyone? How about intentional genocide?

We also had the really immature dolts going after Russia, which nation I guess they really believe is a "paper tiger" as one deluded WSJ poppet put it a week ago in an op ed. There was John Kasich (who I once took to be the GOP "adult") bragging he intended to "punch Russia in the nose". Good luck on that, pally, but you are going to have to go through Vladimir Putin first, and somehow I don't think you're up to it against the former KGB head who walks with a "gunslinger's gait". (As noted in a report on the news last night, from having his weapon at the ready on that right side.)

Then we have the heavyset (putting it mildly) turkey,  Chris Christie,  who actually wants to outdo Gen, Curtis LeMay (from 1962's Cuban Missile Crisis) vowing he would effectively  start World War III if he had to by shooting down Russian pilots over Syria - if he put up a no fly zone. He even defended it this morning, essentially insinuating if he put up such a zone the Russians would not dare disobey it, "if they knew the consequences". One wonders what manner of marijuana edibles or candies this fool was ingesting.

Amidst all this huff and puff it was therefore gratifying to at least see Trump separate from the hawkathon and especially inveighing against the insane GOP yen for 'regime change". We've already seen in Iraq (ousting Saddam), Libya (ousting Muammar Ghadaffi) how this game plays out and now also the eagerness to supplant Assad in Syria. Mincing no words, Trump emphatically stated that the $4 trillion blown on those regime change operations would have been better spent here at home for roads, infrastructure, schools, etc. He also added that any future trillions that the interventionists might wish to blow, would be better spent here in the U.S. To which the harpy-witch Carly Fiorina responded he was "talking more like Obama". Actually no, you ignorant misfit, he was talking sense!

By contrast, the odious slob Chris 'Crisco' Christie instantly disqualified himself by asserting that he'd have no qualms shooting down a Russian plane over Syria after installing a dopey "no fly" zone. So, he'd risk incinerating billions in a third world (nuclear) war to prove his security bona fides and that his Pillsbury doughboy frame really had the balls to do it. (Recall in 'Oct. 62 JFK had to restrain Gen. Curtis LeMay who wanted to bomb Cuba into the stone age, despite the fact there were 93 fully armed IRBMs  aimed at the eastern and central U.S.)

What Christie really showed is how easy it is for one's ass to occupy one's brain, when bravado supersedes common sense and intellect.

Christie, while lamenting the sense of fear gripping the United States,  then ended up stoking as much fear as possible, talking at length in dog whistle style about the bomb threat that closed the Los Angeles Unified school system on Tuesday. But somehow ignoring that the New York authorities in his backyard decided the same threat was a hoax. (The reason given by the NYPD Police commissioner is that the email sender referred to "allah" and not Allah.)

By contrast to Christie and the other warmongering, take 'em all out Reepo yahoos,  Trump showed forbearance and sound judgment- at least by his stated unwillingness to intervene and overthrow yet another Middle Eastern state and for nothing.  (Of course, he later more or less neutralized the quantum of rationality displayed then by his stance on killing the families of terrorists. As Rand Paul asked: "Ever heard of the Geneva Convention?")

Let's recall the Bush bunch are the original regime changers so no surprise Jeb! had to butt in to do an indirect defense of his incompetent brother.

Late in the debate, for example,  Jeb! jabbed at Trump for "getting his national security advice from retired generals on cable TV.". But Trump simply stepped out of the exchange to critique his rival and the moderators – retaking his role as judge rather than participant.

At one point Jeb clearly lost it,  barking:

“You’re never going to be president of the United States by insulting your way to the presidency,”

“Well, let’s see,” said Trump, “I am at 42 and you’re at three,” he added citing recent polls. “So, so far, I’m doing better.”

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz tried to talk with a certain Texan swagger on how he'd "wipe out ISIS" and basically do everything Obama "isn't doing"  now. Except Obama is, including sending in more strategic ground forces for support. But as I noted before, it's easy for imps like Cruz and Rubio to try to out swagger each other with empty rhetoric when they hold no real positions of power. It's likewise easy for a pompous porker like Christie to vow he'd shoot down Russian planes when the only really nasty thing he's done up to now (as NJ Governor) is shut down a key bridge backing up traffic in his state for miles- and hours.

The most important aspect of last night's debate was to show that the Reeps -most of them - can only "win" by instilling fear. Fear of the terrorists and fear of our own shadows, if we let the lizard brain take over the prefrontal cortex.  People need to bear in mind the only political leverage the Reepos hold is the terror card. And if they can get enough of us to submit, and believe terrorism trumps all else - then we will have truly fucked ourselves to a far thee well in next year's elections.

The facts speak otherwise, that this era and period is nowhere near as terrifying as many in the past, including the Cuban Missile Crisis which I lived through when we came within a hair's breadth of WW III. Our much bigger fear ought to be of the millions of assault weapons in our midst which too many seem to be quite content to leave alone, at least their regulation, out of a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. Meanwhile mass murders go on daily, not by terrorists or ISIS sympathizers but by fellow Americans too ready to settle things or act out with their AR-15s. There've been 200,000 slaughtered since 9/11 by these weapons in the hands of fellow citizens, vs. 45 killed by terrorists. Do the math! And if you are still terrorized by ISIS,  or any other random jihadi terror,  you don't deserve to call yourself an American - or at least claiming that you belong in "the home of the brave".

And if you believe Chris Crisco Christie is the answer- as some expressed in an MSNBC focus group this morning-  you definitely don't know which end is up or what WWIII would look like. So I suggest you get the movie 'Threads' and watch it - maybe several times - to let it sink in.

If this fifth debate did anything it showed the Dems still are the adults in the room, and the party most likely to feature a sane and temperate leader in a world too overrun by fear, panic sand over-heated rhetoric. But, of course, the election next year will ultimately depend on adults - not fearful infants - to make the decision that best serves the nation.

And when one writes that Donald Trump was (relatively speaking) the most rational on the stage tonight, you have some idea of just how fucked up the GOP really is.

Obama Right In Targeting Iran Deal Opponents As Warmongers

As I've written multiple times, I'm not afraid to deliver kudos to the Prez when he's right on an issue, and brickbats when he's wrong (as on the TPP). In this case, he was right yesterday to go after the Iran nuclear deal opponents and basically paint them as warmongering agitators. He was emphatically correct in asserting there is only "one alternative:" to the deal and that is war - of some form - at some stage.

The Reeptard warmongers can deny it all they want but they're either lying or insane.  In this regard, evidently both John McCain and Lindsey Graham took umbrage at Obama's strong remarks and said in a joint statement (WSJ, today, p. A4):

"It is particularly galling to hear the President try to defend his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming its critics also supported  the war in Iraq".

Ironic, isn't it - that both McCain and Graham actually DID support the war in Iraq.  And Graham, to be sure, has stated clearly that if people vote him in as President (a classically stupid move that's comparable only barely to voting for Trump) he would make plans to go to war with Tehran. So there you have it. Two peas in a warmonger pod (recalling how two years ago, McCain was singing 'Bomb bomb Iran' to the sound of the Beach Boys' hit, 'Ba-Bar- Bra- Ann'. e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRonG87eKw

Funny, but  war with Iran would not be a cakewalk like the Iraq conflict. Again, all these war mongers so het up to get it on really need to see the 1983 film 'Threads' - which makes 'The Day After' look like a walk in the park.

The other brilliant aspect of Obama's attack speech was in framing lawmaker's decisions on the Iran deal as potentially determining not only their own political fates but the future of a U.S. still recovering from more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that has now cost more than $4 trillion. Enough to have not only funded a single payer health scheme, but a Mars trip and rebuilding our collapsing infrastructure.

Obama also delivered sound advice to the lawmakers, including on the Demo side, to "worry less about being labeled as weak, and more about getting it right." Sadly, over much of their palsied, poltroon history Dems have been much more concerned about their image and associated "optics" than getting a legislative position right.

Obama's jibes also made Bibi Netanyahu look like the warmonger he really is, itching to bomb Iran to pieces despite HE IS the one with over 200 nukes! And, of course, Bibi already dug himself into that hole with one of his earlier speeches, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-netanyahu-paranoid-warmonger-yes.html

But the part I loved the best, that had ol'  Mitch McConnell's panties in a twist, is when Obama pointed out the symmetry between the hardliners in both Iran and the U.S. Because just as the hardliners on the Right oppose the deal here, so do the hardliners on the Iranian Right oppose there. Moron Mitch then lost it and fulminated 'How dare the President compares us to those Iranians!" Well, dumb fuck, that 's because you ARE! But like the rest of his GOOPr ilk, he doesn't process the symmetry any more than he does the irony.

The main object for Obama, no matter how the Republicans pout, cry, stamp feet and play the victim, is to get the Dems on board. Once he has the Ds he doesn't have to worry about any votes against the deal by the 'pukes.  This is important, because it isn't just Iran and the U.S. in this deal, we have the UK, Russia, China, Germany and France too. So a defeat would have undesirable implications for all the parties.

Let us hope the Dem Senators pay close attention to Obama's nuclear physicist head of the DOE (Ernest Moniz) and don't stick their head up their asses like the Reepos have!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/63346/which-u-s-senators-want-war-on-iran

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/63307/obama-s-pragmatic-appeal-for-iran-peace

POLITICO Followers - Are They Serious or Serious Morons?

The results of the latest polls in Politico raised eyebrows this morning even from conservative Joe Scarbrough. On his 'Morning Joe' show he looked at the poll results including one - I kid you not -that showed 64 percent believe "the country is totally out of control".  Do these numb nuts even know what "totally out of control" means? Iraq may be "totally out of control" with the ISIS vermin running amuck and pretty much doing what they want. The U.S. is not totally out of control, which shows to me the extent to which certain Americans' minds have been gutted by the Repuke PR machinery.

Even Joe Scarbrough, smiled and blurted:

"Wait! America, you really believe the country is a runaway beer truck? A runaway beer truck!?"

Yes, but please don't generalize this to all Americans. It appears to be instead a deranged subset that follows the hack blog called 'Politico'.  And given just the response here one must question whether these people are even qualified to vote in any objective manner. It instead discloses they have lost touch with reality, and we shouldn't trust those apart from reality to cast a realistic vote.

In another example, a survey showed 38 percent believed Obama to be "less effective" than Bush Jr. Seriously? The only conclusion one can draw here, is these people have short memories - very short! They obviously forgot how Bushie boy suckered us into the Iraq war by putting on a dog and pony show at the UN to try to show the Iraqis had aluminum tubes (for chemical warfare delivery systems) and oh yeah, even the 'yellowcake' showing they were likely making nuclear weapons.

All this huff and puff led to an invasion which many warned against because it would take out the sole secular force keeping the Shia and Sunni factions at bay. No, he was no angel - but let's also recall we armed this guy (Saddam) during the 1980s so he could fight against our then enemy, Iran. When you create a 'monster' you have to take ownership for it, and this was under Reagan.

The instability that followed Saddam's fall at the hands of the U.S. invaders ultimately could be said to have led to the ISIS  upheaval now. (Bear in mind ISIS emerged after the Shia took over the Iraqi government, assisted by the U.S.- via orchestrated "elections", and kept Sunnis excluded.)

Politico people also forget, evidently, how the financial system crashed with the credit crisis on Bush's watch and many are still working to make up for the mammoth chunk lost from their 401ks. (One of our friends lost nearly 50 % of her portfolio).  By contrast, while the economic situation is not totally rosy, we have seen nearly all the jobs lost under Bush (15.8 million) come back, and at least growth (3 percent per annum) as opposed to recession. In addition the stock market has reached all time highs by contrast to the 580+ point drop in the last months of Bush's watch.

The final insult in the Politico polls was the result giving Republicans preference for taking the Senate - by at least 5 percentage points. Really?  A bunch of austerity fetishists responsible not only for inadequately funding the VA, but also the CDC - and who also imposed an insurmountable debt burden on the Post Office - by insisting it fund pensions for 75 years into the future.

These losers have also done nothing, nada. They have consistently blocked most legislation and have been acknowledged as the most do nothing congress ever in history. So why in the hell would any sane and sober person want them in charge of BOTH houses of congress? Perhaps because these people want to see more chaos and gridlock.

Maybe, just maybe, they even have a boner to see the country even more "out of control" - because obviously that is the objective of the GOP.

Create havoc and total gridlock in the process of governance, by using fake filibusters, shut downs and other tactics, then try to convince people that "government can't work".

And yet, they want to hold public office and be in charge of it! Go figure!.

Richard Haas and Michael Hayden - Two Nitwits Who Don't Get It

President Obama made almost the exact right call yesterday in terms of  announcing the troop drawdown in Afghanistan - leaving 10,000 by the end of the year (I believe it ought to be ZERO), half that number by 2015 and all out by 2016. As Obama put it, almost echoing the words of JFK in Sept. 1963 on Vietnam, ultimately it is their country and they have to use their own forces to defend it - the U.S. can't be the cop of the world.

Bingo!

But the militarists and their sycophants don't get that, and don't want it. This morning on MSNBC ('Morning Joe'),  Richard Haas called it "policy by calendar". Well, uh duh - yuh think! Ultimately, not so much "by calendar" but the understanding by Obama that this country doesn't have the infinite resources to keep troops all over the damned planet forever (we currently have 4,417 bases worldwide at a cost of nearly $1 trillion annually).  In a low- tax nation, that refuses to even pay for the two wars of choice instigated over 10 yrs. ago,  how does this make sense? It doesn't.

The fact is we simply can't afford nation building as Haas wants us to keep doing, nor does he have a clue of the ongoing costs. Maybe he needs to look more closely at how the VA can't even care for the mass of existing vets, because of the lack of resources, money to fund doctors, staff - and then he wants many more thousands to remain in harm's way? And who will ensure they get the care they need when they return maimed or with PTSD?

Gen, Michael Hayden (Ret.) is also not much better as he chimed in this morning on the same program arguing that the number remaining is "at the low end of what should be" and compared Obama's Afghan drawdown plan to leaving zero troops behind in Iraq (forgetting that Iraq was an illegal war to begin with and we had no business barging in there.)

Hayden complained - as pertaining to Iraq:  "You don't have the Americans as a dampening effect. You can't guarantee that the worst won't happen."

Well, maybe it will! But again - we can't control the world, or what happens in every nation - nor should we try to! We can't control what happens in the Central African Republic with hundreds of thousands already slaughtered there - but then we never ever considered barging in. Why Iraq and not the Central African Republic? Well because there are no oil fields in the latter!

Hayden's argument that Obama is about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan as in Iraq is just plain bollocks and balderdash on its face. His premise is that we will have to leave a troop presence there, come hell or high water. The other nitwit, Haas, agreed -  asserting that troops "ought to be left in  place so long as conditions merit."

So long as conditions merit? Hello! Conditions will always merit because the Taliban isn't going away any more than the Viet Cong were going away in 'Nam. You can't just try to control an entire nation in perpetuity when our own is falling apart at the seams. Hence, Haas'  blather about staying on to provide security and "nation building" is plain nuts. No sane person is going to take you seriously about "nation building" when your own country is coming apart and you've manifestly shown you can't even nation build at home!

MSNBC's Willie Geist actually asked Haas if he was really prepared to "keep troops in Afghanistan in perpetuity", given if they're even left there until 2016 it will have been 15 years which "ought to be long enough" and "besides I don't think at any point we leave it will ever be a perfect place".

Haas, moron that he is, actually replied "As long as it made sense. We've kept troops in Korea now for 60 years and Americans are comfortable with that."

But no intelligent American should be comfortable with that because it means accepting a diversion of badly needed resources away from domestic needs to outposts that have no direct impact on our own security - no matter what the hyper-militarists claim. For perspective, South Korea now has all the wherewithal it needs to fend off any North Korean attack, so we are effectively redundant.

"Oh but wait, if South Korea needs us we have to wade in".

No, because then China will weigh in and we're in no more shape to take on China than we are Russia no matter what pissants like McCain or John Bolton claim. We have to leave the Koreas to resolve their issues just like we have to leave Ukraine to resolve its, and Europe to resolve its -  hence the need to get U.S. bases out of Germany that have been there since the end of WWII. As my German friend Reinhardt put it: "We Germans no longer need American babysitters!"

People need to grasp that the military overstretch we see is directly connected to economic misfortune and regression at home. The terribly low minimum wage, the massive student debt, the growing inequality, the VA's inability to care for vets are all tied to our overwhelming military presence around the world consuming precious resources - and basically, something has to give. If we aren't prepared to cut back our yen for empire, we will see ever more suffering at home....and even....as author David Cay Johnston put it in a recent salon.com interview, civil distress so severe it might even incite a revolution  that will be "the bloodiest the world has ever seen".

(See: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/bloodiest_thing_the_world_has_seen_david_cay_johnston_on_inequalitys_looming_disaster/

Is this what we really want? To go the way of Rome? If not, we better get control of the military bullshitters and their lackeys soon....very soon...and put this nation back on its own path to nation building for the future instead of squandering blood and treasure trying to be the cop of the world.

The VA Scandal: It's About Too Many Long 'wars', Not Enough Gov't Employees

 As the Republicans continue screeching outrage and pique  - now about the VA hospitals that left dozens of vets on "secret waiting lists"- it is important (as with most things the 'pukes scream about, like Benghazi) to get a perspective.  The Republicans and their vocal media mouthpieces (like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh) are all about how Obama and his administration left those patriotic vets hanging waiting for care, until the bitter end.

But polls show people don't buy it, at least the sensible ones. One poll cited yesterday (by Bill Maher)  disclosed only 17% blame Obama for the fiasco at the VA, but truth be told this should even be lower. It is, in fact, the Republicans who dispatched the country into two, extended wars of choice - that were totally unnecessary. Bush, Cheney and their minions then are to blame for launching these wars, while also CUTTING taxes instead of raising them.

This budgetary myopia showed they were more interested in starting unnecessary conflicts than looking ahead to the formidable costs, in medical and psychological terms. They wanted the pseudo-glory and bravado, such as trotting Dumbya Bush out in his flight suit to the "Mission Accomplished" idiocy, as opposed to constructing all the hospitals and hiring the VA staff that would be needed to care for the maimed vets they dispatched into harm's way ......on false pretexts.

The Reeps never talk about having been able to vote on a $24b bill that would have opened 27 new VA hospitals but punted. They felt it was "too much money" going to fuel "big government". Well, you get what you pay for.  The Reepos have also overseen the downsizing of VA staff - in tandem with their yen to "sink government in a bathtub" .

 Currently then, only 20,000 VA workers are there to take care of 100 million appointments a year - which is an outrage. There ought to be at least double that number, as there ought to be more Social Security offices (and workers too), instead of shuttering hundreds of S.S. offices across the nation - to make it much more difficult for seniors to get benefits.

The moral of the story in all this? Don't instigate or incite wars where you don't belong, and keep them going for a decade (or more) if you're not willing to pay for the projected medical costs. Don't cut taxes and call what you're engaging in a "war" if you don't increase taxes so that all citizens share in the sacrifice. Don't tell 98% of the nation to "go shopping" and tell the others they must "fight for the 98 percent's freedoms" - unless you want to make an ass out of yourself.

Sadly, Obama, in his visit to Afghanistan over the weekend, still doesn't seem to have gotten the message - indicating the Afghan conflict "must end responsibly" - meaning troops will remain there in harm's way past this year. WHY? There is no reason to keep them there, and doing so will not secure Afghanistan's future any more than staying in 'Nam would have secured its future from the North Vietnamese. As Sun Tzu would have put it, that war was lost before even begun. (His actual statement in 'The Art of War' is "Wars are lost or won before they begin").

The wise move here, given the unfolding VA crisis in inadequate medical care, is to pull those troops - ALL of them - by year's end. Then, there is some smattering of a chance (not much!) that the VA personnel needs can catch up to the urgent care and waiting vets. But it is clueless to risk many more injured vets - from Afghanistan- when the under-staffed and underfunded system obviously can't handle them.

Mr. Obama, end the Afghan fiasco now! Take note of Thomas Friedmann's words that it makes no sense to do nation building overseas if we don't do nation building in our own country first.

Our own country cries out for repair (of its infrastructure) and also creation of millions of new jobs not affiliated with weapons manufacture or warring. Not to mention, healing its own citizens-  from students' inundated by debt, to families barely eking by on food stamps.

Let us take care of our own country now, and the existing vets awaiting care, as opposed to adding thousands more that the downsized (thanks to Reepos) government  and VA simply cannot handle.

Just my two cents!

Obama's Hollow Threats: A Failure To Grasp Geopolitics – As He Defends Iraq War

"The vast human cataclysms of the 20th century will not likely repeat themselves. But the worldwide civil society that the elites thought they could engineer is a chimera. The geographical forces at work will not be easily tamed.......In geopolitics the past never dies and there is no modern world." - Robert Kaplan, in 'Old World Order', TIME, March 31, p. 35.


When a New York Times editorial takes you to task for over the top and antagonistic rhetoric you know you’re off the beam as a President. The Editorial (‘A Tortured Policy Towards Russia’) noted:

“THE United States has once again twisted itself into a rhetorical pretzel. As when it threatened military action against Syria if a “red line” was crossed, the Obama administration’s rhetoric about Russia and Ukraine goes far beyond what it will be willing and able to enforce. “

It went on to point out:

“Washington’s rhetoric is dangerously excessive, for three main reasons: Ukraine is far more important to Vladimir V. Putin than it is to America; it will be hard for the United States and Europe to make good on their threats of crippling sanctions; and other countries could ultimately defang them”.

All of which I wholeheartedly agree with.  And yet what do we behold Obama doing yesterday? Well,  continuing with his offal and hollow, belligerent rhetoric denouncing the “brute force” he said Russia used to intimidate neighbors like Ukraine and vowing that the United States “will never waver” in standing up for its NATO allies against aggression by Moscow.”   Of course, he knows as his incompetent aides do as well, that he can never ever back that up without being willing to have a nuclear war. Does he? I doubt it.

In a speech clearly written by Robert Kagan or some other Neocon idiot-  evident by its lack of intelligence and puerile bombast  -   Obama dismissed Russian justifications for its intervention in Ukraine point by point, as “absurd” or unmerited.  He also used the Neoliberal media trope that Russia was “re-drawing borders” totally oblivious to the geopolitics of the issue. To remind readers, geopolitics is basically the “battle for space and power played out in a geographical setting” (TIME, ‘Old World Order’, March 31, p. 32).

As the TIME piece adds: “This is a concept that hasn’t changed since antiquity yet one which to which too many Western diplomats  and academics have lately seemed deaf.”

The reason for that is that these “diplomats” and “academics” (sic) have tried to lend urgency and memetic superiority to the Neoliberal “New World Order” which purported to organize the 21st century according to economic arrangements, financial and trade agreements and abstract unions. The problem is that the reality of geography (and ethnicity)  trumps this hyper-bullshit for most humans, and in the case of Ukraine  (ibid.): “its very geography makes it nearly impossible to orient itself entirely toward the West.”  It is IN Russia’s sphere of influence, holds its most strategic sea port and hence there was no doubt Russia would claim it if the Neoliberal West pushed its advantage too hard – with expansion of NATO. Hence, Russia has far more invested in controlling this geography than the U.S. and would fight to the death to preserve its hegemony. Meanwhile, the U.S. has no business meddling, period.

This is grasped even by Mikhail Gorbachev, he who advocated originally for the New World Order (allowing the Soviet Union to break up), but saw successive U.S. Presidents break their promise not to expand NATO.  No wonder as TIME noted (‘Morning After in Crimea’, p. 12, Gorbachev- when asked his opinion of Putin’s actions on the eve of the referendum- pointedly noted that “Putin should not stop at Crimea but take all of southern Ukraine”.  Which makes sense from a geopolitical viewpoint given that otherwise Crimea is cut off from Russian supply lines, roads, etc.  Gorbachev emphasized this geopolitical view when he said (ibid.)

“In essence, southern Ukraine is just like Crimea. Its population is Russian. It was civilized by Russians.”

Does Obama get any of this? Clearly not.  Incredibly,  this guy even defended aspects of the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a junior senator, as a stark contrast to the way Russia has seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. One’s mind must boggle at this incomprehensible turnaround but of course Obama watchers have seen it before – many times- altering positions and policies from what he stoutly proclaimed in campaign mode. It’s almost becoming a pattern like a broken record.  So, we weren't terribly surprised when he  said:

“But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead we ended our war, and left Iraq to it people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decision about its own future.”

Of course, this is firstly devoid of any basic grasp of GEOPOLITICS!  Iraq, at over 6,000 miles distant from the U.S. - posed no remote geographical security interest or threat - unlike the Ukraine and NATO's incursion does for the Russians. Iraq was perpetrated purely out of bogus WMD bullshit hatched by a rat nicknamed "Curve ball". ON that basis, and because Saddam once made some vague threats about Pappy Bush, a full scale assault was launched that eventually cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions in treasure.

 Thus the Iraq War was indefensible as well as illegal from the get go, irrespective of whether the U.S. claimed one city, or one sand berm. The  truth is that the legitimate "international system" condemned the Iraq invasion and occupation since it violated Principle VI of the Nuremberg laws - the crimes against peace, and pre-emptive war.   Instead of contorting himself into such ridiculous positions to try to justify a verbal attack on Russia, he’d do better to watch and listen to the young Senator’s opposition to that disgusting pre-emptive war which imitated the Nazi invasion of Poland.  Meanwhile, Russia’s occupation of the Crimea was actually justified by a 1997  treaty with the Ukraine, which allowed a limit of 25,000 troops.

Obama - in his spiel yesterday- even conceded the U.S. itself has NO geopolitical stake in Ukraine:

"To be honest, if we define our interests narrowly, if we applied a cold hearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way. Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea.   Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation"


But he then bloviated that, oh we just had to get involved and be the Cop of the World, because "casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent."

Clearly, it appears Obama’s brain has been hijacked by the neocons and their disreputable endless war narrative. Where we once held out hope he’d rise to the level of a transformative President – like Kennedy did after the Cuban Missile Crisis – it is now evident Obama has regressed to his mean over the past 6 years.  The only difference now is his use of belligerent, antagonistic rhetoric when calm, thoughtful,  dispassionate response is sorely needed.  To repeat the words of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) on Chris Hayes’ ALL In show two weeks ago:

“This is not something that anybody needs. Not the West, not Russia, not the world, There needs to be an end to the polemics, as you showed from people like John McCain, an end of the passion, an end to the punditry, and a solution.”

Unlike Obama and the Neoliberal and neocon imps and lackeys in his administration, Col. Wilkerson proposed an actual pragmatic geopolitical solution: making Ukraine a buffer state between NATO and Russia which is a reasonable solution.  As he went on to point out –from the transcript:

“Ukraine needs to be the buffer state. Crimea needs to be exactly where it is, with Russia - where it's been for over three hundred and fifty years, and we need to stop the passionate statements and get down to business and work this out. We don't need a war."

Meanwhile, Obama continued on from his intemperate remarks the day before,  as if he’s begging for a war, asserting (New York Times, March 30 headline story, 'Obama Renewing U.S. Commitment to NATO'):

“We have to make sure that we have put together very real contingency plans for every one of these members, including those who came in out of Central and Eastern Europe. And over the last several years we have worked up a number of these contingency plans.”

More worrisome, and disclosing that the neocons have seriously egged him into rash, provocative actions, the NY Times (op. cit.) reported that:

The United States has already sent an extra six F-15C Eagles and 60 airmen to Lithuania and 12 F-16 fighter jets and 200 service members

And the provocations are likely to worsen, as the  NY TIMES continued, noting:

Aides said the president would bolster that presence by rotating more ground and naval troops for exercises and training in Poland and the Baltic countries; update contingency planning for specific countries and update NATO’s threat assessment in the region; and increase the capacity of a NATO quick-response force.

Sadly, we don’t know where this will end or how. We had expected the sober and pragmatic  response of a statesman and someone who could work with Russia in a serious way –  predicated on  feasible geopolitical solutions as opposed to Pax Americana fantasies. But it appears the neocons in Obama’s administration have had the last laugh in turning him into one of them (even accepting THEIR IRAQ WAR!) 

Even if they don’t get a new war with the Russians, the damage to the cooperative relationship with Putin appears permanent. And Mr. Putin is the key to keeping further wars in Syria and Iran from igniting.

This rending of the cooperative agreement may have been what the neocons likely  wanted all along, which is bad enough. One thing I can say I never thought I’d see is Obama turning into a neocon! Though truth be told, Oliver Stone in his ‘Secret History of the United States’ did show Obama’s policies vis-à-vis Iraq and the Middle East much chummier with Bush’s than many have realized. Perhaps another reason he didn’t prosecute Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld for war crimes, or enabling and approving the CIA renditions and tortures.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55005/media-whoop-up-stampede-to-cold-war-hot-war-whatever

And:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/cameron-salisbury/55095/vladimir-putin-rock-star-made-in-America

 And (On Ukraine's  Nazis):

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/55086/ukraines-inconvenient-neo-Nazis