Most 'Muricans Want Ground War With ISIS - Falling Into the "ISIS Trap"

 " Why of course the people don’t want war...But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist 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’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, 1946

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." -Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Americans are full of raging war 'roids and ready to dispatch tens of thousands of ground troops to fight ISIS. Specifically, 62 percent of registered voters - who are supposed to be a tad smarter than rocks - want U.S. ground troops committed to another failed combat effort sure to inflate the ISIS rats and their recruits more than achieve any victory. Elias Isquith, noting the figures in a recent salon.com piece,  actually asked: "Are we insane?" 

Well, yes "we" are -  at least those of us who get the bulk of our "news" from the corporate media and especially from the propagandists at FOX (who can't even 'fess up to Billo O'Reilly's multiple lies - from being in the Falklands war zone, to being present when a key HSCA Kennedy assassination witness was murdered.)

But this is what one can expect when a people are half-educated, ignorant and lack critical thinking skills, in which case they become malleable tools to be molded by the PR and propaganda machines.   And we've seen this dog and pony war beat show before, about a year and a half ago when neocons were clamoring for a Syria intervention.

Most cooler heads at the time were able to see through it and as they saw the polls climb for intervention some even noted a "herd mentality" taking root. One of these was Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, who on one Steve Kornacki 'UP' show, observed we had no business barging into Syria - which effects would arguably be even more catastrophic and dunning than those from barging into Iraq.

Prof. Leverett compared that drumbeat  " to the lead up to the war in Iraq" and she ought to have known as she was in the Bush White House and also dealing with Congressional Democrats, and with members of the media. She went on:

"The herd mentality which took over to buy into the Bush administration's narrative that Saddam had to have chemical weapons of mass destruction and was determined to use them, was something unquestioned. ....it was not only a mistake, it was based on manufactured evidence. "


In  the case of Iraq, too many citizens played along by being cowed, afraid to speak out lest we be deemed "unpatriotic" or  "terrorist sympathizers".  Many of us also allowed ourselves to be too uninformed, even ignorant of the issues, thereby allowing ourselves to be played. Susan Jacoby, for example (in 'The Shock Doctrine'), referenced “two thirds of us can’t find Iraq on a map and many members of Congress don’t know a Shiite from a Sunni”  In a nutshell, too many Americans had “become too lazy to learn what we need to know to make sound public decisions."

 

This is tragic, and what has led to the operative herd mentality that comes up every time our  collective consciousness is hijacked by overwrought emotions.  Because if Americans can’t or won’t exercise their minds to think critically, especially concerning our national history and consequences of our actions, then we stand to be led into more reckless wars.

 

This thing with ISIS is no different, and as a recent (Mar. 9) highly excellent piece in TIME noted (yes, they do have a few) Americans would be making the biggest error ever in falling for the ISIS trap.  As the authors write (p. 31):

 

"ISIS is taunting the world to run the cycle (of war) one more time....As bad as these people are, there is room for things to get much worse. And they will unless the U.S. and its coalition has the discipline at last to think all the way through to the end. The question is not beating ISIS. It's what comes after that. More than ever the question needs an answer."

 

What comes after that? The multiple authors aren't afraid to broach their views, with which I wholeheartedly agree (ibid.):

 

"The U.S. showed in 1991 and again in 2003 that it knows how to take down enemies in Iraq. What it has never shown is an ability to leave something better afterward."

 

But until it does, ever new crops of terrorists will emerge. From the region's overall degradation of civil society, leading to: "mass unemployment, resentment, suspicion and sense of victimhood" .  These are the human factors that need addressing in the Middle East, especially the conflict -torn regions like Iraq, Syria and Libya. Sure, it's easy to treat all inimical problems like a "nail" and wield a "hammer" to solve them  - but that only leads you back to more conflicts, i.e. that require more "hammers".

 

This again takes us back to State Dept. spokesperson Marie Harf's recent comment which I cited yesterday:

"We cannot kill our way out of this war" 

 

Referring to the current conflict with ISIS.  Well, we certainly cannot if that means once more committing tens of thousands of ground troops - especially after we beheld how that worked out before with Iraq- an intervention that laid the path for ISIS.

 

And let's go even further back in the mists of time to how all these terrorists managed to manifest thanks to our stupid manipulations during the Reagan era.  As the TIME authors remind us (ibid.):

 

"It's true that some of the same mujahedin trained and armed by the U.S. to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan went on to be the founding fathers of modern jihadist terrorism - men like bin Laden and Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban."

 

Ouch! The truth hurts, doesn't it? The authors go on with even more truth:

 

"No thought was given to what would become of these battle -hardened fanatics after the West was done using them."

 

Yes, indeed. We were too smart by half. Believed we could create this 'Frankenstein' monster to sic on the Russkies but never dreamed it would stay alive and come back to wreak havoc....on US! Hubris anyone?

 

Americans, as fearful as they are about ISIS beheadings and having ISIS zombies appear at Malls, need to get a grip and not allow  themselves to be converted to a drooling, mindless herd. This is exactly what the ISIS bugs want, and they're hoping they can taunt us enough to force our weaker politicos and leaders into precipitous action.

 

But if we do we will prove once more we are indeed insane. As Einstein put it: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."

 

 

See also:


http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloodlust_are_bringing_americans_together/

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!.

Obama the "Worst President" Since WWII? Are Americans Freakin' STUPID?

On the eve of Independence Day, modern day Americans have proven they're the stupidest, most historically uninformed, ignorant bunch of mutts ever. According to  a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.  What are these morons drinking, or more appropriately how did their brains end up in their asses? Have these fools NO recollection of history at all? Are their memories truly competitive with those of gnats? It seems so, especially if they rank Ronnie Raygun at the top.

According to Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll:

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel"

REALLY? On what basis? Feelings? You got it from FOX news? That doesn't count. Even more preposterous, the Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Which makes me wonder what brand of historical imbecile we are now producing with our education system.

The worst insult? Ronald Reagan topped the poll as "the best president" since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Which proves to me that the voters polled ought to have their voting credentials revoked and sent back to kindergarten.

Look, let's clear up the bullshit and nonsense one time. As I noted before I've got lots of bones to pick with Obama, including endorsing the NSA overreach, ramping up a new surge in Afghanistan after he received the Nobel Peace Prize, actually proposing a "Debt commission" and a chained CPI to cut Social Security, I have also complained about Obama's tendency to not stand on principles and have the courage to act on them, thereby failing to become the transformative President he might have been e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-obama-failed-to-become.html

But failing to become a transformative President isn't the same as being the worst! Gimme a break!

The preponderance of these voters claim that Reagan is "the best President". Let me try to clear their heads. Reagan, recall, is the character who once opined that in an emergency, “submarine-fired missiles could be recalled”.

This is the guy who single-handedly destroyed the Trade Union movement (and back bone of the Democratic party) by firing 12,000 air traffic controllers, a move that's taken that industry the better part of two decades to compensate for, with hundreds of “near misses” along the way.

Reagan is also the shameless cretin who pulled critical social spending as he sliced taxes to their lowest levels in history (also helping to fire up the deficit) – leading to more than a half million mentally ill patients being tossed out of their hospital beds. Where did they end up? Most found themselves on the street, while the lucky few managed to somehow survive.

He also -while slicing taxes  - ran up a $2,2 TRILLION dollar defense budget debt (think $3,500 apiece toilets,  $150 hammers) that in fact turned the country into a DEBTOR nation for the first time in modern history.   Reagan's economic policies, bottom line, paved the way for the continuing debt crisis in which this nation finds itself.

But as seriously bad as all that was it still wasn't as bad as GeeDumbya Bush, who:

- Stole the Presidency in 2000 thanks to his brother Jeb and Kathleen Harris placing 40% of black democratic voters in Duval County on Felon's lists - so they couldn't vote. (See Chapter 1 of Greg Palast's expose, 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy')

- Ignored a security brief in August, 2001, warning of a likely strike by bin Laden using hijacked airliners.  Within weeks 9/11 followed.

- Used the ploy of 9/11 to pose as the "security President" while attacking Afghanistan then demanding Saddam be linked to that terror attack despite no evidence whatsoever.

- Launched the Iraq invasion and occupation thereby emulating Hitler's invasion and occupation of Poland in October, 1939. Thereby he also became the first president ever to violate the Nuremberg statutes against pre-emptive wars.

- Was responsible for an estimated 600,000 dead Iraqis (according to the World Health Organization) and over 4,400 Americans while running up $4 TRILLION in debt and not implementing higher taxes to pay for his adventures. (He actually CUT taxes, the first time ever in so-called "war time" and told Americans to "go shopping")

And you're going to tell me this bozo isn't the worst ever?

As for the Mittster, Americans really do prove they have the memories of gnats if they believe he'd have been better.  Here are a few things for the morons to cogitate on:

- By the end of his first term Romney - an elitist asshole of the one percent - would have cut taxes for the wealthiest, vastly increasing existing inequality. To pay for these cuts, he would have -with the cooperation of the Reeptard House- cut food stamps even more than they already have, and raised taxes on the poorest (those earning $20,000/year or less) in response to the then popular Repuke outcry that "the poor pay no income taxes!"

- Romney, again along with his Reepo House, would have cut Social Security - probably via the chained CPI and also by increasing Medicare premiums.

-In league with his chosen VP (Paul Ryan) Romney likely would also have ushered Ryan's Medicare voucher plan through. That would have meant seniors getting maybe $10,000 a year (if that) to purchase all their health care- whether operations, or preventive care - like colonoscopies.

- Romney, in line with his vows in the national security Presidential debate in Oct. 2012, would have attacked both Syria and Iran, likely embroiling the U.S. in two new conflicts that would have sucked even more precious treasure - while allowing the country to fall into rack and ruin.

So how should the Presidents be rated since World War II? Based on my own grasp and understanding of recent American history - the top three Presidents would be as follows::

1) John F. Kennedy (Irrespective of what assorted nitwit pundits have blathered, Kennedy did more positively for this nation than all the Reepos together - but most importantly - had he not acted with courage against the Joint Chiefs we'd all have been destroyed in a nuclear war (during the October Missile crisis) and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/thanks-to-jfk-we-still-have-civilization.html

2) Jimmy Carter: Started no wars nor did he launch invasions. Attempted to get Americans to focus on energy conservation for the future.

3) Barack Obama: He implemented the nation's first broad-based health care system which despite its flaws has given the less fortunate access that didn't exist before other than via costly emergency room visits. He collaborated with Vladimir Putin to avoid being ensnared in a Syrian war, and also refused to bomb Iran - as Romney would have done. Let me also remind my forgetful peers that Obama's 2009 economic stimulus - though it likely wasn't enough - saved this country from descending into another Depression after the 2008 credit crisis.  Despite his flaws, Obama merits position as 3rd best President, not the worst.

Now the three worst:

12) George W. Bush: For all the reasons given earlier.

11) Ronald Reagan: For all the reasons given earlier.

10) Richard Nixon:  Think 'Watergate' and bombing Cambodia while ramping up the Vietnam War.  Think having thugs break into Daniel Ellsberg's  psychiatrist's office and using the IRS as a weapon against political enemies. (For those wondering, Nixon's "saving grace - why he's 10th and not 11th) is that he gets credit for increasing Social Security COLAs to extend the life of the program.)

As for the Quinnipiac University Poll, it's worthless if based on responses from people who are either brainwashed Fox-ites or who know little or nothing of recent American history.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/05/ronald_reagan_stuck_it_to_millennials_a_college_debt_history_lesson_no_one_tells/

and:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1053088/-An-open-letter-to-the-people-who-hate-Obama-more-than-they-love-America?detail=email#

Why Are Liberal Commentators Afraid to Relate the WHOLE Ukraine Backstory?

The  Neocon Repukes, including Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers, and John McCain ("This is a feckless foreign policy!") are all screeching for Obama to "do something" about the Ukraine situation, but this reactionary,  bully boy rhetoric  is what we expect from numb skulls. Any person with even room temperature I.Q. knows that you aren't going to be able to "muscle down"  a proud nation that sports an armed force of 845,000, and  thousands of nuclear-tipped  missiles.

On the other hand,  I've been looking - searching desperately in fact-  for some liberal voice or commentator to at least get the Ukraine back story right, even as the rest of the Neoliberal corporate media gets hysterical - goading Obama into precipitous action.  Yesterday evening I scanned my generally favorite liberal commentators to search for any kind of kernel of genuine, unfiltered, unskewed insight into what's happening in the Ukraine.

I started out with Chris Hayes (All In, MSNBC) and was encouraged when his guest Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) appeared. He started out, correctly, referencing  that the seeds of the current crisis go all the way back to the administration of George H.W. Bush, when he and his Secretary of State Jim Baker assured Mikhail Gorbachev that "NATO would not go one inch further to the east".. He added: "Then a series of Presidents came in who not only went further to the east - pushed by Lockheed Martin and others, who wanted to sell weapons to eastern and central European countries - but hinted at Georgia and Ukraine."

Most salient, and a key point of history I wanted to see expressed:

"Anyone who knows Russian history .....could have guessed that  President Putin would move into the Ukraine once we had formed a group there, led by the NED and its affiliates - which effectively pulled off a coup".

The NED and its affiliates!! NEOCONS! There it is!  The National Endowment for Democracy,  the Right wing, Nazi -linked bunch which was a central part of Ronald Reagan’s propaganda war against the Soviet Union three decades ago.  And which many have noted has been working to destabilize Ukraine, and with the help of  Victoria Nuland, John McCain and others,  oust Viktor  Yanukovych. But don't believe me, hear out Col. Wilkerson, who went on to say:


"What is Putin to think when a nation that talks about bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO  suddenly effects the removal of his oligarchic leader in Kiev.  If I were Putin I'd have done exactly what Putin did. And anyone who says they couldn't predict this is either a fool or lying"

In other words, Obama spouting more balderdash that "Russia is on the wrong side of history" is Neoliberal codswallop. It's the U.S. on the wrong side for betraying promises it made on the expansion of NATO!! 

More to the point, Col. Wilkerson did confirm that what President Putin said in comments yesterday was correct:  Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup confected by the NED and neocons!

Alas, Chris Hayes - even when the red meat was handed to him on a platter by his guest-   backed away from pursuing the NED - Neocon links to the Amerikkan putsch that delivered Kiev and the Ukraine to "Yats" (Nuland's favorite NED pawn) and went off to discuss the "costs to Putin" and Russia.

I then turned to Rachel Maddow, hoping she might run with it given she already has a documentary on our Iraq invasion folly coming out Thursday. Actually, earlier in the day, in an interview on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell. Maddow charged that the George W. Bush administration's Middle East policy "has steered America's current security policy and response to global crises — including the one in Ukraine." Talking about her new documentary, "Why We Did It," involving circumstances leading to the Iraq War, Maddow told her MSNBC colleague that the Bush administration is largely responsible for the nation's current course overseas.

She went on to say that :

“The decisions of our generation on national security are determined more than anything by what the George W. Bush administration did with that nine-year war in Iraq and, alongside it a 13-year war in Afghanistan that’s still going on, and the American people are against those wars."

 
which is certainly true, and we know the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) was behind the Iraq invasion. Trouble is she didn't pursue the Neocon- PNAC connection to Iraq and then follow it through to how they also wanted Ukraine included in the 'regime change' mix after Iraq, Iran and Syria.  Since the cons couldn't provoke Obama into regime change in the latter two (Putin intervened and caused the 'Cons to back down - while providing Obama and the U.S. with outs), they decided to go after Ukraine - on Putin's doorstep.   If they had had any sense at all, they ought to have known that Putin would respond exactly the way Wilkerson said he would - and which even Wilkerson admitted HE would!   (At least there's one U.S. official or military person who's not a hypocrite!)

I then tuned into Maddow's show at 7 p.m. and she went into a long prelude about the "deal" made to disarm nukes in the Ukraine and how this led to "closer ties with the West". (I dispute the meaning of the term "closer" as she interpreted it and vis-à-vis how the Ukraine or Russia did, based on Col. Wilkerson's earlier assessments).   She then attempted to show it was a formal agreement or "treaty" between Russia, the U.S., the Ukraine and EU not to intervene there.  Hence, when Putin dispatched troops to the Crimea he "violated it". 

This is wrong on several counts. First, what Maddow referenced was not a formal document but a diplomatic agreement. This meant it did not carry any treaty obligations, including for the U.S. to "defend" the Ukraine, or for Russia never to intrude.  What Maddow also neglected to mention in her set piece (and yes it was great to have those nuclear weapons disassembled),  is that while Russia kept her part of the bargain, the U.S. didn't. NATO expansion continued under Clinton. To his credit, Clinton didn't launch an attack on Iraq in 1998 as the Neocons demanded (that had to wait their installation of Gee Dumbya in 2001) but his expansion of NATO partly laid the path to what's unfolding now. 

The problem is that Maddow avoided all of this like the plague. Why? If her work on the documentary  'Why We Did It' is a barometer, she ought to have brought the same ferocity and truth-telling to the fore on the Ukraine,  but she held back. Why? In fact, she had a pro-Maidan compact,  "Ukrainian lobby"  American congress woman on as guest who merely stoked the airwaves with more  anti-Russian propaganda - as if the Neocon controlled media (like The Washington Post) haven't done enough in that regard.

Second,  even the CIA in an LA Times story yesterday, acknowledged that "a 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine allows up to 25,000 Russian troops in the vital Crimea region" - thereby scotching the nonsense that Putin "invaded Crimea", certainly in his mind this is balderdash given all actions are in conformance with said treaty, see e.g.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-intelligence-russia-ukraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2uy8lfu8m

True, CIA director Brennan "doesn't believe this justified Russia's moves", but I revert back to what Col. Wilkerson (Ret.) noted above - that given the U.S. neocons conducted a putsch, a coup - he WAS justified and Wilkerson would have done it too if in Putin's place as he himself noted. 

Then there was the WaPo's Eugene Robinson, perhaps the last relatively liberal voice and columnist on what has become a nonstop cheerleader for Neocon-Neoliberal foolishness. In his column yesterday ('Who are We To Judge Russia') he certainly hits the nail right on the head in his opening paragraph:  

"Let’s be real. It’s one thing to say that Russia’s takeover of the Crimean Peninsula “cannot be allowed to stand,” as many foreign policy sages have proclaimed. It’s quite another to do something about it.

Is it just me, or does the rhetoric about the crisis in Ukraine sound as if all of Washington is suffering from amnesia? We’re supposed to be shocked — shocked! — that a great military power would cook up a pretext to invade a smaller, weaker nation? I’m sorry, but has everyone forgotten the unfortunate events in Iraq a few years ago?"

But from there he veers off into less relevant piffle and issues, including falling into the Neocon propaganda meme trap, i.e.  that his "sentiments are with the legitimate Ukrainian government, not with the neo-imperialist regime in Russia" Again,  failing to see that the government controlled by Nuland's and the Neocon's pawn "Yats" (Arseniy Yatsenuk ) is in fact NOT legit, but was installed after a coup - the same one Col. Lawence Wilkerson acknowledged had occurred in his interview with Chris Hayes.  (See also “Cheering a ‘Democratic’ Coup in Ukraine.”)


Hence, with Robinson's weight behind the illegit American puppet Arseniy Yatsenuk  it's not surprising he  doesn't pursue the Neocon -NED links to the putsch in Kiev. WHY not? Are the Neocons THAT powerful in the Beltway that they have everyone by the balls? Why are ALL the professed liberal voices so intimidated? Are they afraid they will lose their jobs if they come out even the slightest in a way that might be construed "pro-Russian"?

What has become ever more apparent to me the past week, is that if intelligent Americans really want to find out the cause and basis of the current crisis, they will have to dig much deeper than any American corporate news source. All of them are laden with propaganda, disinformation and outright untruths - in varying amounts. Pick your poison.  Even the relatively liberal MSNBC has fallen under the "blame Russia" meme.  Sadly, even when shows like Chris Hayes 'All In'  feature informed guests - like Col. Wilkerson - with an opportunity for background and backstory - there seems to be the incentive to punk out, as opposed to pursuing the truth.  Even if that truth leads to the door of a U.S.-sponsored coup, and installation of a figure head pawn.

But as I noted repeatedly before, in my assorted blog posts on the JFK assassination in November, if we don't become more conversant with what really happened in our own history, we will be at the mercy of any brain-twisting propaganda that comes along. And these days, believe me, there's a LOT of it.

At least blog readers can be assured I will do my utmost to keep them properly informed and especially on who they can trust and who they can't!

See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/54577/not-funny-but-it-s-still-hard-not-to-laugh-how-can-the-us-accuse-russia-of-violating-international-la


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/daniel-patrick-welch/54587/blessing-in-disguise-ukraine-may-be-the-last-straw-if-it-doesnt-kill-us-all

and

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/54581/the-four-horsemen-of-the-american-apocalypse