Showing posts with label Michael Morrell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Morrell. Show all posts

Friday, May 15, 2020

WSJ's 'Deep State' Conspiracy Buffoons Flail While Trying To Defend Barr Interfering In Flynn Case


"Ummmm....let's see, what more dopey crap can I write as a proper cockroach on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed staff? Oh yeah, let me go after Mueller, Emmet Sullivan and unmasking Flynn again!"

"Trump and his followers have been routinely advocating the jailing of Trump's political opponents without an investigation, criminal charges, trial or conviction by a jury of their peers. This is the way fascist dictators dispose of their political opposition."=    Lucian K. Truscott IV, smirkingchimp.com 


The hysteria about Michael Flynn and his "unmasking"  - displayed openly in the WSJ's op-ed pages the past week -  provides a graphic insight into full blown collective madness. (So one can grasp why all these WSJ op-ed stooges are likely on opioids or MJ candy). Start off with Dan Henninger ('The Flynn Debuachery', May 14, p. A13)   who insists "a low grade mistake by Mr. Flynn got built into a high stakes prosecution."  Not so!

In fact, the report from the FBI interview, known as the FBI 302, showed clearly Flynn was not coerced in any way, and further was given every chance to take an honorable out.   To that end during the interview the agents gave Flynn every opportunity to come clean, even parroting back his own words to try to jog his memory. But Flynn insisted on lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador Kislyak - regarding U.S. sanctions and a UN vote.  Giiven the FBI had intercepts of the phone conversations the FBI couldn't help but notice they conflicted with the public account. 

What's more, the statement filed at the time of Flynn's guilty plea showed Flynn coordinated the substance of his calls to Kislyak with a senior member of the Trump transition team.  A collusion no brainer, hell a conspiracy no brainer.

To jog our own memories, let's recall the Flynn case grew out of phone calls he made to Sergey Kislyak in the final days of 2016, asking that Moscow please refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the election.  The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps of Kislyak and triggered concern among FBI agents investigating Flynn once they learned of them.

And despite all the hubbub about "unmasking" the poor Flynn, or Carter Page, let's please get a grip. In reality.  According to the WSJ's main news section piece on it yesterday (p. A3, 'Unmasking Requests Released') :

"Unmasking U.S. identities in intelligence reports occurs thousands of times annually, according to statistics maintained by the Office of the Director Of National Intelligence."

Henninger like his deranged WSJ colleagues: Kim Strassel ('The Mueller Coverup',  May 8, p. A13), and Holman Jenkins Jr. ('What The FBI Is Covering Up', p. A13, May 13)   as well as the WSJ editors ('The Flynn Unmaskers, Unmasked', p. A14, May 14,  'All The Schiff Transcripts', May 14, 'Judge Sullivan's Bad Judgment', May 14)  fairly screeches detachment from the world of facts and realty at every turn.  For example, 'Henny' barking:

"What's striking is the lack of remorse across the Washington establishment. Unapologetic arrogance on this scale suggests that unmaskings, intelligence abuses and leaks are likely to return as off the books weapons against individuals disliked by the government bureaucracies."

Oh, you mean shifty traitors like Flynn who tried to make side deals with the Russkies before Obama's term had even ended? That who you mean, Henny?


Let's remind ourselves here, given the chaos of Trump World, that Flynn’s case grew out of phone calls he made to Sergey Kislyak in the final days of 2016, asking that Moscow refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia as punishment for interfering in the election. The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps of Kislyak and prompted concern among the F.B.I. agents  once they learned of them.  Agents then began to suspect that Flynn was lying to other Trump officials about the phone calls and were concerned that he was a blackmail risk because Russia knew the truth of the calls

Henny's hysteria over unmasking (like that of the WSJ editors, and Holman Jenkins)  might also have been allayed or diminished had he taken the time to read the main news page story about unmasking (p. A3, same date).  Therein he'd have seen quotations on its importance from Michael Morrell - former acting director of the CIA:

"You can't do your job without it."  

Adding that he used to make unmasking requests several times a month. Missed by these nattering WSJ nabobs too is that unmasking would be a veritable requirement once conversations had also been intercepted by foreign intelligence sources, like the GCHQ in the UK. 

Meanwhile, 'deep state'  fetishist Kim Strassel,   having wallowed in her own form of  conspiracy paranoia (cited earlier),  is outraged that the FBI entered on the basis of Flynn "engaging in conversations with Russian government officials" like it's just a day at the office.  She even expresses passing umbrage at the potential invocation of the Logan Act of 1799, "a law that's never been used to convict an American".   Well, maybe it was never officially needed before, Kim.   She also carps about the "rarely enforced" Foreign Agents Registration Act - as if it's merely on the books for decoration or to fill up space.  But it all falls into place when you see her daft reference to Flynn's "supposed lies".  No, Kim, they were REAL lies, about foreign influence on a top U.S. security asset  - Flynn. 

Today she did herself one better ('Barr vs. The Beltway', p. A15) barking as part of a long, unhinged rant:

"Instead of applauding Barr for divulging these facts, the Beltway has responded with ire. Mr. Barr's transparency threatens to reveal further that the Russia collusion narrative was pure fantasy...to expose how hatred of Donald Trump drove people in power to break rules and destroy norms."

 Jeezus Peace!  The harpy hack is yapping about "people in power" (in the Beltway) "breaking norms and rules" as if on another planet.  So it's little wonder she  appears to forget (perhaps in the same otherworldly MJ haze)  that it was her master Trump who - on July 26, 2016-  openly implored the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. In other words, openly pandering for the commission of the crime that occurred one day later- and set off this whole investigation of Donnie  Bonespurs.  In front of millions, the Orange Turd had baldly blurted:


"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

So Trump, in full public view, asked Russia to hack his political opponent. Does Kim recall any of that? Evidently not. She only recalls the "breaking rules and destroying norms" she wants to recall. Or, the minimum needed to continue to peddle her Fusion GPS- Christopher Steele- Hillary- FBI conspiracy bunkum.   

Indeed, when this twaddle about "investigating the investigators"  first surfaced with Barr in December last year, Chris Hayes on All In (Dec. 10) aptly observed:

"The obvious problem with this theory is that it makes no sense. Remember this, during the campaign the only investigation that became public was the one regarding Hillary Clinton, which arguably lost her the election. But the FBI was investigating Trump at the very same time. No one uttered a word about it. If they were so desperate to bring Trump down you'd think someone would have said something.  They didn't. So the whole conspiracy theory doesn't even hold together."

Now let us cut through all the other fulsome crap that Henny, Kim and Little Holman as well as the brain addled Journal editors have tried to hurl on the wall - hoping some sticks. They all appear to forget or ignore the 434-page report issued last year by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. It concluded the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it initiated its investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, into the Trump campaign. In doing so, Horowitz implicitly rejected GOP assertions that the case was launched out of political animus, or that the FBI broke its own rules on using informants. 

Strassel also lambasted Judge Sullivan in today's rant, declaring he had "decided to join the smear campaign against Mr. Barr."  Actually, Kim, Judge Sullivan opted to be one  of the few to stand up to Barr's effort to smear the rule of law and equal justice in this country. Can ya dig it? Well, perhaps not in that purple haze!  Kim's other favorite target has been Christopher Steele and she defames him in her earlier (5/8)  hack piece as well, blurting in a separate tirade therein:

"Colleagues of author Christopher Steele had warned the FBI of his poor judgment."

I suspect Kim dredged this tidbit up in the same opioid or MJ haze. that excited her ire against Judge Emmet Sullivan.   But skewering her B.S. is a Financial Times account (Feb. 16, 2018) , that Steele was the "UK intelligence expert on Russia".  It is, therefore, highly unlikely he'd be "fooled" by any kind of false intel or disinformation as Strassel seems to believe. Or that his judgment was in any way impaired or unsound. Indeed, James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, informed the AP that sections of the dossier document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services".

Then there are the sad and sorry WSJ editors ('Judge Sullivan's Bad Judgment', yesterday) who are enraged that someone with principle would not kowtow to Trump's toady Barr. How dare Emmet Sullivan intervene when prosecutors said there was no crime!   But Sullivan wasn't buying that recycled offal, and could smell a rat from a mile away when Barr intervened and did Trump's dirty work for him.  Effectively trying to pardon Flynn so Trump wouldn't look bad doing it just before an election.  Nice handoff if you can get it.  

To justify its stupid stance the WSJ editors merely parrot Barr's codswallop that "Flynn's statements weren't criminal because the interview lacked any investigative legal basis".  But it did and in spades, as numerous legal specialists (nearly 1,800 at last count) have pointed out.  

The Journal's top twits had to also know that Flynn displayed a serious consciousness of his own guilt. He damned well knew what he was trying to set up with Kislyak was wrong and close to treason, however you cut it. (That Logan Act again!) Flynn  himself pleaded guilty twice to lying to investigators as part of a larger inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election - and this was even after agents practically parroted his own original words back to him!

Heading into the sentencing hearing, Flynn was trying to have it both ways—obtaining credit for cooperation and acceptance of responsibility in hopes of a sentence of probation, while minimizing his own wrongdoing. Judge Sullivan would have none of it. He elicited from Flynn the admission that he knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI and his desire to proceed to sentencing rather than withdraw his guilty plea.  Sullivan also spent much of the hearing
expressing his “disgust” and “disdain” for Flynn’s criminal conduct, saying that Flynn had “arguably sold [his] country out,” at one point even accusing Flynn of treason. 

The Journal's goofballs can whine and cry all they want about Judge Sullivan's "bad judgment" but in fact it was fully justified after Barr's stunt.  Given Barr and the DOJ are now "in bed" with Flynn, it makes eminent sense for Sullivan to enlist a third party to help determine how to navigate the legal morass Barr has created.  After all,  a level of judicial integrity and independence is at stake here, even if the WSJ's Trump minions can't see it, or acknowledge it.   Thankfully, Judge Sullivan   appointed  John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s  nonsense.

The position will be as a kind of legal adviser to Sullivan, to wade through the reams of B.S. hurled into the pot by Barr and the DOJ. It is also certain to thrust Mr. Gleeson into an open confrontation with the bombastic baby in the WH and his dog whistle hostages, i.e. supporters.   But  make no mistake, Gleeson - as a former mob prosecutor - will be able to handle whatever Dotard  barks out, even threats.

In the meantime, there is a method behind all this WSJ op ed madness: that is, the roaches incessantly hurling  out their detritus are setting the table for a  bogus claim to go after Obama and his whole "deep state" administration.  So they hope that while the public is focusing on this distraction it will minimize Trump's colossal fail at handling the pandemic.  Already, indeed, we hear and see the Dotard threatening the  jailing of Joe Biden and of Obama himself, as David Plouffe noted last night on 'All In'.  This in a cynical effort to create an "Obamagate" meme and likely October surprise. 

No, folks, as I wrote many times before, you can't make this shit up.  This is the political and health crisis we are in, and all we can hope to do is survive until we can get this Maggot out in November.  In the meantime he will depend on his lapdogs, including FOX, the WSJ op-ed hacks,  Barr, and now Lindsey Graham (who promises an Obama-ite investigation) to run interference for him by throwing up endless distracting smokescreens.

See also:
by P.M. Carpenter | May 15, 2020 - 6:17am | permalink
 

by Amanda Marcotte | May 15, 2020 - 7:27am | permalink

AND:


And:

The United States is a country to be pitied































Friday, January 3, 2020

Trump Resorts To Reckless Risk Of War Ploy To Distract From Impeachment Trial

Related image“We are near you, where you can’t even imagine,” Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani once warned the United States.
"I am gonna start a war with Iran before I face a real Senate trial to remove me!"

"I think we've now ended any hope of keeping Iraq out of Iran's arms. I think we're going to see the Iraqi parliament, possibly as early as today, send all American troops home. Yes, it's good that he's gone but it comes at an extraordinarily high price, which is why the Bush and Obama administrations chose not to do something like this."  - Former CIA specialist Michael Morrell, this morning on CBS.

"However you want to put it  the doomsday clock has now moved another tick toward midnight." -   Journalist Cal Perry last night on MSNBC.

"There is absolutely no reason for anyone in the U.S. to credit anything the president or his administration says about matters of life and death, or war and peace, until it is demonstrably verified."   - Chris Hayes last night on 'All In'

Before the new year even began - with the glittering ball dropping in NYC-  Janice warned that Trump was going to try to distract from attention on the upcoming Senate trial (and the increasing evidence of his crimes) by starting a war with Iran. Well, it looks like that prediction and event is well underway, this after we learned last night Trump ordered an assassination hit on a top Iranian general.  And coincidentally, that order coming soon after a tranche of documents - mainly unredacted emails- was released showing clearly how Trump broke the law (the  Impoundment Control Act of 1974).   That is, holding up money (to Ukraine)  appropriated by congress, to try to achieve a political benefit for himself.  But this is the nature of the turd he is, a walking two bit traitor turd with no honor and not enough gumption to just resign like Nixon did..

Here's basically what we learned:  Trump ordered an air strike that killed powerful Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad in the early hours of Friday, in a dramatic escalation of an already bloody struggle between Washington and Tehran for influence across the region.

Suleimani, who ran Iranian military operations in Iraq and Syria, was targeted while being driven from Baghdad airport by local allies from the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU). The deputy head of the PMU, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, a close Suleimani associate, was also killed in the attack.  (Note: Iran confirmed Suleimani’s death, saying the US would be responsible for the consequences.)
According to a released Pentagon statement:

“General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.  This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
Of course, this is classic subterfuge and in any case, a reckless provocation which risks dramatically escalating conflict.  This was pointed out yesterday a.m. on CBS morning show by former CIA specialist Michael Morrell.  (This was after the initial U.S.  strike targeting Iranian militants). Morrell also warned that such an aggressive move - and any more like it (such as the assassinations last night)  risked  Iraq demanding the entire U.S. presence leave.  That may now be coming sooner rather than later.
Minutes before the statement Trump tweeted a U.S. flag without comment. Later, the White House put out a statement saying the strike was a “decisive defensive action” carried out “at the direction of the president”.  Trump himself had the absolute audacity to blab the purpose of the assassination strike was "to stop a war" - right out of the pages of Orwell's '1984'.
So no surprise most of us with sense regard this propaganda blather as just that, or ripe PR  horse manure.  The actual act was a clear 'wag the dog' tactic to deflect attention from his impeachment travails - especially given GOP Senators are beginning to break ranks with Moscow Mitch and demand a proper Senate trial (with documents, witnesses).   In other words it was a decisive defensive action on behalf of Trump.  Because this orange asswipe cares no more about protecting this nation, or defending it, than he cared about defending Ukraine from Russian incursions in the Donbass region.  Opting to withhold critical military aid unless Zelenskiy rolled over and did his bidding on the Bidens. Par for the course actions for a narcissist weasel grifter and confirmed traitor.
 All of which is plain as day to anyone with an IQ over room temperature digits.  It is also self-evident to anyone who has followed Trump's behavior and  the timelines of his decisions for the past three years.

The rogue preemptive action also was a blatant violation of  Principle IV against such aggression under the Nuremberg Laws, e.g.:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "
Suleimani was commander of the Quds Force, the elite, external wing the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Trump administration designated as a terror organization in April last year. The Pentagon statement claiming responsibility for the strike accused the Quds Force of being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members and  wounding thousands more.
Many consider Suleimani to have been the second most powerful person in Iran, behind the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, and arguably more powerful than President Hassan Rouhani. Through a mix of security operations and diplomatic coercion, Suleimani has certainly been more responsible than anyone else for projecting Iran’s influence in the region.
The cowardly assassination strike to deflect from Trump's impeachment turmoil  comes at a time when Iraq is already on the brink of an all-out proxy war.  Also,  hours after a two-day siege of the US embassy in Baghdad by a mob of PMF militants and their supporters. The Pentagon accused Suleimani of having masterminded the mob attack, but again with no proof at all.  Why should anyone believe the Pentagon anymore when it's clearly fallen under the control and sway of the most pathologically mendacious liar the planet has ever known? (15, 413 "false or misleading claims in the past 1,033 days", according to The Washington Post's running tally.)
Meanwhile, it's clear to all except the most intellectually-challenged that Trump is even prepared to start a war with Iran to take the heat off his political tribulations. This is how far gone, how massively deranged he is.  We know, for example, the U.S. has deployed 750 airborne troops to Kuwait as a rapid reaction force available for use in Iraq, and officials has said up to 3,000 could be sent in the coming days. The defense secretary, Mark Esper  (the same guy who once told interviewer Margaret Brennan the Kurds were "on their own" after the U.S. left them in the lurch)  said on Thursday that more militia attacks were expected and the U.S. reserved the right to take preemptive action to stop them.
Translation: Esper and fellow Pentagon toadies reserved the right to use whatever flim flam and pretexts - even if they meant war-  to protect traitor Trump in his distraction ploys..
Esper - recreating his cowardly stance with the Kurds - said:

“There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks. If we get word of attacks, we will take pre-emptive action as well to protect American forces, protect American lives."
What Esper really means is that he will take preemptive action to protect Trump at any cost, if it means keeping Americans' weary eyes off a future impeachment trial. 
Another aspect Esper doesn't grasp - but Senator Chris Murphy surely  does-  as Murphy said on Twitter:
"One reason we don’t generally assassinate foreign political officials is the belief that such action will get more, not less, Americans killed."  
Also, not mentioned, is that we refrain from assassinating foreign officials  because we don't wish to have other nations assassinating our officials!

One last thing: As Andrea Mitchell noted last night, "Iran is not Iraq and there is no Saddam Hussein" -  or a weak military to subdue.  In other words, whatever conflict Trump gets us into - to try and salvage his orange hide - won't be a cakewalk like Iraq was alleged to be for Bush II.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Trump's Power Gone To His Head As He Squares Off Against A Nuclear North Korea

Related imageNo automatic alt text available.
"The press loves me again! If I blow up the world with all the bad guys in it  I'll be the biggest, baddest president ever! And the most popular!"

Believe it or not I have really tried to be relatively patient with Trump, to allow him to try to settle in without making a total ass or imbecile of himself every other day. Hell, even over most of the last week I have posted on a number of decidedly "off-Trump" topics to take the spot light off him while also giving him a chance to at least appear to have a grain of sense. But it's to no avail, especially after a series of halfwit pundits and poltroons (like Chuck Schumer and Pelosi) have gone and applauded his cruise missile stunt - inflating his pseudo president ego to gigantic proportions.

Now this fool actually believes he can take on the whole world, at least the world of "bad guys"  he sees through the prism of endless phantasmagorias erupting within assorted psychotic embolisms within his amygdala.

So having blown a few dozen Isis rats to bits with his "mother of all bombs" he now is considering facing off against North Korea. Can we all agree right now, given the total lack of any intelligence of this fool - plus his lack of discernment and temperance - this is a god-awful idea?

For those who need to be filled in, in the past several days North Korea has held a vast military parade to celebrate the birth of its founding father, Kim Il-sung, and  has warned that it is prepared to take the “toughest” action unless the US ended its “military hysteria”, as speculation grows that the regime is preparing to conduct a nuclear test.

Interviewed two days ago, the North Korean Defense Minister, when asked by CBS' Ben Stacy what would happen if the U.S. attacked the hermit state, replied "nuclear war".  He meant that there's be immediate nuclear retaliation and serious people (not Trump) should take him at his word.  Now, to be sure, that doesn't meant the North Koreans can hit the U.S. No, not yet. But they do have the ability to deliver nuclear bombs on Seoul, South Korea as well as Japan - also, annihilate the U.S. base in South Korea. The U.S., of course, would launch a full on decapitation and annihilation strike on North Korea, but then China as a key ally would enter with its own retaliation - and over 200 H-bombs - that can reach the U.S.

Is this a scenario the Trumpites really want? It appears they do given the level of saber rattling rhetoric, Trump's bellicose tweets and even dispatching an aircraft carrier attack group to be within 900 miles of North Korea have ramped up the brinksmanship to new levels..   The drunkenness of power and brinkmanship has also been fed by a Beltway media besotted with the spectacle of military attack (with the Tomahawk strike and now MOAB) - whose critiques of Trump have now been revealed as paper thin.  All of which is extremely concerning or should be to every sentient being on the planet.

A senior North Korean official ( Choe Ryong-hae) used the parade to accuse the US of “creating a war situation” with the recent dispatch of warships to the region. After Trump's latest fulminations he barked:

“We will respond to an all-out war with an all-out war and a nuclear war with our style of a nuclear attack,” .

Even as I write this, military vehicles and tens of thousands of soldiers have filled Kim Il-sung square and  taken oaths of loyalty to the country’s leader, Kim Jong-in.  Experts agree the array of military hardware on parade  includes what appeared to be a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) being carried along the streets on a huge truck.  South Korean military officials have been quoted as saying they had not seen the missile before and that it appeared to be a new type of ICBM.

North Korean state television showed what appeared to be several KN-08 and KN-14 missiles. Although they have yet to be tested, analysts say the missiles could one day be capable of hitting targets as far away as the continental United States.  Michael Morrell, former deputy director of the CIA interviewed yesterday on CBS, affirmed that this capability is a lot closer in time than many believe - probably 1 or 2 years.

Is this worrisome? Yes, but a preemptive attack is not the way to respond as  Morrell agreed. He acknowledged one could not count on Kim Jong -in to back off, or portray a submissive stance to the U.S. So, any military action at all, including firing ordnance from fighter jets on the aircraft carrier -will likely incept a small scale nuclear attack on the North's neighbors that could escalate. So it is not without basis that many have compared our current condition to the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962.

As the USS aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and its strike group sailed towards the peninsula in a show of force, North Korea’s official KCNA news agency, citing a spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army, warned of “merciless” retaliation against any US provocation.  Trump’s decision to send an “armada” of warships to waters off the tense peninsula, coupled with recent US strikes in Syria and Afghanistan, were proof that Washington had chosen the path of “open threat and blackmail”, KCNA said.

“Our toughest counteraction against the US and its vassal forces will be taken in such a merciless manner as not to allow the aggressors to survive,” it added.

It said the Trump administration’s “serious military hysteria” had reached a “dangerous phase that can no longer be overlooked”.

It added: “Under the prevailing grave situation, the United States has to come to its senses and make a proper option for the solution of the problem.”

Meanwhile, China’s state-run media warned that the US president was mistaken if he believed that piling military pressure on North Korea would resolve the regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The Global Times said Trump’s decision to drop the “mother of all bombs” on Afghanistan was clearly “a new gimmick in US military deterrence” designed to intimidate Kim Jong-un.   “North Korea must have felt the shock wave travelling all the way from Afghanistan,” the Communist party-controlled newspaper said in an editorial.

However, the Global Times, which sometimes reflects government views, said the use of such a “vicious weapon” was in fact likely to make Pyongyang even more determined to upgrade its own arsenal.

On Friday, China again called for talks to defuse the crisis. “We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage,” the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, told reporters in Beijing.

Speaking to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, on Friday night, Wang said steps were needed to prevent “war and chaos” on the Korean peninsula.

As for any Trump military actions being touted currently against North Korea, former CIA North Korea analyst Sue Mi Terry made it clear last night these would not work. She cited one of the possible options as striking a nuclear test site, maybe with a MOAB,  but warned:

"I can't see him following through with this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy.Because you're putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

North Korea is not Syria, it's not Afghanistan. It's going to have devastating consequences. North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within one hundred kilometers from the DMZ. That's sixty miles....and there's twenty thousand U.S. military in Korea and twenty million people in Seoul"

She added that this is why she doesn't think Trump will take any precipitous action which would be a "gross miscalculation".  She also pointed out the North is unlikely to launch any missiles - or test any bombs - now with the whole world watching. "They will do it on their own time", she stated, "and besides, they want to be the ones with the surprises."

What about her words of advice against brinksmanship and aggressive actions by the U.S.?

The trouble is this is Trump, the man-boy who lives the delusions of absolute power from a brain addled by egomaniacal self-regard and narcissism. And hence who feeds off the adulation such as he's now getting from the Beltway press in the wake of his cruise missile and MOAB attacks. Ironically then, we may have to depend on that media - which originally criticized him - to back off from its jingoistic gushing and hold him to account once more but in the military response sphere.

Millions of lives may depend on such a sober, rational re-assessment of Trump's recent actions. What we don't need is more brainless media pandering to this psycho every time he unleashes a bomb or new cruise missile - on whatever pretext or excuse. That blind media adulation is like crack cocaine to him and renders his 'trigger' finger even itchier.

See also:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2017/03/07/north-koreas-peculiar-brand-of-rationality/#6b915f9b5021

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/72189/the-mother-of-all-bombs-is-big-deadly-and-wont-lead-to-peace



Friday, December 4, 2015

Rhetoric and Radicalization - Controlling the Terror Meme

Even as many (especially Reeps) have already rushed to judgment on the origin of the San Bernardino mass shooting, former CIA security specialist Michael Morrell - as well as columnist David Ignatius - have warned about getting ahead of the story. Morrell on CBS Early Show observed, while admitting the couple may have been "radicalized":

"They may not have been planning this particular event. They may have gone to this party, got angry and decided to do this event based on that anger rather than a series of plots they were actually planning"

Which would explain the huge store of weapons left in their home, including 4500 bullets and 12 pipe bombs.  It also discloses the case may not as be as simple as labeling it "Islamic terrorism' when a workplace anger issue could have been the proximate trigger. Indeed, one of the victims - a 52 year old health inspector - Nicholas Thalasinos was one of the victims and a "Messianic Jew" who also "wasn't afraid to give his political and religious opinions" according to reports on MSNBC yesterday afternoon. One can then easily imagine him getting into a ferocious argument with Syed Farooq leading to him rushing out in a fit of anger then returning with a hell-bent Pakistani wife (who indeed may have radicalized him as some co-workers believe). The argument scenario is backed up by this report from The Times of Israel:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

The piece notes "a heated argument weeks before the attack" but it may well have been revived at the party before Farooq "lost it" and decided to respond with violence. This also may be a lesson for us all, when we gather with family at Christmas to leave out politics and religion as topics for discussion! Because it turns out close family members are the prime murderers though you wouldn't know it from the media reports.

Morrell added one of the most salient points of all and Reepos ought to take note:

"Although they may have been (radicalized) terrorists, this may not have been a terrorist event. It depends on their motivation."

Morrell isn't being cute but simply separating proximate from distal causes. If in fact Farooq was enraged by what Nicholas Thalasinos said weeks earlier or at the party, say that he also "needed to be saved"  - then the motive wasn't explicitly a terrorist one, to sow fear in a community. It was to get even with Thalasinos and any perceived as backing his views.

As for David Ignatius, he warned on 'Morning Joe' that it is unwise to jump to conclusions (as the Reeps have done) just based on the names of this pair, and also added that Obama is wise not to move too far ahead of the actual facts.

What worries many of us, as Charlie Pierce framed it on Chris Hayes last night, is how hateful rhetoric may stir the pot even more - leading to brutal attacks on peaceful Muslims just trying to live their lives - and who condemn this recent attack as vigorously as any white Anglo.  This take recognizes how hateful rhetoric can prey on weak minds and lead to tragedies such as we've seen lately,

While the GOP candidates' histrionics is now forming a convenient political prop for exploitation, they forget that the actual nature of the shooters is not so critical as their access to mass destruction weapons and the rhetoric that triggered their radicalization. This is where "the bear sits with the buckwheat".  Whether lone wolf killers infected by right wing memes (Robert Lewis Dear), or garden variety lone nuts (Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza), or right wing terrorists (Dylan Roof, Tim McVeigh)   or Muslim terrorists (Nidal Hasan) - none could have wrought the slaughter they did without: a) access to lethal weapons, and b) having brains triggered by hateful rhetoric.

In the case of (a) irrespective of who or what group, none of the mass slaughters and mass shootings would have transpired if this nation had serious gun laws such as Australia's. (See the end of yesterday's post for details). Nattering gun lobby nabobs always insist "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that trope got demolished when the first doggie that accidentally plopped on a loaded shotgun (resting on a couch) killed its human owner.  One exception disproves the rule, or the trope.

The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

The true fact here is that over the past several decades, the U.S., which once scrutinized the use and ownership of guns, has now been gutted by the crazies and their lobbies, mainly the NRA. Meanwhile, craven politicos genuflect to them at every turn and even yesterday the Repukes didn't even have the balls to vote for a sane law to close the terrorist watch list loophole (allowing those on the terrorist watch list to buy guns).

In respect of the hateful rhetoric issue (b), no, it doesn't have to be ISIS that creates the rhetoric to turn people into murderous zombies. In the case of Robert Lewis Dear, even in the wake of his butchery at the Planned Parenthood clinic here in the Springs, politicos were making excuses and blaming the target. The Denver Post in its Dec. 2nd Editorial ('Disgraceful Talk After The Shootings'), noted the vile words from Rep. JoAnn Windholz (R-Commerce City)   even as the victims' bodies were laid to rest:

"Violence is never the answer but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves"

Which is nearly as disgusting as Hitler blaming the Jews for being gassed in his Auschwitz death chambers because they should have been sensible enough "to leave when they could".  (cf. 'The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler', Robert Payne) . As the Post put it, the words:

"are almost chilling in their implicit acceptance"

Not only that, but many of us understand those  words as a cue for other weak minds, or frustrated, angry ones - to take violent action.

On the same page, an article ('The Moral Blame for Violence in Colorado Springs')  by the WaPo's Ruth Marcus makes this very point and ties the despicable rhetoric of the Right and Repubs in the months leading up to Dear's violent act. As she writes:

"If initial reports of alleged gunman's Robert Lewis Dear's comments about 'no baby parts' prove true - and logic suggests it was no coincidence, the Republican politicians who fueled the overwrought and unsupported controversy over selling baby parts bear some measure of responsibility"

Indeed, and as reported on the front page of the same edition, Colorado Dem Diana DeGette - on the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives- reported that in the course of the hearings eight Republican member used the phrase "baby parts" no less than 33 times. Did they not realize what they were seeding with their rhetoric? I have to believe they knew as much as ISIS does when it seeds the social media landscape with its own PR, hateful rhetoric and propaganda.

The ultimate source of the anti-PP rhetoric is encapsulated again by Marcus:

"The current effort to demonize Planned Parenthood....is a manufactured issue, cobbled together from doctored videotapes and overheated accusations. The organization has been so mischaracterized, and the practice of providing fetal tissue so overblown and manipulated by lawmakers and politicians that blame for the ensuing violence falls more heavily on them."

This again, re--introduces the issue of the limits of "free speech" and whether it can be prosecuted when it veers into hate speech or terrorist instigation. If we can prosecute ISIS renegades for spreading ISIS crap (like making homemade bombs) then surely we can go after right wingers for sowing mental bombs in the febrile minds of too many of our fellow citizens..

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us