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

John Kerry Does a POE of a Hypocritical Political Hack

"Now, hear me out! You don't just invade another country on a completely trumped up pretext! (Uh, forget Iraq, folksies!)"


The parade of Neoliberal tools and fools continued yesterday, as John Kerry made assorted appearances on the Sunday talk show circuit to spiel about how him and his Neoliberal cohort were going to teach those Russkies a lesson!  Out of his own stupid mouth - instantly turning him into a parody ('POE') of a hypocritical Neoliberal hack (or more likely, a Neocon puppet):

"You just don't invade another country on a completely trumped up pretext!"

HA HA HA HA hahahaha! Pardon me while I roll on the floor howling with laughter at the staggering chutzpah of this deaf, dumb and blind tool!  So, Kerry.....what? Did Victoria Nuland the neocon give you your parroting script? Just wondering! To top that off he blurted:

"It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country,” Kerry said on Face the Nation.

Hey, LURCH! Errrr......Kerry, do you have any historical memory at all?  Can I give you a hint about a  MEGA- Example of a "willful choice to invade another country" and using a "completely trumped up pretext" (WMD)?   Need another clue? I-R-A-Q!

As one salon.com blogger,  Lindsay Abrams, noted:

"In the seriousness of the situation, the irony of Kerry’s next comments may have gone missed. ”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” he said. He went on to repeat the assertion on Meet the Press, keeping a straight face as he told host David Gregory: ”You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.”

Must I really REALLY point out the irony to which she refers? Must I?  Ok, I will. The Bushie-neocon driven invasion of Iraq, sanctioned by a bipartisan balless congress in 2003.  Instead of summoning the political courage to stop these vermin, most of congress signed on as willing supplicants to the ensuing Bushie horror show.  And who were the key perpetrators? Why, the neocons including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and the other usual suspects - now at work now to incite strife between Russia and the West.

I won't recite all the noisome aspects of the Iraq debacle, as I already recounted most of them two posts ago. All the sordid details of exactly how Bush and his neocon filth drove the U.S. into Iraq under a WMD pretext. However, let me only point out that while Obama spent yesterday calling up all the Western Neolib-driven puppets.....errrr....allies...to back up his  anti-Russian crusade - even while dispatching Lurch to generate POEs, none of this faux unity comes close to what we beheld with over ten million citizens from nearly every nation on Earth marching against the imminent invasion of Iraq back in early 2003. You don't believe me? Then let this composite photo tell the story! (A picture's worth a thousand words, after all.)

In other words, a mass of humanity marched  around the world protesting with one voice the imminent  U.S. plan to invade another sovereign nation, but they were ignored. The mammoth  assembly against the invasion wasn't merely from token, puppet U.S. state tools but real people.  People moved to voice their opposition based on what they perceived another war would do - and they weren't amiss in their fears at all - as things have turned out. The U.S ignored them and invaded Iraq anyway, pounding Baghdad under a 'shock and awe' entry that would have made the Wehrmacht proud.

I post this to expose Lurch Kerry's staggering chutzpah and mind boggling hypocrisy about what he's claiming Russia is doing, as well as reminding Americans of past history - which these days is so easy to forget in the Twitterati world.

DO I "hate" my country? Of course not! I hate hypocrisy! I hate when we preach one standard for the rest of the world while we adopt another ("exceptional") one for ourselves. If there is one uniform moral principle at work and a defined law to support it, then ALL nations must comply! There can't be any exclusions! Thus, I hate it that our politicos mouth accusations against other nations that they themselves haven't adhered to!  I also hate the  Neoliberal, anti-citizen, inequitable 'system' under which the country operates which is not the same as the nation itself. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/09/america-haters-uhhno-system-haters.html

 Excerpt - quote from Charles Reich ('Opposing the System'):

"The System is not America. It is not the land we love, and indeed not a land at all. It does not merit our loyalty, affection or respect. However much the System may attempt to disguise itself in patriotic trappings, or set itself up as a source of authority, or cloak itself in the vestments of 'the community', it is none of these. We should always be ready to fire the System if it does not serve us well."

Hell, why the fuck would I "hate my country" when an ancestor of mine - Conrad Brumbaugh - fought in the Revolutionary War?   I am more inclined to believe I am channeling Conrad's own principles - which he himself  shed his blood for -  and would be demanding of the nation if he were alive today.

Would Conrad applaud or jump on the bandwagon of clueless Amerikkan Neolibs who don't live by the standards they demand of other nations? Would he cheer on a parroting tool like Kerry,  yapping away and exposing his own historical ignorance and national hypocrisy? No, he'd likely puke his guts out. He would not recognize what the country he'd fought for had mutated into - a polarized, plutocratic  oligarchy where a few billionaires control most of the wealth and all of the politics. Where a system designed to increase economic inequality also features an in- built predatory security state- spy system to monitor everything citizens do in case they might get "uppity" - like Occupy Wall Street back in '11.

On that score, if he saw the future and what had been wrought, including a nation that now believes it is above the law but can impose it on all others, he'd be aghast. Moreso, on learning how it had destroyed the cornerstone of the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment - by its wanton and indiscriminate spying on people all over the world - and particularly its own citizens.

And he'd surely despair at how the promise of a democracy had degenerated into a Corporatocracy.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54558/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis

Excerpt:

"(Victoria)Nuland was soon at work planning for 'regime change,' encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn’t seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles."


and :

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/54562/oligarchs-triumphant-ukraine-omidyar-and-the-neo-liberal-agenda

Excerpt:

"American policy is based upon -- dependent upon -- a raging, willful, arrogant ignorance of other peoples, other cultures, history in general, and even the recent history of U.S. policy itself. The historical and cultural relationships between Ukraine and Russia are highly complex. Russia takes its national identity from the culture that grew up around what is now Kyiv; indeed, in many respects, Kyiv is where "Russia" was born. Yet one of the first acts of the Western-backed revolutionaries was to pass a law declaring Ukrainian as the sole state language, although most of the country speaks Russian or Surzhyk"


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/shamus-cooke/54559/the-profit-at-stake-obama-s-far-right-foreign-policy

Excerpt:

"The conflicts in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Syria have one thing in common: the U.S. government is in favor of the groups who aspire to topple — or who have toppled — the government in power. Thus, U.S. politicians are giving either political, financial, or military support to these “opposition” movements. But in all three cases there are leading groups steering the “opposition” that want absolutely nothing to do with democracy — these groups are as far-right as politics gets."

And the detailed policy basis for the Iraq War- Based on the Neocon 'Project for the New American Century':

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

And The 'Best Picture' Oscar SHOULD Go to: '12 Years a Slave'

To my mind it would be damned near a crime - almost as bad as the Academy passing over 'Avatar' several years ago (for Hurt Locker) to award any nominee other than '12 Years a Slave', 'Best Picture. For those who don't know, the film is a British production, directed by Steve McQueen from an adaptation of the 1853 memoir of the same name by Solomon Northup, a New York State-born free negro who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841 and sold into slavery. He worked on plantations in the state of Louisiana for twelve years before his release.

This movie has all the elements of a Best Picture, except perhaps one: it is very difficult to watch. It is definitely not a film you will see for "entertainment". But it is riveting history. My wife and I were so taken up by the drama that we weren't able to leave our seats for the entire screening time, to use the restroom. That is how captivating it was.

The most appalling scenes occur when Northrup is taken to the Louisiana plantation to work the fields. The scenes of the whippings -beating are so realistic that it was hard to get them out of your head. But the memory - from the film- of what happened to this courageous African-American will burn into every engram and stay with you and also (should) arouse you to fury if you see balderdash written by simpletons that, "Hey, slavery wasn't that bad'. See:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/01/walter-block-another-libertairn.html

from a Loyola prof libertarian blockhead.

Thus, the only reason '12 Years' may not move to the winners' circle is the unrelenting gravitas of the film. In this case, the Academy may well veer to the space flick 'Gravity' - which to be sure, is also a terrific film, e..g. see:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/gravity-space-flick-to-keep-you.html

So, to be truthful, I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if 'Gravity' won instead and I'd understand it. The Academy may simply opt not to choose a film that is so unremittingly intense and which may also not sit well with some of its members (mainly the 'over 65' group, as pointed out by MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Friday night).

But at least the choice would be tolerable compared to 'American Hustle' or god forbid, 'The Wolf of Wall Street', both of which, imho, glorify criminals and sleaze bags - the last thing we need in Neoliberal America!  If either of these flicks gets the Best Picture, I will really be pissed, but hey  - who can account for such anomalies especially after the dissing of 'Avatar'?

As for Best Actor, I'd like to see Bruce Dern get it. He's labored in the movie mills for many decades (e.g. 'Silent Running', 'The Two-Headed Transplant' etc.) without getting much acclaim though he's a top notch actor. This would cap off a life of intriguing, contrarian roles and set within a compelling drama about an older guy on the brink of losing it to Alzheimers, in 'Nebraska'.  (The award will probably go to Matthew McConaghuey.  )

For 'Best Actress', my pick is  Sandra Bullock with Best Supporting Actress going to Jennifer Lawrence, star girl from 'The Hunger Games'.

Anyway, we will see. At least the Oscars should be a temporary diversion from what's going on in Ukraine.

Russia "Violating International Law"? How About the U.S.?

The nonsense now issuing from the Neoliberal fascist press is dumb founding as well as enraging. Oh, "there're no Nazi thugs destroying buildings or beating people"! Putin just made it all up as an excuse to invade Crimea, the southern Ukrainian peninsula. Another blow dried bimbo on Kornacki this morning insisted: "Well, ya know, Russia is gonna do what it wants to do to advance its interests in the end!"

Yeah, so? The implication being that the goody two shoes, scrupulously lawful (when it suits its fancy)  U.S. wouldn't? WTF are you saying? Again, more protectionist smokescreen  blather to cover the tracks of the Neoliberal coup taking place in Ukraine, even proclaiming now an unelected gov't the "legitimate one".  But what is exponentially galling to me (and many others)  - who don't get our news from the putrid prostitute American Neolib corporate media- is the notion that the U.S. wouldn't be doing the very same thing as Russia if the tables and situation were turned.  But many Americans who are gobbling this propaganda of Russia "breaking international law" - as Obama spouted last night, don't even know where the hell Ukraine is! The map below should give them a clue:

 Note Ukraine abuts Russia on its southwest border. Note it carefully!  Now, try to conceive a juxtaposition of events and conditions whereby Florida (on the U.S. SE coast) has somehow become a separate protectorate  - say like Puerto Rico - and is suddenly taken over by hundreds of thousands of Cuban Castro sympathizers.  They localize attention at Miami where they essentially take over and raise Cuban flags. All this on a state right next to Georgia.

 

Would the then "symmetrical situation"  U.S. just sit back and let events unfold, especially if the commie Cubans were going around beating up upstanding citizens, defacing buildings, burning up synagogues or churches  etc.? In your dreams!  There'd be such a display of 'shock and awe' invasion it would make your head swim! So no one can prattle away nonsense and tell me the U.S. wouldn't do the very same thing Russia is now doing, if the situation were somehow reversed.

 

Thus, the crap former Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor was trying to push on MSNBC this morning (supposedly the most "liberal" of the networks allotted to us) is absurd. Taylor, totally deficient in recent U.S. history and flouting of international law, actually declared:

 

"We ought to treat Russia as an outlaw state, and that means treating Putin and Russia like other outlaw states"

Oh, oh, you mean like the U.S.?

 

Has this mentally-challenged imp forgotten how the U.S. became an outlaw state in 2003, invading under bogus pretense the sovereign state of Iraq?   In the case of Bush's justifying the Iraq invasion and butchery (WHO estimates up to 600,000 Iraqis killed)  we beheld a perfect example of what moral philosopher  John Kekes called "rationalizing evil" ( 'The Roots Of Evil , p. 168).

 

Using every sort of ruse - from 'yellowcake' to aluminum tubes and alleged claims of WMD (from a rat named 'curve ball') - the Bushies pumped up a bogus case for invasion, just like Hitler and the Nazis did (using faked imagery of German fraus being raped by Poles) to justify an invasion of Poland in 1939. Once he had the U.S. corporate media on his side it was merely a matter of drum beating a sheep-like American public into giving him the poll numbers he desired to launch an invasion in March, 2003.

 

One idiot commenter  (it's incredible how many lurk all over the damned place) on a UK Guardian forum, in response to another who had pointed this out, scribbled:

 

"Oh wait! So you're going to use what Bush did back then to justify what Putin is doing now?"

 

Bush actually didn't "do it" on his own. He and his craven neocon slime confected an "Iraqi War Resolution" which MOST congress critters of BOTH parties then signed on to. So even if Bush and his cohort designed the plan, congress as the last bulwark to preventing an outlaw act could have stopped it. They didn't. Hence, it's on the U.S.  Putin is behaving in no different way now than the U.S. did then, in fact he has more justification on his side, given Ukraine's on his doorstep not 6,000 miles away!

 

Anyway, Bush’s aggression also exposed unsavory aspects about ourselves as a nation:  a willingness to violate Nuremberg Article IV to actually launch a pre-emptive, aggressive war just as the Nazis did when they invaded Poland. The rich humor of it all is that at the time the Bushies actually compared Saddam to Hitler!  Some 'Muricans actually swallowed this shit up and took it as gospel!

But WHERE are the objective voices and people to point this out now? Well, they are no place to be seen! It's perfectly okie dokie if WE invade another nation, just because a dictator made idle "threats" against a former president's daddy, but woe betide any nation that remotely tries to protect its own interests - which are geographically even more proximate.

 

Thus, the irony inherent in Obama telling Putin he's "violating international law" might at least be easier to swallow if the towering blatant hypocrisy weren't already imbued in U.S. policy-   including targeted drone strikes in more than half a dozen Middle East nations - whose sovereignty is being regularly trashed.

Why has this country veered so far off course? Most of it can be traced to the document known as NSC-68 prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, e.g. Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954,

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

 

 and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.) 

The motivating force of the document was clear in this regard:

“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”
 

In other words, any place for which the U.S. even remotely construes a “defeat of free institutions” gives it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman[1]:

“Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”.

In other words, it provided the formula for unending war, and the building of Empire. Gore Vidal pinpoints the emergence of the American Empire when he notes[2]:

“Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution”.

The key point to note here is not only did the U.S. invoke a specious doctrine[3] to entitle it to engage in warfare wherever it deemed the “need” (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) but also to take out democratically elected leaders where and when they threatened U.S. corporate interests, such as Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran (1953)- threatened U.S. Oil interests, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954)- threatened United Fruit Corp. by giving land to farmers, and Salvador Allende in Chile (1972)- strategic interests threatened.

Even when specious doctrines weren't invoked, lies and deceptions often were in order to involve the U.S. in massive troop deployments and years of ruinous (to lives and treasure) military intrusions. For example, LBJ employed the ruse of the North Vietnamese firing on the Maddox and Turner Joy in international waters in August, 1964 as the basis to ramp up the Vietnam War. Similarly, Bush and Cheney employed the ruse that Saddam had "WMD" to justify Operation "Iraqi Freedom" (a bogus name if ever there was one) and invade Iraq - which had not one damned thing to do with 9/11. (Though the numskulls who watched FAUX News would argue with that!)

What is most disconcerting in the present crisis' context, is that we can't even get an opposing POV from the Democrats. The  lips  of these lily-livered, co-opted Neoliberal wimps are uniformly sealed. Oh, except when they blurt out  or tweet bollocks, as a moron Dem from CT did yesterday, i.e. along the lines of: #Ukraine: "Putin playing with fire in Crimea!"

Putin "playing with fire"?? How about the U.S. and its resident neocons  playing with fire. Deliberately destabilizing the gov't in Kiev for months in advance, with visits by  Crazy Johnno McCain,  Neocons at the NED,  as well as manipulations by Neocon Victoria Nuland at State, i.e.  to topple the originally elected government of  Viktor Yanukovych and insert her pal "Yats" - a reich-wing, ultra-nationalist stooge.   The objective being to make it a NATO Neolib outpost right on Russian's SW border!  (Imagine if the Warsaw Pact still existed, doing a similar think to Florida!) As pointed out by smirkingchimp blogger Mike Whitney:

"In order to topple Yanukovych, the US had to tacitly support fanatical groups of neo-Nazi thugs and anti-Semites"

But, after their almost unified stance against Edward Snowden's whistleblowing on the NSA perfidy,  I've pretty well given up on the Demos anyway. They're only useful for invoking as a last minute counter measure if the Rs have someone or something  a million times worse. As one blogger on Smirkingchimp.com once put it: "They're no different from the repukes except they lube you up first."

Meanwhile, embedded Neocons such as Paul Roderick Gregory at FORBES, are trying to goad Obama into precipitous action by calling him a "paper tiger" e.g.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/03/01/alarm-putin-will-not-stop-with-crimea-paper-tiger-obama-will-do-nothing/


 This is not productive or conducive to our own national security, but it's the standard modus operandi of neocons with Neoliberal market aspirations of controlling other nations' destinies.

Let us hope cooler heads continue to prevail, and that Obama can summon at least part of the courage JFK had to during the October, 1962 missile crisis- when he faced down Gen. Curtis Lemay and other war hawks who demanded he bomb and invade Cuba. Kennedy told them to stick it up their wazoos, thereby avoiding a nuclear war.

Yes, according to the Neolib mouthpieces and their neocon nonsense blabbing this morning: "Russia is greatly reduced from what it was with the former  Soviet Union".

Maybe. But they still have more than 3,000 ICBMs bearing multi-megaton hydrogen war heads. NO matter how much the crazies in this  country want to go 'nuke 'em' or as one nut proposed ,"blow up a Russian train station so no troops can move in"  - believe me, it would be a bad idea!

Stay tuned!  See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/norman-solomon/54563/heard-the-one-about-obama-denouncing-a-breach-of-international-law

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/54548/the-road-to-war
--------------

[1] Morris Berman: 2006, Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118.

[2] Gore Vidal: 2002, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Thunders Mouth, p. 124.
[3] Of course, the ignominious “Bush Doctrine” – crafted under the auspices of the 2002 National Security Strategy – was even more noisome and outrageous, allowing for pre-emptive war as it made Iraq the gold standard for precedence. See: Berman, op. cit., p. 203.

GRE Sample Physics Problems (Conclusion):

If two colors of light (not pigments) are combined, one or other of two effects is noticed. If certain colors are mixed additively, such as red and yellow, the resulting hue is orange, which is the hue between them in the spectrum. If certain other colors such as red and blue-green are added, the result is white light.

Any two colors which, if added together, give white light are called complementary colors. Since all the colors added together give white light, they’re combination may be written symbolically as follows:

R + O + Y + G + B +  V   = W (white)

Also: R + BG = W  and B + V = W

91. From the preceding information it can be concluded that: O + Y + G + B + V gives:

A)    orange….B) red……C) white…….D) yellow…….E) blue-green

92.The combination of R + O + G + B + V gives:

A) blue……B) orange……C) red………D) white…….E) green

93. The shortest wavelength produced in an X-ray tube operated at 2 million volts would be: (1 Å  = 10 ^-10 m)

A) 1 Å  …..B) 0.15 Å…….C) 0.01 Å ……D) 10 ^-5  Å… E) 10 ^-4  Å

94. The de Broglie wavelength associated with neutrons in thermal equilibrium with matter at 300 K is approximately:

A)  179  Å…….B) 1790  Å…….. C) 17. 9  Å…..D) 0. 179  Å…..

E) 1. 79  Å

95.Two balls of equal mass are suspended as shown in the diagram below.

The coefficient of restitution between the balls is equal to 0.5  Ball A after its release strikes ball B with a force just sufficient to send mass B to a position where the cord supporting it becomes horizontal. The angle q made by the cord supporting A in its initial position is given by:

A)    cos q = 0.5…..B) cos q = 0.25…..C) cos q = 1…..


D) sin q = 2/3….E) cos q = 1 - Ö3

96. At the instant of the collision of the two balls:

A)    the total kinetic energy is conserved

B)    The potential energy is decreased

C)    The Hamiltonian is conserved

D)   The kinetic energy is increased

E)    Part of the kinetic energy is changed to heat

97.If the coefficient of restitution was equal to 1, then we would have a completely elastic collision and assuming ball B is at rest when A collides with it:

A)    Ball A will be at rest after the collision

B)    Ball A will move with ball B in the same direction if sin q > 0.5

C)    Ball A will move in the opposite direction to ball B.

D)   Both balls will be at rest after the collision.

E)    Ball B will be in s standing position.

98. The electric (E-) field in an electromagnetic wave is described the relation:

E(r, t) = (e ₁ E₁ +  e ₂ E₂)  exp [ (ik r - iwt)

Where  e ₁  and  e ₂  are two  mutually orthogonal unit vectors, both of which are perpendicular to k, and  E₁ and E₂ are two real numbers. (For right circular polarization of an electric wave, the electric vector rotates in the clockwise direction when an observer faces into the oncoming wave).

This electromagnetic wave is:

A)    plane polarized……B) right circularly polarized

C) left circularly polarized……D) elliptically polarized    E) unpolarized

99. If:  E₂  =  i E₁  then the electromagnetic wave is:

B)    A) plane polarized…..B) right circularly polarized

C) left circularly polarized……D) elliptically polarized    E) unpolarized

100. A ray of light strikes at normal incidence a thin transparent film (index of refraction = n). Reinforcement of the reflected ray will occur when the film thickness, in terms of the wavelength of the incident light, equals:

A)    ¼  …..B) ¼  n ……C) ½   ….D) 1/ (2n)  ….E)  9/ (8n)

NO! The U.S. Does NOT Want a War With Russia!

A Russian Destroyer, the Moskva, leaves its base for the waters off Syria in July. Below: Obama clueless as to who the real "freedom fighters" are in Ukraine.

Q. What do you get when you cross a neocon with a Neoliberal?

A. The Shock Doctrine, 100, 000 dead ....then Wall Street stock or bond shares on the new oil or debt.

It was laughable last night seeing Bill Maher expose the Neocon asshole William Kristol for the braggart know-nothing he is, just like the rest of his ilk. In turn, Bill trotted out three of Kristol's predictions made before the invasion of Iraq including: 1) The U.S. will be vindicated when the weapons of mass destruction are discovered, 2) Very few wars in American history were better prepared for, and 3) It's 'pop psychology' to believe the Shi'ia can't get along with the Sunni.

All of which, along with the other trope - i.e. that the oil we find will pay for the war, were shown to be total nonsense and lies.

So WHY in the hell should anyone with half a grain of sense or half a brain believe these idiots when they yap for confronting the Russians over Ukraine? And yet last night, what did we behold? Obama getting up on his lectern and "warning" the Russians about "interfering in Ukraine". Are you kidding me? The U.S. interfered long before the Russians via their Neocon NED as I described in the previous blog. Is ANYONE paying attention? Is the President?

And what is he going to do when the Russians laugh at these hollow warnings? Make no mistake that going up against the Russians will not be anything like the mock "wars" of the past 14 years, based mainly on invading and occupying two nations laden with impoverished, ragtag, robed radicals who can barely muster enough supplies to make home made bombs.  The Russians, by contrast, have actual fighter jets, battle ships and tanks, as well as a well equipped army that will give the U.S. everything it can handle and more. It won't be any 'shock and awe' cakewalk like in Iraq. So why is Obama falling for this bullshit, and why hasn't he cleaned house and gotten rid of the Neocons?

And why hasn't Obama sacked the Neocon advisors putting him up to this rubbish? Why does he have ANY Neocons still in his administration? As blogger Robert Parry put it two days ago:

"the U.S. government appears nearly as divided as the Ukrainian people. While neocon holdovers in the State Department, particularly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, helped instigate the crisis, President Obama has seen his collaboration with Putin to tamp down crises in Syria and Iran put at risk"

This  sounds to me like Obama needs to do a major clean up at State. Get rid of these buggers once and for all! Send them packing! No Neocons!  Obama needs to grasp he is backing the WRONG side! And also, these "freedom fighting citizens" are mainly Neo-Nazi thugs!  See also:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/27/the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/

Excerpt:

"The Washington-paid schemers are now reaping their just reward as they sit in craven silence while neo-nazi Muzychko wielding an Ak-47 challenges government officials to their face: “I dare you take my gun!” Only Obama, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Washington’s European puppets, and the Western prostitute media can describe the brutal reality of post-coup Ukraine as “the forward march of democracy.

If a democratically elected president and ruling party are so easily driven from power by armed neo-nazis, what chance do Washington’s paid stooges among the so-called “moderates” have of forming a government?"

Indeed, it is yet another display of supporting Neoliberal FASCISM! Neo -Nazis! Are you shitting me? WTF are we doing supporting Nazis? Has this country gone mad, or is the leadership now bamboozled again by the Neocons who clearly have them by the balls too?

 As I cited Mike Whitney's piece at the end of the post yesterday:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/54509/the-coup-in-ukraine-obamas-dumbest-plan-yet

In order to topple Yanukovych, the US had to tacitly support fanatical groups of neo-Nazi thugs and anti-Semites. And, even though “Interim Ukrainian President Oleksander Tuchynov has pledged to do everything in his power to protect the country’s Jewish community”; reports on the ground are not so encouraging. Here’s an excerpt from a statement by Natalia Vitrenko, of The Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine that suggests the situation is much worse than what is being reported in the news:

“Across the country… People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.” (“USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory”, Natalia Vitrenko)

Ukraine is gradually succumbing to the loving embrace of the New World Order where it will serve as another profit-generating cog in Wall Street’s wheel. That’s the theory, at least. It hasn’t occurred to the boneheads at the New York Times or Washington Post that Ukraine is rapidly descending into Mad Max-type anarchy which could spill over its borders into neighboring countries triggering violent conflagrations, social upheaval, regional instability or–god-help-us– WW3"

It is high time to call a halt to this insanity now!

Mr. Obama, tell the Neocons burrowed within your administration to get the hell out! Tell any Neocon advisors to shut the fuck up! We do not need or want World War III - which believe me, these assholes are leading us into one fell step after another. Do not let them make you believe Russia does not have as much right to defend her doorstep as we do ours!  (And WHO can forget how Reagan dispatched several Marine regiments  and ships to the small island of Grenada in 1983 to wipe out a small (400-650) band of Cuban commie engineers - on the island to repair roads. Don't hand me any shit that WE also don't fight to protect what's near our doorstep - even if 2,000 miles away!)

Enough of this crap!

Be like JFK and act as a leader for once, and tell the warmongers and warmakers to take a long hike on a short pier.

And please, no more empty, provocative threats - unless you're also prepared to threaten the Nazis wreaking mayhem in Ukraine!  See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/daniel-patrick-welch/54546/worst-man-for-the-job-what-the-hell-is-obama-thinking

See the nationalist filth that the West, the neocons and Obama are backing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY