USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!!

[Cliff Varnell]

The few progressive cities and towns in the USA will unfortunately likely experience an internal refugee crisis shortly of those too afraid to endure a Trumped-up America where they live now. I know when I infrequently return to the U.S. I have certain places I feel safer than others and this will be more so now. However, the Federal Govt. has legal priority, as we all know, and has the power of the intelligence communities. We survived Nixon and the Bushes - which were unusually bad. That said, the less bad presidents since JFK [who at the time of his murder by the state was really moving in progressive directions - this being the reason for his murder, as well as not being under the control of the secret state any longer] were still objectively bad. We can and must do better, but this means no more business/politics as usual. Personally, I think Trump will even disappoint those who voted for him. At that point we have the opportunity to say throw all the bums out, as a Nation. Clearly more in the USA who voted did NOT want Trump and an even greater number who didn't like him or his 'ideas' didn't vote. Many were angry they couldn't vote for someone better than Clinton [such as Sanders] and others know that voting has always gotten them an 'evil' - be it lesser or greater - and have stopped voting, altogether. All should know that one must 'vote' every day with one's ideas, money, self - only then will be start to move toward democracy and away from the growing oligopoly. As a Nation we have yet to deal with the realities of the wars, secret government, secret control of money and power, assassinations, Dallas, 911 and the destruction of the environment, et al. We have IMHO little time left to make a 180 turn in our thinking and in our actions. A few are awake, but most are sleep-walking toward the abyss, led by figures behind the curtains, but blinded by their own failure to see what is happening before their own eyes and lives.

After WW2 the German people publicly came to terms with their Nazi past.

The people of the Soviet Union came to terms with their Stalinist past.

But the people of America have never come to terms with our "regime change" past.

There's a no fly zone over our brutal history across the world since the end of WW2.

[David Guyatt]

I just don't understand all the Dem-bashing when we're dealing with an overt fascist takeover by Republicans.

It's more a case of worse and worser rather than dumb and dumber. Had Hillary won WWIII was certainly on the cards. That appears to now have been averted - despite the rantings of John McCain.

Besides that, the US (and Europe for that matter) has been pushed increasingly to the right for almost 4 decades now. It has been based on a bedrock of utter selfishness and greed. The political establishment of the US (and Europe too) is no longer responsive to democratic input (until this year anyway) and simply adhered to oligarchical input.

From this mix of ingredients, fascism was always going to erupt in a lash back to deaf ears and political zealotry. It was inevitable.

Had Hillary won WWIII was certainly on the cards.

David, with all due respect, I find this a fundamental mis-reading of American foreign policy.

The only pre-text for wider war is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the bad guys.

Why does America go to war?

For control of international oil and narcotics markets.With the low price of oil and the glut of pharm-smack why would Hillary start WW3?

China owns $3.2 trillion in US debt and the American consumer is a great engine of Chinese economic activity.

We're not going to war with China.

Or over Ukraine.

Or Syria.

But the new regime may want to go to war with Iran.

Hillary wasn't going to war over the Iran nuke deal -- that rationale had left town -- but the new guys want to tear it up and get after Tehran.

I fear your assessment that Trump brings "peace" may face future revisions.

We've been over this before, Cliff. I actually think it is you who continue to fundamentally misread US foreign policy or not read it, as the case may be. Meanwhile, almost every independent observer and analyst disagrees with you.

Meanwhile, please don't mis-charterise and mis-state what I've said. I've not said Trump will bring peace. My entire thrust has been about Hilary - with a particular focus on Syria (and less so, Ukraine).

[David Guyatt]

Cliff, the below for you for the record:

Clapper said: "Intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails"

See Wikileaks HERE for their retweet about this.

The Clinton/Podesta/Clapper argument to the contrary (Russia did it) was always a political fabrication.

[Peter Lemkin]

:: Trump's cabinet and advisor line-up is right out of the scariest horror story/film!! Heil Trump! ::

This line-up from Hell makes the team of W. Bush look like something to wish for again. I expect the worst from Trump and his team - always did - but it now looks even more dire than I had thought before. ::

[Lauren Johnson]

:: Trump's cabinet and advisor line-up is right out of the scariest horror story/film!! Heil Trump! ::

Here's the list: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...ation.html

And get used to a lot of this kind of crap. This video reveals a kind of strategy of tension that has been in play. Soros funds Black Lives Matter which appeared practically overnight then "alt-right" use them as punching bags to move the political spectrum to the right.

[Peter Lemkin]

Petraeus is likely to be Sec. of State or Defense.....now that is sick!:tampfeet::

[Cliff Varnell]

We've been over this before, Cliff. I actually think it is you who continue to fundamentally misread US foreign policy or not read it, as the case may be. Meanwhile, almost every independent observer and analyst disagrees with you.

Meanwhile, please don't mis-charterise and mis-state what I've said. I've not said Trump will bring peace. My entire thrust has been about Hilary - with a particular focus on Syria (and less so, Ukraine).

I don't recall seeing any cogent argument for why Clinton would start WW3 over Syria.

It seems "independent observers and analysts" have missed out on the fact that when an American President dances with the National Security State it's the latter who leads.

[Cliff Varnell]

So as we wade thru the same old tired cliches about Dems and Goopers being the same thing we have this:

Trump's CIA pick supports domestic surveillance, opposes Iran deal

Surprise pick, Pompeo tapped for CIA chief

By Jonathan Landay | WASHINGTON

Representative Mike Pompeo, President-elect Donald Trump's surprise choice to head the CIA, supports the U.S. government's sweeping collection of Americans' communications data and wants to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran.

The retired Army officer, West Point and Harvard Law School graduate also has defended the CIA's use of interrogation techniques that are widely condemned as torture.

The Kansas Republican has criticized Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state and her handling of the 2012 attacks on U.S. posts in Benghazi, Libya.

A member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Pompeo, 52, was first elected in the 2010 Tea Party wave from the congressional district centered on his hometown of Wichita. Members of both parties regard him as intelligent, collegial and capable, with a keen grasp of national security issues.

"Mike is very bright and hard-working, and will devote himself to helping the agency develop the best possible intelligence for policy makers," said Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "While we have had our share of strong differences - principally on the politicization of the tragedy in Benghazi - I know that he is someone who is willing to listen and engage."

Pompeo "is a serious guy who studies issues carefully," said former National Security Agency and CIA director Michael Hayden.

Some civil liberties and human rights advocates, however, expressed concern over Pompeo's selection because he opposes closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

They also criticized his support for the National Security Agency's now-defunct bulk communications metadata collection and other surveillance programs.

"These positions and others merit serious public scrutiny through a confirmation process," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a January op-ed in the Wall Street Journal he co-authored, Pompeo called for a "fundamental upgrade to America's surveillance capabilities," including resuming bulk collection of domestic phone metadata, the numbers and time stamps of calls, but not their content.

The program, which a federal appeals court and two governmental review panels found to be illegal and ineffective, should be expanded to include "publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database", and that "legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed," he wrote.

He also called for the death penalty for Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who disclosed the existence of the metadata program and other top-secret surveillance programs.

Pompeo stands a good chance of being confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Announcement of his nomination was warmly greeted by Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will conduct his confirmation hearing.

ATTACKING CLINTON
Pompeo has been at the forefront of attacks in Congress on Clinton, accusing her of "criminality" for storing emails containing classified information on her private server.

He served on the Republican-led House committee that investigated the attacks by Islamist extremists on U.S. diplomatic and CIA posts in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

While the panel found no wrongdoing by the administration, Pompeo and another member appended to the final report a commentary accusing Clinton and other officials of failing to protect the posts and to respond appropriately to the attacks.

Democrats accused Pompeo of using inaccurate information to exaggerate alleged failures by Clinton on Benghazi.Some of Pompeo's positions also are at odds with the assessments of the intelligence officers and analysts Trump wants him to command.

While he has argued that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, produced useful intelligence, current CIA Director John Brennan has said he would resign if he were ordered to resume the practice.

Other CIA and military officers and FBI agents have said so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" do not produce reliable information because prisoners will "say anything" to end their suffering, as one CIA official put it.

Pompeo also is at odds with the intelligence community's assessment of the 2015 deal that lifted financial sanctions from Iran in return for limits on its nuclear program.

He has vowed to overturn the deal, and suggested in a 2014 roundtable with journalists that the United States should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a proposal that U.S. intelligence experts said would only delay Tehran's development of a warhead, not halt it.

Pompeo also has opposed the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, while at the CIA, a recently created Mission Center for Global Issues tracks global warming as a threat to U.S. security.

He has taken positions that are at odds with Trump's, notably on Russia's actions in Ukraine and its military support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who also is supported by Iran.

Russia has established a toehold in the Middle East, and "we now have the Iranian-Russian axis there largely running free," Pompeo told a security forum in 2015.

Pompeo, who was born in California, graduated first in his class from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was an artillery officer in the army for five years. He received a degree from the Harvard Law School and was an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

[Cliff Varnell]

Little understood facts about the American ruling elites:

Most analyses only go this far: the Globalist Banker-Friendly Proto-Autocracy is rooted in the corporate "moderate" wings of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

However, the liberal Democratic base ("the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as Howard Dean deemed it) battles the moderate wing when the chance presents itself. Bernie vs. Hillary.

Within the base of the Republican Party sits the Dominionist Proto-Autocracy whose main concerns are State control of female reproductive capacities, and impeding racial diversity.

A/k/a the Christian Right.

The Dominionists will give the Globalists anything they want in terms of exacerbating wealth inequality or foreign wars but the Dominionists cannot abide the Globalist insistence on a woman's right to choose, or social diversity.

With Donald Trump we have the worst of all possible elite power.

[David Guyatt]

We've been over this before, Cliff. I actually think it is you who continue to fundamentally misread US foreign policy or not read it, as the case may be. Meanwhile, almost every independent observer and analyst disagrees with you.

Meanwhile, please don't mis-charterise and mis-state what I've said. I've not said Trump will bring peace. My entire thrust has been about Hilary - with a particular focus on Syria (and less so, Ukraine).

I don't recall seeing any cogent argument for why Clinton would start WW3 over Syria.

It seems "independent observers and analysts" have missed out on the fact that when an American President dances with the National Security State it's the latter who leads.

I'm not surprised. You need, I think, to assemble a better reading list and become more informed on foreign affairs (a good place to begin is Consortium News below). The fears that the US-Russian military head-to-head in Syria has been a feature for months and months. I find it odd that you're so ignorant about it. However, it's not just Syria but the US/NATO pushing militarily right up to Russia's border and the US backed coup in Ukraine too.

I have not the slightest doubt that those observers and analysts were accordingly terrified by Hilary for those same (and other) reasons. Not least her repeated statements about establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.

Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks
July 29, 2016

Exclusive: Focusing on domestic issues, Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech sidestepped the deep concerns anti-war Democrats have about her hawkish foreign policy, which is already taking shape in the shadows, reports Gareth Porter.


By Gareth Porter


As Hillary Clinton begins her final charge for the White House, her advisers are already recommending air strikes and other new military measures against the Assad regime in Syria.


The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as U.S. policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives concerned about Donald Trump's "America First" foreign policy.)


Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime.


And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad. (When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!"


Flournoy co-founded the Center for New American Security (CNAS) in 2007 to promote support for U.S. war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then became Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration in 2009.


Flournoy left her Pentagon position in 2012 and returned to CNAS as Chief Executive Officer. She has been described by ultimate insider journalist David Ignatius of the Washington Post, as being on a "short, short list" for the job Secretary of Defense in a Clinton administration.


Last month, CNAS published a report of a "Study Group" on military policy in Syria on the eve of the organization's annual conference. Ostensibly focused on how to defeat the Islamic State, the report recommends new U.S. military actions against the Assad regime.


Flournoy chaired the task force, along with CNAS president Richard Fontaine, and publicly embraced its main policy recommendation in remarks at the conference.


She called for "using limited military coercion" to help support the forces seeking to force President Assad from power, in part by creating a "no bombing" zone over those areas in which the opposition groups backed by the United States could operate safely.


In an interview with Defense One, Flournoy described the no-bomb zone as saying to the Russian and Syrian governments, "If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets." That would "stop the bombing of certain civilian populations," Flournoy said.


In a letter to the editor of Defense One, Flournoy denied having advocated "putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad's forces or remove Assad from power," which she said the title and content of the article had suggested.


But she confirmed that she had argued that "the U.S. should under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion primarily trikes using standoff weapons to retaliate against Syrian military targets" for attacks on civilian or opposition groups "and to set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement."


Renaming a No-Fly' Zone


The proposal for a "no bombing zone" has clearly replaced the "no fly zone," which Clinton has repeatedly supported in the past as the slogan to cover a much broader U.S. military role in Syria.


Panetta served as Defense Secretary and CIA Director in the Obama administration when Clinton was Secretary of State, and was Clinton's ally on Syria policy. On July 17, he gave an interview to CBS News in which he called for steps that partly complemented and partly paralleled the recommendations in the CNAS paper.


"I think the likelihood is that the next president is gonna have to consider adding additional special forces on the ground," Panetta said, "to try to assist those moderate forces that are taking on ISIS and that are taking on Assad's forces."


Panetta was deliberately conflating two different issues in supporting more U.S. Special Forces in Syria. The existing military mission for those forces is to support the anti-ISIS forces made up overwhelmingly of the Kurdish YPG and a few opposition groups.


Neither the Kurds nor the opposition groups the Special Forces are supporting are fighting against the Assad regime. What Panetta presented as a need only for additional personnel is in fact a completely new U.S. mission for Special Forces of putting military pressure on the Assad regime.


He also called for increasing "strikes" in order to "put increasing pressure on ISIS but also on Assad." That wording, which jibes with the Flournoy-CNAS recommendation, again conflates two entirely different strategic programs as a single program.


The Panetta ploys in confusing two separate policy issues reflects the reality that the majority of the American public strongly supports doing more militarily to defeat ISIS but has been opposed to U.S. war against the government in Syria.


A poll taken last spring showed 57 percent in favor of a more aggressive U.S. military force against ISIS. The last time public opinion was surveyed on the issue of war against the Assad regime, however, was in September 2013, just as Congress was about to vote on authorizing such a strike.


At that time, 55 percent to 77 percent of those surveyed opposed the use of military force against the Syrian regime, depending on whether Congress voted to authorize such a strike or to oppose it.


Shaping the Debate


It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for figures known to be close to a presidential candidate to make public recommendations for new and broader war abroad. The fact that such explicit plans for military strikes against the Assad regime were aired so openly soon after Clinton had clinched the Democratic nomination suggests that Clinton had encouraged Flournoy and Panetta to do so.


The rationale for doing so is evidently not to strengthen her public support at home but to shape the policy decisions made by the Obama administration and the coalition of external supporters of the armed opposition to Assad.


Obama's refusal to threaten to use military force on behalf of the anti-Assad forces or to step up military assistance to them has provoked a series of leaks to the news media by unnamed officials primarily from the Defense Department criticizing Obama's willingness to cooperate with Russia in seeking a Syrian ceasefire and political settlement as "naïve."


The news of Clinton's advisers calling openly for military measures signals to those critics in the administration to continue to push for a more aggressive policy on the premise that she will do just that as president.


Even more important to Clinton and close associates, however, is the hope of encouraging Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been supporting the armed opposition to Assad, to persist in and even intensify their efforts in the face of the prospect of U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria.


Even before the recommendations were revealed, specialists on Syria in Washington think tanks were already observing signs that Saudi and Qatari policymakers were waiting for the Obama administration to end in the hope that Clinton would be elected and take a more activist role in the war against Assad.


The new Prime Minister of Turkey, Binali Yildirim, however, made a statement on July 13 suggesting that Turkish President Recep Yayyip Erdogan may be considering a deal with Russia and the Assad regime at the expense of both Syrian Kurds and the anti-Assad opposition.


That certainly would have alarmed Clinton's advisers, and four days later, Panetta made his comments on network television about what "the next president" would have to do in Syria.


Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

ConsortiumNews

If you'd care to read the Syria thread on this forum, I have posted numerous articles there that share this same war theme. Ditto the Ukraine thread too as I recall.