The Guardian headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was.
Like the much-ballyhooed report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Horowitz report is a Rorschach test, in which partisans will find what they want to find.
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz’s conclusion that there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct.
Horowitz uses phrases like “serious performance failures,” describing his 416-page catalogue of errors and manipulations as incompetence rather than corruption. This throws water on the notion that the Trump investigation was a vast frame-up.
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose “serious” procedural problems and omissions of “significant information” in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a president).
Officials on the “Crossfire Hurricane” Trump-Russia investigators went to extraordinary, almost comical lengths to seek surveillance authority of figures like Trump aide Carter Page. In one episode, an FBI attorney inserted the words “not a source” in an email he’d received from another government agency. This disguised the fact that Page had been an informant for that agency, and had dutifully told the government in real time about being approached by Russian intelligence. The attorney then passed on the email to an FBI supervisory special agent, who signed a FISA warrant application on Page that held those Russian contacts against Page, without disclosing his informant
Read the entire article
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Friday, December 6, 2019
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Monday, November 11, 2019
Politicians suffer identity crisis, should let veterans lead instead
President Donald Trump withdraws U.S. troops from Syria and is broadly attacked.
Hillary Clinton accuses fellow Democrat Tulsi Gabbard of being a “Russian asset,” and Congresswoman Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, calls Clinton the “queen of warmongers.”
Back when the Soviets really were the “evil empire” Reagan said they were, Democrats attacked Reagan for his aggressive stance. Today, Democrats demand hostility toward Russia, now that they’re no longer Communists.
Republicans in recent history championed a strong military, not hesitating to use it against enemies real and imagined. But Reagan’s “peace through strength” doctrine — successful in collapsing the Soviets — no longer delivers the “peace” dividend it once did. With the strongest military ever, we haven’t had peace for two decades.
Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, who despite his rhetoric won’t actually support bringing our troops home, favors relocating Kurdish troops to America instead, even though the FBI says we can’t vet refugees from those lawless regions sufficiently to ensure we aren’t bringing Islamic terrorists to live in Boise or Twin Falls.
Some believe Trump got elected by pledging to end U.S. involvement in endless wars, and recent polls find strong support for that pledge. An Economist poll found 57 percent of Republicans support withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria.
Astoundingly, 76 percent of Democrats oppose withdrawal.
In explaining why he opposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Yemen, a Democratic state legislator told me the question is “whether we hang on two more years in hopes that we get a competent president who can chart a decent course in Yemen.” In other words, American troops should remain in harm’s way because this guy doesn’t like Donald Trump.
Similarly, Democrats who opposed endless wars under President George W. Bush went silent when President Barack Obama took over, notching 540 drone strikes in his presidential belt, which along with intended targets are documented to have killed 324 innocent civilians.
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said, according to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in their book, “Double Down: Game Change 2012.”
Read the entire article
Hillary Clinton accuses fellow Democrat Tulsi Gabbard of being a “Russian asset,” and Congresswoman Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, calls Clinton the “queen of warmongers.”
Back when the Soviets really were the “evil empire” Reagan said they were, Democrats attacked Reagan for his aggressive stance. Today, Democrats demand hostility toward Russia, now that they’re no longer Communists.
Republicans in recent history championed a strong military, not hesitating to use it against enemies real and imagined. But Reagan’s “peace through strength” doctrine — successful in collapsing the Soviets — no longer delivers the “peace” dividend it once did. With the strongest military ever, we haven’t had peace for two decades.
Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, who despite his rhetoric won’t actually support bringing our troops home, favors relocating Kurdish troops to America instead, even though the FBI says we can’t vet refugees from those lawless regions sufficiently to ensure we aren’t bringing Islamic terrorists to live in Boise or Twin Falls.
Some believe Trump got elected by pledging to end U.S. involvement in endless wars, and recent polls find strong support for that pledge. An Economist poll found 57 percent of Republicans support withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria.
Astoundingly, 76 percent of Democrats oppose withdrawal.
In explaining why he opposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Yemen, a Democratic state legislator told me the question is “whether we hang on two more years in hopes that we get a competent president who can chart a decent course in Yemen.” In other words, American troops should remain in harm’s way because this guy doesn’t like Donald Trump.
Similarly, Democrats who opposed endless wars under President George W. Bush went silent when President Barack Obama took over, notching 540 drone strikes in his presidential belt, which along with intended targets are documented to have killed 324 innocent civilians.
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said, according to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in their book, “Double Down: Game Change 2012.”
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Anti-Trump Whistleblower’s Identity Revealed – Worked for Susan Rice, Obama, Also Helped Initiate the Russia Collusion Hoax Investigation!
According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, one person’s name keeps coming up in the impeachment hearings that fits the description of the whistleblower — Eric Ciaramella.
33-year-old Ciaramella is a registered Democrat, worked for Obama, worked for Biden, worked for CIA Director John Brennan, he’s a vocal critic of Trump and he helped initiate the ‘Russia collusion’ hoax investigation!
Ciaramella’s identity was an open secret in the DC swamp, says Paul Sperry.
Mr. Ciaramella is a CIA officer who specializes in Russia and Ukraine who was detailed to work in the National Security Council under Susan Rice in 2015.
He was then moved into the West Wing in 2017 to ‘fill a vacancy’ where he was able to ‘see and read everything.’
Via Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations:
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower” who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.
But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst.
According to Sperry, Ciaramella worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa, who dug up dirt on Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Read the entire article
33-year-old Ciaramella is a registered Democrat, worked for Obama, worked for Biden, worked for CIA Director John Brennan, he’s a vocal critic of Trump and he helped initiate the ‘Russia collusion’ hoax investigation!
Ciaramella’s identity was an open secret in the DC swamp, says Paul Sperry.
Mr. Ciaramella is a CIA officer who specializes in Russia and Ukraine who was detailed to work in the National Security Council under Susan Rice in 2015.
He was then moved into the West Wing in 2017 to ‘fill a vacancy’ where he was able to ‘see and read everything.’
Via Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations:
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower” who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.
But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst.
According to Sperry, Ciaramella worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa, who dug up dirt on Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Trump and NY Times Admit US Imperialist War in Syria
From extraordinary candid admissions made separately by US President Donald Trump and the New York Times, there can be no illusion about what American forces are really deployed in Syria for. It’s an illegal occupation against the Syrian government and in particular to deprive the Arab country of its oil resources.
Subsequently this week it is being reported that the Pentagon is to deploy Abrams tanks and other heavy equipment to the oil fields near Deir Ez-Zor. The troops involved for such a new deployment would far outnumber the 1,000 or so soldiers that President Trump had said were “coming home”.
The oil fields of Syria are located mainly in the eastern provinces bordering with Iraq. Those areas (about a third of the country) are the last-remaining territory still outside of the control of the government in Damascus. The Syrian state will need to recover its oil fields in order to fund the reconstruction of the nation after nearly eight years of war.
In a tweet last weekend, Trump stated: “USA soldiers are not in combat or ceasefire zones. We have secured the Oil [sic]. Bringing soldiers home!”
The president was referring to the dubious deal he hatched with Turkey last week which resulted in the US abandoning its Kurdish allies and unleashing a deadly offensive by Turk forces against northeast Syria. After incurring much criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, as well as military experts and media pundits for his withdrawal of US troops, Trump is understandably trying to put a positive spin on his move.
Hence he is bragging about having defeated the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) jihadi terror network “100 per cent” and “bringing soldiers home”. The latter is an apparent fulfillment of Trump’s 2016 election promise to “end endless wars” and return American troops home from foreign interventions.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Read the entire article
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Stephen Miller pushback: ‘Permanent bureaucracy a mortal threat to America’
Anonymous efforts by anti-Trump federal bureaucrats to thwart the White House agenda through leaks and complaints to friendly reporters and congressional allies are a “mortal threat” to democracy and the 2016 election results, according to a top administration official.
“This is a mortal threat to the American system of government,” said Stephen Miller, the senior adviser for policy.
In 2016, President Trump ran against Washington’s “deep state” and “permanent bureaucracy,” said Miller, and they remain so angry that they are lying, leaking, and attacking the administration’s agenda.
The latest example is the planned book written by an anonymous inside critic and that follows efforts by bureaucrats to thwart Trump policies with leaks to liberal media and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
In an interview, Miller called inside attacks a “very grave threat,” and he explained it this way:
“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.
Read the entire article
“This is a mortal threat to the American system of government,” said Stephen Miller, the senior adviser for policy.
In 2016, President Trump ran against Washington’s “deep state” and “permanent bureaucracy,” said Miller, and they remain so angry that they are lying, leaking, and attacking the administration’s agenda.
The latest example is the planned book written by an anonymous inside critic and that follows efforts by bureaucrats to thwart Trump policies with leaks to liberal media and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
In an interview, Miller called inside attacks a “very grave threat,” and he explained it this way:
“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Old News? New News? With Israel, It's all the Same
Zionist Noses. According to the September 12, 2019 edition of the American political journal POLITICO, Israel "likely" placed cell phone surveillance devices around the White House and other "sensitive locations" in Washington, D.C. The publication based its statement on three, unnamed, former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter. (The story, however, first broke in June 2018 in a variety of news outlets which noted that the devices, called "stingrays", had been detected the previous year.)
Stingrays are not fish but are, as Politico described them, devices "which mimic regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use." American police departments use them and such use has occasioned a series of lawsuits alleging violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, regarding freedom of speech and warrantless searches.
Israeli officials, as is normally the case, denied any involvement. Donald Trump also denigrated the "alleged" Israeli activities, saying "My relationship with Israel has been great...Anything is possible but I don't believe it."
Read the entire article
Stingrays are not fish but are, as Politico described them, devices "which mimic regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use." American police departments use them and such use has occasioned a series of lawsuits alleging violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, regarding freedom of speech and warrantless searches.
Israeli officials, as is normally the case, denied any involvement. Donald Trump also denigrated the "alleged" Israeli activities, saying "My relationship with Israel has been great...Anything is possible but I don't believe it."
Read the entire article
Monday, August 26, 2019
Confirmed: Obama knew about, and was DIRECTING, the “Spygate” coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning
For nearly two years as information about the coup attempt against President Donald Trump known as “Spygate” dripped out, observers long suspected that an operation of this scope – involving the Justice Department, the FBI, U.S. and foreign intelligence assets – had to have come from the very top.
That is, former President Obama, who was in the Oval Office when Spygate was hatched and began as the 2016 presidential election cycle kicked off, had to have not only known about it but approved it.
Now, the speculation is over: Of course, he did.
Earlier this week during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Andrew McCarthy, attorney and former federal prosecutor who specialized in national security cases, said “counterintelligence operations” which is what Spygate was, at its core, are “done for the president.”
That means, as The Gateway Pundit notes, they are executed specifically to inform the commander-in-chief.
Read the entire article
That is, former President Obama, who was in the Oval Office when Spygate was hatched and began as the 2016 presidential election cycle kicked off, had to have not only known about it but approved it.
Now, the speculation is over: Of course, he did.
Earlier this week during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Andrew McCarthy, attorney and former federal prosecutor who specialized in national security cases, said “counterintelligence operations” which is what Spygate was, at its core, are “done for the president.”
That means, as The Gateway Pundit notes, they are executed specifically to inform the commander-in-chief.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
“National Conservatism” Is Being Co-Opted. Either We Reclaim It—Or The Future Is Separatism
I argued for “National Conservatism” in 2014, referring to a specific European tradition that puts the unity and cultural survival of the nation-state first. Put bluntly—the economy exists to serve the nation, not the nation the economy. Of course, I am appalled that the Main Stream Media has finally acknowledged “National Conservatism” at the very moment when (and probably because) it threatens to become irrelevant. Yoram Hazony’s “National Conservatism” racket is clearly gatekeeping, designed to direct nationalist energies into non-threatening dead ends. Nevertheless, the Left and its pet “conservatives” condemn even this housebroken version of National Conservatism. My current thinking: even if President Trump fails utterly, there’s no going back to Reagan-Bush “conservatism.” The only question: genuine nationalism—or separatism?
Perhaps the problem is that the only way Trump could have really succeeded is with something akin to a government of National Reconquest [Sam Francis in His Own Words, American Renaissance, April 2005]. Illegals needed to be deported, English established as the national language, E-Verify and remittance taxes imposed, and the Wall built. None of these things happened or, probably, will happen. Timid staffing choices and placeholders who even now are selling him out for a few minutes of MSM fame have made that impracticable.
Perhaps a new Trump program may emerge out of necessity in the 2020 campaign. But it seems more likely Trump will simply call the Democrats extremists and socialists and hope Americans are scared away.
Read the entire article
Perhaps the problem is that the only way Trump could have really succeeded is with something akin to a government of National Reconquest [Sam Francis in His Own Words, American Renaissance, April 2005]. Illegals needed to be deported, English established as the national language, E-Verify and remittance taxes imposed, and the Wall built. None of these things happened or, probably, will happen. Timid staffing choices and placeholders who even now are selling him out for a few minutes of MSM fame have made that impracticable.
Perhaps a new Trump program may emerge out of necessity in the 2020 campaign. But it seems more likely Trump will simply call the Democrats extremists and socialists and hope Americans are scared away.
Read the entire article
Friday, August 2, 2019
Monday, July 22, 2019
As politics are shaken up, a peace coalition emerges
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 turned into a mess that led to an immense loss of life and years of violent havoc in the Middle East, the war’s backers flippantly declared that “everyone” agreed on the war. The invasion’s evolving justifications – Saddam’s supposed amassing of “weapons of mass destruction” to his alleged ties to Al-Qaeda – were overblown, but if everyone was in agreement then who could possibly second-guess the military effort?
At the Editorial Board of the Orange County Register, we produced one piece after another questioning the war. We even got in a spat with one Fox News personality, who took umbrage at criticism of the war while the fighting was going on. That was somehow unpatriotic. But the United States has been involved in endless conflicts. If Americans held their tongues while bombs are dropping, then when could they ever feel free to air their concerns?
“There is no real threat to the United States, only a theoretical one based on faulty premises,” I opined at the time. “It is unjust, in that it is not a war of last resort.… It will run up tens of billions of dollars in costs, and it will lead to the limiting of civil liberties at home. Furthermore, America will be managing Iraq for years, perhaps decades, and our presence there is more likely to destabilize than democratize the region.”
Those points largely were correct. (This column isn’t about “I told you so,” by the way, but about “look how far we’ve come.”) Even the current GOP president has lamented that war. When Donald Trump recently called off airstrikes on Iran at the last minute, almost everyone expressed relief. It’s a new world ideologically and our long-standing foreign policy consensus is, finally, up for debate again. It’s taken long enough, but better late than never.
Read the entire article
At the Editorial Board of the Orange County Register, we produced one piece after another questioning the war. We even got in a spat with one Fox News personality, who took umbrage at criticism of the war while the fighting was going on. That was somehow unpatriotic. But the United States has been involved in endless conflicts. If Americans held their tongues while bombs are dropping, then when could they ever feel free to air their concerns?
“There is no real threat to the United States, only a theoretical one based on faulty premises,” I opined at the time. “It is unjust, in that it is not a war of last resort.… It will run up tens of billions of dollars in costs, and it will lead to the limiting of civil liberties at home. Furthermore, America will be managing Iraq for years, perhaps decades, and our presence there is more likely to destabilize than democratize the region.”
Those points largely were correct. (This column isn’t about “I told you so,” by the way, but about “look how far we’ve come.”) Even the current GOP president has lamented that war. When Donald Trump recently called off airstrikes on Iran at the last minute, almost everyone expressed relief. It’s a new world ideologically and our long-standing foreign policy consensus is, finally, up for debate again. It’s taken long enough, but better late than never.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
The Case that Obama Was a Traitor Just Got Powerful New Evidence — From the DNC!
The case that Obama’s team concocted Russiagate in order to weaken Trump if Trump were to win the Presidency has just received an important admission by the Government’s acknowledgement that the Government under Obama had lied to the FISA Court in order to get the FISA Court’s permission to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia’s Government. This information came from the DNC’s own lawyer, to the current U.S. Justice Department, in the case of United States of America v. Roger J. Stone Jr.
In response to Trump operative Roger Stone’s defense effort against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges against Stone, the “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Unredacted Crowdstrike Reports” Link
acknowledges that “On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.” And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.
In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency. This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.
Read the entire article
In response to Trump operative Roger Stone’s defense effort against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges against Stone, the “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Unredacted Crowdstrike Reports” Link
acknowledges that “On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.” And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.
In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency. This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.
Read the entire article
Friday, June 7, 2019
Trump & NATO warmongers proclaim peace
At the 75th anniversary this week of the Allied assault on Nazi-occupied France, US President Donald Trump and other NATO leaders issued a “D-Day Proclamation.” In it, they pledged never “to repeat the horror of World War Two.”
The US and 15 other nations, including Britain, France, and Canada, also declared their commitment to “resolve international tensions peacefully.”
If the so-called D-Day proclamation sounds like a load of PR twaddle, that’s because it is.
Evidently, it was hurriedly put together for some feel-good effect as Trump and others commemorated Operation Overlord to the strains an army brass band and Vera Lynn’s wartime paean ‘We’ll Meet Again’. The noble sacrifices of soldiers and civilians in the defeat of Nazi fascism would have to be given some token of decorum in the form of a peaceful proclamation, so it seems.
However, the proclamation by Trump and his gang of NATO warmongers has to be seen as nothing but cynical lip-service.
While commemorating a past naval offensive “for peace,” the US has at the very same time deployed warships and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in the Persian Gulf in a blatant show of aggression towards Iran. Washington is flagrantly using military force to subjugate Tehran to its geopolitical demands. So much for “resolving international tensions peacefully.”
Read the entire article
The US and 15 other nations, including Britain, France, and Canada, also declared their commitment to “resolve international tensions peacefully.”
If the so-called D-Day proclamation sounds like a load of PR twaddle, that’s because it is.
Evidently, it was hurriedly put together for some feel-good effect as Trump and others commemorated Operation Overlord to the strains an army brass band and Vera Lynn’s wartime paean ‘We’ll Meet Again’. The noble sacrifices of soldiers and civilians in the defeat of Nazi fascism would have to be given some token of decorum in the form of a peaceful proclamation, so it seems.
However, the proclamation by Trump and his gang of NATO warmongers has to be seen as nothing but cynical lip-service.
While commemorating a past naval offensive “for peace,” the US has at the very same time deployed warships and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in the Persian Gulf in a blatant show of aggression towards Iran. Washington is flagrantly using military force to subjugate Tehran to its geopolitical demands. So much for “resolving international tensions peacefully.”
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)