“The President has committed, as a matter of strategy, that we will not leave Syria. We are not going to declare victory and go. And that is not my opinion; that’s the President’s strategic judgment. We’re going to stay for several reasons: stabilization and assistance in the vital north and northeast, protection of our allies the Syrian Democratic Forces, who have fought so valiantly against ISIS in the northeast, try to work to help transform the political structures in that area to a model for the rest of Syria, and capable of being credibly represented in a new Syrian state; but for other reasons as well, including countering Iran and its ability to enhance its presence in Syria, and serving as a weight or force helping us to achieve some of those broader objectives.”
That’s as spoken by David M. Satterfield, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 11 January 2018, addressing the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the topic of “U.S. Policy Toward Syria.” You can see it in this clip from C-Span.
His statement hasn’t been reported in U.S. newsmedia; so, it’s still news; and this means that it’s news to the American people, and to all others who, though this news wasn’t reported to them, trust U.S. media to report any important American news (such as this U.S. Government policy-statement to the U.S. Senate certainly is).
Parts of this clip have been reported by the independent journalist Mutlu Civiroglu on twitter, and, from there to reddit, and also at Russia Defense Forum, and at the excellent general news site Signs Of The Times, where I came upon it, and whose reporter Joe Quinn contrasted this statement with a tweet from Donald Trump as a Presidential candidate on 5 Sep 2013: “Again, to our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria — if you do, many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S. gets nothing!”
Read the entire article
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
America’s National Defense Is Really Offense
On Friday, the Pentagon released an unclassified summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy report. On the same day, Secretary of Defense James Mattis delivered prepared remarks relating to the document.
Reading the summary is illuminating, to say the least, and somewhat disturbing, as it focuses very little on actual defense of the realm and relates much more to offensive military action that might be employed to further certain debatable national interests. Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating “gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.”
At times Mattis’ supplementary “remarks” were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned “…those who would threaten America’s experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day.” He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician’s emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that “competitors” should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.
Read the entire article
Reading the summary is illuminating, to say the least, and somewhat disturbing, as it focuses very little on actual defense of the realm and relates much more to offensive military action that might be employed to further certain debatable national interests. Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating “gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.”
At times Mattis’ supplementary “remarks” were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned “…those who would threaten America’s experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day.” He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician’s emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that “competitors” should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.
Read the entire article
Thursday, January 25, 2018
U.S. Blames Russia For All Chem Weapons Attacks Based On Claims From White Helmets Terrorists
It seems as if the U.S. State Department has been on a continual loop ever since August, 2013 when Western-backed terrorists launched a chemical weapons attack that was subsequently blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government by the United States and other imperialist nations assisting in the attempted destruction of Syria. Ever since 2013, when the United States almost succeeded in propagandizing the general public enough to support a direct military invasion of Syria, we have seen the U.S. State Department whining and shrieking about “chemical weapons attacks” conducted by the “regime” in Damascus against “his own people,” “civilians,” and “beautiful babies” on a bi-monthly basis. The tired “chemical weapons” line has never been able to provide the U.S. with as much payoff as it almost did in 2013, however, and, in 2018, Heather Nauert’s whining and Nikki Haley’s head-swinging fits at the U.N. simply don’t have the same effect as Samantha Power’s theatrics in the halls of the same institutions a few years ago.
Five years on, the actors may have switched places but the play remains the same. In fact, so does the stage and the dialogue. Once again, the U.S. is screaming at the top of its lungs that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta, outside Damascus.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that, “Only yesterday more than 20 civilians, most of them children, were victims of an apparent chlorine gas attack. He stated that the alleged attacks “raise serious concerns that Bashar al-Assad may be continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that the Syrian military used chemical weapons in the attack referenced by Tillerson, nor is there any credible evidence that the Syrian government even maintains a stockpile of chemical weapons to use if it wanted to. Indeed, the only sources supporting Tillerson’s claims are the White Helmets, the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing that has been exposed ad nauseum as a terrorist outfit designed to construct propaganda fitted for Western audiences.
Read the entire article
Five years on, the actors may have switched places but the play remains the same. In fact, so does the stage and the dialogue. Once again, the U.S. is screaming at the top of its lungs that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta, outside Damascus.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that, “Only yesterday more than 20 civilians, most of them children, were victims of an apparent chlorine gas attack. He stated that the alleged attacks “raise serious concerns that Bashar al-Assad may be continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that the Syrian military used chemical weapons in the attack referenced by Tillerson, nor is there any credible evidence that the Syrian government even maintains a stockpile of chemical weapons to use if it wanted to. Indeed, the only sources supporting Tillerson’s claims are the White Helmets, the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing that has been exposed ad nauseum as a terrorist outfit designed to construct propaganda fitted for Western audiences.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
US Needs to Kick Cold War Habit and end its Addiction to Militarism
The National Defense Strategy unveiled by Pentagon chief James Mattis illustrates once again the revanchist Cold War mindset dominating Washington which is the inevitable expression of the US’ destructive addiction to militarism.
More than a quarter century after the official end of the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union, Washington has the cheek to label both Russia and China as “revisionist powers.”
Policy and discourse dominating Washington shows it is the US that is the biggest “revisionist power,” trying to revive ideological tensions and antagonism with Russia and China.
Defense Secretary Mattis declared last week that fighting non-state terrorism was no longer the primary focus of US national security. He said the “great power competition” with Russia and China was the new priority.
Mattis’ National Defense Strategy echoed themes contained in the National Security Strategy document published in December, which was signed off by President Trump. The NSS also cast Russia and China as “rivals” and existential threats to America’s influence in the world.
As with the NSS paper, Moscow and Beijing condemned the latest Pentagon document as being stuck in Cold War thinking and dealing with foreign relations in an “imperialistic” manner. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was regrettable that Washington, “instead of conducting normal dialogue is trying to prove its leadership using such confrontational concepts and strategies.”
Read the entire article
More than a quarter century after the official end of the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union, Washington has the cheek to label both Russia and China as “revisionist powers.”
Policy and discourse dominating Washington shows it is the US that is the biggest “revisionist power,” trying to revive ideological tensions and antagonism with Russia and China.
Defense Secretary Mattis declared last week that fighting non-state terrorism was no longer the primary focus of US national security. He said the “great power competition” with Russia and China was the new priority.
Mattis’ National Defense Strategy echoed themes contained in the National Security Strategy document published in December, which was signed off by President Trump. The NSS also cast Russia and China as “rivals” and existential threats to America’s influence in the world.
As with the NSS paper, Moscow and Beijing condemned the latest Pentagon document as being stuck in Cold War thinking and dealing with foreign relations in an “imperialistic” manner. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was regrettable that Washington, “instead of conducting normal dialogue is trying to prove its leadership using such confrontational concepts and strategies.”
Read the entire article
Monday, January 22, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
US Plans to Prevent Syria's Stabilization as Sovereign State - Former UK Envoy
Sputnik spoke to former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to ask whether any further US involvement in the Syrian conflict is only likely to exacerbate division in the country, thus perpetuating the war.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.
Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?
Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world.
Read the entire article
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.
Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?
Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world.
Read the entire article
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
It’s Nato that’s Empire-building, not Putin
Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding?
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, NATO, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, “Against whom is this expansion intended?”
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which NATO was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either NATO or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders.
Read the entire article
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, NATO, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, “Against whom is this expansion intended?”
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which NATO was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either NATO or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Monday, January 15, 2018
Who or What Is Feeding the Unrest in Iran?
There are two general theories about the protests that are taking place in Iran. One, unfavorable to the Iranian government and establishment, is that the widespread discontent and rioting is over mismanagement of the economy that has particularly hurt poorer Iranians. The other is that we are seeing a contemporary replay of 1953 Iran and the downfall of Mohammad Mossadegh, which was orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the British MI-6.
The Iranian public’s expectation that the nuclear deal would lead to improvements in their lives were wrecked by Donald Trump’s decertification of the agreement and expectations that the pact would be wrecked by America’s renewing sanctions on Iran later this month. All of Trump’s advisers are hostile to Iran and it has also been reported that tearing up the agreement derived from a personal pledge made by Trump to Israeli/American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who also demanded that the US Embassy be moved to Jerusalem.
The vanishing nuclear deal and struggling economy bore fruit in the 2018 government budget that cut subsidies on food and government services while increasing fuel and commodity prices. Religious institutions controlled by the Supreme Religious Council and the business entities run by the Revolutionary Guards were reportedly spared the cuts, fueling popular anger.
If Donald Trump had really cared about the protesters or democracy, he would have said nothing about the protests. Instead, he appears intent on using the Iranian government suppression of the demonstrations to finally kill the nuclear deal by reinstating sanctions. He has tweeted five times, supporting the Iranian people who are seeking democracy but also giving the Tehran government a club to use against the demonstrators by claiming that they are tools of foreign governments, which is exactly what it is doing.
Read the entire article
The Iranian public’s expectation that the nuclear deal would lead to improvements in their lives were wrecked by Donald Trump’s decertification of the agreement and expectations that the pact would be wrecked by America’s renewing sanctions on Iran later this month. All of Trump’s advisers are hostile to Iran and it has also been reported that tearing up the agreement derived from a personal pledge made by Trump to Israeli/American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who also demanded that the US Embassy be moved to Jerusalem.
The vanishing nuclear deal and struggling economy bore fruit in the 2018 government budget that cut subsidies on food and government services while increasing fuel and commodity prices. Religious institutions controlled by the Supreme Religious Council and the business entities run by the Revolutionary Guards were reportedly spared the cuts, fueling popular anger.
If Donald Trump had really cared about the protesters or democracy, he would have said nothing about the protests. Instead, he appears intent on using the Iranian government suppression of the demonstrations to finally kill the nuclear deal by reinstating sanctions. He has tweeted five times, supporting the Iranian people who are seeking democracy but also giving the Tehran government a club to use against the demonstrators by claiming that they are tools of foreign governments, which is exactly what it is doing.
Read the entire article
Friday, January 12, 2018
Thursday, January 11, 2018
WW3 Fears Spiked After Ground Shaking Explosion Occurred Over Russia
A mysterious flash over Russia has spiked fears that the third world war has begun. Many were worried that the ground shaking explosion over Russia was that of the United States striking North Korea with a weapon of mass destruction.
According to the Daily Mail, the phenomenon was seen and felt over thousands of miles in Russia but was especially evident in three regions: Bashkortostan, Udmurtia, and Tatarstan. The flash was so bright, that witnesses said it turned the night into day.
Although some think the flash was nothing more than a meteor, others were concerned. “Probably it was the testing of some military weapon if even the ground was shaking,” said Firaya Zaripova commenting early Monday morning. “I saw the flash in Menzelinsk. There was also the sound of an explosion and then a vibration, I felt it,” said Ilnaz Shaykhraziev.
Another witness described the flash as an object breaking apart in the sky. “A meteor burned out, not reaching the lower layers of the atmosphere. Before this it exploded and split into many small pieces. That is why there was such a sound, which came to us in a few seconds. It’s a funny coincidence that such a rare phenomenon for our region has happened right over Christmas,” said Denis Rozenfeld.
Russian officials and scientists were rather quick to deny there had been a Russian missile test or any reported space rock crashing to earth. The flash also prompted fears that the United States attacked North Korea. And there has been speculation this week that North Korea was poised to test a ballistic missile or a nuke to mark tyrannical leader Kim Jong-un’s birthday.
Read the entire article
According to the Daily Mail, the phenomenon was seen and felt over thousands of miles in Russia but was especially evident in three regions: Bashkortostan, Udmurtia, and Tatarstan. The flash was so bright, that witnesses said it turned the night into day.
Although some think the flash was nothing more than a meteor, others were concerned. “Probably it was the testing of some military weapon if even the ground was shaking,” said Firaya Zaripova commenting early Monday morning. “I saw the flash in Menzelinsk. There was also the sound of an explosion and then a vibration, I felt it,” said Ilnaz Shaykhraziev.
Another witness described the flash as an object breaking apart in the sky. “A meteor burned out, not reaching the lower layers of the atmosphere. Before this it exploded and split into many small pieces. That is why there was such a sound, which came to us in a few seconds. It’s a funny coincidence that such a rare phenomenon for our region has happened right over Christmas,” said Denis Rozenfeld.
Russian officials and scientists were rather quick to deny there had been a Russian missile test or any reported space rock crashing to earth. The flash also prompted fears that the United States attacked North Korea. And there has been speculation this week that North Korea was poised to test a ballistic missile or a nuke to mark tyrannical leader Kim Jong-un’s birthday.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Google's AI Center in China: Poaching Talent
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already fundamentally changing information technology and stands poised to permeate and transform technology both online and off ranging from manufacturing and transportation to medicine and military applications. The US, Russia and China have all noted that dominance in this field of technology will be an essential ingredient to holding global primacy in the near future.
What resembles a sort of arms race has emerged between prominent nations around the globe. Perhaps in an effort to provide the US with an edge, or perhaps in an effort to mitigate the impact of such an arms race, Google has opened an AI center in China.
CNN in its article, "Google is opening an artificial intelligence center in China," would announce:
Despite many of its services being blocked in China, Google has chosen Beijing as the location for its first artificial intelligence research center in Asia.
The purpose of the center, according to CNN, citing China's desire to become a global leader in AI technology, will be to:
...help China pursue its aim to become the global leader. The facility will employ a team of researchers who will be supported by engineers the company already has in China.
Read the entire article
What resembles a sort of arms race has emerged between prominent nations around the globe. Perhaps in an effort to provide the US with an edge, or perhaps in an effort to mitigate the impact of such an arms race, Google has opened an AI center in China.
CNN in its article, "Google is opening an artificial intelligence center in China," would announce:
Despite many of its services being blocked in China, Google has chosen Beijing as the location for its first artificial intelligence research center in Asia.
The purpose of the center, according to CNN, citing China's desire to become a global leader in AI technology, will be to:
...help China pursue its aim to become the global leader. The facility will employ a team of researchers who will be supported by engineers the company already has in China.
Read the entire article
Monday, January 8, 2018
Friday, January 5, 2018
The Marshall Scam: Birth of the Communist EU
1945
The New World Order Globalists who had engineered and instigated both World War I and World War II now establish the United Nations as an embryonic World Government. The idea is sold as a means to prevent future wars.
1945 -1947
The Allied bombardment & destabilization of Western Europe had caused immense suffering for the people of post-war Europe.
1946
The New York based Council on Foreign Relations hatches a long range plot to bring the nations of Europe under a single socialist system. But they are going to need a trusted "front man", a creative "cover story" and a clever "gimmick" to sell this expensive scheme to a reluctant Congress and skeptical American public.
Established after World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations has since chosen most US Presidents, and crafted a Globalist foreign policy. The CFR was behind the "Marshall Plan," a scheme from which the EUSSR grew out of.
June, 1947: The Front Man
The phony "war hero", General George Marshall (CFR) is trotted out to announce "The European Recovery Program" during a speech at Harvard. The plan is soon dubbed, "The Marshall Plan" by the propaganda press. The scheme amounts to a multi-billion dollar foreign aid (bribery) giveaway.
Read the entire article
The New World Order Globalists who had engineered and instigated both World War I and World War II now establish the United Nations as an embryonic World Government. The idea is sold as a means to prevent future wars.
1945 -1947
The Allied bombardment & destabilization of Western Europe had caused immense suffering for the people of post-war Europe.
1946
The New York based Council on Foreign Relations hatches a long range plot to bring the nations of Europe under a single socialist system. But they are going to need a trusted "front man", a creative "cover story" and a clever "gimmick" to sell this expensive scheme to a reluctant Congress and skeptical American public.
Established after World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations has since chosen most US Presidents, and crafted a Globalist foreign policy. The CFR was behind the "Marshall Plan," a scheme from which the EUSSR grew out of.
June, 1947: The Front Man
The phony "war hero", General George Marshall (CFR) is trotted out to announce "The European Recovery Program" during a speech at Harvard. The plan is soon dubbed, "The Marshall Plan" by the propaganda press. The scheme amounts to a multi-billion dollar foreign aid (bribery) giveaway.
Read the entire article
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
ALL THE NEWS UNFIT TO PRINT: JAMES RISEN ON HIS BATTLES WITH BUSH, OBAMA, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
JAMES RISEN IS a legend in the world of investigative and national security journalism. As a reporter for the New York Times, Risen broke some of the most important stories of the post 9/11 era, from the warrantless surveillance against Americans conducted under the Bush-Cheney administration, to black prison sites run by the CIA, to failed covert actions in Iran. Risen has won the Pulitzer and other major journalism awards. But perhaps what he is now most famous for is fighting a battle under both the Bush and Obama administrations as they demanded — under threat of imprisonment —the name of one of Risen’s alleged confidential sources. In the end, Risen prevailed and refused to testify and he was not locked up. But during the course of his case, there were rulings that could have far reaching implications for journalists, particularly in a climate where the president of the United States is characterizing news outlets as enemies of the people, contemplating arresting reporters, and is conducting at least 27 leak investigations. All before the end of his first year in office.
But it isn’t just the government that Risen had to fight. He also battled his own editors and other powerful figures at the New York Times. Some of those people pushed the narrative that Iraq had WMDs and they regularly colluded with senior officials at the CIA, NSA, and White House in an effort to kill — or delay publication of — Risen’s stories. James Risen has now written an extensive account of his years at the New York Times and he names names.
Risen is now a senior national security correspondent at The Intercept where his incredible inside story has now been published. We talked with Risen about his career at the New York Times in a special edition of Intercepted.
Read the entire article
But it isn’t just the government that Risen had to fight. He also battled his own editors and other powerful figures at the New York Times. Some of those people pushed the narrative that Iraq had WMDs and they regularly colluded with senior officials at the CIA, NSA, and White House in an effort to kill — or delay publication of — Risen’s stories. James Risen has now written an extensive account of his years at the New York Times and he names names.
Risen is now a senior national security correspondent at The Intercept where his incredible inside story has now been published. We talked with Risen about his career at the New York Times in a special edition of Intercepted.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
Monday, January 1, 2018
Attorney Who Sued DNC For Fraud Admits Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas Were Both Witnesses in His Case
If Seth Rich or Shawn Lucas would have testified against the DNC before their deaths the entire organization would have crumbled upon itself
Attorney Jared Beck recently took to Twitter where he explained on the record that Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas were witnesses in his year-long class-action legal battle with the Democratic National Committee over the organization’s mishandling of the 2016 Primary before both Rich and Lucas mysteriously turned up dead.
The Beck & Lee suit came to a screeching halt in late-August after the case was dismissed by a Florida judge following then DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s resignation in July.
The outspoken attorney who was scorned by the media after questioning the official police investigation and suspicious circumstances surrounding DNC staffer Rich’s death during his appearance on The Alex Jones Show pulled no punches when he tweeted on Thursday: “Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas were witnesses in MY case. But I didn’t drop the lawsuit because of that. I accepted the possibility of dying and carried on. Some might call that “courage.” And I’m 41, not 75 like Bernie, and I have two daughters, ages 4 and 6. So FUCK RIGHT OFF.”
Read the entire article
Attorney Jared Beck recently took to Twitter where he explained on the record that Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas were witnesses in his year-long class-action legal battle with the Democratic National Committee over the organization’s mishandling of the 2016 Primary before both Rich and Lucas mysteriously turned up dead.
The Beck & Lee suit came to a screeching halt in late-August after the case was dismissed by a Florida judge following then DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s resignation in July.
The outspoken attorney who was scorned by the media after questioning the official police investigation and suspicious circumstances surrounding DNC staffer Rich’s death during his appearance on The Alex Jones Show pulled no punches when he tweeted on Thursday: “Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas were witnesses in MY case. But I didn’t drop the lawsuit because of that. I accepted the possibility of dying and carried on. Some might call that “courage.” And I’m 41, not 75 like Bernie, and I have two daughters, ages 4 and 6. So FUCK RIGHT OFF.”
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)