American Resistance To Empire

The United States is not fighting against terrorists in Syria, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag

This Saturday, April. 29, 2017 still taken from video, shows an American soldier looking out of an armored vehicle in the northern village of Darbasiyah, Syria© AP Photo/ APTV

United States Not Combating Terrorism in Syria – Turkish Deputy PM

The United States is not fighting against terrorists in Syria, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said Thursday, commenting on the deal on withdrawal of Daesh terror group militants from the Syrian city of Raqqa.


ANKARA (Sputnik) — On Monday, the BBC news outlet reported that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias had allowed about 250 Daesh terrorists to leave Raqqa in October.

“There has been no question of an open struggle against terrorists. Otherwise, Washington would not cooperate with one terrorist organization in the fight against the other. This is unthinkable but it is the fact. If it was the question of a real fight against terrorists, the US would need to cooperate with a strong country like Turkey,” Bozdag said, as quoted by the Anadolu news agency.

He added that the agreement between the Syrian Kurds and Daesh terrorists during the operation in Raqqa had been reached with the consent of the United States.

On Tuesday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said that the SDF, dominated by the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), “brokered a deal” with Daesh to evacuate a large number of its members from Raqqa.

Ankara considers the YPG to be affiliated with the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), which is listed as a terror group in Turkey, the United States and the European Union.


Syria Shows Warehouses Full of US/Western Weapons Seized From Daesh In Deir ez-Zor

DAESH Weapon© Sputnik/ MORAD SAEED

Warehouses Full of US-Made ‘Lethal Weapons’ Found by Syrian Army (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

The Syrian Army has liberated new quarters of Deir ez-Zor from Daesh terrorists. During the operation the army found large warehouses with a huge number of lethal weapons. The Syrian military source told Sputnik Arabic what exactly these warehouses were storing.

According to the Syrian military source there were a lot of US-made weapons and military equipment of Western European and Israeli production. Apart from M-16 automatic rifles there were TOW anti-tank missile systems and 155 mm US field guns.

“There were also Hummers, which were either used to transport people or were stuffed with bombs inside ready to explode. Israeli intelligence reconnaissance aircraft and a modern Israeli protective suit for conducting sapper work have also been found,” the source told Sputnik Arabic.

The source also said that tech for air and ground reconnaissance, satellite communications and bags with C-4 explosives were also discovered inside these warehouses.

There were also boxes with ammunition and weapons stored in the underground shelters, while tanks and cars were covered with a camouflage net to protect against Russian and Syrian airstrikes.

The Inside Syria Media Center website quoted Syrian Brigade General Ali al-Ali as saying that the United States illegally delivered at least 1,500 trucks with weapons and military equipment to terrorists in Syria between June 5 and September 15 of this year.

Although Washington said that these weapons were intended for US allies, they always fell into the hands of terrorists, the general said.

Warehouse of Daesh weapons
© Sputnik/ MORAD SAEED
Warehouse of Daesh weapons

According to the website, the Austrian Glock 19 pistol is the most popular weapon among Daesh militants. Back in 2014, terrorists posted execution videos, in which those pistols were used.

Later it was discovered that these pistols were delivered to Iraqi law enforcement bodies in 2003-2004.

 DAESH Weapon
© Sputnik/ MORAD SAEED
DAESH Weapon

According to the brigade general, the M-16 assault rifles became a symbol of crisis in Syria. The Syrian Army has repeatedly found boxes containing weapons that read “US Property.” Hence statements suggesting  that these were Chinese copies are probably incorrect.

DAESH Weapon
© Sputnik/ MORAD SAEED
DAESH Weapon

Furthermore, the Syrian Army on a number of occasions found the light automatic FN FAL rifle, which is a weapon used by the NATO. This rifle is equipped with a sniper scope and is generally used in urban dwellings.

In addition, Daesh terrorists have also used Heckler & Koch’s MP5 submachine gun, popular with US and European law enforcement agencies.

Once Again, Phantom Bombers Target Jamiat-e Islami Afghan Leaders In Kabul…30+ Killed

[SEE: Mourners of Yesterday’s Kabul Protesters Deaths Attacked By Suicide-Bombers At Funeral]

“Noor, a senior leader of the Tajik-dominated Jamiat-e Islami party, has been an outspoken critic of Ghani and the National Unity Government.
In a statement posted on Facebook, Noor blamed an “evil circle” inside the government for the attack.
“Our fight against terrorists and terrorism and for justice will continue and such actions, the perpetrators of which are known, will not deter us,” he said.
It is not the first time that top officials in the Jamiat political group have been targeted by attackers.
Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani, who heads Jamiat, survived an attack at a funeral in Kabul in June where suicide bombers tore through a row of mourners. Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah also escaped unharmed.”–[At least 14 dead in suicide attack outside Kabul political gathering]

At least 30 people killed in Afghanistan suicide attack

The suicide attacker targeted a wedding hall in Kabul where a political gathering was taking place inside, officials say.

The suicide attack was the latest in a wave of violence in Afghanistan that has killed and wounded thousands of civilians this year. November 16, 2017.
The suicide attack was the latest in a wave of violence in Afghanistan that has killed and wounded thousands of civilians this year. November 16, 2017. ( Reuters )

A suicide attacker blew himself up outside a wedding hall in Kabul on Thursday, killing at least 30 people and wounding several others, officials and witnesses said.

The attack apparently targeted a political gathering underway inside the hall.

Daesh claimed responsibility on the terrorist group’s news agency, Amaq. The Taliban denied involvement.

Supporters of Atta Mohammad Noor, the powerful governor of the northern province of Balkh and a vocal critic of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, had been holding an event inside the hall at the time of the blast.

“After lunch as we were exiting the hall a huge explosion shook the hall, shattering glass and causing chaos and panic,” said Harun Mutaref, who was at the gathering.

Journalist Bilal Sarwary has more from Kabul.

“I saw many bodies including police and civilians lying in blood.”

The bomber tried to get into the building but was stopped at the security checkpoint where he detonated his device, Kabul police spokesman Abdul Basir Mujahid said.

“A number of our police personnel are among the casualties,” Mujahid added.

Governor of Balkh province not present

Governor Noor was not at the event, one of his aides said.

Noor is a senior leader of the Tajik-dominated Jamiat-e Islami party.

He is a critic of Ghani and the National Unity Government, and has hinted that he may run in the 2019 presidential election.

Noor recently called for the return of Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, who fled to Turkey in May after he was accused of raping and torturing a political rival in 2016.

Earlier this year, Noor met Deputy Chief Executive Mohammad Mohaqiq, a senior figure in the mainly Shia Hazara ethnic community, and Dostum in Turkey to form the “Coalition for the Salvation of Afghanistan.”

Lebanon’s Hariri shackled by bigger outside forces

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Nothing so encapsulated the political shackles in which Saad al-Hariri has operated as Lebanon’s prime minister as the way he resigned in a televised statement made from Saudi Arabia.

Cars pass next to a poster depicting Saad al-Hariri, who has resigned as Lebanon’s prime minister, in Beirut, Lebanon,, Lebanon, November 13, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Every major decision by the unlikely politician was determined by factors beyond his control. He entered politics after the 2005 assassination of his father and his resignation served the agenda of Riyadh.

The dependence of their leaders on powerful external patrons is nothing new in Lebanon, where regional powers from Saudi Arabia to Iran have long tussled for geopolitical advantage.

But the case of Hariri, who many Lebanese think was summoned to the Saudi capital, coerced into resigning and put under house arrest – which he has denied – underscores an instance of external pressure extreme even by Lebanon’s high standards.

In an interview on Sunday, he said he will return to Lebanon in the coming days and might reconsider his resignation. Even if he does, the events of the past 10 days show how decisions taken beyond Lebanon’s borders would still define his role.

His shock resignation statement on Nov. 4, which has thrust Lebanon into a new political crisis, included a laundry list of Saudi complaints about the behavior of Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, Riyadh’s main political adversaries.

Iran and Hezbollah, Hariri said, are “sowing strife” in the Arab world.

As Riyadh’s ally at a time of its enemies’ ascendancy, Hariri was already playing Lebanon’s intricate political game from a position of weakness.

A year ago, after spending years abroad, he agreed to join a national unity government with President Michel Aoun, a former rival and Hezbollah ally, that included Hezbollah itself.

It was a compromise he said was necessary to end Lebanon’s sectarian-tinged political paralysis and one that was personally difficult, as Hariri accuses Hezbollah of the assassination of his father, Rafik al-Hariri.

He seemed committed to that compromise until the moment he flew to Riyadh on Nov. 3, telling officials of discussions planned for his return the following Monday.

Saudi Arabia had previously accepted Hariri’s political bargain in Lebanon. But Iran’s trumpeting of its successes along with Hezbollah in the wars in Syria and Yemen at the expense of Saudi allies may have altered Riyadh’s calculation.

A day after traveling to Riyadh, Hariri appeared on television reading a statement of resignation.


Hariri’s career was built on the backing of Gulf states, the deployment of his family fortune – spending large amounts of it in Lebanon to finance a media network and charitable gifts to secure widespread support – and feelings of respect among many Lebanese for his late father.

In his resignation address, Saad said: “We are living in a climate similar to the atmosphere that prevailed before the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri”.

A poster depicting Saad al-Hariri, who has resigned as Lebanon’s prime minister is seen in Beirut, Lebanon, November 13, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

In Lebanon’s sectarian system, the prime minister must always be a Sunni Muslim and Rafik made his family pre-eminent among Lebanese Sunnis.

Rafik carved out a business empire in Saudi Arabia with the backing of its ruling family and returned to Lebanon to rebuild when the civil war there ended in 1990, serving twice as prime minister. The car bomb that killed Rafik gave Saad little choice but to adopt a previously unsought role as political leader.

Before being plunged into Lebanon’s volatile politics, Saad had led a playboy lifestyle running his father’s business. He was raised in Saudi Arabia and has Saudi nationality.

Outrage at Rafik’s killing helped Hariri’s movement to electoral victory five months later and he installed a political ally as prime minister, not taking the post himself until 2009.

It was the first government headed by factions opposed to the influence of Syria – and by extension Damascus’ allies Iran and Hezbollah – since the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war.

That opposition came to a head in 2008 when the government tried to seize Hezbollah’s telecommunications network, triggering street battles in Beirut that the heavily armed Shi‘ite Muslim movement won.

A poster depicting Saad al-Hariri, who has resigned as Lebanon’s prime minister is seen in Beirut, Lebanon, November 13, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Qatar brokered a compromise, with Hariri becoming head of a coalition government that included Hezbollah. But Hezbollah pulled out in 2011, bringing down the administration.


As tensions rose over the war in neighboring Syria, Hariri left Lebanon, spending most of the ensuing years abroad until he returned months before joining a new government last year.

But his sway – and that of his family’s regional patron Saudi Arabia – had diminished. The formation of last year’s government was widely seen in Lebanon as an acknowledgement of the political dominance of Iran and Hezbollah.

Saudi Arabia’s own apparent impatience with Hariri became evident in the fortunes of the family company – Saudi Oger – whose billions had underpinned their political role in Lebanon.

With a new dispensation in Riyadh under King Salman and his ambitious son Prince Mohammed, and a fall in oil prices damaging its finances, the Saudi government seemed less willing to roll out big state projects to enrich some allies.

When Hariri’s first stint as premier ended in 2011, he said in a newspaper interview: “In Lebanon it’s never over for anyone”.

A source in his camp said a compromise to bring him back to Beirut as prime minister was still possible if Aoun distanced himself from Hezbollah’s regional role.

Such a statement by Aoun might give some satisfaction to Saudi Arabia, but it would seem to leave Hariri no stronger than before.

After so public a departure, especially one delivered from abroad, his dependence on Riyadh has been made especially visible. His enemies in Lebanon even mocked his Arabic during his resignation speech as being more Saudi than Lebanese.

And the posters of him that have appeared across Beirut with the slogan “We are with you” looked less like statements of mass support than solidarity with a political hostage.

Reporting by Angus McDowall; editing by Mark Heinrich

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

“Foreign Agent” News Sputnik Publishes Drone Film of ISIS Troop Columns Fleeing Russian Bombing

Russian MoD Releases Photos Proving US-Led Coalition Refused to Strike Daesh

The Russian Defense Ministry has said that US forces had refused to carry out airstrikes against Daesh (ISIS) terrorists who were retreating from Syria’s town of Abu Kamal.

The operation to liberate Syria’s eastern town of Abu-Kamal has shown that the US-led coalition has been directly supporting Daesh terrorist group, according to the Defense Ministry.

The ministry has published photos showing that the armed extremists were leaving Abu Kamal leaving for the Syrian-Iraqi Border. The Russian forces command has offered the US-led coalition to conduct a joint operation to destroy columns of terrorists on the eastern bank of the Euphrates river. However, offers have been rejected, according to a statement from the Russian military.

Image may contain: outdoor

No automatic alt text available.

Image may contain: outdoor

Image may contain: cloud

Image may contain: cloud and text

The Ministry of Defense of Russia publishes an indisputable confirmation that the United States provides cover for combat-capable ISIG units for use in advancing American interests in the Middle East:

“The operation carried out at the end of last week by Syrian government troops to liberate Abu-Kemal with the support of the Russian Air Force Committee revealed the facts of the direct interaction and support of the terrorists of the IGIL by the” international coalition “led by the United States.

On photographs taken on November 9, 2017 by Russian unmanned vehicles, it was recorded how the armed formations of IGIL, escaping from the blows of Russian aviation and government troops, leave from Abu Kemal in the direction of the Wadi al-Sabha crossing on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

The command of the Russian grouping of forces twice appealed to the command of the US-led “international coalition” with a proposal to conduct joint actions to destroy the retreating columns of the IGIL on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

However, the Americans categorically refused to air strike against the terrorists of IGIL, referring to the fact that, according to them, the militants “voluntarily surrendered to them prisoners” and now fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

At the same time, the commands of the command of the Russian group: why are the Igilovs regrouping in the zone under the control of the international coalition to launch new attacks on Syrian troops in the Abu Kemal region, the Americans could not answer anything.

Moreover, for the safe withdrawal of IGIL militants retreating from Abu Kemal from the attacks of government troops, the coalition aviation tried to interfere with the Russian military aircraft operating in the area.
To this end, the attack aircraft of the “coalition” entered the airspace over the 15-kilometer zone around Abu-Kemal to impede the work of Russian military aircraft.
Although the ban on flights in this zone of aircraft of the US-led “coalition” was previously agreed and approved by the Center for Joint Air Operations at the El-Udejad airbase in Qatar.

Such actions by the “coalition” show that the rapid advance of the Syrian troops in Abu Kemal disrupted the US plans to create “pro-American” authorities beyond the control of the Syrian government to manage the territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

In the role of local “pro-American” forces allegedly controlling the city, the IGIL fighters themselves, which were “repainted” in the colors of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDS), should be acted upon, as evidenced by the flags used in the city of Abu Kemal used by the SDS.

These facts are indisputable evidence that the United States, imitating for the world community an irreconcilable fight against international terrorism, in fact provide cover for combat-capable units of the IGSF to restore their combat capability, regroup and use them in promoting American interests in the Middle East “

Saad Hariri’s Resignation Video Was Obviously Coerced

The Prime Minister of Lebanon’s Unnerving Interview


Saudi Arabia appears ready to sacrifice the country in its reckless bid to confront Iran.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, who has resigned, is seen during Future television interview, in a coffee shop in Beirut, Lebanon November 12, 2017. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi
In the Middle East, the parlor game of the moment is guessing whether Saad Hariri, Lebanon’s prime minister—or is it ex-prime minister?—is literally, or only figuratively, a prisoner of his Saudi patrons. In a stiff interview from an undisclosed location in Riyadh on Sunday, Hariri did little to allay concerns that he’s being held hostage by a foreign power that is now writing his speeches and seeking to use him to ignite a regional war. He insisted he was “free,” and would soon return to Lebanon. He said he wanted calm to prevail in any dispute with Hezbollah, the most influential party serving in his country’s government.

Since Hariri was summoned to Saudi Arabia last week and more or less disappeared from public life as a free head of state, rumors have swirled about his fate. On November 4, he delivered a stilted, forced-sounding resignation speech from Riyadh. Michael Aoun, Lebanon’s president, refused to accept the resignation, and Hezbollah—the target of the vituperative rhetoric in Hariri’s speech—deftly chose to stand above the fray, absolving Hariri of words that Hezbollah (and many others) believe were written by Hariri’s Saudi captors.

The bizarre quality of all this aside, the underlying matter is deadly serious. Saudi Arabia has embarked on another exponential escalation, one that may well sacrifice Lebanon as part of its reckless bid to confront Iran.

Foreign influence seeps through Middle Eastern politics, nowhere more endemically than Lebanon. Spies, militias, and heads of state, issue political directives and oversee military battles. Foreign powers have played malignant, pivotal roles in every conflict zone, from Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Libya. Lebanon, sadly, could come next. Even by the low standards of recent history, the saga of this past week beggars the imagination, unfolding with the imperial flair of colonial times—but with all the short-sighted recklessness that has characterized the missteps of the region’s declining powers.

Saudi Arabia, it seems, is bent on exacting a price from its rival Iran for its recent string of foreign-policy triumphs. Israel and the United States appear ready to strike a belligerent pose, one that leaders in the three countries, according to some reports, hope will contain Iran’s expansionism and produce a new alignment connecting President Donald Trump, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The problems with this approach are legion—most notably, it simply cannot work. Iran’s strength gives it a deterrence ability that makes preemptive war an even greater folly than it was a decade ago. No military barrage can “erase” Hezbollah, as some Israel war planners imagine; no “rollback,” as dreamed up by advisers to Trump and Mohamed bin Salman, can shift the strategic alliance connecting Iran with Iraq, Syria, and much of Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia, as the morbid joke circulating Beirut would have it, is ready to fight Iran to the last Lebanese. But the joke only gets it half right—the new war reportedly being contemplated wouldn’t actually hurt Iran. Instead, it would renew Hezbollah’s legitimacy and extend its strategic reach even if it caused untold suffering for countless Lebanese. Just as important, a new war might be biblical in its fire and fury, as the bombast of recent Israeli presentations suggests. But that fire and fury would point in many directions. Iran’s friends wouldn’t be the only ones to be singed.

Saudi Arabia’s moves have gotten plenty of attention in the days since Mohamed bin Salman rounded up his remaining rivals, supposedly as part of an anti-corruption campaign. Hariri was caught in the Saudi dragnet around the same time. It seemed puzzling at first: For years, Saudi Arabia had been angry with Hariri and his Future Movement, its client in Lebanon, for sharing power with Hezbollah rather than going to war with it. Riyadh was clearly displeased with Hariri’s pragmatic positions. He had learned the hard way, after several bruising political battles and a brief street battle in May 2008, that Hezbollah’s side was the stronger one. Rather than fuel a futile internecine struggle, Hariri (like the rest of Lebanon’s warlords) opted for precarious coexistence.

Once it became clear that Hariri could do nothing to prevent Hezbollah’s decisive intervention in the Syrian civil war, Saudi Arabia cut off funding for Hariri, bankrupting his family’s billion-dollar Saudi construction empire. It also ended its financial support for the Lebanese army, cultivating the impression that it considered Lebanon lost to the Iranians and Hezbollah.

Now, Saudi Arabia has steamed back into the Lebanese theater with a vengeance. It dismisses Hezbollah as nothing but an Iranian proxy, and, in the words uttered by Hariri in his resignation speech, wants to “cut off the hands that are reaching for it.” In what must be an intentional move, it has destroyed Hariri as a viable ally, reducing him to a weak appendage of his sponsors, unable to move without the kingdom’s permission. Mohamed bin Salman won’t even let him resign on his home soil. If Hariri really were free to come and go, as he insisted so woodenly in his Sunday night interview, then he would already be in Beirut. Even his close allies have trouble believing that threats against his life prevent him from coming home, and the Internal Security Forces, considered loyal to Hariri, denied knowledge of any assassination plot.

The Saudis have fanned the flames of war, seemingly in ignorance of the fact that Iran can only be countered through long-term strategic alliances, the building of capable local proxies and allies, and a wider regional alliance built on shared interests, values, and short-term goals. What Saudi Arabia seems to prefer is a military response to a strategic shift, an approach made worse by its gross misread of reality. In Yemen, the Saudis insisted on treating the Houthi rebels as Iranian tools rather than as an indigenous force, initiating a doomed war of eradication. The horrific result has implicated Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United States, in an array of war crimes against the Yemenis.

Hariri has clearly tried to balance between two masters: his Saudi bosses, who insist that he confront Hezbollah, and his own political interest in a stable Lebanon. On Sunday night, he appeared uncomfortable. At times, he and his interviewer, from his own television station, looked to handlers off camera. The exchange ended abruptly, after Hariri implied that he might take back his resignation and negotiate with Hezbollah, seemingly veering from the hardline Saudi script. “I am not against Hezbollah as a political party, but that doesn’t mean we allow it to destroy Lebanon,” he said. His resignation does nothing to thwart Hezbollah’s power; if anything, a vacuum benefits Hezbollah, which doesn’t need the Lebanese state to bolster its power or legitimacy.

One theory is that the Saudis removed Hariri to pave their way for an attack on Lebanon. Without the cover of a coalition government, the warmongering argument goes, Israel would be able to launch an attack, with the pretext of Hezbollah’s expanded armaments and operations in areas such as the Golan Heights and the Qalamoun Mountains from which they can challenge Israel. Supposedly, according to some analysts and politicians who have met with regional leaders, there’s a plan to punish Iran and cut Hezbollah down to size. Israel would lead the way with full support from Saudi Arabia and the United States. Even if this theory proves true, there’s no guarantee Israel would play along. Riyadh’s miscalculation in Yemen suggests it’s likely to misread the situation in Lebanon and Israel.

Short of seeking actual war, Saudi Arabia has, at a minimum, backed a campaign to fuel the idea that war is always possible. While a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran wouldn’t shift the balance of power back toward the kingdom, it would upend still more lives in a part of the world where the recently displaced number in the millions, the dead in the hundreds of thousands, and where epidemics of disease and malnutrition strike with depressing regularity. Short of direct war, Riyadh’s machinations will likely produce a destabilizing proxy war.

If Hariri were a savvier politician, he could have used different words; he could have refused to resign, or insisted on doing so from Beirut. But he is an ineffective leader in eclipse, unable to deliver either as a sectarian demagogue or a bridge-building conciliator. Saudi Arabia’s plan to use him to strike against Iran will fail. Just look at how willfully it has misused and now destroyed its billion-dollar Lebanese asset. It’s a poor preview of things to come in the Saudi campaign against Iran.

US Media Resurrecting Dragon of Communism, To Frighten Superstitious American Children

By Stephen Lendman

It infests America like a malignant tumor, exceeding the worst of the post-WW I “Red Scare” and its repeat following WW II.

Beginning in 1938, House Un-American Activities Committee witch-hunt hearings into alleged disloyalty and subversive activities became headline news.

Starting in the late 1960s, more of the same followed by the renamed House Committee on Internal Security.

Notorious McCarthyism in the 1950s was a demagogic smear campaign against prominent figures, slandering them, ruining careers, even accusing General George Marshall of being “soft on communism.”

Notable Hollywood figures were blacklisted. McCarthyism was baseless slander, unscrupulous fear-mongering, and political lynchings.

Harvard Law School dean Ervin Griswold once called McCarthy “judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.”

Modern-day Russophobia includes a second Cold War, Russia under Vladimir Putin again considered the “evil empire,” relentless Washington and media Russian bashing, along with endless congressional and special counsel witch-hunt investigations suggesting the worst, revealing nothing.

Russia expert Stephen Cohen said “(w)e’re in the most dangerous confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis.”

He underestimated the threat. It’s much worse now than then. Jack Kennedy explained he “never had the slightest intention of” attacking or invading Cuba.”

Obama was no Jack Kennedy. Nor is Trump, his administration and Congress infested with neocons, Democrats as ruthlessly dangerous as Republicans.

The late political theorist Sheldon Wolin once called undemocratic Dems the “inauthentic opposition,” as infested with neoliberal Russophobic neocons as the Republican party.

Virtually everyone in Washington is part of the anti-Russia crowd, Bernie Sanders among them, a progressive in name only.

During his presidential campaign, he sounded like a modern-day Joe McCarthy, shamefully claiming “the evidence is overwhelming” that Russia “help(ed) elect the candidate of their choice, Mr. Trump, to undermine in a significant way American democracy.”

In a YouTube video, he repeated the Big Lie, saying “the US intelligence community has concluded that Russia played an active role in the 2016 election with the goals of electing Donald Trump as president.”

“The Trump campaign had repeated contacts with the senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

The phony “dossier” showed Russian agents able to “blackmail” the White House. Like most others in Congress, Sanders is a cold and hot warrior, a self-serving con man, supporting wealth, power and privilege like the rest of Washington’s political establishment, pretending otherwise. states:

“Bernie supports enforcing economic sanctions and international pressure as an alternative to any direct military confrontation when dealing with Russia.”

“To temper Russian aggression, we must freeze Russian government assets all over the world, and encourage international corporations with huge investments in Russia to divest from that nation’s increasingly hostile political aims.”

“The United States must collaborate to create a unified stance with our international allies in order to effectively address Russian aggression.”

“(T)he United States should isolate Putin politically and economically…The entire world has got to stand up to Putin.”

Shocking stuff, exposing the real Bernie Sanders, not the persona he publicly displays!

Former CIA counterintelligence official/whistleblower John Kiriakou was invited to participate in a European Parliament panel – then removed at the last moment because panelist Winnie Wong, co-founder of People for Bernie, refused to appear with him, Kiriakou saying:

“(S)he didn’t want the appearance of Bernie Sanders appearing to endorse the Russian media.”

Kiriakou hosts a Sputnik News radio show called Loud & Clear, why she objected, supporting Sanders’ Russophobia.

Kiriakou remarked saying “American politics rear(ed) its ugly head in Brussels.” No problems arose when he appeared on another panel with Cuba’s EU ambassador.

It’s the “red scare all over again,” Kiriakou explained. Anything remotely connected to Russia is toxic. Failing to be Russophobic in Washington is a likely career-ender, much like what happens to Israeli critics.

Intense anti-Russian sentiment in America risks the unthinkable – possible catastrophic nuclear war, humanity’s survival at stake.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at


My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

%d bloggers like this: