SecDef Carter—“Whole global agenda’ with India,” We Merely Work With Pakistan

US has ‘whole global agenda’ with India: Defence Secretary Ashton Carter

the indian express

 

“We are long past the point in US policy-making where we look at the India-Pakistan dyad as the whole story for either one of them,” Carter said.

carter

The United States has a “whole global agenda” with India covering all issues while the relationship with Pakistan has to do with issues of terrorism and Afghanistan, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said on the eve of his three-day India visit. Carter also reiterated that from the perspective of the US there is no India-Pak hyphenation.

“The days are gone when we only deal with India as the other side of the Pakistan coin, or Pakistan as the other side of the India coin. I know that there are those in India and Pakistan who are still glued to that way of thinking. But the US put that behind us some time ago,” Carter said on Friday in response to a question on impact of India-US relationship on Pakistan at the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), a top American think-tank.

“With respect to Pakistan, that also is an important security partner. A whole lot of issues of which counter-terrorism looms largest. And we work with the Pakistanis all the time on that,” he said.

“We are long past the point in US policy-making where we look at the India-Pakistan dyad as the whole story for either one of them. We have much more to do with India today than has to do with Pakistan,” Carter said. “There is important business with respect to Pakistan, but we have much more, a whole global agenda with India, agenda that covers all kinds of issues,” he said.

“With respect to Pakistan totally different. We have a big set of issues having to do with the border with Afghanistan where we continue to operate, with terrorism, both on the territory of Pakistan and also obviously cross-border into Afghanistan, including affecting US service members there,” he said.

Carter acknowledged that he would be asked about Pakistan during his India visit. “I’m sure I’ll be asked about it in India, but I think the first thing one needs to say from an American policy point of view, these are both respected partners and friends. They find themselves in very different situations,” said the US Defence Secretary.

During his India visit beginning on Sunday at the invitation of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, Carter will be in Goa and Delhi.

Advertisements

American Hypocrisy and Apparent Immunity From War Crimes

Federal Government Adopts Hypocritical Policy on War Crimes

oberlin review

Sean Para, Columnist

The list of Russian violations of international treaties and human rights in the past two and a half decades is astounding in its lawlessness. The two Chechen Wars from 1994–1996 and from 1999–2009 resulted in an incredible number of civilian casualties, so many so that some have called it a genocide. Human rights groups estimate approximately 80,000 people were killed in the Chechnya region from 1994–1996 alone.

The 2008 Russo-Georgian War was engineered by the Putin regime to gain control over the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and deter Georgia from looking toward joining NATO. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and incursion into Eastern Ukraine to support the Donbass republics was also in flagrant violation of international law, as well as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. All of these actions by the Russian military are violations of both international law and state ethics, which the U.S. has been quick to decry. However, these protests bely a simple and glaring fact. The U.S. has also violated international law and committed human rights abuses — such as the horrors at Guantanamo Bay and the 2003 invasion of Iraq — and is at this very moment facilitating war crimes by supporting the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians. Taking these facts into account, the U.S. has little ground to stand on when criticizing other states for their actions on the international stage.

The U.S. support of the Saudi campaign in Yemen deserves close examination. The Saudi intervention in Yemen began in March 2015 when the Houthis — Shia militants with some Iranian support — were poised to take control of the entire country. Fearing being entirely surrounded by Iranian allies and proxies, since both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are largely beholden to Iran, the Saudis launched an air campaign and then limited ground incursion to restore the anti-Houthi Yemeni government to power. While this makes strategic sense, the resulting airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians and targeted many non-military sites such as hospitals and residential homes, causing extensive loss of innocent lives. The U.S. has, however, facilitated these atrocities rather than tried to prevent them, adopting a hypocritical international policy. From day one, the U.S. government has provided logistical and intelligence support, as well as supplied arms to the Saudi military and has failed to speak out against the huge amount of civilian casualties and even cast doubt on reports detailing Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

Recent years are full of examples like this, such as the 2014 Gaza conflict, in which Israel effectively massacred civilians with little American criticism despite the international uproar over Israel’s actions during the war. Why does the U.S. allow things like this to happen? It is often for strategic purposes. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen because of the government’s strained alliance with the kingdom and attempted rapprochement with Iran. The U.S. would rather ignore the Saudi massacres than risk further straining the relationship between the two countries. American support of Israel in the face of Israel’s persistent human rights violations has long been axiomatic to U.S. foreign policy due to the strong ties and strategic alliance between the countries.

A patriot might respond to all the evidence of America’s perpetration and support of violations of human rights and international law by saying that these actions are necessary to protect American interests and the security of American allies abroad. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a prime example of how American actions have in fact destabilized the Middle East and caused chaos and death rather than promote security. The more recent atrocities mentioned above also served no purpose other than to kill innocents in the name of strategic goals — the destruction of Hamas or the Houthis — that are simply not achieved. The U.S. must change its policies, it must stop supporting and arming allies committing war crimes, and it must stop violating other countries’ sovereignty in the name of the greater good. The United Nations was founded on the principles of fundamental human rights the pursuit of peace. Even though the U.S. was central in the U.N.’s founding, its subsequent actions have made a mockery of these lofty ideals.

– See more at: http://oberlinreview.org/10172/opinions/federal-government-adopts-hypocritical-policy-on-war-crimes/#sthash.eAlfleTH.dpuf

The Same People Who Arranged the Bombing of Rafik Hariri Are Now Forcing Lebanon’s Collapse

[SEE: Rafik Hariri’s Business Dealings More Relevant Than Beirut Phone RecordsRafik Hariri and Nasrallah Were Prepared To Work Together Before Beirut AssassinationSaad Hariri Admitting That It Was A Big Mistake To Accuse Hezbollah of Murdering His Dad ]

Lebanon is being forced to collapse

Russia-Today

j
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with N. Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East.
© Andre Vltchek
Lebanon cannot stand on its feet anymore. It is overwhelmed, frightened and broke.

It stands at the frontline, facing Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL) in the east and north, hostile Israel in the south and the deep blue sea in the west. One and a half million (mostly Syrian) refugees are dispersed all over its tiny territory. Its economy is collapsing and the infrastructure crumbling. ISIS is right on the border with Syria, literally next door, or even with one foot inside Lebanon, periodically invading, and setting up countless “dormant cells” in all the Lebanese cities and all over the countryside. Hezbollah is fighting ISIS, but the West and Saudi Arabia apparently consider Hezbollah, not ISIS, to be the major menace to their geopolitical interests. The Lebanese army is relatively well trained but badly armed, and as the entire country, it is notoriously cash-strapped.

These days, on the streets of Beirut, one can often hear: “Just a little bit more; one more push, and the entire country will collapse, go up in smoke.”

Is this what the West and its regional allies really want?

One top foreign dignitary after another is now visiting Lebanon: the UN chief Ban Ki-moon, World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim and the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. All the foreign visitors are predictably and abstractly expressing “deep concern” about the proximity of ISIS, and about the fate of the 1.5 million Syrian refugees now living in Lebanon. “The war in neighboring Syria is having a deep impact on tiny Lebanon”, they all admit.

Who triggered this war is never addressed.

And not much gets resolved. Only very few concrete promises are being made. And what is promised is not being delivered.

One of my sources who attended a closed-door meeting of Ban Ki-moon, Jim Yong Kim and the heads of the UN agencies in Beirut, commented: “almost nothing new, concrete or inspiring was discussed there.

The so-called international community is showing very little desire to rescue Lebanon from its deep and ongoing crises. In fact, several countries and organizations are constantly at Lebanon’s throat, accusing it of “human rights violations” and of having weak and ineffective government. What seems to irritate them the most, though, is that Hezbollah (an organization that is placed by many Western countries and their allies in the Arab world on the “terrorist list”) is at least to some extent allowed to participate in running the country.

But Hezbollah appears to be the only military force capable of effectively fighting against ISIS – in the northeast of the country, on the border with Syria, and elsewhere. It is also the only organization providing a reliable social net to those hundreds of thousands of poor Lebanese citizens. In this nation deeply divided along sectarian lines, it extends its hand to the ‘others’, forging coalitions with both Muslim and Christian parties and movements.

Why so much fuss over Hezbollah?

It is because it is predominantly Shia, and Shia Muslims are being antagonized and targeted by almost all the West’s allies in the Arab world. Targeted and sometimes even directly liquidated.

© Andre Vltchek

Hezbollah is seen as the right hand of Iran, and Iran is Shia and it stands against Western imperialism determinately, alongside Russia, China and much of Latin America – countries that are demonized and provoked by the ‘Empire’ and its client states.

Hezbollah is closely allied with both Iran and Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria. It combats Israel whenever Israel invades Lebanon, and it wins most of the battles that it is forced to fight. It is openly hostile towards the expansionist policies of the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia; its leaders are extremely outspoken.

So what?” many people in the region would say, including those living in Lebanon.

Angie Tibbs is the owner and senior editor of Dissident Voice who has been closely watching events in the Middle East in recent years. She believes a brief comparison between events of 2005 and today is essential for understanding complexity of the situation:

In a country where, since the end of civil wars in 1990, outward civility masks a still seething underbelly wherein old wounds, old wrongs, real and imagined, have not been forgotten or forgiven, the military and political success of Hezbollah has been the most stabilizing influence. Back in 2005, following the bomb explosion that killed former Premier Rafiq al Hariri and 20 others, the US and Israel proclaimed loudly that “Syria did it” without producing a shred of evidence. The Syrian army, in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese government, was ordered out by the US, and UN Resolution 1559 stated in part that all Lebanese militias must be disarmed. The plan was clear. With Syrian forces gone, and an unarmed Hezbollah, we had two moves which would leave Lebanon’s southern border completely vulnerable, and then – well, what would prevent Israel from barging in and taking over?”

Ms Tibbs is also convinced the so-called international community is leaving Lebanon defenseless on purpose:

A similar devious scenario is unfolding today. Hezbollah is busy fighting ISIS in Syria; the Lebanese army, though well trained, is poorly armed. Arms deals are being cancelled, the UN and IMF, and, in fact, the world community of nations are not providing any assistance, and little Lebanon is gasping under the weight of a million plus Syrian refugees. It’s a perfect opportunity for ISIS, the proxy army of Israel and the West, to move in and Lebanon’s sovereignty be damned.

Indignant, several Lebanese leaders snapped back. The Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil refused to meet with Ban Ki-moon during his two-day visit of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley.

One of Lebanon’s major newspapers, the Daily Star, reported on March 26, 2016:

Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil Saturday accused the international community of approaching the Syrian refugee crisis with a double standard; hours after UN chief Ban Ki-moon departed Beirut following a two-day visit. ‘They create war, and then call on others to host refugees in line with human rights treaties,’ he said in a televised news conference from his residence in Batroun.

© Andre Vltchek

Lebanon is collapsing. Even its once lavish capital Beirut is experiencing constant blackouts, water shortages and garbage-collection dramas. Economically the country is in a sharp decline.

Dr. Salim Chahine, Professor of Finance, at the American University of Beirut, is usually at least moderately upbeat about the country. Recent developments have worn down his optimism.

Although the Coincident Indicator issued by the Lebanese Central Bank, BDL, has recently suggested a slight enhancement in economic activity, several officials are sending clear warnings about further deterioration in the situation. The regional geopolitical tensions, the civil conflict in Syria, as well as their implications internally have impacted tourism, trade, and the real estate sectors. According to HSBC, deposits from Lebanon’s largest expatriate population – that usually provide the necessary liquidity for government borrowing – may grow at a slower rate in the near future given the worsening conditions in the Gulf. As the country enters into its sixth year of economic slump, HSBC remains skeptical about a short-term recovery. The public deficit is currently rising by around 20 percent per year, and the GDP growth rate is close to zero.

Yayoi Segi, an educationalist and the Senior Program Specialist for UNESCO’s Arab Regional Office based in Beirut, works intensively in both Syria and Lebanon. The education sector is, according to her, struggling:

The public education sector is very small in terms of its coverage in the country, reaching only about 35 percent of the school age population. The state allocation to education is less than 10 percent while the world average or benchmark is 18-20 percent. The situation is further compounded by the current ongoing crisis in the region whereby Lebanon has had to accommodate a large influx of refugees. The public provision of education has expanded and continues to expand. However, it is impacting on quality and contributes to an increasing number of vulnerable Lebanese students dropping out of school, while it can only reach 50 percent of Syrian refugee children.”

Nadine Georges Gholam (not her real name), working for one of the UN agencies, says that lately she feels phlegmatic, even hopeless:

What has been happening to Lebanon particularly these past five years is really depressing. I used to actively take part in protests to voice my anger and frustration. But now I don’t know if they make any difference or change anything at all. There is no functioning government in sight. Three hundred thousand tons of unprocessed trash accumulated in just eight months. There is sectarian infighting. Regional conflicts… What else? Lebanon can’t withstand such pressure, anymore. All is going down the drain, collapsing...”

But worse is yet to come. Recently, Saudi Arabia cancelled a $4 billion aid package for Lebanon. It was supposed to finance a massive purchase of modern weapons from France, something urgently needed and totally overdue. That is, if both the West and the KSA are serious about fighting ISIS.

The KSA “punished” Lebanon for having representatives of Hezbollah in the government, for refusing to support the West’s allies in the Arab League (who define Hezbollah as a terrorist group), and for still holding a Saudi prince in custody, after he attempted to smuggle two tons of narcotics from Rafic Hariri International Airport outside Beirut.”

© Andre Vltchek

These are of course the most dangerous times for this tiny but proud nation. Syrian forces, with great help of Russia, are liberating one Syrian city after another from ISIS and other terrorist groups supported by Turkey, KSA, Qatar and other of the West’s allies.

ISIS may try to move into Iraq, to join its cohorts there, but the Iraqi government is trying to get its act together, and is now ready to fight. It is also talking to Moscow, while studying the great success Russia is having in Syria.

For ISIS or al-Nusra, to move to weaken and almost bankrupt Lebanon would be the most logical step. And the West, Saudi Arabia and others are clearly aware of it.

In fact, ISIS is already there; it has infiltrated virtually all the cities and towns of Lebanon, as well the countryside. Whenever it feels like it, it carries out attacks against the Shia, military and other targets. Both ISIS and al-Nusra do. And the dream of ISIS is blatant: a caliphate with access to the sea, one that would cover at least the northern part of Lebanon.

If the West and its allies do nothing to prevent these plans, it is because they simply don’t want to.

Tiny Lebanon is finding itself in the middle of a whirlwind of a political and military storm that is consuming virtually the entire Middle East and the Gulf.

In recent decades, Lebanon has suffered immensely. This time, if the West and its allies do not change their minds, it may soon cease to exist altogether. It is becoming obvious that in order to survive, it would have to forge much closer ties with the Syrian government, as well as with Iran, Russia and China.

Would it dare to do it? There is no united front inside Lebanon’s leadership. Pro-Western and pro-Saudi fractions would oppose an alliance with those countries that are defying Western interests.

But time is running out. Just recently, the Syrian city of Palmyra was liberated from ISIS. Paradoxically, the great Lebanese historic cities of Baalbek and Byblos may fall soon.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Drone Strikes Kill 17 Civilians In Paktika Province, Including Anti-Taliban Leader From Chaman, Balochistan

Haji RozuddinHajji Rozuddin, حاجی روزوالدین, Ex-MNA NA-262 (Killa Abdullah), Muttahida Majlis e Amal

Map of Killa Abdullah District [Killa Abdullah District (Chaman), adjacent to Kuchlak, home of Mullah Mansour (SEE:  Kuchlak area of Balochistan, HQ for Mullah Akhtar Mansour Group).]

Great Satan US drone strikes kill 17 Afghan civilians

islamic invitation turkey

a5955f86-34df-43f5-b8b0-9b98ad3563c9
Scene of Attack

US airstrikes in Afghan province of Paktika have killed at least 17 civilians, local officials and elders say, rejecting official American and Afghan claims that only militants had been killed.

They were killed during three drone strikes carried out by the US in the area of Nematabad on Wednesday, former Afghan senator Hajji Muhammad Hasan said, quoted by The New York Times.

The first raid struck a vehicle carrying a local elder, Hajji Rozuddin, who was on his way to mediate a land dispute in a tribe with four bodyguards and seven other people, the report said.

“Hajji Rozuddin was strongly anti-Taliban,” said Hasan. “He carried bodyguards because the Taliban were trying to kill him.”

“The car was completely destroyed, and there was little of the bodies left,” he said.

Soon after the attack, another strike killed two people who had come to help recover the bodies from the truck after the first attack, said Hasan.

A third attack also killed three other civilians on top of a small hill. They were trying “to see what had happened and why the previous two men had not returned already,” he explained.

Governor Shaista Khan Akhtarzada also confirmed that an investigation team had determined that “the people killed were civilians.”

The US military had said on Thursday that two Wednesday airstrikes in Paktika killed 14 militants.

“There was no evidence to indicate that there were any civilian casualties at all,” Charles Cleveland, a spokesman for the United States military in Afghanistan, said.

Cleveland claimed that most of the “just under a hundred” US strikes in Afghanistan from January 1 to March 31 were focused on Daesh militants in eastern Nangarhar Province.

Officials and residents said that such airstrikes have been relatively rare in Paktika in recent months, even as the United States has intensified its air operations elsewhere in the country.

In January, US President Barack Obama authorized American forces to target Daesh terrorists emerging in Nangarhar.

Although Taliban leaders have warned Daesh against “waging a parallel insurgency in Afghanistan,” the Takfiri group has been trying to expand its outreach there and is reported to have between 1,000 to 3,000 terrorists on its payroll.

Afghanistan is gripped by insecurity 14 years after the United States and its allies attacked the country as part of Washington’s so-called war on terror.

CNN’s Lies

Why Do Virtually All ‘News’ Media Hide an Exposé of CNN’s Lies?

washingtons blog

On April 3rd, a news report was submitted to virtually all news-media, concerning the falsehood of a certain CNN story that allegedly explained why the U.S. is sending F-15 fighter-jets to Iceland. The CNN report placed it into context of U.S.-Russian relations, and falsely represented Russia’s and America’s respective roles regarding the change of government that had occurred in Ukraine in February 2014, and regarding also the reasons for the breakaway then of Crimea from Ukraine, which resulted from that Ukrainian change-of-government. 

Of all news media — including all of the major ones and all of the major ‘alternative news’ sites — only the following five media published this news report about a clearly false news report (which my story, as you will see, documented to be false, with links that went directly or indirectly — via links within those news stories — to the ultimate sources), which CNN had issued; and none  of the others reported, at all, about CNN’s lies. Here are the five:

rinf.com

washingtonsblog.com

strategic-culture.org

oximity.com

thepeoplesvoice.org

All of these five are, obviously, not major-media (meaning not big-audience) news-sites, as CNN is.

The editors and producers, at especially the major ‘news’ media, receive, each day, hundreds to thousands of news stories submitted from independent outside sources — virtually no ‘news’ medium publishes or broadcasts only  in-house-generated news-reports. Their selection of what to publish (or broadcast) is what determines which news you see, and which you don’t. Those people are the gatekeepers, which let their audience see some news, but exclude the rest. How important is it to know the extent to which CNN lies for propagandistic purposes? Only those five small media thought it’s important enough to report.

Why are the competitors to CNN (especially all of the other  major-media news sites, besides CNN) not interested in exposing even blatant and easy-to-document lies from CNN, which — according to the basic theory of competition in economics — they would all  be very eager to do, and would  do? (That’s also the theory of ‘the free press’, at stake here; that theory is based upon the economic theory of competition.)

What does this finding show about economic theory? (And about ‘the free press’?) (And, even, about the alleged intention — or seriousness — of ‘alternative news’ sites, to expose fraudulent ‘news’ in the major or ‘mainstream’ news-media?)

Judge it all for yourself:  Here  is the news-report that virtually all news-media refused to publish, but that had been offered, to all of them, to publish, free of charge, and they chose  not to:

——

Unlimited Propagandistic Lying from CNN

Eric Zuesse

On Saturday April 2nd, CNN headlined, “U.S. F-15s Deployed to Iceland,” and Zachary Cohen opened: 

Demonstrating its commitment to a ‘free’ and ‘secure’ Europe, the United States deployed 12 F-15C Eagles and approximately 350 airmen to Iceland and the Netherlands on Friday, the Air Force announced.

U.S. aircraft units from the 131st Fighter Squadron at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts and the 194th Fighter Squadron at Fresno Air National Guard Base in California will support NATO air surveillance missions in Iceland and conduct flying training in the Netherlands.

The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region.

Next to that text appears a video from Christiane Amanpour, “Amanpour in Focus,” which opens with her saying:

Of all the crises plaguing Europe right now — Grexit, Brexit, the migrant crisis, the economy even still — the worst, by far, is the Ukraine-Russia crisis, which still has the potential to flare into open warfare beyond the borders of Ukraine; and who would have thought that in two thousand [inaudible]teen, we would still hear President Vladimir Putin sometimes raise the nuclear option. This extraordinary state of affairs has come from Ukrainians protesting for their independence — they saw off one President, and they elected another one, Petro Poroshenko.

Here’s the actual history behind all of that:

Back in February 2014, Obama overthrew (please click on the link if you have any doubt about anything that’s being said here) the democratically elected President of Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, in an extremely bloody coup, which was at least a year in being set-up, and the rationale for this ‘democratic uprising’ was that that actually democratically elected President was corrupt — but no one mentioned that all of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been  corrupt. Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to take over control of Ukraine as soon as the coup would be completed, and that person did become appointed — and top officials of the EU were shocked to find out that it had been a coup. The “armed militias in ski masks” that Obama referred to in the coup (and in the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ afterward), were actually his, not Viktor Yanukovych’s (the President whom Obama overthrew); they were America’s mercenaries, not either Yanukovych’s or Russia’s operatives as he pretends they were. And, now, after the extremely bloody civil war that resulted in Ukraine when the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the President whom Obama overthrew rejected  Obama’s coup-regime and refused to be ruled by it, Ukraine is even more corrupt than it ever was, but, for some mysterious reason, the United States isn’t overthrowing the post-coup government. Obama had gotten what he basically wanted out of his coup: Russia’s ability to pipeline its gas into the EU is now severely hampered by the necessity to establish alternate pipeline-routes. Ukraine is crucial to strangulating Russia, because most of Russia’s gas-pipelines into Europe run through its formerly friendly neighbor, Ukraine, which now is rabidly anti-Russian. So: the coup and ethnic-cleansing and all the rest have been just a part of America’s effort to strangulate Russia; and all of the maimed and dead people are merely collateral damage — no concern of Obama.

Obama lies about Russia and Ukraine and Crimea; and, the same aristocracy that control the U.S. government, control also the U.S. ‘news’ media, such as CNN; so, this is America’s ‘free press’, in America’s ‘democracy’: nonstop lies and propaganda, to fool the suckers to elect their candidates.

Consequently: when this CNN ‘news’ story said, “The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region,” what was the source of the term, “aggression,” that was being used against Russia, there? It was, now, under Obama, the official U.S. government term to refer to Russia: for example, in Obama’s National Security Strategy 2015, he had used that term on 17 of the 18 times, when ‘aggression’ was being charged, in that document, against a foreign nation. 

However, it’s not Russia that surrounds America with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; it is the United States that surrounds Russia with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; and which, on top of this, has the nerve to accuse Russia as being the ‘aggressor,’ when Russia is merely defending Crimeans (and Russia’s own naval base) from America’s takeover of Ukraine — and allows Crimeans to plebiscite on rejoining Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine. (Even Western-sponsored polls in Crimea showed overwhelming support among them for rejoining Russia.) To add insult to injury, America then organizes global economic sanctions against Russia, for, essentially, defending Crimeans, and for defending itself, against American aggression.

And, then, the American President has the arrogant audacity to proclaim that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” meaning that not only Russia, but every  other country, is ‘dispensable.’

It’s the official line. And America’s ‘news’ media promote it, unquestioningly (as if it’s not outrageous).

And, if you ever wondered why people like this get promoted at major ‘news’ media, while people like this get the boot and are blackballed by them, you now know.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.