News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Is Nikki Haley "incredibly proud" that she was accused of having extra-marital affairs with two different men prior to her 2010 election to South Carolina Governor? Did no one inform Ambassador Haley that Trump's accusers were a top news story 24/7 during the campaign and have most certainly been "heard?"

"Why is the UN Ambassador commenting on this-she should just answer that it’s not in her purview and STFU." Free Republic commenter .....

12/11/17, "Nikki Haley, Diplomat," Biography.com

Nikki Haley was elected Governor of South Carolina on Nov. 2, 2010, and re-elected in 2014. On November 22, 2016, president-elect Donald Trump nominated Haley to become US Ambassador to the United Nations. When she was confirmed on Jan. 24, 2017, she stepped down from her job as SC Governor.

"Prior to Haley's election, she was accused of having affairs with two different men, Will Folks, former press secretary for then-South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and Larry Marchant, a political consultant for Haley's opponent, Andre Bauer. Folks said he had an inappropriate physical relationship with Haley several years prior, and Marchant said he and Haley had a one-time sexual encounter. Haley denied the events, saying that she had been faithful to her husband, Michael Haley. In an interview with Columbia's WVOC radio on June 4, 2010, Haley said that if she were elected governor and the claims against her were validated, she would resign....

During the (2016) presidential race, Haley had not been a loyal supporter of Trump, initially campaigning for Marco Rubio and then endorsing Ted Cruz....

By the end of the contentious (2016) campaign, Haley did vote for Trump in the election and celebrated his victory. "The idea that now we can start to really govern — I have never known what it's like to have a Republican president," she said at a gathering of Republican leaders after the election. "I can tell you that the last five years, Washington has been the hardest part of my job. This is a new day."

On November 22, 2016, president-elect Donald Trump picked Haley to become the United States ambassador to the United Nations. She was the first woman to be named as part of his administration. “Governor Haley has a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country,” Trump said in a statement. “She will be a great leader representing us on the world stage.”

In accepting the offer, Haley said that she was “honored that the President-elect has asked me to join his team and serve the country we love.’’

"When the President believes you have a major contribution to make to the welfare of our nation, and to our nation's standing in the world, that is a calling that is important to heed," she said. 

On January 24, 2017, Haley was confirmed as U.N. Ambassador by the Senate, 94-6, and she resigned as governor of South Carolina to serve in her new role....

In December 2017, she forcefully defended President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, referring to it as the "will of the American people" and something that would "fastball the peace process going forward."

Around the same time, Haley drew attention for her comments about the sexual harassment issues that had ensnared political colleagues back home. Specifically referring to the women who had accused President Trump of sexual misconduct, she said, “They should be heard, and they should be dealt with. ... And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up.”"

................
Comment to Ambassador Haley: Perhaps no one told you, but the election was held in Nov. 2016 and Trump won. His accusers were "heard" countless times around the clock during the 2016 campaign.
.................................
  
Added: UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was on CBS Face the Nation 12/10/17 and said she's "incredibly proud" of women in various walks of life who've come forward to say they've been sexually harassed. Haley also said the women who accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct “should be heard. Ms. Haley seems to think the 2016 presidential election hasn't happened yet, that it's still campaign season and the presidency is up for grabs. Trump's accusers have not only been "heard," they were treated as a major news story with 24/7 coverage during the 2016 election. The election took place, and 63 million Americans were much more concerned about other matters facing this country and elected Trump president anyway.

Among Free Republic comments
to Ambassador Haley's statements on Face the Nation:


"Why is the UN Ambassador commenting on this - she should just answer that it’s not in her purview and STFU." 

16 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:59:52 PM by GnuThere"
................... 

"They have been heard, and 63 million voters said time to move on. The accusations I’ve heard about are laughable. 

13 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:56:49 PM by Gahanna Bob"
............................ 

"We heard them. We did not believe them. I seldom believe Nikki Haley. 

10 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:54:46 PM by Lurkinanloomin"  
.....................................

"They have been heard and I believe they are making money on the deal. They have been promised much more money later when those juries will surely award them some of DJT’s billions. They believe it or at least think the damage to their reputations is worth the attempt. 

18 posted on 12/11/2017, 4:01:18 PM by arthurus (A)"
........................ 

"Our UN Ambassador has no business commenting on Trump's sex life.

19 posted on 12/11/2017, 4:01:20 PM by Cobra64 "
............................ 

12/10/17, "Nikki Haley: Trump’s Accusers ‘Should Be Heard’," Breitbart, Pam Key
 

..........

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Latest 'bombshell' Fake News from CNN, MSNBC, CBS News and others aggressively hyped a spectacularly false story they honestly believed was "proof" that could remove Trump. CBS News even said it had independently "confirmed" CNN's story--Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

The latest round of "bombshell" Fake News by CNN et al may have re-elected Trump: The biggest common denominator among the 6.7 to 9.2 million Obama-Trump voters in 2016 was view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them....These voters were "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory." 6/8/17, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times,  Thomas B. Edsall, commentary  

12/9/17, "The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened," The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald
"Friday was one of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened. 

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media. 

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named “Michael J. Erickson” – someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify – to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had “uploaded.” The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it’s necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:



There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story – and then hyped it over and over and over – the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 – which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks – as everyone by then already knew – had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

How did CNN end up aggressively hyping such a spectacularly false story? They refuse to say. Many hours after their story got exposed as false, the journalist who originally presented it, Congressional reporter Manu Raju, finally posted a tweet noting the correction. CNN’s PR Department then claimed that “multiple sources” had provided CNN with the false date. And Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email, while also making clear that CNN did not ever even see the email, but only had sources describe its purported contents:



All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question – one which CNN refuses to address: how did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way, and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN?

It is, of course, completely plausible that one source might innocently misread a date on a document. But how is it remotely plausible that multiple sources could all innocently and in good faith misread the date in exactly the same way, all to cause to be disseminated a blockbuster revelation about Trump/Russia/WikiLeaks collusion? This is the critical question that CNN simply refuses to answer. In other words, CNN refuses to provide the most minimal transparency to enable the public to understand what happened here.

Why does this matter so much? For so many significant reasons:

To begin with, it’s hard to overstate how fast, far and wide this false story traveled. Democratic Party pundits, operatives and journalists with huge social media platforms predictably jumped on the story immediately, announcing that it proved collusion between Trump and Russia (through WikiLeaks). One tweet from Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, claiming that this proved evidence of criminal collusion, was re-tweeted thousands and thousands of times in just a few hours (Lieu quietly deleted the tweet after I noted its falsity, and long after it went very viral, without ever telling his followers that the CNN story, and therefore his accusation, had been debunked).




Brookings’ [Senior Fellow] Benjamin Wittes, whose star has risen as he has promoted himself as a friend of former FBI Director Jim Comey, not only promoted the CNN story in the morning, but did so with the word “Boom” – which he uses to signal that a major blow has been delivered to Trump on the Russia story – along with a gif of a cannon being detonated:












Incredibly, to this very moment – almost 24 hours after CNN’s story was debunked – Wittes has never noted to his more than 200,000 followers that the story he so excitedly promoted turned out to be utterly false, even though he returned to Twitter long after the story was debunked to tweet about other matters. He just left his false and inflammatory claims uncorrected.

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall believed the story was so significant that he used an image of an atomic bomb detonating at the top of his article discussing its implications, an article he tweeted to his roughly 250,000 followers. Only at night was an editor’s note finally added noting that the whole thing was false.





It’s hard to quantify exactly how many people were deceived – filled with false news and propaganda – by the CNN story. But thanks to Democratic-loyal journalists and operatives who decree every Trump/Russia claim to be true without seeing any evidence, it’s certainly safe to say that many hundreds of thousands of people, almost certainly millions, were exposed to these false claims.

Surely anyone who has any minimal concerns about journalistic accuracy – which would presumably include all the people who have spent the last year lamenting Fake News, propaganda, Twitter bots and the like – would demand an accounting as to how a major U.S. media outlet ended up filling so many people’s brains with totally false news. That alone should prompt demands from CNN for an explanation about what happened here. No Russian Facebook ad or Twitter bot could possibly have anywhere near the impact as this CNN story had when it comes to deceiving people with blatantly inaccurate information.

Second, the “multiple sources” who fed CNN this false information did not confine themselves to that network. They were apparently very busy eagerly spreading the false information to as many media outlets as they could find. In the middle of the day, CBS News claimed that it had independently “confirmed” CNN’s story about the email, and published its own breathless article discussing the grave implications of this discovered collusion.

Most embarrassing of all was what MSNBC did. You just have to watch this report from its “intelligence and national security correspondent” Ken Dilanian to believe it. Like CBS, Dilanian also claimed that he independently “confirmed” the false CNN report from “two sources with direct knowledge of this.” Dilanian, whose career in the U.S. media continues to flourish the more he is exposed as someone who faithfully parrots what the CIA tells him to say (since that is one of the most coveted and valued attributes in US journalism), spent three minutes mixing evidence-free CIA claims as fact with totally false assertions about what his multiple “sources with direct knowledge” told him about all this. Please watch this – again, not just the content but the tenor and tone of how they “report” – as it is Baghdad-Bob-level embarrassing: [video removed by You Tube]

Think about what this means. It means that at least two – and possibly more – sources, which these media outlets all assessed as credible in terms of having access to sensitive information, all fed the same false information to multiple news outlets at the same time. For multiple reasons, the probability is very high that these sources were Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee (or their high-level staff members), which is the committee that obtained access to Trump Jr.’s emails, although it’s certainly possible that it’s someone else. We won’t know until these news outlets deign to report this crucial information to the public: which “multiple sources” acted jointly to disseminate incredibly inflammatory, false information to the nation’s largest news outlets?
















Just last week, the Washington Post decided – to great applause (including mine) – to expose a source to whom they had promised anonymity and off-the-record protections because they discovered that she was purposely feeding them false information as part of a scheme by Project Veritas to discredit the Post. It’s a well established principle of journalism – one that is rarely followed when it comes to powerful people in DC – that journalists should expose, rather than protect and conceal, sources who purposely feed them false information to be disseminated to the public.



Is that what happened here? Did these “multiple sources” who fed not just CNN but also MSNBC and CBS completely false information do so deliberately and in bad faith? Until these news outlets provide an accounting of what happened – what one might call “minimal journalistic transparency” – it’s impossible to say for certain. But right now, it’s very difficult to imagine a scenario where multiple sources all fed the wrong date to multiple media outlets innocently and in good faith.

If this were, in fact, a deliberate attempt to cause a false and highly inflammatory story to be reported, then these media outlets have an obligation to expose who the culprits are – just as the Washington Post did last week to the woman making false claims about Roy Moore (it was much easier in that case because the source they exposed was a nobody-in-DC, rather than someone on whom they rely for a steady stream of stories, the way CNN and MSNBC rely on Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee). By contrast, if this were just an innocent mistake, then these media outlets should explain how such an implausible sequence of events could possibly have happened.

Thus far, these media corporations are doing the opposite of what journalists ought to do: rather than informing the public about what happened and providing minimal transparency and accountability for themselves and the high-level officials who caused this to happen, they are hiding behind meaningless, obfuscating statements crafted by PR executives and lawyers.

How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide
when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this – and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate – that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them.

Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend – one could say a constant – when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential and reckless stories that have been published – and then corrected, rescinded and retracted – by major media outlets when it comes to this story.

All media outlets, of course, will make mistakes. The Intercept certainly has made our share, as have all outlets. And it’s particularly natural, inevitable, for mistakes to be made on a highly complicated, opaque story like the question of the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and questions relating to how WikiLeaks obtained DNC and Podesta emails. That is all to be expected.

But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I literally cannot list them all. Just consider the ones from the last week alone, as enumerated by the New York Times yesterday in its news report on CNN’s embarrassment:
It was also yet another prominent reporting error at a time when news organizations are confronting a skeptical public, and a president who delights in attacking the media as “fake news.”
Last Saturday, ABC News suspended a star reporter, Brian Ross, after an inaccurate report that Donald Trump had instructed Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, to contact Russian officials during the presidential race.
The report fueled theories about coordination between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, and stocks dropped after the news. In fact, Mr. Trump’s instruction to Mr. Flynn came after he was president-elect.
Several news outlets, including Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, also inaccurately reported this week that Deutsche Bank had received a subpoena from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, for President Trump’s financial records.
The president and his circle have not been shy about pointing out the errors.
That’s just the last week alone. Let’s just remind ourselves of how many times major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump/Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted – often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:
  • Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
  • An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
  • WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
  • A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
  • RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
  • Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
  • Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security, 9/28/17)
  • Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)
That really is just a small sample. So continually awful and misleading has this reporting been that even Vladimir Putin’s most devoted critics – such as Russian expatriate Masha Gessen, oppositional Russian journalists, and anti-Kremlin liberal activists in Moscow – are constantly warning that the U.S. media’s unhinged, ignorant, paranoid reporting on Russia is harming their cause in all sorts of ways, in the process destroying the credibility of the U.S. media in the eyes of Putin’s opposition (who — unlike Americans who have been fed a steady news and entertainment propaganda diet for decades about Russia — actually understand the realities of that country).








































U.S. media outlets are very good at demanding respect. They love to imply, if not outright state, that being patriotic and a good American means that one must reject efforts to discredit them and their reporting because that’s how one defends press freedom.

But journalists also have the responsibility not just to demand respect and credibility but to earn it. That means that there shouldn’t be such a long list of abject humiliations, in which completely false stories are published to plaudits, traffic and other rewards, only to fall apart upon minimal scrutiny. It certainly means that all of these “errors” shouldn’t be pointing in the same direction, pushing the same political outcome or journalistic conclusion.

But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can’t mean hiding behind PR and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

At minimum, these networks – CNN, MSNBC and CBS – have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information, or explain how it’s possible that “multiple sources” all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they’re attacked as “Fake News” should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks – the reason those attacks resonate – is themselves and their own conduct."

"(Update: hours after this article was published on Saturday – a full day-and-a-half after his original tweets promoting the false CNN story with a “boom” and a cannon – Benjamin Wittes finally got around to noting that the CNN story he hyped has “serious problems”; needless to say, that acknowledgment received a fraction of re-tweets from his followers as his original tweets hyping the story attracted)."
........................

Glenn Greenwald twitter

Benjamin Wittes twitter

.................... 

Added:

Brookings "Senior Fellow" Benjamin Wittes seems  to have a pyrotechnics fetish. Perhaps it's a Neocon thing. In May 2016, Wittes hoped for another Trump ticking bomb (involving his pal Comey which also fizzled out):






















Not to worry, just let the "investigation" keep going for a few more years. 
......................






 .................

Being Global Media Celebrity Dave Weigel: 8 examples from Dec. 9 evening thread

12/9/17, "“He Fights” – President Trump Calls Out Fake News Reporting of Washington Post and Dave Weigel," tcth, sundance

"In an effort to ridicule President Trump, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel tweeted a fake news picture from last night’s MAGA rally in Pensacola Florida; obviously attempting to frame a narrative that the rally was poorly attended."...

.......................

Following are 8 examples of what flowed from Dave's action mentioned above:

Below, WaPo's Dave Weigel says fellow reporter David Martosko (of Daily Mail) alerted him that his Trump rally photo was wrong (posted at tcth at 540pm):



Below, David Martosko says he and Weigel haven't connected in at least a year (posted at tcth at 808pm):















David Martosko's last word is that Weigel is odd but "a very talented reporter," Trump is "ganging up on him," and "Let it go."













...............................

Below, comment to Martosko's pathetic "very talented" smoke:











Below, as to Martosko's "ganging up," "very talented," and "let it go:"















Below, Weigel wraps it up, for those interested:

















.........................
...........................

My comment:

Dave Weigel enjoys being a global celebrity. Perhaps that's where his "talent," if any, may best be focused. In 2010 Dave Weigel was fired/forced to resign from the Washington Post for hateful comments he made about Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and conservatives in general. Weigel's statements were apparently made on the Journolist site, at the time an online mob of Deep State media cheerleaders. Some of his comments became public. Whether public or not, Weigel harbors hateful, bigoted opinions. Persons with out of control emotions shouldn't be employed at the Washington Post. There are other ways of being a global celebrity--which is what Weigel is.

6/26/2010, "Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigns after messages leak," Washington Post, Howard Kurtz







...........................

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Look, Gloria, all we asked for was the standard, well rehearsed crying victim. What were you thinking with this yearbook thing?-commenter imagines Mitch McConnell chatting with Gloria Allred












"7 posted on 12/9/2017, 11:32:57 PM by Eddie01" 

Image and caption of imaginary conversation between Deep State Republican Mitch McConnell and Gloria Allred posted by Free Republic commenter to article, 12/8/17, "Forgery 101: Beverly Young Nelson and Gloria Allred Both Presented ‘Notes’ as Roy Moore’s Own Writing," Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart 


 



................

FDR formed partnership with Stalin and Churchill to defeat Nazis in Europe. FDR outlined for Stalin his view of future United Nations dominated by "four policemen," US, UK, China, and Soviet Union-Politico

Stalin, FDR, Churchill, 11/28/1943 in Tehran




 









The leaders, known as the Big Three, chose the Iranian capital as the site for their parley, largely at Stalin’s behest. When first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Roosevelt's daughter Anna voiced a desire to accompany the president, he said no women would be present. Subsequently, they were incensed to learn that Churchill’s wife, Clementine, and Madame Chiang Kai-shek of China had made the trip. 

FDR biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that rather than feeling any trepidation about the dangers of a secret trip through war zones, Roosevelt was not only eager to meet again with his friend Churchill but also excited at the prospect of meeting Stalin for the first time.

Roosevelt promised Stalin that the Americans and the British would invade Nazi-occupied France, crossing the English Channel, in the spring of 1944. Until that point, Churchill favored a joint strike through the Mediterranean, pushing eastward through the Balkans. That strategy would have presumably secured British interests in the Middle East and India while curbing the Soviet advance into Eastern Europe. For his part, FDR, with the advent of an Allied victory, sought to break up the British Empire; his concessions to Stalin served that goal....

The leaders agreed that the Soviet Union would fight against Japan once the Nazis were beaten. They also promised to offer postwar economic assistance to Iran and guaranteed the host nation’s independence and territorial integrity. 

Roosevelt outlined for Stalin his vision of the proposed world organization in which a future United Nations would be dominated by “four policemen” — the United States, Britain, China, and Soviet Union— who “would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action.” 

Their discussions about a postwar peace settlement were tentative at best. Nevertheless, they voiced their desire to cooperate after what they believed would be an inevitable German defeat. The meeting proved so friendly that Churchill, who mistrusted Stalin, later voiced concern about Roosevelt’s efforts to woo the Soviet leader."

"SOURCE:AMERICA, BRITAIN, and RUSSIA: THEIR CO-OPERATION AND CONFLICT, 1941-1946” BY ROBERT MCNEIL (1953)" 






...............

Obama administration cheered Islamic terrorists, particularly the Sunnis. Since 2007 US goal was to destroy governments in 7 countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran-Daniel Lazare, Consortium News...(Peace is bad for business. US taxpayers enable constant war)

"It’s not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington’s bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it."

12/8/17, "When Washington Cheered the Jihadists," Daniel Lazare, Consortium News

"Exclusive: Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare."

"When a Department of Defense intelligence report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn’t know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.


Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in August 2014.

The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World Trade Center?

It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information lawsuitThe New York Times didn’t mention it until six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before dismissing it as “loopy” and “relatively unimportant.” With ISIS rampaging across much of Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than hostile.

But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report, attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.

After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers wrote that the group “mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning.”

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, assured the Washington Post that “al Qaeda is a fringe element” among the rebels, while, not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a pin-up of a “ridiculously photogenic” jihadi toting an RPG.

“Hey girl,” said the subhead. “Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny.”

And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington, which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill’s Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists,” which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was completed, didn’t distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: “So the rebels aren’t secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn’t much matter.”

Assessing the Damage

Five years later, it’s worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to reduce an entire nation to rubble.


Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the United States, meeting with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2002. (White House photo)

First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region’s prime imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.

William Roebuck, the American embassy’s chargé d’affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi‘ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are “often exaggerated.” It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.

A year later [2007], former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years,” first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07.)

Since the United States didn’t like what such governments were doing, the solution was to install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington’s joy when the Arab Spring struck Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their own.

Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian chants of “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin,” U.S. enthusiasm remained strong. With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.

Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both unavoidable and far from entirely negative.

“Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship,” he wrote in reference to the Baathists. “Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad’s Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed regime.” 

So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though “the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people,” Gambill said, “it has two important silver linings for US interests.” One is that the jihadis “are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts” thanks to their skill with “suicide bombings and roadside bombs.”

The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in “a full-blown strategic defeat” for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.

“So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies,” the article concluded, “we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames.”

Deals with the Devil

The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn’t. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place.


Saudi King Salman bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace after a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that’s all that counts.

The parallels with the DIA are striking. “The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” the intelligence report declared, even though “the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency.”

Where Gambill predicted that “Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern Syria,” the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality” at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known as Deir ez-Zor).

Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine Shi‘ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality “is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Bottle up the Shi‘ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi‘ite-influenced Iraq and Shi‘ite-ruled Iran.

As Gambill put it: “Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran unthinkable, it won’t have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington.”

With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.

Disastrous Thinking

Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria’s Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill’s article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.



U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

War-time destruction totals around $250 billion, according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria, the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.

So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.

It’s not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington’s bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group’s founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for.
 
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill’s kind words about “suicide bombings and roadside bombs” – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic terrorism.

Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others."




.....................

Facebook spanks Breitbart article by John Nolte, places warning, advises readers to check "reporting" from Politifact: “Before you share this content, you might want to know that there is additional reporting on this from PolitiFact." Everyone who tries to share the link sees this message. Politifact says John Nolte's article is from "a conspiracy-minded website"

Excerpt from Breitbart article: 12/8/17, "Bombshell: Roy Moore Accuser Beverly Nelson Admits She Forged Yearbook," Breitbart, John Nolte 

"Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News,...the reporter actually coaches Nelson, puts words in her mouth, downplays the enormous significance of her deceit."...

.................. 

Facebook spanks Breitbart:

12/8/17, "Facebook Informs Breitbart Gloria Allred Yearbook Forgery is Fake News," Breitbart, Ben Kew

"Facebook warned Breitbart News on Friday that the author of a completely factual story concerning the accuser of Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore needed to consult “additional reporting” from the liberal fact-checker Politifact.

The story [authored by John Nolte], published on Friday morning, detailed how Beverly Young Nelson, who accused Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager, admitted to adding “notes” to part of her yearbook, which she claims Moore signed.

This revelation came despite Nelson claiming at her initial press conference alongside her lawyer Gloria Allred, that the entire yearbook document was solely Moore’s handwriting.

In a message sent to Breitbart News’s Facebook page, the company warned that there was “additional reporting” from liberal fact-checker Politifact on the issue.

“Before you share this content, you might want to know that there is additional reporting on this from PolitiFact,” the message read.

This message is now sent to everyone who tries to share the link.

“A conspiracy-minded website attempted to cast doubt on the evidence presented by one of eight women who accused Roy Moore of sexual assault in a misleading headline days ahead of the Alabama Senate race,” Politifact wrote about the incident.

“Nelson says she added the time and location to the inscription. But she says the note and signature were from Moore,” the article continues. “That’s not what the headlines of the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart or Silence is Consent. All three say Nelson said she either tampered with Moore’s signature or forged the inscription. There’s no evidence of that.”"...

[Ed. note: To Politifact: Merriam-Webster defines "forgery": "the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document." This is exactly what Ms. Nelson says she did. From google search for "definition of forgery": "Synonyms for forgery: fake, counterfeit, fraud, sham, imitation, replica." These synonyms describe what Ms. Nelson's actions produced. Breitbart's article by John Nolte (posted below) never states she "tampered with Moore's signature." I don't know what Politifact means by "the inscription." The fact is the woman now admits she added text to what she weeks ago described in its entirety on national television as "evidence" of text placed by someone else. The woman lied for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a US election. Politifact may slice and dice the meaning of "forgery," but the actions certainly are lies and had the same intent as forgery. When this is done to effect the outcome of a US election, it's quite serious.] 

(continuing): "Facebook’s warning is part of a broader plan announced last year by CEO Mark Zuckerberg to begin adding warning labels on stories they deem to be false, with the help of partisan “fact-checking” organizations such as Snopes and PolitiFact.

Breitbart News has reached out to Facebook for comment, although no reply was received by the time of publication."

....................

12/8/17, "Bombshell: Roy Moore Accuser Beverly Nelson Admits She Forged Yearbook," Breitbart, John Nolte 

"Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News, the disgraced, left-wing network downplayed the bombshell by presenting this admission of forgery as adding “notes” to the inscription. Worse still, the reporter actually coaches Nelson, puts words in her mouth, downplays the enormous significance of her deceit.

“Nelson admits she did make notes to the inscription,” ABC News tells us. “But the message was all Roy Moore.”

“Beverly, he signed your yearbook,” ABC News reporter Tom Llamas says.

“He did sign it,” she replies.

“And you made some notes underneath.”

“Yes,” Nelson says.

And then, after a woman admits to forging a document used in a campaign to destroy the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, ABC News quickly moves on as though it is not news of extraordinary consequence.

Llamas also fails to ask any follow-ups, such as “If the explanation is this simple, why wait all these weeks to offer it?” Or, “Why did you lie?”

Nelson is accusing Moore of attempting to assault her when she was just 16-years-old. With the election just four days away, this admission of forgery could not come at a better time for Moore. Nelson and Allred are planning a news conference Friday, but nothing will overcome the forgery admission.

How can anyone believe anything she says after admitting to such a thing? Early reports are that Nelson and Allred will produce an expert to prove the rest of the yearbook is not a forgery. So a proven forger is bringing in her own expert. What an insult to the people of Alabama.

Another problem with Nelson is that she has a motive to lie and forge: as a circuit judge, Moore ruled against her in a 1999 divorce case.

The Moore campaign has been pressuring Nelson and Allred for weeks to submit the yearbook for independent handwriting analysis. Now everyone knows why that request was rejected and ignored.

With Nelson now thoroughly discredited, this leaves two accusers against Moore.

One is Leigh Corfman, who claims Moore molested her as a 14-year-old child. She is the most credible of the three, but the narrative behind her story, that Moore’s abuse resulted in Corfman’s living a troubled life of “drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt,” is directly contradicted by contemporaneous court records.

Moore’s final accuser is Tina Johnson, a woman who claims Moore groped her butt in his office in 1991. But, again, as was the case with Corfman and Nelson, the left-wing media outlets reporting these allegations (the Washington Post, AL.com) either failed to fully vet the accusers or withheld crucial context.

Thanks to New Media’s going behind these discredited outlets to fact check the reporting, we now know that Johnson did not tell the entire truth. She was not in Moore’s office “on business.” If she was in Moore’s office at all, it was due to a bitter custody battle where Moore represented Johnson’s mother, who was trying to gain custody of Johnson’s 12-year-old son based on the claim that Johnson was an “unfit, absent, and unstable mother.”

If the media and the accusers and Gloria Allred told the full truth to begin with, they would all be more credible.

As far as the accusations against Moore involving his wanting to date teenage girls, those are trumped-up charges, utter nonsense. The age of consent in Alabama was and is 16. Moreover, 40 years ago, it was not at all uncommon in the South for a 32-year-old man to seek a much younger bride. So not only did Moore not break the law, he was not violating any social mores."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-yearbook/





.............

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.