At least five of 50 so-called "GOP Officials" who signed a letter posted on 8/8/16 by the NY Times and who claim to be security experts are members of the globalist Trilateral Commission as of August 2016. A sixth, Philip Zelikow was a Trilateral member as of July 2015 but isn't listed in August 2016. "Republican" Mr. Zelikow accepted an appointment to Democrat President Obama's President's Intelligence Advisory Board in Sept. 2011. As of 2011 Zelikow is also a consultant to Pres. Obama's Office of the Secretary of Defense."...How is Zelikow among 50 top GOP officials if he's currently working for the Democrat Obama administration? "50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’," NY Times. Again, NY Times: "The nation's most senior Republican national security officials." Obviously, Zelikow is a very confused person. US national security is in grave danger with someone this troubled at the center of power.
Zelikow isn't
a "G.O.P. Official,"
"a top GOP official" or a
"most senior Republican national security official."
Zelikow is an "Intelligence Advisor" to Democrat President Obama as of 2011. Also as of 2011 Zelikow was a consultant to Democrat President Obama's Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Trilateral Commission US members, as of August 2016 also listed on the 8/8/16 NY Times list of 50 alleged "GOP Officials" (who destroyed the country and haven't apologized to us) who are against Trump:
Michael Chertoff
Carla Hills
Richard Falkenrath
John Negroponte
Robert Zoellick ("Chairman, Goldman Sachs' International Advisors, New York")
========
Trilateral Commission US member as of July 2015 also listed on the 8/8/16 NY Times list of 50 alleged "GOP Officials" in the war establishment who are against Trump:
Philip Zelikow
Philip Zelikow, Both Republican and Democrat (UniParty): NSA Staff of George HW Bush, Advisor to George W. Bush, selected by Bush to head 9-11 Commission, subsequently served in Bush State Dept., appointed in 2011 by Obama as an intelligence advisor. Also as of Sept. 2011 Zelikow is a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense."...
Sept. 7, 2011, "Zelikow Appointed to Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board," virginia.edu
"President Obama appointed Philip Zelikow, associate dean for graduate academic programs in the University of Virginia's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, to serve on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the White House announced Tuesday.... He also advises the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's program in global development and is a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense."...
==========
As to NY Times and letter-writers concern about Trump control of nuclear weapons/arsenal, it falls flat since you had no problem that Bill Clinton actually did lose the nuclear codes during his second term and never told anyone, as reported by The Atlantic in Oct. 2010:
.......
2010 Atlantic article:
.......
Oct. 22, 2010, "Why Clinton's Losing the Nuclear Biscuit Was Really, Really Bad," The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder
.......
"Former President Clinton's office declined to comment today on reports that he managed to lose the personal identification code needed to confirm nuclear launches and never told anyone about it. Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the last few years of Clinton's term, writes about the episode in his new autobiography. Shelton is especially sensitive to the proper authentication procedures, having served as deputy commander of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), through which all nuclear launch progression action chains are processed. The National Command Authority (NCA), as the process and the person of the commander in chief is called, passes from the President to the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense. (In the absence of the SecDef, the Deputy Secretary of Defense can stand in.)
........
In effect, without Clinton's "biscuit," as the personal identifier is called, the President would not have been able to initiate a launch order or confirm a launch order executed by someone else. The football itself, which contains code authenticators, a transceiver, targeting menus, and continuity of government options, was always with the military aide."...
NY Times: "Yet perhaps most striking about the letter is the degree to which it echoes
Mrs. Clinton’s main argument about her rival: that his temperament
makes him unsuitable for the job, and that he should not be entrusted
with the control of nuclear weapons."...
"All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”"...8/8/16, "50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’," NY Times, Sanger, Haberman
"All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”"...8/8/16, "50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’," NY Times, Sanger, Haberman
=========
These people have been kicked out. They lost. They're the national security threat if they don't understand this. All power comes from the voters. In the US you don't appoint yourself to power.
Below, headline of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print ed.
To the 50 who signed the 8/8/16/ letter and the NY Times who hosted them, please remember your history. You've been kicked out. For decades you've cashed in on destroying the country. Why should anyone care what you think about anything? Even the NY Times Editorial Board was honest enough to admit that the 2016 voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."...Consent of the governed is required if you want to be in charge. These people have nothing, they're fringe neocon parasites who desperately want some more wars. Their only claim to legitimacy is a connection to the endless war, open borders GOP Establishment and in particular the Bush family--both of which went down to richly deserved defeat in 2016.
5/3/16, From The NY Times Editorial Board:
"Republican
leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond
winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates
promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and
savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing. That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by
promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only
xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."...
...........
..........................
Comment: This letter is signed by fringe globalist neocons, cancerous lesions on this country who've been wrong about everything. The NY Times and other publications for whatever reason have chosen to bestow prominence on them. Their new home and plenty of taxpayer cash awaits them in the depraved new Democrat Party. Zelikow is already there and cashing in.
Added:
June 2014 article, followed by articles from Sept. 2015 and April 2016
.........
6/20/2014, "Being a Neocon Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry," Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt
........
"These guys were wrong about every aspect of Iraq. Why do we still have to listen to them?"
............
"From 2001 until sometime around 2006, the United States followed the core neoconservative foreign policy program. The disastrous results of this vast social science experiment could not be clearer.
The neoconservative program cost the United States several trillion dollars and thousands dead and wounded American soldiers, and it sowed carnage and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere.
Yet...neoconservative punditry is alive and well today. Casual viewers of CNN and other news channels are being treated to the vacuous analysis of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol.
...........
More worrisome still: It seems to be having some impact, insofar as President Barack Obama appears to have bowed to pressure and dispatched 300 U.S. military advisors to help the incompetent and beleaguered Maliki government in Iraq....
.........
Neoconservatives would have much less influence if mainstream media didn’t continue to pay attention to them. They could publish their own journals and appear on Fox News, but the big force multiplier is their continued prominence in places like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other outlets. Neocons continue to have frequent access to op-ed pages, and are commonly quoted by reporters on a range of foreign-policy issues.
...........
This tendency is partly because some important members of the mainstream media are themselves neoconservatives or strongly sympathetic to its basic worldview.
David Brooks of the New York Times,
Charles Krauthammer and
Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, and
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal
are all card-carrying neoconservatives and were, of course,
prominent voices in the original (Iraq) pro-war camp....
The final source of neoconservative persistence is the continued support they get from their close cousins: the liberal interventionists.
..........
Neoconservatives may have cooked up the whole idea of invading Iraq, but they got a lot of support from a diverse array of liberal hawks. As I’ve noted before, the only major issue on which these two groups disagree is the role of international institutions, which liberals view as a useful tool and neoconservatives see as a dangerous constraint on U.S. freedom of action. Neoconservatives, in short, are liberal imperialists on steroids, and liberal hawks are really just kinder, gentler neocons.
The liberal interventionists’ complicity in the neoconservative project makes them reluctant to criticize the neoconservatives very much, because to do so draws attention to their own culpability in the disastrous neoconservative program. It is no surprise, therefore, that recovering liberal hawks like Peter Beinart and Jonathan Chait — who both backed the Iraq war themselves — have recently defended neoconservative participation in the new debate over Iraq, while taking sharp issue with some of the neocons’ position.
...........
The neoconservative-liberal alliance in effect re-legitimates the neoconservative world view, and makes their continued enthusiasm for U.S.-led wars look "normal." When the Obama administration is staffed by enthusiastic proponents of intervention like Samantha Power or Susan Rice, and when former Obama officials like Anne-Marie Slaughter are making neocon-like arguments about the need to send arms to Syria, it makes neoconservatives sound like a perfectly respectable faction within the broad U.S. policy community, instead of underscoring just how extreme and discredited their views really are....
..........
What, if anything, might reduce the neoconservative influence to its proper dimension (that is to say, almost nil)? I wish I knew, for if the past ten years haven’t discredited them, it's not obvious what would. No doubt leaders in Moscow and Beijing derive great comfort from that fact: For what better way to ensure that the United States continues to lurch from crisis to crisis, and from quagmire to quagmire?
........
Until our society gets better at listening to those who are consistently right instead of those who are reliably wrong, we will repeat the same mistakes and achieve the same dismal results. Not that the neoconservatives will care." (end of article)
................
......
Sept. 2015 article
............
9/7/2015, "How Neocons Destabilized Europe" by Robert Parry, consortiumnews.com
........
"The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe...started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through “regime change.”
..........
Instead of the promised wonders of “democracy promotion” and “human rights,” what these “anti-realists” have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn’t been enough “regime change.”
For instance, The Washington Post’s neocon editorial page editor Fred Hiatt on Monday (2015) blamed “realists” for the cascading catastrophes. Hiatt castigated them and President Barack Obama for not intervening more aggressively in Syria to depose President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime neocon target for “regime change.”
But the truth is that this accelerating spread of human suffering can be traced back directly to the unchecked influence of the neocons and their liberal fellow-travelers who have resisted political compromise and, in the case of Syria, blocked any realistic efforts to work out a power-sharing agreement between Assad and his political opponents, those who are not terrorists....
........
A Dozen Years of Chaos
So, we can now look at the consequences and costs of the past dozen years under the spell of neocon/liberal-hawk “regime change” strategies. According to many estimates, the death toll in Iraq, Syria and Libya has exceeded one million with several million more refugees flooding into – and stretching the resources – of fragile Mideast countries.
Hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants have fled to Europe, putting major strains on the Continent’s social structures already stressed by the severe recession that followed the 2008 Wall Street crash. Even without the refugee crisis, Greece and other southern European countries would be struggling to meet their citizens’ needs.
Stepping back for a moment and assessing the full impact of neoconservative policies, you might be amazed at how widely they have spread chaos across a large swath of the globe. Who would have thought that the neocons would have succeeded in destabilizing not only the Mideast but Europe as well.
And, as Europe struggles, the export markets of China are squeezed, spreading economic instability to that crucial economy and, with its market shocks, the reverberations rumbling back to the United States, too.
We now see the human tragedies of neocon/liberal-hawk ideologies captured in the suffering of the Syrians and other refugees flooding Europe and the death of children drowning as their desperate families flee the chaos created by “regime change.” But will the neocon/liberal-hawk grip on Official Washington finally be broken? Will a debate even be allowed about the dangers of “regime change” prescriptions in the future?
Not if the likes of The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt have anything to say about it. The truth is that Hiatt and other neocons retain their dominance of the mainstream U.S. news media, so all that one can expect from the various MSM outlets is more neocon propaganda, blaming the chaos not on their policy of “regime change” but on the failure to undertake even more “regime change.”
The one hope is that many Americans will not be fooled this time and that a belated “realism” will finally return to U.S. geopolitical strategies that will look for obtainable compromises to restore some political order to places such as Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Rather than more and more tough-guy/gal confrontations, maybe there will finally be some serious efforts at reconciliation.
But the other reality is that the interventionist forces have rooted themselves deeply in Official Washington, inside NATO, within the mainstream news media and even in European institutions. It will not be easy to rid the world of the grave dangers created by neocon policies."
.......................
"Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com)."... via WBAI radio interview
...........
====================
........
April 2016 article:
"(Hillary) Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations."
April 1, 2016, “Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libya Mess,” Consortium News, Robert Parry
"Exclusive: U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya, but the political risk at home is that voters will finally realize Hillary Clinton's responsibility for the mess, writes Robert Parry."
"Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change" in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe."...
..............
..........
No comments:
Post a Comment