07/28/16

Why Putin Loves Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Putin

The media are shedding crocodile tears for Hillary Clinton. “Why Putin Hates Hillary” is the headline over a Politico story by Michael Crowley and Julia Ioffe about the stolen Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. To the contrary, Russian President Vladimir Putin loves Hillary. He has taken advantage of her once, in the “Russia Reset,” and is preparing to take advantage of her again. She is the ultimate dupe. Putin has Hillary just where he wants her. He has access to some of Hillary’s deepest and darkest secrets.

The idea that Mrs. Clinton and the DNC have been victimized by Putin is absurd. This isn’t Putin’s fault. It’s the fault of the DNC. They didn’t maintain security over their email operations.

But, of course, neither did Hillary.

Politico says Putin is angry at Clinton for challenging the fairness of Russian elections. Almost on cue, Time magazine is out with a story taking a similar line. Time says Putin is mad that Hillary encouraged protests against his rule. In retaliation, the story goes, his hackers stole the DNC emails.

The other propaganda line from the media is that Putin favors Donald J. Trump over Hillary because Trump has business deals in Russia, and may even be in debt to some of Putin’s friends. According to this logic, which makes some sense, Putin has leverage over Trump, too.

There will be a way to test this theory.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggests that Trump’s views on Russia may change once he’s briefed on Russia’s aggressive intentions. This is an excerpt of an exchange with Cotton from a CNBC interview:

CNBC’s John Harwood: One of the questions that has been raised about Donald Trump is, ‘Is he more friendly with Russia than it is in America’s best interests to be?’

Senator Cotton: Vladimir Putin was a KGB spy and he never got over that. He does not have America’s best interests at heart and he does not have any American interests at heart. I suspect, after this week, when Donald Trump is the nominee and he begins to receive classified briefings, similar briefings to what I receive as a member of the Intelligence Committee, he may have a different perspective on Vladimir Putin and what Russia is doing to America’s interests and allies in Europe and the Middle East and Asia.”

What Cotton is saying is that Trump’s soft-on-Russia policies could, and should, change after these briefings have occurred. If they do not, then Republicans will have a serious problem with their nominee.

On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton was burned once by Putin, during the Russian reset, and could get burned again. Remember that the Associated Press reported last October that the private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home basement when she was secretary of state “was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers while using software that could have been exploited…”

FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the emails were at risk. He said that while investigators did not find direct evidence that “hostile actors” hacked into Mrs. Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, “given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence” (emphasis added). He did say that hostile actors “gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” He added, “We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

From a security standpoint, therefore, one has to assume that these hostile actors did in fact gain access to her email system. Those hostile actors have to include Russia. You cannot proceed on any other assumption.

In a July 25 editorial, The Washington Post blamed Trump for the Russian hack of the DNC, saying he had somehow given them the “motivation” for such an attack because of his soft-on-Russian foreign policy positions. The Post said that Russia favors Trump over Hillary and wanted to sabotage her candidacy with the leak of the DNC emails on the eve of her convention.

But if Russia has Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and the evidence strongly points in that direction, it can be safely assumed they have potential blackmail material to use against her. Those emails probably involve not only a number of sensitive government activities but information about Mrs. Clinton personally, her family, the Clinton Foundation and her aides. The material could involve information of a financial or personal nature.

Moscow’s judgment, the Post editorial claimed, is that “it stands to reap a geopolitical windfall if Donald Trump is elected president.” That will only be the case if Trump persists in his pro-Russia policy and ignores the intelligence information about Russia’s aggressive intentions that Senator Cotton says he will receive. Trump still has time to reverse course on matters involving Russia, NATO and national security.

By contrast, Moscow already reaped a geopolitical windfall when Hillary was secretary of state and used the reset to invade Ukraine and expand militarily into the Middle East. Despite anti-Russian language in the 2016 Democratic platform, Mrs. Clinton has shown extremely bad judgment on Russia in the past. It’s possible she has changed her position. But Putin has so much potentially damaging information about Mrs. Clinton in those emails that this former KGB officer may think he can keep her in line. All that he has to do to keep a President Hillary Clinton in line is threaten to release some of the damaging information already in his possession. The leaks could come through WikiLeaks, the source of the DNC emails, or the Edward Snowden network.

These are the choices: Trump can reverse course and say and do the right thing about Russia. Hillary can talk tough about Russia during the campaign and do Putin’s bidding under threat of blackmail as president.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is a proven risk to national security. She is under effective Russian control. Trump could turn out to be a security risk if he deliberately ignores the evidence of hostile Russian intentions and aggression that is being presented to him. We can assume that Senator Cotton will follow up on his comments to CNBC and watch Trump for changes in his approach to Russia. America will also be watching.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

07/27/16

What Does Putin Have on Hillary?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Putin

Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times examines the question of who hacked the Democratic National Committee and whether the trail leads to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “We know from reliable reporting that Russian hackers are not independent actors, and that they have been busy,” he writes. “And it’s eerie, at best, that Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks chose this moment to release the stolen emails (and complete a strange triangle that runs from him to Putin to Edward Snowden).”

For his part, on his Twitter page, Snowden said, “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.”

This is funny on Snowden’s part. Snowden sits in Russia, a guest of Putin, and Assange has acted like an agent of Russia. Trevor Loudon’s report on Assange documents his service to Moscow and associations with a number of Marxist or pro-Russian groups. Snowden is probably personally involved in the leak and could easily get to the bottom of why it happened.

“This has the appearance of a foreign power directly interfering in an American election, and that’s not something to take lightly,” Noah Rothman writes in Commentary. He goes on, “Rather than applaud and leverage this development, as he has, Donald Trump would be much better served by condemning it. If the Russians are set on undermining the Democratic Party in this election, it won’t be long before the public is asked to consider why that might be.”

Rothman has a point, but the more important issue is why the DNC and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used private or unsecure servers that were open to these foreign adversaries. One can argue that Mrs. Clinton, in particular, invited this foreign meddling in the election. Who knows what the Russians still have in their bag of tricks? The point is that Mrs. Clinton is a security risk and the Russians may still have emails to use against her.

Pro-Putin commentator Don Hank reported back in June, “I was invited to participate in a conversation among a group of friends who are hoping that the Kremlin will turn over their cache of Hillary emails obtained via the Romanian hacker ‘Guccifer’ just in time to smear her prior to the November election.”

Even earlier, Catherine Herridge of Fox News reported back in May that the Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” had claimed he easily—and repeatedly—breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013. The Clinton campaign denied the charge, but Herridge reported that “Guccifer” said “he first compromised Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account, in March 2013, and used that as a stepping stone to the Clinton server.”

“Guccifer” has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, unauthorized access to a protected computer, aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking and obstruction of justice.

Mrs. Clinton’s emails may be even more valuable than the documents stolen and released by Snowden. After all, Clinton’s emails discussed the intentions of U.S. policymakers.

This is actually an old story involving the Clintons. As Reed Irvine and I reported back in 1998, the Ken Starr report on President Clinton revealed that Clinton had warned his sexual plaything Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, “that a foreign government may be monitoring their telephone conversations and that they should concoct a cover story to explain them.” Here is exactly what the Starr report says about this matter: “According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had a lengthy conversation that day. He told her that he suspected that a foreign embassy (he did not specify which one) was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories. If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along, and the phone sex was just a put-on.”

Nothing has really changed, except that emails have now been monitored and compromised in Mrs. Clinton’s case.

As we said back in May, “The evidence demonstrates that she is a full-blown security risk who should be indicted for her reckless criminal conduct as Secretary of State.” Hillary made herself into a security risk.

Now we are waiting for the next shoe to drop. Does it have something to do with Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, or Hillary’s own personal scandals?

Whatever the scandal, it’s not the fault of Donald J. Trump. Trump may have something to explain regarding his own ties to the Kremlin, but so does Hillary. If the truth doesn’t come out before Election Day, it means that Moscow may have blackmail power over the possible first female president of the United States.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

07/25/16

Trump’s Journalistic Weapon Now Targets Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Clinton

The supermarket tabloid National Enquirer can’t be laughed at any more. It was Donald J. Trump’s effective weapon against Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and now it’s been unleashed against Hillary Clinton. The issue currently on newsstands reveals “The Explosive 7-Step Plan to Destroy Hillary,” and predicts the demise of the Democratic candidate.

Don’t laugh. In 2007, the National Enquirer broke the story of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ “love child.” Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child in a Los Angeles hotel. Edwards denied the affair, but the truth came out. The National Enquirer was vindicated.

The New York Times reported, “By being the first and, largely, the only publication pursuing the Edwards story through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock, The Enquirer is under consideration for a Pulitzer Prize, and it has strong support for its bid from other journalists.” The Enquirer’s staff became eligible for the Pulitzer in two categories, “Investigative Reporting” and “National News Reporting.” It fell short, however.

The National Enquirer became Trump’s favorite media weapon to smear Cruz. Here is a list of assaults on the rival Republican from the tabloid:

  • April 4: “Cruz’s 5 Secret Mistresses” and “Their Shocking Claims”
  • April 11: “Furious Wife Confronts Cheating Cruz!”
  • April 18: “Ted Cruz Named in Madam’s Black Book”
  • May 2: “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination”
  • May 16: “Ted Cruz, Go Home”

The attacks on Cruz, especially the attack on his father, Rafael Cruz, took their toll. The Texas senator cited Trump’s use of the smear in explaining why he wouldn’t endorse the New York billionaire for president. “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” Cruz said. Trump had tweeted a bad photo of Cruz’s wife Heidi next to a flattering picture of Trump’s supermodel wife.

On “Fox & Friends,” Trump had cited the Enquirer story about Cruz’s father as believable. Trump said, “Nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

By the time the patriotic July 4 issue of the National Enquirer had appeared, Trump had won and the publication ran the story, “Trump: How I will Save America From Terror.”

The publication had really moved on from attacking Cruz to going after Hillary by the June 27 issue, with the story, “Hillary Will Never Be President,” citing an alleged indictment of the candidate over her use of emails. It didn’t pan out. The FBI director didn’t recommend an indictment.

But the August 1 story, “How Trump Will Win,” explains how lesbianism and lies will eventually cause the campaign collapse of the former secretary of state. Among the revelations:

  • Hillary’s “lesbian shenanigans.”
  • Bill Clinton has a secret son.
  • Hillary spent time in a mental hospital.
  • Bill and Hillary have a secret $100 million divorce pact.

Don’t think the National Enquirer doesn’t have high-level sources. The former Clinton aide Dick Morris, who once worked for Fox News, now has a regular column in the publication, under the headline, “The most feared voice in politics.” His most recent column, concerning the former secretary of state’s dealings with Russia and Vladimir Putin, is actually quite good. He notes that the emails released by Mrs. Clinton conveniently omit details about a deal Russia made to buy American uranium. The deal came after Bill Clinton was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a Russian firm for speeches.

Morris did have a column in The Hill newspaper, which is distributed in Washington, D.C. But that paper dropped him when he signed on with The National Enquirer. Enquirer Editor-in-Chief Dylan Howard said his hiring was proof of the publication’s “commitment to investigative journalism.”

Morris told the New York Post, “I enjoyed writing for The Hill for 20 years and I had a wonderful relationship with them, but the Enquirer’s circulation is many times The Hill’s. I think this move makes sense.”

The National Enquirer is part of the American Media, Inc. (AMI) empire and also includes Star, OK!, Globe, National Examiner, Soap Opera Digest, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Flex and Muscle & Fitness Hers. Chairman and CEO David Pecker is considered a close friend of Trump.

Ironically, as The New York Times pointed out, The Star, the sister publication of The National Enquirer, revealed Morris’s affair with a prostitute who claimed he had a penchant for sucking her toes. “The National Enquirer followed that bombshell with news of another mistress and a love child in Texas,” it said.

At the time, the paper reported that Morris had responded, “I will not subject my wife, family or friends to the sadistic vitriol of yellow journalism. I will not dignify such journalism with a reply or an answer. I never will.”

He later admitted the stories were true, the Times said.

His personal life aside, Morris is the author or co-author of some 20 books, including Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race, about a match-up that did not occur in 2008.

In 2012, Morris, then a Fox News commentator, had predicted a Mitt Romney win. Morris’s prediction was Romney winning with 325 electoral votes, versus Obama’s 213. “That’s right,” Morris said. “A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama’s against McCain.” Obama beat McCain 53-46 percent.

But Morris was not alone. Karl Rove, Fred Barnes, and Michael Barone had alsopredicted a Romney win.

This time, Morris has another book, Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary, described by Newsmax as “powerful and timely.”

But on the Dick Morris website, one person responded to the new book with the comment, “How Trump can beat Hillary? Well, the same way Romney and McCain beat Obama, I guess. Dick, you keep singing the same song over and over again.”

The trouble with the current anti-Clinton strategy, “The Explosive 7-Step Plan to Destroy Hillary,” is that people probably won’t believe it when they see it, since the information will be coming from a source that even Cruz has denounced.

However, in contrast to how the major media picked up the tabloid’s charges against Cruz, it’s doubtful that any controversial charges against Clinton, even with substantial evidence to back them up, would get the same kind of sympathetic coverage or traction.

In any case, Trump clearly has a journalistic weapon to use against Hillary. It would help, in his war against the Democrat, if he has what the tabloid had when it exposed John Edwards — eyewitnesses, photos and evidence.

Time will tell.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

07/21/16

Trump’s Blind Spot on Russia

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Russia

It is not unusual for a politician to change his mind, even on critical national security matters. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) essentially flip-flopped on the damage done by NSA defector Edward Snowden. He went from saying that Snowden may have violated the law to accusing the NSA defector of being an outright traitor. On Thursday night, while the media continue their preoccupation with style rather than substance, Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump will be watched closely to see whether he has learned anything about the aggressive intentions of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump’s position on Russia has been so weak, from a national security perspective, that Hillary Clinton has accused him of being soft on Putin. “He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin,” Clinton said of Trump. “He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.” The criticism of Trump has caused a number of GOP foreign policy experts to say they cannot support the New York businessman for president.

Trump has praised Putin, and vice-versa. What’s more, one of his top advisers on national security matters, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), has been embarrassed by revelations that he went to Moscow to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Russian propaganda channel Russia Today (RT) and sat next to Putin at a gala dinner. Flynn was being considered as Trump’s vice-presidential nominee.

At the GOP convention, Flynn was caught off-guard during an interview when Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News questioned him about the financing of the trip to Moscow. Flynn insisted that his speakers’ bureau paid for the trip. “Ask them. I was given an opportunity and I took it,” he said. Of course, even if there was a speakers’ bureau involved, the money came from Moscow, and most of it went to Flynn.

At the time, we called it “Moscow’s Five-Star Treatment of a Three-Star Army General.” We broke the story of Flynn flying to Moscow.

On the defensive, Flynn said, “I have no problems calling out Russia.” He is the author of the new book, The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.

But Flynn is known for advocating cooperation with Moscow in the Middle East, despite evidence that Moscow is using the refugee crisis as a weapon of war against the West.

Of course, as Flynn is quick to point out, Mrs. Clinton’s “experience” has been a disaster for the nation, as her “Russian “reset” paved the way for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian military intervention in Syria.

But what will Trump do to counter the Russians in Europe and the Middle East?

The criticism of Trump’s soft position on Russia has been a sore point with many on the conservative side. It doesn’t appear that Trump understands Putin’s geo-political game plan on the world stage.

This is one reason that GOP 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney had denounced Trump.  “Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while he has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good,” said Romney.

By contrast, Mike Pence, the Indiana governor and former member of Congress picked as Trump’s running mate, has had a more realistic view of Putin. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015, he said that “A new Iron Curtain is descending down the spine of Europe as modern Russia seeks to redraw the map of Europe by force.” He added, “Putin’s Russia ignores talk of sanctions, claims land and supports rebels in Ukraine with impunity.”

Has Trump changed his position on Russia? There’s no evidence that he has done so.

Josh Rogin of The Washington Post noted that Trump’s people watered down a provision of the 2016 GOP platform calling for a tough response to Russian aggression. “The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington,” he reported.

Rogin added that “Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.” He noted that Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment calling for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military. Trump’s people vetoed that, and put in the phrase “appropriate assistance.” That means that Trump would continue the Obama policy of failing to give Ukraine the weapons they need to defend their nation and turn back the Russian invasion.

Meanwhile, Senator Cruz has become a more realistic thinker about Russia, and has admittedly changed his position on the damage done by former NSA and CIA employee Edward Snowden, who is now living in Moscow. “If Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws and that is something he has publicly stated he understands and I think the law needs to be enforced,” Cruz said in early 2013.

Later, however, Cruz said, “Today we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia. Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason. By disclosing secret intelligence information to our enemies—helping terrorists evade our surveillance overseas—Snowden made it more likely that Americans will be killed. It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason.”

To his credit, Trump recognizes Snowden’s treason. “I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country—you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said on Fox News.  The implication was that Snowden should be executed. “This guy is really doing damage to this country, and he’s also making us look like dopes,” Trump said.

What Trump doesn’t talk about is the fact that Snowden’s sponsor and patron is Putin’s Russia, and that Snowden has facilitated the activities of the Islamic State targeting citizens in the West, including the United States.

At the GOP convention on Tuesday night, Donald Trump, Jr. said, “If Hillary Clinton is elected, she would be the first president who couldn’t pass a basic background check.”

But could his father pass a background check? That’s the question that will be on many minds when the Republican candidate accepts the nomination and outlines his vision for the Free World.

Whatever he says, doubts will still surround some of his top advisers, including Paul Manafort, a “fixer” with Russian connections.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

07/12/16

Trump: The Russian Connection

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Carter1

America has now boxed herself into a corner and doesn’t even realize it. If Hillary Clinton is elected, you will retain the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House. If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians and the Chinese in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails etc. He’s got WikiLeaks and Assange doing his dirty work, with Edward Snowden as backup.

Trump has surrounded himself with people connected in one way or another to Russia and mobsters.

Carter

Carter Page

Donald Trump’s foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, has deep ties to Russia and the Kremlin’s Gazprom. Page is a globe-trotting investment banker who has built his creds on deals with Russia and its state-run gas company. It would do George Soros proud. Page’s business suffered a major hit when sanctions were imposed on Russia because of the Ukraine encroachment. When Trump selected him as a foreign policy adviser, he was inundated by his Russian contacts who were thrilled. That should be your first warning sign.

Trump has been putting forth the Russian idea to reduce NATO or do away with them altogether. He does not support the Ukraine either. He has called Putin a ‘strong leader’ and both have talk glowingly about each other. Flexible doesn’t quite cover it this time around. Page portrays US policymakers as stuck in an outdated Cold War mindset, which is really laughable as the Cold War never ended… it shifted.

Page is a self-serving business shark. He has no political experience, but he’s killer when it comes to negotiating a deal. Trump calls it “real world” experience. I call it corruption. Page has a lifelong fascination with Russia and Central Asia, and a determination to drum up business there even in the face of political headwinds. He has no loyalty to America or her constitution… his loyalty lies in business and profits. In that, Trump and Page share a common viewpoint. After all, even if it smacks of mob tactics, it’s just business.

Page traveled to Moscow last week and criticized the United States and other Western powers for their “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in other countries. He praised Russia and China for being ‘progressive’ and forward thinking, while nailing the US as interventionist and two-faced. Gee, he sounds more like Putin’s man than Trump’s. He praised Russia and China for embracing foreign policies built on “non-interference,” “tolerance” and “respect.” Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

“The United States and other developed powers, including in the EU, have often criticized [China, Russia, and Central Asian nations] for continuing methods which were prevalent during the Cold War period,” Page said. “Yet ironically, Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change.”

He also accused Western powers of approaching Russia and Central Asian nations with a “nearly universally critical tone” despite their “advancements.” This he said, may “understandably advance a certain level of insecurity.

The remarks, delivered at an event hosted by the New Economic School, were hardly out of character for Page, who has a history of criticizing US foreign policy and portraying Russia in a favorable light. In online writings, Page has defended Moscow’s involvement in the takeover of government buildings in Ukraine by pro-Russian forces in 2014 as “minor,” attributed the crisis in Ukraine to US policy, and accused NATO of “meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe.”

Page has criticized NATO as “obsolete” and disparaged them for what he terms “illegal torture techniques.” He has long criticized US foreign policy.

He spent three years living in Moscow in the early 2000s, where he worked as an investment banker for Merrill Lynch and as an adviser on transactions for Gazprom and RAO UES, a Russian electric power company.

On Friday, Page also delivered remarks at the graduation for the New Economic School, whose board of directors includes Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich and Economic Minister Alexei Ulyukayev. Page blamed the United States for “mistakes” that have damaged US-Russian relations during that speech.

Back in 2014, Page criticized Obama’s decision to deny a visa application to Hamid Aboutalebi, who is an Iranian diplomat and a UN ambassador. He was a translator for Iranian militants who seized the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, where American hostages were held for over a year until Ronald Reagan came along. It was one of the few things that Obama has made the right call on. Ted Cruz even praised Obama over the move. Yet, Trump’s man was all for that visa. “Avoiding the punishment of a distinguished diplomat whose most heinous charge is previous service as a translator would be an excellent step toward not remaining trapped in the past,” Page wrote in a blog post.

Just one month after that, Carter Page vigorously defended Russia’s military encroachment in the Ukraine. He compared it to the United States’ support for the ouster of Ukraine’s Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych. “While US officials have protested the Russian government’s influence in current events, Moscow’s impact remains minor when compared to Washington’s fundamentally important encouragement at the national level which started the crisis in the first place,” Page asserted. He even went so far as accusing the US of instigating the crisis in the first place.

More from the Free Beacon:

In September 2014, during a NATO summit where the alliance agreed to increase its presence in Eastern Europe after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Page accused Western powers of “meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe” and characterized Russia’s actions as “defensive.” He suggested that NATO was “banging on Russia’s door” and, like Trump, characterized the alliance as unnecessary.

“As most vividly seen in Ukraine, recent results of the North Atlantic Alliance’s unsuccessful interventionist strategy may largely speak for themselves. But another benefit of reconsidering past precedents from the end of the first Cold War is that this historic context helps highlight the extent to which elements of the legacy NATO framework have become severely antiquated,” he wrote.

In February 2015, Page likened Western nations to “football team bullies” for their “condescending mistreatment” of Russia, Iran, China, and other emerging nations. He also compared their actions to slave owners’ treatment of slaves. Page asserted that Western policies had spurred “economic disaster” in Russia and Ukraine.

“From US policies toward Russia to Iran to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems seen worldwide today,” Page wrote.

Does that sound like someone who has our national security at heart? Does it even sound like someone who believes in American exceptionalism?

Page is infuriated over sanctions imposed and views it as the US bullying Russia. Not as a consequence of aggressiveness by the Russians and their land-grabbing, country seizing tactics. He has compared US policy to American slavery and high-profile police shootings.

Not even kidding here:

He has also compared US policy towards Russia to high-profile police killings of unarmed black men. “The deaths triggered by US government officials in both the former Soviet Union and the streets of America in 2014 share a range of close similarities,” he wrote.

“While the loss of Michael Brown and Eric Garner has received intense media coverage and perfunctory federal government investigations, the economic injustice unleashed upon the millions of people residing in Russia, Ukraine, and the former Soviet Union by misguided Western policies has met limited recognition.”

Page also has a soft spot for the communist Chinese. He favorably quoted a propaganda arm of the People’s Republic of China, which wrote “After examining America’s staggering racial disparity, one cannot help wondering whether the US accusation of the Chinese government this time was another political tactic of shunning criticism at itself.”

Bluntly put… Carter Page is a Russian agent in my viewpoint:

Page’s appointment drew fire from experts who said his work sounded more like Internet conspiracy theories or foreign government propaganda than the counsel one would expect of a US president’s top aides.

“The very fact that a senior adviser to the leading Republican candidate for president seems to truly believe that a few individuals in the US government are responsible for certain international events puts him firmly in the realm of conspiracy theorists,” said Hannah Thoburn, a Russia policy expert with the Hudson Institute.

“Many of [Page’s] public remarks on Russia and Ukraine seem as though they have been lifted directly from the broadcast scripts of Russia Today,” the Kremlin’s US propaganda arm, Thoburn said in an email.

Page has also been highly supportive of international climate talks in Paris this last year, despite Republican concerns about international agreements that they say could hike energy prices and force American taxpayers to foot the bill for fossil fuel restrictions abroad.

“The political gathering has substantially raised attention to climate, environmental and future energy issues while leveraging the growing levels of concern amongst societies worldwide,” Page wrote. “But for both citizens and leaders alike, real action in the future will be a far more essential driver to the future direction of progress in comparison to the many words which will be spoken and to a lesser extent heard over the coming weeks.”

He wants the US to more fully collaborate with Russia… sharing more technology and capital market access. His speeches given this last week are being used as propaganda on Russian media. Russia Today loves him… just as they love those such as Alex Jones, Edward Snowden and others who are less than stellar in the credibility department.

Page’s remarks come at a time of heightened tension between the United States and Russia. NATO members agreed on Friday to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic states and Poland on a rotational basis in the face of increased Russian provocations. As American diplomats are being beaten in Russia, in front of our embassy no less, and America is expelling Russian diplomats in return… Carter Page has nothing but praise for the Russkies and condemnation for his own country. I’m sure Trump will fix all that – he’s even more flexible than Barack Obama. FSB/KGB tactics/attacks on a US diplomat were employed – they broke his shoulder. They have also broke into homes of embassy staff, rearranged furniture and even killed a family pet. Is this Russian aggression that Page approves of? Where is Trump on this? Crickets, that’s where.

Manafort

Paul Manafort

Trump’s top adviser, Paul Manafort, has spent much of his recent career working for pro-Russian forces in the Ukraine and has negotiated complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to Putin. And while one senator has already charged Trump is not responsible enough to receive secret information, Manafort’s deep relationships with top pro-Russian figures raise special concerns.

Manafort managed the 2010 campaign of Viktor Yanukovych… you know, the Ukrainian politician who was ousted as president when Putin proceeded to invade the Ukraine. He has, according to court documents, managed tens of millions of dollars for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch denied entry to the US reportedly for ties to organized crime, but so close to Vladimir Putin that top Russian officials fought (unsuccessfully) to get him a visa. Don’t you just love Russian mob ties?

None of these people with Trump have been subjected to background checks. And after Trump’s selection of advisers and cronies, it’s obvious he should be subjected to one as well. One former Republican national security official put it bluntly: “He’s an intelligence classification vetting nightmare scenario.”

I find it beyond convenient that Manafort has tied himself to Trump considering who his clients are. Once again, I would say that Manafort is a Russian agent. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

“We joke in Ukraine that it is a bad sign for Trump that he hired Manafort. Because his client Yanukovych was ousted and fled to Russia, to the city of Rostov. So Trump could also end up in Rostov. It is almost like an anecdote.” — Ukrainian political expert Oleg Kravchenko

Manafort was hired more than a decade ago by the Ukraine’s wealthiest businessman, Rinat Akhmetov. He’s a steel and iron ore magnate and is worth an estimated $2.8 billion, according to Forbes. Manafort was a protege of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian businessman with an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.

Experts say Manafort was unofficially invited to consult on Yanukovych’s first presidential campaign in December 2004, in the days of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Yanukovych was competing with pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, who was poisoned by dioxin during the campaign. Manafort was asked to save Yanukovych’s campaign.

He was kept around to help improve Yanukovych’s image and get him close to Obama. Manafort described his role in Ukraine as helping align Yanukovych and his administration with Western interests. “The role that I played in that administration was to help bring Ukraine into Europe, and we did,” Manafort said. “We succeeded.” Manafort worked in Ukraine under the umbrella of his lobbying firm, Davis Manafort & Freeman, Inc. He worked with a group of American political advisers in Ukraine, including expat Philip Griffin, top John McCain adviser Richard H. Davis, and former Ronald Reagan advance man Rick Ahearn. “I am not here just for the election,” Manafort said in 2007 in Ukraine. “I am trying to play a constructive role in developing a democracy. I am helping to build a political party.”

Flynn

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

Now we come to Trump’s latest favorite, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Rumors were swirling that he would be the VP pick, but that looks unlikely now. People started digging into his background and that didn’t go well.

First off, he’s a Democrat. On the good side, he was fired because he spoke out against radical Islam. But other than that, this guy is bad news.

Flynn, who is a former Defense Intelligence Agency chief, also favors Russia heavily and is advising Trump on foreign policy. Can I just ask, is there anyone that Trump has selected that isn’t pro-Russian? He’s not a supporter of Israel… he’s leaning pro-abortion and for same-sex marriage as well. Last time I looked, these were not conservative stances.

From FoundersCode.com:

Flynn raised eyebrows among some US foreign policy veterans when he was pictured sitting at the head table with Putin at a banquet in Moscow late last year celebrating Russia Today, an international broadcasting network funded by the Russian government. Flynn told Russia Today in an interview published on Dec. 10 that the United States and Russia should work together to resolve the Syrian civil war and defeat Islamic State.

The Obama administration has protested Russia’s military intervention on behalf of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, accusing Moscow of hitting opposition forces rather than ISIS.

Flynn has been advising Trump on foreign policy issues since at least February and has previously hinted that he’d be open to taking the No. 2 job. And an early July Politico piece described him as “Trump’s favorite general.”

Flynn has an odd affection for Russia and its authoritarian government. He has spent much of his time since retirement cozying up to the Putin regime and he’s a frequent guest on its English-language propaganda channel, RT.

Flynn’s argument supporting Russia takes their claim that it is fighting “terrorists” in Syria at face value, when in reality Russia’s intervention is aimed at propping up dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Russian bombs have actually targeted US-aligned Syrian rebels and have directed a relatively small percentage of munitions toward ISIS.

From RT:

Americans must understand that Russia also has a foreign policy and a national security strategy, and that Moscow launched the campaign against ISIS in Syria after its “unstated red lines were crossed,” retired US Lieutenant General Michael Flynn told RT.

Russia and the US have to work together in their fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), and an international coalition needs to be brought together to facilitate this, said Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

In reality, what is going on here is that Russia is using ISIS to do its dirty work and the US is being used and played for a fool.

From Cliff Kincaid:

The term “military intelligence” is mostly a reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), whose former director, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has come under fire for his close relationship with the Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel.

AIM was the first to report that Flynn, after stepping down from DIA, went to Moscow to participate in the 10th anniversary celebration of the Moscow-funded and English-language channel known to its critics as KGB-TV. He sat at a dinner table with Putin and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan.

In a major embarrassment for Flynn, a recent article in Politico by Michael Crowley cited Flynn’s relationship with RT as “the most intriguing example of how the Russians have gone about recruiting disaffected members” of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment.

The term “recruiting” suggests using Flynn for anti-American propaganda purposes.

Crowley, senior foreign policy writer at Politico, said that Flynn’s attendance at the RT gala, which also included remarks on world affairs, “appeared to inaugurate a relationship with the network—presumably a paid one, though neither Flynn nor RT answered queries on the subject. Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst, in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war.”

In addition to his relationship with RT, Flynn has described himself as an informal adviser to Trump, who already has several pro-Russian aides and advisers.

“We weren’t focused on Russia when I came in three years ago because we were still trying to cast a paradigm that brought Russia into the fold of Western values,” said Breedlove, in an attempt to explain why the Pentagon was caught off-guard by Russia. He said, “Russia chose a different path or they were on that path and we didn’t recognize it.”

What he is describing is a massive intelligence failure that could stem from the work of agents of influence for Russia, or actual Russian spies.

Trump, however, continues to preach cooperation with Russia.

The scope of the intelligence failure regarding Russia was addressed recently by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who admitted to CNN’s Jake Tapper on April 12 that the U.S. government has badly “misjudged” the intentions of Putin “for many, many years.” He declared, “The biggest intelligence failure that we have had since 9/11 has been the inability to predict the leadership plans and intentions of the Putin regime in Russia.”

After the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, Rep. Nunes noted, the U.S. continued to engage diplomatically with the Russians, and “we continued to talk to the Russians, and then they invaded Eastern Ukraine.” “We missed that,” he said. “And then we completely missed entirely when they put a new base, a new base with aircraft into the Mediterranean, into Syria. We just missed it. We were blind.”

While Trump’s speech was given to an audience of foreign policy experts, including Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak — who was sitting in the front row — the former DIA director’s pro-Moscow actions and statements are also generating controversy. The Politico article on Flynn’s visit to Moscow said, “At a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putin’s table startled current and former members of the Obama administration. “

Politico’s Michael Crowley quoted a former Pentagon official as saying about Flynn, “It was extremely odd that he showed up in a tuxedo to the Russian government propaganda arm’s party.”

Flynn is a strongman that Trump would use for law and order, not only abroad, but here at home. Not good.

Conclusion

In closing, I will just ask Americans this… do you really think someone so deeply tied to Russia, a stone-cold enemy, should be president? For eight years we have been led by an enemy within. With the choices we have from both parties currently, we are poised to elect an even greater enemy from within… and many so-called conservatives are cheering it.

All you have to do is connect the dots. Look at Trump’s connections. Putin is not our friend. He wants to bring us down. If he can do it from within the US, that would be his ideal scene. If he has to weaken us to the point of invasion, he’ll go for that as well. Trump’s Russian connections are beyond alarming… they are existential in nature. The failures in the intelligence community regarding Russia and the alleged penetration of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment by Russian agents seem like topics that need to be addressed by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. They certainly should be addressed when selecting a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unless of course, you relish learning Russian or Chinese.

06/30/16

Who’s Behind the Bloodbath in Turkey?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Turkey

Apologists for Vladimir Putin, including his propaganda channel Russia Today (RT), have been telling us for months that Turkey has been facilitating and even funding the global Islamic terrorist group ISIS. But the carnage at the Istanbul, Turkey, airport, apparently carried out by ISIS, demonstrates this is a big lie. ISIS is doing Russia’s dirty work in targeting the only Muslim and Middle Eastern country that is a member of NATO.

This would not have been the first time that ISIS had attacked Turkey. In fact, a suicide bomber who struck a busy tourist area in central Istanbul on Saturday, March 19 was also an ISIS terrorist.

But there’s also the possibility that the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist organization also known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, was behind the attack. The PKK has killed thousands of people in Turkey, and has bombed or attacked the country’s tourism industry, hospitals and businesses.

Incredibly, in a scandal that could turn into another Benghazi, it has been confirmed that President Obama’s administration is arming the Democratic Union Party (PYD)—a branch of the PKK—supposedly to fight ISIS. But the PYD’s increasing consolidation of power in northern Syria could pose a military threat to Turkey.

Turkey, a long-time NATO member, is caught in the middle between ISIS and the PKK, while Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan says Obama’s support for the PYD is helping to create a “sea of blood” in the region.

In addition to sponsoring International Coalition military attacks on ISIS from its own Incirlik Airbase, Turkey is the only Muslim country that belongs to NATO. Since the days of the old Soviet Union, Russia has hated NATO and has wanted to see it abolished. During the Cold War, American nuclear weapons were deployed in Turkey to counter the Soviet/Russian threat.

The timing of this terrorist attack was significant. The NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government in Warsaw, Poland is scheduled to begin on July 8.

If it turns out that another terrorist group carried out the attack, such as the PKK, that would not be surprising either. Turkish President Erdogan has directly accused Russia of providing anti-aircraft weaponry and rockets to the PKK. “At this moment, terrorists are using anti-aircraft guns and missiles supplied by Russia,” Erdogan recently said. “The separatist terrorist organization is equipped with these weapons. They have been transferred to them via Syria and Iraq.” These charges followed revelations that the PKK used a Russian-made shoulder-launched missile to down a Turkish helicopter.

Retired Turkish diplomat Murat Bilhan, who served in Moscow, noted, “The PKK had an office in Russia and from time to time it received assistance and support from Russia in the 1990s; Russia never considered PKK as a terrorist organization.”

Indeed, the PKK was another one of the “liberation movements” started by the old Soviet intelligence service, the KGB.

Turkish commentator Burhanettin Duran noted that Obama’s support for the PYD “continues to strain ties between Turkey and the United States.” He added, “A recent visit to Kobani by U.S. special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS (DAESH), Brett McGurk, where he accepted gifts from a former PKK member who now serves in the PYD leadership, took the crisis to the next level…To make matters worse, State Department spokesman John Kirby stated at least twice that the United States would continue working with the PYD, which the U.S. does not consider to be a terrorist group.” He went on to say that McGurk offered “to protect Turkey against the PKK,” but that he “came out in favor of strengthening the PYD’s armed People’s Protection Units (YPG) even after President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an openly asked the administration to choose between Turkey and the PYD.”

The New York Times has been slow to acknowledge the scandal that is developing with another Obama administration policy in the Middle East. However, the paper did run astory in February that Turkish President Erdogan “called into question the American commitment to fighting terrorist groups in Syria and cited Washington’s failure to recognize a Syrian Kurdish rebel group as a terrorist organization.” That group was the PYD. “Are you on our side or the side of the terrorist PYD and PKK organizations?” Erdogan asked.

At the State Department’s daily press briefing on February 8, spokesman John Kirby said, “…we don’t, as you know, recognize the PYD as a terrorist organization. We recognize that the Turks do, and I understand that. Even the best of friends aren’t going to agree on everything.”

During testimony before a Senate panel, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said “yes” when asked by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whether the PYD and its militia force, the YPG, were aligned with the PKK. The Reuters news agency noted that Graham had said, “We are arming people inside of Syria who are aligned with a terrorist group: That is the finding of the Turkish government.”

Isn’t that a variation of the pro-terrorist policy that led to the Benghazi massacre?


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

06/25/16

Leftists Find a Socialist They Don’t Like

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

SPLC

Fresh from their attendance at the Left Forum gathering of socialists and communists in New York, officials of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have finally found a socialist they can hate: Brexit murder suspect Thomas Mair, the alleged killer of British MP Jo Cox. The SPLC says Mair has been linked to the “once-prominent American neo-Nazi group” known as the National Alliance.

But strangely enough, the SPLC neglected to mention that William Pierce, the head of the National Alliance, was also the editor of a publication called National Socialist World.

The SPLC seems to believe there is a significant moral difference between socialism based on race—the Nazi version—and socialism based on class, the Marxist version. Otherwise, why would they find one form objectionable and the other worthy of a conference featuring Evelyn Schlatter, deputy director of research of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project?

In fact, however, Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism was based on Marxism. “In public,” notes George Watson, author of The Lost Literature of Socialism, “Hitler was always anti-Marxist…” However, Watson notes that Hitler privately “acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition” and stated explicitly that “I have learned a great deal from Marxism…” Watson cites the book, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, by Otto Wagener, who was Hitler’s economic advisor.

In the case of the British Brexit attacker, who allegedly killed Cox because she favored keeping Britain in the European Union, the SPLC cites the  British press in saying that Nazi regalia and literature, including a manual with instructions on building a pistol, were found after searching Mair’s home.

All of this is very disturbing. The neo-Nazi movement here and abroad is full of dangerous characters. But years before the SPLC advertised itself as an authority on such groups as the neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, the FBI was monitoring and even infiltrating these groups. Leftist objections to government “surveillance” forced the FBI to curtail the monitoring of extremists.

The FBI used to infiltrate the far-right and the far-left, including such groups as the Weather Underground of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. A Weather Underground bomb factory discovered by the FBI in San Francisco in 1971 turned up bombs, killing instruments, and communist literature, including books by Lenin and Mao.

And yet, the SPLC’s “Teaching Tolerance” project ran an article praising Bill Ayers, who never repented for his crimes, as a “civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher and author.” It also claimed he had become “a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education.”

President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has refused to prosecute Ayers and/or Dohrn for their alleged involvement in the bombing murder of San Francisco police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell in 1970. Dohrn has adamantly denied involvement in the bombing.

The softball treatment of Ayers and Dohrn demonstrates that the media’s designated “experts” on right-wing extremism have a big blind spot. In fact, the SPLC helped inspire an actual terrorist attack on the Washington, D.C. offices of the conservative Christian Family Research Council (FRC). This occurred after a homosexual militant discovered the location of the FRC on an SPLC “hate map.” A security guard was wounded before he took down the attacker.

Using Thomas Mair and his link to the National Alliance in their latest successful attempt to drum up some favorable media attention, the SPLC says Pierce turned the group into the most dangerous and best organized neo-Nazi formation in America. But it is not considered very significant these days. By contrast, as demonstrated by the thousands in attendance at the recent Left Forum in New York, the organized pro-communist movement, which is based on Marxism, is very much alive. Yet the SPLC mixes among and with them.

What’s more, some groups in the U.S. today considered to be pro-white are aligned with the Russian government of Vladimir Putin and his one-time influential adviser, Alexander Dugin. In fact, former KKK leader David Duke once traveled to Russia and met with Dugin.

Interestingly, the Charleston church shooter, Dylann Roof, had declared in his alleged manifesto, that “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the Internet,” when it came to racist support groups for his planned massacre of black people. The drug-abusing 21-year-old was complaining about a lack of organized support for his views. But the SPLC tried to transform Roof into a global right-wing terrorist by linking him, without any substantial evidence, to a “worldwide white supremacist movement.”

An Internet search by Carrie Devorah determined that Roof’s website was hosted by a Russian server. This was the only evidence of an international connection to the massacre.

Nevertheless, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, was invited to address “the scope of radicalization, and assess what steps can be taken to mitigate the rise of terror via lone wolf attacks and organized terrorist plots” in a June 23 hearing conducted by the Subcommittees on National Security and Government Operations of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In his testimony, Cohen mentioned how he had previously testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security and had served on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.

He said, “We must ensure that the government’s attention to the threat of Islamic extremism does not cause it to fail to devote the resources necessary to combat homegrown violent extremism based on other ideologies.” He added that “All forms of extremist violence are dangerous to our nation and must be vigorously confronted.”

But there was no mention of whether these “other ideologies” included Marxist groups like the ones the SPLC associated with at the Left Forum, or whether “extremist violence” from Marxist-oriented groups is a potential problem.

One of the participants in the Left Forum was pro-terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart, freed from prison by the Obama administration.

As we noted previously, the SPLC employs the tactic of “partisan tolerance,” meaning that the conservatives who want to protect America and its allies from Islamic terrorists, or even from Russian aggression, have become, in their eyes, the problem.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

05/19/16

Dopes, Doping, and the Russian-Iranian Nuclear Threat

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Russia

The Russians have been doping their athletes, but we are the dopes. In a scandal worse than failing to deal with ISIS, the Obama administration has been caught facilitating the nuclear buildups of Russia and Iran. The lives of millions of Americans and Israelis hang in the balance.

Playing a pivotal role over the years in America’s decline and the rapid rise of Russia and China stands Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state who met for an hour with Donald J. Trump on Wednesday. Kissinger has also served as a “tutor” to Hillary Clinton in foreign affairs. “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” Mrs. Clinton remarked during one of the Democratic debates.

What some conservatives have cynically called the “invisible government,” as represented by the Council on Foreign Relations and such figures as Kissinger, seems well-positioned to come out on top in November no matter who wins.

Continue reading

04/30/16

Trump Promises “Peace in Our Time”

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Trump

David Horowitz has decided to throw in the towel in the presidential contest. The former New Leftist turned conservative activist and deep thinker has apparently concluded that Donald J. Trump will be the GOP nominee and that conservatives have to rally behind him. But one strange omission in Trump’s “reassuring” speech continues to cause controversy and reverberations around the world. Trump failed to even mention Russian aggression in Ukraine.

How could Trump not mention the one country in Europe, Ukraine, which has been recently invaded by Russian forces and a part of which is under foreign occupation? Even if you are so callous as not to care about the freedom of the people of Ukraine, what about the fact that this is the country in which pro-Russian forces fired a missile that brought down a civilian airliner, Malaysian flight MH17, killing all 283 passengers on board? The blood on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s hands was apparent when his nationvetoed a United Nations proposal to prosecute the perpetrators.

No wonder Trump boasted that Putin has called him a genius. The New York businessman can sound tough while articulating a policy of pandering to, and appeasement of, Russia. And some conservatives are buying it. This is not genius but deliberate deception.

Continue reading

04/28/16

Trump’s Incoherent, Inconsistent, Russian-Loving Foreign Policy

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Trump Foreign

Far be it from me to agreed with a Marxist, but CNN’s Fareed Zakaria did a great job listing just how incoherent and inconsistent Donald Trump’s foreign policy is.

He listed everything except for the gem where Trump touted that 9/11 was a tragedy because Italians died in it.

Trump used a prepared speech and teleprompters yesterday. He mispronounced ‘Tasmania’ and stumbled left and right. He talked about reducing weapon stockpiles. He talked about not getting in further conflicts, but he would still defeat ISIS. That makes no sense. He chooses a slogan of ‘America First!’ that was a slogan in the 1930’s for the Nazis in America to keep us from fighting the Germans. No one knows how to use Google in the Trump camp evidently. He also talks about the Cold War ending… it never did… it shifted. Trump’s speech was a disaster all in itself.

My friend Denise Simon noted several things yesterday… I have no doubt that Donald Trump is firmly in bed with Russia. He had the Russian Ambassador sitting in the front row of his speech. He has a campaign manager who represented Russian interests. He has foreign policy advisers that are friendly to Russia. Trump himself is fond of Putin and can ‘negotiate’ with him. You see, Trump is even more flexible than Obama was.

Continue reading