Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Pilger
- This topic has 12 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 17, 2017 at 11:25 am #63739wvParticipant
by John Pilger
On the day President Trump is inaugurated, thousands of writers in the United States will express their indignation. “In order for us to heal and move forward …,” say Writers Resist, “we wish to bypass direct political discourse, in favour of an inspired focus on the future, and how we, as writers, can be a unifying force for the protection of democracy.”
And: “We urge local organizers and speakers to avoid using the names of politicians or adopting ‘anti’ language as the focus for their Writers Resist event. It’s important to ensure that nonprofit organizations, which are prohibited from political campaigning, will feel confident participating in and sponsoring these events.”
Thus, real protest is to be avoided, for it is not tax exempt.
Compare such drivel with the declarations of the Congress of American Writers, held at Carnegie Hall, New York, in 1935, and again two years later. They were electric events, with writers discussing how they could confront ominous events in Abyssinia, China and Spain. Telegrams from Thomas Mann, C Day Lewis, Upton Sinclair and Albert Einstein were read out, reflecting the fear that great power was now rampant and that it had become impossible to discuss art and literature without politics or, indeed, direct political action.
“A writer,” the journalist Martha Gellhorn told the second congress, “must be a man of action now . . . A man who has given a year of his life to steel strikes, or to the unemployed, or to the problems of racial prejudice, has not lost or wasted time. He is a man who has known where he belonged. If you should survive such action, what you have to say about it afterwards is the truth, is necessary and real, and it will last.”
Her words echo across the unction and violence of the Obama era and the silence of those who colluded with his deceptions.
That the menace of rapacious power — rampant long before the rise of Trump — has been accepted by writers, many of them privileged and celebrated, and by those who guard the gates of literary criticism, and culture, including popular culture, is uncontroversial. Not for them the impossibility of writing and promoting literature bereft of politics. Not for them the responsibility to speak out, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Today, false symbolism is all. “Identity” is all. In 2016, Hillary Clinton stigmatised millions of voters as “a basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it”. Her abuse was handed out at an LGBT rally as part of her cynical campaign to win over minorities by abusing a white mostly working-class majority. Divide and rule, this is called; or identity politics in which race and gender conceal class, and allow the waging of class war. Trump understood this.
“When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident poet Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.”
This is not an American phenomenon. A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that “for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life”.
No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today. Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice. Among today’s insistent voices of consumer-feminism, none echoes Virginia Woolf, who described “the arts of dominating other people… of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital”.
There is something both venal and profoundly stupid about famous writers as they venture outside their cosseted world and embrace an “issue”. Across the Review section of the Guardian on 10 December was a dreamy picture of Barack Obama looking up to the heavens and the words, “Amazing Grace” and “Farewell the Chief”.
The sycophancy ran like a polluted babbling brook through page after page. “He was a vulnerable figure in many ways …. But the grace. The all-encompassing grace: in manner and form, in argument and intellect, with humour and cool ….[He] is a blazing tribute to what has been, and what can be again … He seems ready to keep fighting, and remains a formidable champion to have on our side … … The grace … the almost surreal levels of grace …”
I have conflated these quotes. There are others even more hagiographic and bereft of mitigation. The Guardian’s chief apologist for Obama, Gary Younge, has always been careful to mitigate, to say that his hero “could have done more”: oh, but there were the “calm, measured and consensual solutions …”
None of them, however, could surpass the American writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the recipient of a “genius” grant worth $625,000 from a liberal foundation. In an interminable essay for The Atlantic entitled, “My President Was Black”, Coates brought new meaning to prostration. The final “chapter”, entitled “When You Left, You Took All of Me With You”, a line from a Marvin Gaye song, describes seeing the Obamas “rising out of the limo, rising up from fear, smiling, waving, defying despair, defying history, defying gravity”. The Ascension, no less.
One of the persistent strands in American political life is a cultish extremism that approaches fascism. This was given expression and reinforced during the two terms of Barack Obama. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Obama, who expanded America’s favourite military pastime, bombing, and death squads (“special operations”) as no other president has done since the Cold War.
According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 alone Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day. He bombed the poorest people on earth, in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.
Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the “terrorist target”. A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama’s drones killed 4,700 people. “Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that,” he said, but we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda.”
Like the fascism of the 1930s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent media whose description now fits that of the Nuremberg prosecutor: “Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically … In the propaganda system … it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.
Take the catastrophe in Libya. In 2011, Obama said Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi was planning “genocide” against his own people. “We knew… that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”
This was the known lie of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. It became the media story; and Nato – led by Obama and Hillary Clinton – launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that “most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten”.
Under Obama, the US has extended secret “special forces” operations to 138 countries, or 70 per cent of the world’s population. The first African-American president launched what amounted to a full-scale invasion of Africa. Reminiscent of the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, the US African Command (Africom) has built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for American bribes and armaments. Africom’s “soldier to soldier” doctrine embeds US officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.
It is as if Africa’s proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, is consigned to oblivion by a new master’s black colonial elite whose “historic mission”, warned Frantz Fanon half a century ago, is the promotion of “a capitalism rampant though camouflaged”.
It was Obama who, in 2011, announced what became known as the “pivot to Asia”, in which almost two-thirds of US naval forces would be transferred to the Asia-Pacific to “confront China”, in the words of his Defence Secretary. There was no threat from China; the entire enterprise was unnecessary. It was an extreme provocation to keep the Pentagon and its demented brass happy.
In 2014, the Obama’s administration oversaw and paid for a fascist-led coup in Ukraine against the democratically-elected government, threatening Russia in the western borderland through Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, with a loss of 27 million lives. It was Obama who placed missiles in Eastern Europe aimed at Russia, and it was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who increased spending on nuclear warheads to a level higher than that of any administration since the cold war — having promised, in an emotional speech in Prague, to “help rid the world of nuclear weapons”.
Obama, the constitutional lawyer, prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president in history, even though the US constitution protects them. He declared Chelsea Manning guilty before the end of a trial that was a travesty. He has refused to pardon Manning who has suffered years of inhumane treatment which the UN says amounts to torture. He has pursued an entirely bogus case against Julian Assange. He promised to close the Guantanamo concentration camp and didn’t.
Following the public relations disaster of George W. Bush, Obama, the smooth operator from Chicago via Harvard, was enlisted to restore what he calls “leadership” throughout the world. The Nobel Prize committee’s decision was part of this: the kind of cloying reverse racism that beatified the man for no reason other than he was attractive to liberal sensibilities and, of course, American power, if not to the children he kills in impoverished, mostly Muslim countries.
This is the Call of Obama. It is not unlike a dog whistle: inaudible to most, irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded, especially “liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics,” as Luciana Bohne put it. “When Obama walks into a room,” gushed George Clooney, “you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere.”
William I. Robinson, professor at the University of California, and one of an uncontaminated group of American strategic thinkers who have retained their independence during the years of intellectual dog-whistling since 9/11, wrote this last week:
“President Barack Obama … may have done more than anyone to assure [Donald] Trump’s victory. While Trump’s election has triggered a rapid expansion of fascist currents in US civil society, a fascist outcome for the political system is far from inevitable …. But that fight back requires clarity as to how we got to such a dangerous precipice. The seeds of 21st century fascism were planted, fertilized and watered by the Obama administration and the politically bankrupt liberal elite.”
Robinson points out that “whether in its 20th or its emerging 21st century variants, fascism is, above all, a response to deep structural crises of capitalism, such as that of the 1930s and the one that began with the financial meltdown in 2008 …. There is a near-straight line here from Obama to Trump … The liberal elite’s refusal to challenge the rapaciousness of transnational capital and its brand of identity politics served to eclipse the language of the working and popular classes … pushing white workers into an ‘identity’ of white nationalism and helping the neo-fascists to organise them”..
The seedbed is Obama’s Weimar Republic, a landscape of endemic poverty, militarised police and barbaric prisons: the consequence of a “market” extremism which, under his presidency, prompted the transfer of $14 trillion in public money to criminal enterprises in Wall Street.
Perhaps his greatest “legacy” is the co-option and disorientation of any real opposition. Bernie Sanders’ specious “revolution” does not apply. Propaganda is his triumph.
The lies about Russia — in whose elections the US has openly intervened — have made the world’s most self-important journalists laughing stocks. In the country with constitutionally the freest press in the world, free journalism now exists only in its honourable exceptions.
The obsession with Trump is a cover for many of those calling themselves “left/liberal”, as if to claim political decency. They are not “left”, neither are they especially “liberal”. Much of America’s aggression towards the rest of humanity has come from so-called liberal Democratic administrations — such as Obama’s. America’s political spectrum extends from the mythical centre to the lunar right. The “left” are homeless renegades Martha Gellhorn described as “a rare and wholly admirable fraternity”. She excluded those who confuse politics with a fixation on their navels.
While they “heal” and “move forward”, will the Writers Resist campaigners and other anti-Trumpists reflect upon this? More to the point: when will a genuine movement of opposition arise? Angry, eloquent, all-for-one-and-one-for all. Until real politics return to people’s lives, the enemy is not Trump, it is ourselves.
January 17, 2017 at 3:23 pm #63761ZooeyModeratorSure. Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. I started to read Coates’ piece in The Atlantic, and made it about 6 or 7 paragraphs into it, and just couldn’t take it.
I love this line: “liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics.”
January 17, 2017 at 3:50 pm #63767wvParticipantSure. Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. I started to read Coates’ piece in The Atlantic, and made it about 6 or 7 paragraphs into it, and just couldn’t take it.
I love this line: “liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics.”
————
You mean the thought of Obama doesn’t make you break out in Marvin Gaye songs?“…None of them, however, could surpass the American writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the recipient of a “genius” grant worth $625,000 from a liberal foundation. In an interminable essay for The Atlantic entitled, “My President Was Black”, Coates brought new meaning to prostration. The final “chapter”, entitled “When You Left, You Took All of Me With You”, a line from a Marvin Gaye song, describes seeing the Obamas “rising out of the limo, rising up from fear, smiling, waving, defying despair, defying history, defying gravity”. The Ascension, no less….”
w
vJanuary 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm #63769wvParticipantlink:https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/15/the-beatification-of-barack-obama/
…
….Obama has carried out 10x more drone strikes than Bush ever did. Every Tuesday a military aide presents Obama with a “kill list”, and the “decent, gracious” Obama picks a few names off a list…and kills them. And their families. And their neighbours. These illegal acts of state-sanctioned murder have killed hundreds of civilians in 5 different countries in 2016 alone. The only reason that number isn’t higher, is that the Obama administration re-classified all males over 18 as combatants, regardless of occupation.
After declaring he wanted to build a “nuclear free world”, Obama committed to spending $1 TRILLION dollars on rebuilding America’s nuclear weapons.
Under Obama, the NSA et al. were able to spy on, essentially, the whole world. When this was revealed, not a single intelligence officer or government official was prosecuted. Instead…
Obama’s administration declared a “war on whistleblowers”, enacting new laws and initiating what they call the “Insider Threat Program”. Manning was prosecuted, Snowden sent into exile and Assange was set-up, discredited and (they hoped) extradited. It has never been more dangerous to be a government whistle-blower, than under Barack Obama
In terms of foreign policy, despite his press-created and non-sensical reputation as a non-interventionist, American Special Forces are currently operating in over 70% of the world’s 195 countries. The great lie is that, where Bush was a warmonger, Obama has sought to avoid conflict. The truth is that Obama, in the grand tradition of the CIA and American Imperial power, has simply turned all America’s wars into covert wars.
Before Obama came into office, Libya was the richest and most developed nation in Africa. It is now a hell-hole. Destroyed by war, hollowed-out by corruption. The “liberal” press allow him to agonise over this as his “greatest mistake”, and then gently pardon him for his good intentions. The truth is that Libya was not a mistake, or a misjudgment, or an unforeseen consequence. Libya is exactly what America wanted it to become. A failed state where everything is for sale, a base to pour illegal CIA weapons south into Africa and east into the ME. When war is your economy, chaos is good for business. When secrecy is your weapon, anarchy is ammunition. Libya went according to plan. A brutal plan that killed 100,000s and destroyed the lives of millions more. Libya, like Iraq, is a neocon success story. Syria on the other hand…
Syria, probably the word that will follow Obama out of office as “Iraq” did his predecessor, is a total failure. Both of stated intent and covert goals. Where the press will mourn Obama’s “indecisive nature” and wish he’d “used his big stick”, the real story is one of evil incompetence, so great that it would be almost comical…if it hadn’t destroyed an ancient seat of civilisation and killed 100,000s of people. Syria (along with Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Iran and Sudan) was on the list of the 7 countries America intended to destroy, famously “leaked” by General Wesley Clark. After the fall of Libya, Syria was (essentially) surrounded by American military on all sides. Iraq, Israel, Turkey and America operating out of Libya could pour “freedom fighters” into Syria to bring down “the regime”. When that didn’t work they deployed the trusty “WMD” method, to demand “humanitarian intervention”…the Russians saw that off. Then “ISIS” was created by the CIA, as al-Qaida were before them, and their manufactured barbarism was used as a pretext for invasion. The Russians, again, saw to it that this would not happen.
Perhaps in the hope of distracting Russia from the ME, or perhaps merely as a short-sighted punitive measure, the Obama’s administration next foreign policy target was Ukraine. Victoria Nuland’s own voice proves how much that “color revolution” was an American creation. Ukraine is broke, even more broke than it was, its people starve and freeze through the winter. The new “democratic government” has shelled 10,000 people to death in the East of the country….using American weapons.
In Yemen, the poorest country in the ME is being bombed to shreds by the richest….again, using American (and British) weapons. Obama’s “defense of democracy” doesn’t extend to criticising, or even discussing, the abhorrent Human Rights record of America’s Saudi Arabian allies, and in an act of brazen hypocrisy, even supported their chairing of the Human Rights Council of the UN.January 17, 2017 at 4:13 pm #63770Billy_TParticipantI agree with some of that article, but I think Pilger, just like so many recent articles from assorted lefties, makes several strange leaps in logic and aims his rhetorical guns on the oddest targets.
George Clooney? Really? That’s like what we heard from so many voices on the right during the Bush years, when they’d pick some nugget from a talk show host and hold it up as somehow representative of “the left.”
Or Oates? To me, if a black writer wants to say good things about Obama, the first black president, after 43 white guys, many of whom owned slaves, I can’t get worked up about it. Sorry.
I also find it bizarre that he picks a fight with the Writers Resist group. Me? I’m damn happy to see any kind of vocalized rejection of Trump. Would I rather see this as an across the board rebellion against mass inequality and the capitalist system? Definitely. But some protest is better than “shut up and clap louder,” and that seems to be what Pilger would prefer, when it comes to Trump’s coronation.
Beyond that, isn’t Pilger guilty of the same thing he says “liberals” are doing? Isn’t he all too narrow in his own focus? Where is the broad-based class analysis of our government, which would certainly have to include Republicans, including Trump? Did Obama do all of these things all by himself? Did he start these Deep State assaults? All I see is him lashing out at one part of the monstrosity, while ignoring the other and worse part — and, by extension, suggesting we just shut up about Trump altogether. Cuz, well, apparently, according to some leftists, being critical of Russia, Trump and white supremacy is a sign of pickled brains.
January 17, 2017 at 4:19 pm #63771Billy_TParticipantI just don’t get it. Pilger gives great reasons for condemning the duopoly and I agree with them. At the same time, he’s mocking the idea of condemning the incoming duopolist who is highly likely to be even worse. In fact, there’s no doubt in my mind about that.
So, again, it would be awesome if people would blast the entire duopoly and the Deep State behind it, along with the economic system they protect and defend. Ironically, Pilger doesn’t. He goes after only one part of it too, while condemning others who do the same.
They just have different targets.
January 17, 2017 at 4:23 pm #63772wvParticipantI agree with some of that article, but I think Pilger, just like so many recent articles from assorted lefties, makes several strange leaps in logic and aims his rhetorical guns on the oddest targets.
George Clooney? Really? That’s like what we heard from so many voices on the right during the Bush years, when they’d pick some nugget from a talk show host and hold it up as somehow representative of “the left.”
Or Oates? To me, if a black writer wants to say good things about Obama, the first black president, after 43 white guys, many of whom owned slaves, I can’t get worked up about it. Sorry.
I also find it bizarre that he picks a fight with the Writers Resist group. Me? I’m damn happy to see any kind of vocalized rejection of Trump. Would I rather see this as an across the board rebellion against mass inequality and the capitalist system? Definitely. But some protest is better than “shut up and clap louder,” and that seems to be what Pilger would prefer, when it comes to Trump’s coronation.
Beyond that, isn’t Pilger guilty of the same thing he says “liberals” are doing? Isn’t he all too narrow in his own focus? Where is the broad-based class analysis of our government, which would certainly have to include Republicans, including Trump? Did Obama do all of these things all by himself? Did he start these Deep State assaults? All I see is him lashing out at one part of the monstrosity, while ignoring the other and worse part — and, by extension, suggesting we just shut up about Trump altogether. Cuz, well, apparently, according to some leftists, being critical of Russia, Trump and white supremacy is a sign of pickled brains.
—————–
My own view is that i agree with everything Pilger says about Obama,
but over the last couple months I’ve found him to be too cozy with Trump.To me, saying Obama is a mass murderer is accurate. Same with Bush. Same with Clinton. Same with Reagan. Etc.
But for some reason Pilger sometimes writes like he thinks Trump will be different. I think Trump will be the same or worse.
w
vJanuary 17, 2017 at 4:31 pm #63773Billy_TParticipantI also find this sad. Several of the writers who have tried to tell us “it’s not Trump” have a strong rep for excellent journalism and analysis. Pilger included. But something about Trump and recent events seems to have just knocked them for a loop. They don’t seem capable of doing the logical thing for a leftist:
Oppose the right and uphold the left’s traditional championing of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. And fight against inequality. Push hard for equality and social justice.
It’s really that simple. Oppose the right and fight for social justice.
The Dems are essentially a center-right party, and they do very little about social justice issues or inequality.
But the GOP is, empirically, in reality, far worse on those issues and even further to the right.
So what does logic suggest? That leftists attack the lesser or the two evils, only? Um, no. Does logic suggest leftists attack the lesser of the two evils when it’s condemning the greater of the two? Um, no.
It suggests leftists go after BOTH of them and do so in a manner that syncs up with their respective actions.
That’s not what I’m seeing from writers like Pilger.
Seems like Trump has made everyone lose their shit.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
January 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm #63774Billy_TParticipantI agree with some of that article, but I think Pilger, just like so many recent articles from assorted lefties, makes several strange leaps in logic and aims his rhetorical guns on the oddest targets.
George Clooney? Really? That’s like what we heard from so many voices on the right during the Bush years, when they’d pick some nugget from a talk show host and hold it up as somehow representative of “the left.”
Or Oates? To me, if a black writer wants to say good things about Obama, the first black president, after 43 white guys, many of whom owned slaves, I can’t get worked up about it. Sorry.
I also find it bizarre that he picks a fight with the Writers Resist group. Me? I’m damn happy to see any kind of vocalized rejection of Trump. Would I rather see this as an across the board rebellion against mass inequality and the capitalist system? Definitely. But some protest is better than “shut up and clap louder,” and that seems to be what Pilger would prefer, when it comes to Trump’s coronation.
Beyond that, isn’t Pilger guilty of the same thing he says “liberals” are doing? Isn’t he all too narrow in his own focus? Where is the broad-based class analysis of our government, which would certainly have to include Republicans, including Trump? Did Obama do all of these things all by himself? Did he start these Deep State assaults? All I see is him lashing out at one part of the monstrosity, while ignoring the other and worse part — and, by extension, suggesting we just shut up about Trump altogether. Cuz, well, apparently, according to some leftists, being critical of Russia, Trump and white supremacy is a sign of pickled brains.
—————–
My own view is that i agree with everything Pilger says about Obama,
but over the last couple months I’ve found him to be too cozy with Trump.To me, saying Obama is a mass murderer is accurate. Same with Bush. Same with Clinton. Same with Reagan. Etc.
But for some reason Pilger sometimes writes like he thinks Trump will be different. I think Trump will be the same or worse.
w
vAgreed. That makes sense.
Also, I’m glad he mentioned William I Robinson. Will look him up, definitely. Had never heard of him and I like that passage.
Also, have read two books by Eagleton. He does a really nice job debunking myths about Marx and Marxism in his Why Marx was Right.
January 17, 2017 at 6:04 pm #63788wvParticipantThat’s not what I’m seeing from writers like Pilger.
Seems like Trump has made everyone lose their shit.
——————
Hillary made them crazy. Thats all i got. Her arrogance, smugness, treatment of Bernie, lying, cheating, warmongering — made a lot of folks ‘lose their shit’ and begin to see Trump as something better.
If its not that, i dunno what it is. I really dont. Trumps a monster. And the thing a lot of folks gloss over is — it aint just trump — its Trump Plus a rightwing Congress and a soon to be Rightwing S.Court.
…I’m waiting for an article titled “They are ALLLL fucking mass-murdering-Monsters.”
w
vJanuary 17, 2017 at 7:23 pm #63791Billy_TParticipantThat’s not what I’m seeing from writers like Pilger.
Seems like Trump has made everyone lose their shit.
——————
Hillary made them crazy. Thats all i got. Her arrogance, smugness, treatment of Bernie, lying, cheating, warmongering — made a lot of folks ‘lose their shit’ and begin to see Trump as something better.
If its not that, i dunno what it is. I really dont. Trumps a monster. And the thing a lot of folks gloss over is — it aint just trump — its Trump Plus a rightwing Congress and a soon to be Rightwing S.Court.
…I’m waiting for an article titled “They are ALLLL fucking mass-murdering-Monsters.”
w
vAgain, we’re on the same page.
And here’s another good example of why it doesn’t really sync up with reality to believe Trump and the GOP will be better on issues leftists traditionally care about:
From Jeremy Scahill, one of the better (and brave) reporters out there . . .
Notorious Mercenary Erik Prince Is Advising Trump From the Shadows— Jeremy Scahill 2017-01-17
Excerpt:
Erik Prince, America’s most notorious mercenary, is lurking in the shadows of the incoming Trump administration. A former senior U.S. official who has advised the Trump transition told The Intercept that Prince has been advising the team on matters related to intelligence and defense, including weighing in on candidates for the defense and state departments. The official asked not to be identified because of a transition policy prohibiting discussion of confidential deliberations.
On election night, Prince’s latest wife, Stacy DeLuke, posted pictures from inside Trump’s campaign headquarters as Donald Trump and Mike Pence watched the returns come in, including a close shot of Pence and Trump with their families. “We know some people who worked closely with [Trump] on his campaign,” DeLuke wrote. “Waiting for the numbers to come in last night. It was well worth the wait!!!! #PresidentTrump2016.” Prince’s sister, billionaire Betsy DeVos, is Trump’s nominee for education secretary and Prince (and his mother) gave large sums of money to a Trump Super PAC.
In July, Prince told Trump’s senior advisor and white supremacist Steve Bannon, at the time head of Breitbart News, that the Trump administration should recreate a version of the Phoenix Program, the CIA assassination ring that operated during the Vietnam War, to fight ISIS. Such a program, Prince said, could kill or capture “the funders of Islamic terror and that would even be the wealthy radical Islamist billionaires funding it from the Middle East, and any of the other illicit activities they’re in.”
. . .
Blaming leftists and some congressional Democrats for destroying his Blackwater empire, Prince clearly views Trump’s vow to bring back torture, CIA-sponsored kidnapping, and enhanced interrogations, as well as his commitment to fill Guantanamo with prisoners, as a golden opportunity to ascend to his rightful place as a covert private warrior for the U.S. national security state. As we reported last year, “Prince — who portrays himself as a mix between Indiana Jones, Rambo, Captain America, and Pope Benedict — is now working with the Chinese government through his latest ‘private security’ firm.” The Trump presidency could result in Prince working for both Beijing and the White House.
(Links to sourcing on the website)
January 18, 2017 at 8:44 am #63821Billy_TParticipantHillary made them crazy. Thats all i got. Her arrogance, smugness, treatment of Bernie, lying, cheating, warmongering — made a lot of folks ‘lose their shit’ and begin to see Trump as something better.
I put another part of your quote in bold earlier, but the above is essential, too. I think you nailed it. Her smears of Bernie, for example, and those by her surrogates, rightfully ticked off most of the left.
Personally, I don’t buy the vast majority of criticism lobbed her way from her right. I think it’s every bit the smear that she lobbed against Sanders. I really can’t think of any valid criticism from Trump, or Breitbart, or Fox News, or any of the usual suspects right of her center-right views — and I don’t trust them to be in the least bit accurate. As was/is the case with Obama, I think the only valid critique of the Dems comes from their left.
But the Clintons are a special case. They’re not “likeable” on a personal level, to go along with their warmongering, neoliberalism, etc. etc. If I remember correctly, WV, you can’t stand Obama on a personal level, either. Me? I actually do like the guy and his family. Can’t stand his policies. But I can separate that from how I see him on that personal level.
The Clintons? It’s both. Can’t stand them on a personal or a policy level. I’m not sure how many others on the left share my views in that way.
January 18, 2017 at 10:25 am #63828wvParticipantIf I remember correctly, WV, you can’t stand Obama on a personal level, either. Me? I actually do like the guy and his family. Can’t stand his policies. But I can separate that from how I see him on that personal level.
The Clintons? It’s both. Can’t stand them on a personal or a policy level. I’m not sure how many others on the left share my views in that way.
———————
Well, i cant even separate the ‘personal’ from the ‘political’ when it comes
to politicians-with-Power. I look at Obama and I just see drones murdering
people. I cant get past that, and i dont want to get past it.w
v -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.