Sections
crisis index
Introduction
1. Allan Nairn: Only Mass Disruption From Below Can Stop
Right-Wing Revolution & Trump's Absolute Power
2. Intelligence Experts to Trump: Rethink Syria Escalation
3. Donald Trump’s Syria Attack Trampled Many Laws
4. With Eyes on 2018, Dems Prep Sanders-Style Populist
Economic Agenda
Introduction:
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, April 13, 2017.
Summary: This is an
ordinary crisis log with four items and
four links: Item 1 is about a good interview by Amy Goodman of Allan Nairn; item 2 is about a memorandum of the VIPS to Trump (which I agree with); item 3 is about how Trump's attack on Syria broke many laws; and item 4
is about how the Democrats are preparing "a Sanders- style populist
economic agenda", that I believe to be mostly fraudulent with the
present pro rich pro banker Democratic leaders.
April 13: As to the
updating
problem:
The Danish site was again
on time today; and even the Dutch site was correct today (but hasn't been correct most of the time for more than 16 months now). These horrors
happen now for the 16th month in
succession.
And I have to
add that about where my site on xs4all.nl stuck for others
I have NO idea AT ALL: It
may
be December
31,
2015. (Xs4all wants immediate
payment if you are a
week behind. Xs4all.nl has been destroying
my site now for over
a year. I completely distrust them, but I also do not
know whether they are doing it or some secret service is.)
1. Allan Nairn: Only Mass Disruption From Below Can Stop Right-Wing Revolution & Trump's Absolute Power
The first article today is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following introduction:
As President Trump’s administration continues to be rocked by
investigations and scandals, we continue our conversation with
award-winning investigative journalist Allan Nairn. We asked him to talk
more about his assessment of the opening months of the Trump
presidency.
To start with, here is a link to Allan Nairn
on Wikipedia. He seems to be - from my classical leftist point of view
[1] - a decent guy, who also got badly beaten up, together with Amy
Goodman, by Indonesian soldiers in 1991.
Here is his first estimate:
ALLAN NAIRN:
It’s not just the Trump presidency. It’s a right-wing revolution, which
has captured control, up to this moment, of the presidency, the House,
part of the Senate and now the Supreme Court. And if they abolish the
legislative filibuster in the Senate, which they may, then they will
have total, absolute control of all branches of government and will
enter a radically new phase beyond anything that’s happened so far,
because there will be absolutely no constraints on what they can do.
Yes, that is how it seems to be to me as well. Here is more on what Trump did:
Trump brought in a collection, a coalition, of broadly rightist
elements—racists, neofascists, the Republican establishment, the Koch
brothers, oligarchs, all sorts of elements with their own very
well-defined agendas for radical change in the U.S. Now, some points of
those agendas clash, so that’s caused some of the problems—for example,
on the repeal of Obamacare. But on 80 percent of things they agree, and
they’re moving forward. They’ve already systematically started repealing
constraints on pollution, constraints on police forces, that have
been—had previously been placed under federal supervision because their
involvement in killing of civilians, often with racist motivations. They
are moving to give Wall Street and corporations complete license to
commit crimes.
I again agree. Here is more:
ALLAN NAIRN: (..) Trump has essentially sent subversives into the Cabinet,
atop the agencies, to dismantle, destroy the agencies. In the words of
Steve Bannon, to—how did he put it? To deconstruct the administrative
state. Gorsuch, the new Supreme Court justice put in by Trump, his
mother, Anne Gorsuch, was Reagan’s EPA
administrator. She was one of two such Cabinet appointees sent in by
Reagan to dismantle their respective departments. The other was the head
of Interior. When I say "dismantle," I mean dismantle all aspects of
their work and regulations that run counter to the interests of
corporations and polluters and may be favorable to the interests of what
are seen as liberal or Democratic interest groups.
Yes, I think this is also correct. And in
Trump's case it aren't just two departments that are ready to be
dismantled: It are most departments. Then again, this may have been due
to the influence of Steve Bannon, who may be on his way out. (But then
again I am reporting very recent facts about Bannon, that may change
again.)
Here is more by Allan Nairn on some of the backgrounds of the Trumpian revolution
Now, with Trump in—and not just Trump, but Trump and the whole radical
Republican rightist establishment—they’re trying to do it with every
department, every department that has within its mission any kind of
service to the poor, service protecting the rights of working people,
protecting the rights of protesters, protecting the rights of women, or
that has within its work any kinds of projects or regulations that
inconvenience corporations and rich oligarchs. This administration is
trying to dismantle those functions of government across the board. It
is systematic. It is sweeping. And Bannon is entirely right when he
makes the claim that it’s revolutionary. You know, he compared himself
to Lenin, kind of a Lenin from the other direction, from the radical
right. And it’s true. They are engaged in a truly revolutionary project.
And it has to be stopped.
I think this is right as well, though I do have a remark: It seems to me that Nairn is correct in saying that it seems to be Trump's "mission" to destroy "any kind of
service to the poor, service protecting the rights of working people,
protecting the rights of protesters, protecting the rights of women, or
that has within its work any kinds of projects or regulations that
inconvenience corporations and rich oligarchs".
Now let's be clear about saying what sort of program that is: It is
authoritarian, it is extremely right-wing, it is quite neofascistic in
my sense, it is anti-democratic,
and it seems to be motivated by two sources, of which one is completely
irrational: The more or less rational source is to try to increase the
gains and profits of
the rich; the quite irrational source seems to be a deep hate against
the poor, against working people, againts protesters, and against
women's rights.
Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this quite good interview:
AMY GOODMAN:
You have an enormous irony, where here you have President Trump
accusing the Obama administration, President Obama himself, of
surveilling him, of wiretapping him, yet, at the same time, in Congress,
they roll back privacy protections, the whole internet privacy act that
has now been written into law. Can you talk about the significance of
this, which would seem to join right and left?
ALLAN NAIRN:
Yeah. I’m actually a little surprised that the—what I guess is
the—maybe the majority of the population, or at least the majority of
younger people in the United States, who essentially live their lives
online, are not completely up in arms about this, are not storming
Washington about this, because what they’ve done is they’ve made it
easier for online private, profit-making corporations to sell the most
intimate details of your life. You’d think people would object to that.
But what it also shows is that much of this new government’s agenda is strictly corporate. Strictly corporate.
Again I agree with Allan Nairn, and I should add that my own explanation for the fact that "the majority of
younger people in the United States" in fact (bolding added) are
"not storming
Washington about this, because (..) they’ve made it
easier for online private, profit-making corporations to sell the most
intimate details of"
their lives, simply because the majority is either not intelligent
enough to understand the enormous dangers of the secret services'
knowing everything about anyone, or - in case they are - they simply do
not know enough about programming (<-Wikipedia) [2].
And I should add here that my attitudes have shifted somewhat since I
learned in June of 2013 about Edward Snowden: At that time I was more
inclined to believe that a strong countermove against the autocratic
anti-democratic secret services would be possible.
Well...I overestimated the intelligence and the knowledge of the
majority. I am sorry and it has happened before (e.g. in 1988). And
this is a very good interview that is recommended.
2. Intelligence Experts to Trump: Rethink Syria Escalation
The second
article is by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on Truthdig, and originally on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?
1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed
hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war.
The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in
retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on
April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.
2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what
happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
READ: The Pandora’s Box of War
3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and—more important—what they appear to believe happened.
And the VIPS agree that - in this case - the
Russians and the Syrians (those for Assad) are probably right, and I
agree with the VIPS. And I agree with the VIPS not because I
am a specialist in intelligence (I am not, while most of them are), but
because I have been following quite a few since 2013, and they seem
reliable and honest, while some of them also were brave, and I do not
know anything comparable about the people who
are still serving in American intelligence.
There is more there that you can read by clicking on the last dotted
link. Here are the general point of view and the general sense of
values that moved the VIPS:
14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations
with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary
[Rex] Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to
stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the
acrimony—particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the
brief history set down above.
15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not
allegations based largely on dubious evidence—from “social media,” for
example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a
summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider
instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early
summit with President Putin.
I agree. There is more in the original, and the memorandum is signed by a long list of names, that includes William Binney, Thomas Drake, Philip Giraldi, John Kiriakou, Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley, Peter Van Buren, and Kirk Wiebe. [3]
3.
Donald Trump’s Syria Attack Trampled Many Laws
The third article is by Marjorie Cohn on Truthdig and originally on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
With 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, each armed with over 1,000 pounds
of explosives, Donald Trump went from scoundrel-in-chief to national
hero, virtually overnight. The corporate media, the neoconservatives and
most of Congress hailed Trump as strong and presidential for lobbing
bombs into Syria, reportedly killing seven civilians and wounding nine.
“The instant elevation of Trump into a serious and respected war
leader was palpable,” wrote Glenn Greenwald. This sends Trump a
frightening message: Bombing makes you popular.
Yes, though I have to add that is not so
much because of Trump as because of the combined force of the
mainstream media plus the average stupidity, ignorance and
lack of ethics in considerable parts of the American population, for if you are stupid
enough to applaud the bombing of defenseless civilians, I think this must be because
you are stupid, ignorant and not moved by ethical considerations (but instead by the
ordinary moral considerations of your very own group).
Here is more by Marjorie Cohn:
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The use of chemical weapons is illegal,
immoral and intolerable. If it was an intentional attack, it constitutes
a war crime. Anyone responsible for the horrific April 4 events in the
Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, which killed over 80 people, including at
least 20 women and 30 children, should be brought to justice. But
Trump’s bombing of Syria, a sovereign nation, was illegal, under both
U.S. and international law.
As the previous article explains, it is not certain who used chemical weapons, but I agree with the last sentence.
In fact, here is one of those who signed the memorandum that is the subject of the previous article:
Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and director of the Council for
the National Interest, stated on the Scott Horton show that “military
and intelligence personnel” in the Middle East, who are “intimately
familiar” with the intelligence, call the allegation that Assad or
Russia carried out the attack a “sham.”
Giraldi said the intelligence confirms the Russian account, “which is
that they [attacking aircraft] hit a warehouse where al-Qaeda rebels
were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion
that resulted in the casualties.” Moreover, Giraldi noted, “Assad had
no motive for doing this.”
I do not know, but I trust those who signed the memorandum in the previous article
considerably more than the present intelligence (for many had high
functions in intelligence but left or were dismissed for having genuine
ethical concerns).
Finally, this is part of the reasons why Trump's attack was illegal:
Two days after Trump’s bombing occurred, the President sent a letter
to congressional leaders informing them of his attack on Syria. The War
Powers Resolution, passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, requires that
the President report to Congress within 60 days of initiating the use of
military force.
The resolution, however, allows the President to introduce U.S. Armed
Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three
situations: First, after Congress has declared war, which has not
happened in this case; second, in “a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
armed forces,” which has not occurred; third, when there is “specific
statutory authorization,” which there is not.
I agree. And this is a recommended article.
4. With Eyes on 2018, Dems Prep Sanders-Style Populist
Economic Agenda
The fourth
and last article today is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Democrats are working on a populist
economic plan, à la Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to be unveiled as
soon as early summer, Politico reported Wednesday.
Top party members are crafting "a strong, sharp-edged, bold economic
message," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said during a
conference call with reporters on Tuesday.
Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have met
twice, in addition to other staff meetings, to hammer down a "populist"
economic agenda that is meant to "unite both wings of both caucuses,"
one aide told Politico.
Infrastructure and trade are expected to be top components.
I say, but I don't believe it. Or to put
this with somewhat more precision: As long as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary
Clinton are the top of the Democratic Party, the top of the Democratic
Party is pro rich and pro bankers, while its present efforts are mostly
fraudulent: They try to catch the non-rich voters, but what they want
is an endorsement of their - more liberal, somewhat more progressive -
rich men's agenda.
And this is what the Democrats are aiming at, next year:
"We're spending a lot of time on this," Schumer said Tuesday, adding
that Democrats will make their new proposals a central part of the 2018
midterms. If all goes according to plan, next year's elections will
mirror the 2006 midterms, when Democrats took back the House and Senate
after criticizing then-President George W. Bush over issues like
national security and healthcare.
In addition to honing their message, Democrats are hoping President
Donald Trump keeps taking missteps on the economy, an issue that became
central to both his and Sanders' campaigns. Trump has since gone back on many of his economic promises—among other things.
"On every issue the president talked about—on the wall, on tearing up
the Iran deal, on immediate healthcare repeal—[Republicans] are coming
face-to-face with reality in a very painful way," said Connecticut Rep.
Jim Himes, current chairman of the New Democrat Coalition.
Well... the Democrats might succeed,
indeed not from the honesty of their motives, but because the
Republicans have turned far more right than is compatible with the
Constitution.
But - speaking for myself - I don't trust
the Democrats as long as they are led by the Pelosis, Clintons and
Schumers for they are not genuine democrats while they are rich deceivers.
---------------
Notes
[1] I have to grant that this is written with some irony. It is difficult
to explain my irony in a brief note, but it comes to this: My parents
were both communists for 45 years, and were sincere and intelligent
persons, but without much education, and my grandparents were
anarchists or communists, while I got "a communist education" and was a
communist until I was 20, when I freed myself from Marxism by a lot of reading.
So I do know "the classical Left" quite well. I also
disagree with it in several respects - for example: I dislike "state
socialism" and I don't agree "everybody is equal" or that "everybody is
equivalent", to name two points - but overall I am much more of
a classical Leftist than the "leftists" which have overtaken the
classical Leftists since - especially - the frauds Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair proposed the fraudulent "Third Way" and the sick Blatcherism.
Also, I don't think you are a Leftist because you are politically correct or support homosexuals or transgenders: Political correctness is a totalitarian attempt to substitute
"correct English" for the terms the - "leftist" - activists dislike, and I am strongly against it (that is: I am for free speech, and against
political correctness), and while you may be a homosexual or a
transgender by my values, I am neither, and I do not see why I should
be.
And for me (since the late 1970ies, indeed - and yes, I was politically
active then, in the university) political correctness + pro LGBTQ is
about what "leftism" is these days,
and if that is what "leftist" does mean, I am simply not
a "leftist" (compared with my parents, grandparents, and their
political friends and comrades, who were very real - and quite
courageous - Leftists).
It so happens that I believe "leftism" - say: Blatcherism - was a planned complete deviance from the real Left, that I hope will disappear as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair disappear.
And this is why I say I am a classical Leftist but not a "leftist", for the "leftists" are not Left, because I agree far more with classical Leftists than with either "leftists" or rightists, although I am neither a Marxist nor a social democrat.
[2]
As it happened, I learned Fortran (for mainframes, on cards) in 1973 (a
bit); Applebasic in 1980; GWBasic in 1987, Turbo-Pascal in 1988,
Turbo-Prolog in 1989, Smalltalk in 2003, Assembler plus some C in 2007,
and Javascript in 2008, and I can program quite well and own a PC since
1987. (I do it a lot less than I did because I have little energy and
many other things to do.)
It appeared to me in the 1980ies (when I got my first PC) that anybody who had a computer should
learn to program it, but it - still - seems far less than 1 in a 100
try to do so: Computers are widely used, but are ill understood by most
of their users.
Alas.
[3] All links in this paragraph are to Wikipedia-lemmas on
these persons, except for the last item, for Kirk Wiebe has no
Wikipedia-lemma, but is mentioned in Binney's.
|
