Bizarre, International, Media, Military, Politics

Bolton: Russian Hacking May Be “False Flag”

John_R._Bolton200px-CIA.svgOne of the most controversial potential nominees for President-Elect Donald Trump just got more controversial. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been listed as the possible second in command at State. He previously served as ambassador under a recess appointment because he was heavily opposed by Democrats and some career State Department officials. He can now likely add intelligence officials to his opposition. In an extraordinary interview on Fox News, Bolton dismissed the CIA report finding Russian interference with the election and hacking of emails. Instead, he suggested that the entire controversy could be a “false flag,” or a false story planted by parties in the United States. That would sound like the American intelligence community and specifically the CIA to many. (The FBI was widely criticized by the Clinton supporters for its own alleged influencing of the campaign). It is an entirely unsupported and rather unhinged suggestion, particularly from someone being considered for a high office. It could make an already hot potential nomination into a positively radioactive one.

Bolton told Eric Shawn “It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation.” Shawn was obviously surprised and gave Bolton an out and asked about whether he really was suggesting a true false flag operation. Bolton responded “We just don’t know.” Of course, we also do not know that it was not a papal conspiracy designed to fight the Illuminati influence in the White House, but most high-ranking diplomats would refrain from raising that possibility in a public interview.

Bolton then followed up with a statement that seemed to confirm that he was speaking of a U.S. intelligence agency creating a false story to influence the election: “But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree.” That would seem to suggest that the intelligence community may have been at least a willing party to the false flag. Of course, it could be claimed that China or North Korea was behind a hack with the intention to implicate Russia. However, that would be odd since China obviously opposes Trump and this “false flag” clearly undermining Clinton, not Trump. Moreover, it would be incredibly stupid for China to implicate Russia, which his currently coordinating with China on various high value operations and initiatives. In the end, we are still left with the perplexing question of why? Of course, when it comes to North Korea, logic is not a strong suit. Moreover, following this wavering line of logic, it would require the CIA to then cover up for a false flag operation in issuing its report. Why would another country (or an American intelligence agency) create a false flag to help Clinton by releasing massively damaging emails? Even if you consider that both Republican and Democratic emails were hacked, the Democratic emails proved far more damaging politically.

In the end, it is bizarre to think that the CIA or some other intelligence agency would seek to help Clinton with the release of highly damaging emails implicating Democratic leaders and the campaign in dishonest and often unethical dealings. If that is the CIA’s concept of a false flag, we are truly in peril as a nation.

Bolton however did not backdown. He asked “if you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints? . . . We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians. That’s why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don’t know whether it is Russian inspired or a false flag.”

The suggestion indicates that Bolton believes that the intelligence would engage in illegal activities that undermine the very democratic process in the United States. They did this with a false flag operation that would have been perfectly moronic in undermining the very candidate that they allegedly wanted to put into office. It is like saying that the CIA tried to rig American Idol for Trent Harmon by altering his mike to sound like Daffy Duck. It does not exactly help you garner votes.

Bolton’s interview offers new ammunition for the Deomocrats and some Republicans who are already gunning for Bolton.

237 thoughts on “Bolton: Russian Hacking May Be “False Flag””

  1. http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/12/12/trump-cia-fbi-russia-dnc-rnc/“So the CIA has stated that Russia tried to influence the 2016 Presidential election in the hopes of ensuring that Donald Trump would win and Hillary Clinton would lose. That’s a short sentence to type, but it covers a whole lot of ground.

    Would Russia hack us? Yes. Obviously. Did Russia hack us? YES. Says who? Well besides the CIA, who is tasked with the espionage thing, there is also the FBI, who is tasked with the investigation thing, Senators and Congressman, who are on committees about this sort of thing, the Washington Post, who is investigating and reporting on this sort of thing, people from the DNC, people from the GOP (with dissent), intelligence experts, computer hacking experts and, well, pretty much everyone else. You know, people who know about this sort of thing.

    It’s a story that has developed all year, not just in the last few weeks. The Russians hacked us. Not just people in Russia. The Russians.

    Trump and his army of hangers-on, loyalists, and even some run-of-the-mill Republicans just trying to support a Republican president are absurdly trying to deny this well-known fact. Yes, the word is fact. Russia hacked American computers, American email accounts, and probably hacked the DNC emails that made Wikileaks a great deal of fun for the last few months. (Sorry, but it was.) Not just Trumpublicans, mind you, but some average Joe Republican politicians and pundits.

    These are the same Republicans who have been stomping their feet that Russia is a real threat, raising alarms about missile defense, the Ukraine and more. The same Republicans who were incensed that Romney was laughed at for calling Russia a threat. The same Republicans who have repeated ad nauseum that Wikileaks is just a publishing arm for the Kremlin. Those SAME Republicans are suddenly hedging on the idea that Russia would have the wherewithal, gumption, expertise, or motivation to hack emails to mess with our election.

    Really guys? Come on, bros. You look dumb. The Russians hacked us. Even the Department of Homeland Security says so.

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    There are things you have to remember though. The CIA is a Democrat-heavy agency (at the top) that is not above politicking. They didn’t like Bush. They like Obama. They don’t like Trump. As streiff has noted correctly and in detail here at RedState, there’s every reason to think that they’d at worst exaggerate their knowledge of specific Russian gov’t interference and motive in order to cast doubt on the validity of Trump’s election, at best make public things that should be kept secret. It’s a well-founded fear. Appointees and bureaucrats are a real thing. (See also CIA Director John Brennan, Republican-hating Obama mouthpiece.)

    And that’s where the sticking point is for more reasonable people who aren’t buying this newest Red Scare. It’s the notion of the specificity of Russia’s aims.

    But, and this is a big but, it’s not merely the CIA saying this. That Russia has engaged in cyber espionage is generally being reported by all of the intelligence community.

    The FBI feels that the CIA does not have enough information to draw their very specific conclusion. More than fair. While it is definitely not above Russia to try to influence who is elected, there is no direct evidence that Russia did indeed make specific efforts to ensure that Putin’s would-be best friend, long-distance admirer, and kindred spirit Donald Trump was elected instead of Hillary “For Hire” Clinton. It’s entirely possible that they merely wish to sow discontent and shake America’s faith in our voting process.

    Certainly the chaos that would result from the election being overturned, or even just an effort to overturn it (apply eyeroll here), based on the idea that our very institutions were compromised by a foreign power would have ample rewards for Vlad and the Gang. (Second-worst. Band name. Ever.)

    Still, despite the CIA’s established antipathy to Republicans, there is a broad consensus (something that actually does matter in the field of intelligence,… think of it like multiple fire stations triangulating the location of a forest fire) that Russia hacked American institutions.

    I hasten to repeat here that this is the kind of thing Russia is capable of, prone to do, and even slyly winks at doing. The fact that the CIA hasn’t produced one of those TV cop show cork boards with faces in a flow chart connected by yarn is not an indication that there is no evidence. In the field of intelligence, evidence isn’t always something you stick a thumbtack in and grimace at over a hot cup of joe in the bullpen.

    Still, like almost everything this year, the lines dividing the two sides of argument on the right are thin, but visible. On the one hand, the Trump-addicted mouthpieces who will say anything in his defense, especially if it’s something he already said that they can repeat over and over like some sort of personal empowerment mantra (“I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it. Om mani padme Trump.”), and simply reject outright that Russia tried to influence the election.

    On another hand, you have people who point out the simple fact that there’s no direct evidence that Russia et al tried to win this thing for Donald Trump. A reasonable point of view and definitely the more prudent.

    Then there is another hand. This is the one I favor. Even if the Russians tried to influence or disrupt this election, even if they did it with the explicit goal of getting Donald Putin Jr. elected, even granting every possible premise the Democrats are desperately clinging to in their deplorable basket of sore-loserism, there is one question that hasn’t been answered. Was it enough to change the result?

    Even if they hacked some voting machines. Even if the emails were leaked to discredit Hillary and the Democrats. Would that have swayed the election?

    Unfortunately, I can’t do what I would normally do at this point, which is go to the polling data. Because A) a lot of it was just flat out wrong this year. and B) even though some of it was right, public confidence in polling results pulled a Hindenburg after Trump was elected and nobody is going to believe anything it says anyway.

    So I’m just going to rely on my common sense, personal judgment, and position as an obsessed 24/7 consumer of every tiniest morsel of election news this year and say “well obviously hell no.”

    NO, it just wasn’t enough. They couldn’t possibly do enough. If there was voter fraud, it wasn’t enough to change the outcome. If there was voting machine tampering, it just wasn’t enough to sway the outcome.

    And as for the leaked emails being a sufficient disruption to change public opinion so substantially that Hillary lost the election because of it, I say “BWA HA HA HA HA HA.” The notion that those heavily editorialized (in her favor) tidbits of information being periodically mentioned on some of the news networks somehow altered the eventual outcome of the election, in the face of the wall-to-wall “Donald Trump is the unholy offspring of Hitler and Beelzebub” media blitzkrieg against him, is utterly laughable.

    Look, I’m as keen to bash batty Donald as the next guy, but you have to be equally nuts if you think that the comparatively small amount of negative coverage Hillary was given was anything more than a drop of water in the raging sea of anti-Trump coverage. The idea that such a drop would have more impact than the sea is preposterous.

    So, no. Russia didn’t hand the election to Trump. I’m fine with the investigation. I applaud it, in fact. Expose the Russkies and their machinations. Let’s out the once and future Soviets as our foes. Good. Do it. I can’t imagine why one would object.

    And let’s praise both the CIA and the FBI for being on top of this. Let’s not make fools of ourselves claiming Russians didn’t mess with an election they clearly messed with.

    But in the name of all that is logical, don’t try to sell us the idiotic idea that Russia turned this thing for Trump. It’s just not credible.

    But then, neither are the Democrats. Trust me, I know. I saw it in their leaked emails.
    Oh wait, one more thing. Donald Trump is savaging the CIA, and so are his pet websites. Some of these putative former conservative sites are using Trump’s bashing to take shots at George W. Bush and the Iraq war. This, too, is grotesque. Also, guys, the very CIA Democrats you’re attacking probably share your stupid view on Bush and Iraq. So, you know, shut up, jerks.

    1. Shouldn’t your WP handle just be “NEO conservative?” I think you are going to have a hard time re-writing the narrative here. You are late to the party.

    2. Your lengthy comment leaves out one thing: there isn’t a shred of hard evidence that Russia, or the Russians if you prefer, hacked anything even remotely related to the election. You keep taking it for granted Russia hacked the emails – we have nothing other than anonymous leaks of more anonymous allegations that Russia hacked the emails. No one is named. No hard evidence is provided. No hard evidence is even extant, and the WaPo article says so buried in the article. Finally, as has bee copiously pointed out on this thread, but which you seem to have missed entirely, the CIA lies for a living. Manipulating elections in foreign countries by false flags and fake news is what they do.

    3. If you were sane you wouldn’t write 1,600 word blog comments, Mr. Bipolar.

    4. Sane Conservative forgot the endquote on his cut/paste of the entire article from the link he provided.

  3. Look, when Wolf Blizter gets testy that says it all.

    The poor little CIA has been called on it’s BS.

    Stooge parade on display folks.

    ? :How did Trump defeat sooo many Republicans in the primaries ?

    Because of the Russians?

    How in God’s name does this make sense?

  4. It is common knowledge that the German media are controlled by the CIA. And if you think they wouldn’t try to control the US media you are very naive indeed.

  5. I love the idea that the story now is Russian connections related to the hacks but aren’t directly attached to the Russian government.
    Right, just like the Saudi connection to 911.
    Well?

  6. Here’s a simple rule to follow: NEVER trust the CIA. EVER! Period.

    The CIA is a criminal organization. At one time the CIA even tried to gain some legitimacy by joining forces with the Mafia, but even the Mafia didn’t trust those CIA criminals.

    So, this entire “Russian Hacking” BS story does, in fact, sound like a CIA contrivance, and most likely is such a contrivance. The logic behind their false flag plan would be to try to make Trump look bad by making him look like Russia’s “pawn.” That, in fact, was the narrative being pushed by the Mainstream Media Presstitutes, who favored Clinton and who operate in the service of the CIA, which, in turn, is controlled by the Elite Establishment.

    As former CIA Director William Colby said, “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

    Colby, by the way, did not make any friends at the Agency because of his outspoken comments about the CIA’s nefarious activities during his Congressional testimony. So, it was not surprising that Colby would end up “mysteriously” dead as the result of a boating “accident.” Although Colby always wore his flotation vest when boating, on the day of his “accident,” he didn’t. Of course, his death was quickly ruled a suicide, even though the death was clearly suspicious, but that’s just how the CIA gets things done.

    http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/colby.htm

    Again, NEVER trust the CIA.

    1. Ralph,
      The fact we cannot trust government agencies that cannot hide behind federal secrecy laws should be the first hint that we shouldn’t trust ANY of those that can.

  7. I do not understand the defense of the hacks if they did indeed occur. The door is open for attacks by other countries on our system. Investigate and find out the facts. No need to sweep it under the rug. Trump will still be president and as Paul Ryan said these investigations need not be political.

  9. The bigger issue to me is why is the CIA leaking classified material in the first place? Didn’t they learn anything from Lady MacBeth’s trying to scrub those classified deleted emails of her hands after the election?

    1. mespo, You’re assuming a fact not in evidence. These are all unnamed sources. Maybe the CIA didn’t leak anything. Do you trust the MSM? If so, you are part of a robust ~15-20% or so of the population. And, listening to the MSM going nuts that Trump doesn’t take this alleged “intelligence” lock stock and barrel is hilarious. Bush did take the CIA lock stock and barrel and was vilified by the MSM.

      1. Nick – now Nancy Pelosi wants the Electoral College to be given an Intelligence Briefing on the subject. Her daughter is a voter and letter signer.

      2. It’s been reported. The CIA hadn’t denied it, nor has the Trump team. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Thus, it’s prima facie at this point.

  10. Iraqi Woman Uses Chilcot Report In War Crimes Lawsuit Against George W. Bush
    by Marjorie Cohn
    Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law

    excerpt;

    The UN Charter, which was created by the countries of the world in 1945 to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” prohibits the use of military force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval. Neither of these two conditions was present before the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq. Iraq did not pose an imminent military threat to any UN member country on March 19, 2003, and the Security Council did not approve the invasion.

    A “crime against peace” is defined by the Nuremberg Charter as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” The U.S.-UK war against Iraq was a war of aggression.

    The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraqi-woman-uses-chilcot-report-in-war-crimes-lawsuit_us_57cd7c38e4b07addc4138b20

    1. I’m surprised to discover Ramsay Clark is still alive. He’s nearly 90 and he’s been barely coherent for a generation, falling under the influence at one time of a stalwart of the Workers World Party.

      1. Oh, absolutely nuts. I’m recalling his participation in one of the Crimes of America jamborees the Ayatollahs threw ca. 1980. The New Republic ran a feature on him ca. 1988 detailing what they called his ‘political and intellectual decline’ over the previous 20 years, including offering a precis of an interview he gave them in which he’d answer over and over ‘___ says…” offering as his authority the Workers World Party guru who was doing his thinking for him at that point. You’d think his wife would have put him on a leash and told him to quit traveling the globe with his idiot causes; Allard Loewenstein, a much more sensible figure than Clark, eventually blew up his marriage with his constant crusading. Evidently Mrs. Clark was willing to take it.

  12. Fighting fake news? I checked the WP and the NYT and neither had current information on the passage of the NDAA 2017, which included the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act. When I googled, besides non-msm sites, only the WP popped up. The WP only reported at the end of November that this was moving through Congress, and that article had only 145 comments as of a few minutes ago (was the article buried?). Why not emphasize this bill and its passage?

    Here is info about the relevant sections:

    “Fast forward to this past Thursday, December 8, when the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

    Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

    Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

    U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.”

    “The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies.”

    There is more here:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act

    I wonder how the Smith-Mundt Act from 2012 or 2013 corresponds with this?

  13. Apparently, the CIA and FBI agree the DNC hack appears to have Russian fingerprints. The FBI disagrees w the CIA, the FBI being unwilling to state that Russia’s intent was to sway the election.

    Now, considering the two agencies disagree, one can not reasonably pick the CIA over the FBI, especially considering the follow epic, colossal CIA failures (I would challenge posters to find four similarly horrific FBI failures, and by similar, I mean a failure that resulted in the US murdering 66k innocent Iraq civilian non-combatants, an insanely too low number, but the number the US admits to in Snowden’s docs):
    Pearl Harbor
    Bay of Pigs
    Tet Offensive
    WMD in Iraq
    Rise of Isis (very recently his majesty Baby Jesus Obama blamed the CIA for not warning him of the rise of Isis)

    I would challenge readers to answer this simple question regarding Julian Assange/Wikileaks’ release of DNC emails, including and especially John Podesta’s: Is your position that US voters should ever have less information on which to base their vote?

    Notice the truth of the leaks is now ancient history, such is the hoopla over the hacker identity. The fact that the DNC organized and conspired to insure only HRC’s nomination, and to utterly destroy the better candidate Sanders. The fact that CNN new person and DNC employee Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to HRC, then lied about it. The fact that MSNBC published, without edit, Podesta’s DNC propaganda as if it was news. The fact that the US government conspired to destroy Wikileaks and MSM was a part of that propaganda campaign.

    Under Obama, the IRS, the Dept of Defense, and even the NSA have been hacked. But none of that matters to Baby Jesus Obama because he can blame only one hack for what may be the single greatest failure of any political party in the nation’s history, being this last election. Yes, Baby Jesus Obama, this election is your greatest and shall be your longest lived “legacy.” The rest is dust, because you failed to convince anyone w/your pathetic lack of oratory and debate skills, and because your doctrines are hellish and evil. As much as the electorate may like your personality, they know your doctrines are pure fail.

    Please remember this: Never, ever has anyone proven Wikileaks to have released fake, false, nor forged documents, ever. Further, Julian Assange himself stated the source of the DNC email hack was not Russia.

    Lastly, do you personally think you and your offspring are safer if the USA edges closer to WW3 vs. Russia, or safef if the USA lives at peace w/Russia? Believe it or not, there ARE TWO SIDES TO THE RUSSIA STORY. War mongering NATO has encircled Russia w/missiles which can reach Moscow. JFK himself threatened nuclear winter for the USSR doing the same in Cuba!!!

    As I’ve posted here already, but it can not be overstated: Reject and turn away from Woodrow Wilson’s doctrine that the more the USA spreads “democracy” around the globe, the better off is mankind. Few greater lies have ever been told. Instead, obey and observe, give proper thought and credence to George Washington, who in his Farewell Address forbid permanent “foreign entanglements.”

    1. Excellent comment. For some reason, the site is on fire with them today (or more accurately on this thread).

      2. It’s good to see that people aren’t that gullible in the end. And, once again, it begs the question of what kind of people are these who would push this issue as a prelude to war in the current state of things? This may end up being one of the most amoral acts of this millennium, depending on how things work out.

    2. Trump is more interested in war with China and Iran. Not safe with him or Hillary Clinton in my opinion.

      1. I don’t agree. I think Trump is setting up China for some economic hardship. We’ll see how that all pans out by summer I would think.

        1. Perhaps it is nothing more sinister than that but that does mean China just takes it. Not sure about that. Bolton has been an advocate of regime change so if Trump is not inclined that way why would he chose him? He campaigned against Goldman and then hired them. More shall be revealed.

          1. Those are good questions Joe. I don’t really have any good answers. The only one I can offer is the old saying, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” By watching how the neocons have acted over the past 20 years, possibly Trump is people his possibles nemeses in positions with mandates. If they are working FOR him, it may make it less difficult to work AGAINST him. We know the neocons are like ticks, they’ll latch onto anything. Plus, as we have seen, they apparently can’t bring up anything to knock him down, pu$$y grabbing and all. Trumps plans for China may not be sinister as we see it, but they’ll probably think they are plenty sinister. That’s all I got.

    3. “Is your position that US voters should ever have less information on which to base their vote?”

      No! The press is calling it “Russian interference” and “Russian hacking” of our election to intentionally make people think it had to do with tampering with or somehow manipulating the voting. It did not. And now members of the Electoral College are demanding their own “intelligence briefing” before they meet to cast their votes on Dec 19. There is some serious inside deep sh*t going down right now.

      The “interference” they keep referring to is about the DNC and Podesta email leaks that provided crucial information to the voters that our own MSM supposedly ‘watchdog’ press would never provide because so many of them were exposed as colluding with the Clinton campaign anyway! I just wonder what the kickbacks were.

      Meanwhile his majesty Baby Jesus Obama is leaving on Air Force One this Friday for his final Hawaiian taxpayer-subsidized luxury vacation. How nice for him.

      1. And note that “hacking” is not the same as “leaking”. So what specific kind of Russian “interference” is our intelligence community is saying it was? I’m not buying it. What I am buying is that this is a serious bunch of BS.

        1. yes! and Joseph Jones cracked me up with “his majesty Baby Jesus Obama” comment….hilarious!

    1. Patriot – if the Guardian said the sky was blue I would look up to check. They are the WaPo of the UK.

        1. Patriot – if the invasion was illegal than Annan should have called the General Assembly about it. However, the US has a veto on the Security Council and it would not get past that. Pragmatically, it was legal. Annan is and was a fool.

          1. @paul

            You said;

            “Crime against peace – planning and carrying out a war of aggression. This is not a war crime since it was authorized by the UN
            One of the architects of the Iraq war. – This is not a war crime since it was authorized by the UN”

            These were lies. Do you know when you are telling a lie?

            1. Patriot – Iraq War II is in line with a couple of UN resolutions that started Iraq War I. And remember I said there was an armistice, not a peace treaty. Since they are in line with the UN resolutions, it is not an act of aggression.

              1. Having a discussion with Pseudo-“Patriot” is pointless. Using a perspective metaphor, he and the truth are like the left and the right rails, respectively, of railroad tracks. Although you could prove countless times the fact that the rails never actually converge, he will continue to argue that if you look at the right side of the tracks his way (i.e., through his propagandistic lens), the left and right rails appear to “meet” at the horizon line’s vanishing point, and that’s “good enough,” he says.

  16. The difficulty with all of this is that there is no one who is generally trusted for their professionalism and integrity. By and large various parties have done this to themselves – the media, the organized bar, the judiciary.

  17. Supreme War Criminals Bolton and the Bush regime took this country to war on a lie.

    http://prosecutegeorgebush.com/the-mission.php

    A conspirator in initiating the Iraq war Bolton is also guilty of innumerable War Crimes that have happened there since.

    During the Nuremberg trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

    http://www.BuenaVistaMall.com/WarCrimes.htm

    1. Patriot – you do realize that Iraq War I ended with an armistice not a peace treaty? Right? So, the war really wasn’t over, it was just on hold until Iraq War II.

      1. Amen.

        Also, the Korean War still stands. It is only in a “cease fire” mode. Ditto, the War in Kosovo is not over. At the first opportunity, that war (that Bill Clinton illegally fought) shall instantly flare and start over again.

    2. Patriot – checked out your charges against Bolton as a war criminal:

      Crime against peace – planning and carrying out a war of aggression. This is not a war crime since it was authorized by the UN
      One of the architects of the Iraq war. – This is not a war crime since it was authorized by the UN
      Claimed that Iraq had WMD. – Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMDs, too. This had to do with Saddam being afraid of being attacked by Iran so he would not admit he did not have them. Giving bad information is not a war crime.
      Led opposition to US participation in International Criminal Court. – this is not a war crime. No President has agreed to US participation in the ICC.

        1. Patriot – Trump has done nothing yet. He is not President, he cannot cover up anything.

        1. Patriot – if you read the article, Annan was the only one who thought that way and some thought he was trying to influence the US election since the comments came 51 days before the election. All the countries involved thought they were there legally.

  20. https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/12/could_massive_russian_oil_deal_with “We continue our conversation about ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, whom Donald Trump is expected to nominate for secretary of state. Speaking on “Face the Nation” Sunday, Sen. John McCain said Tillerson should be given a fair hearing but reiterated his concerns about Tillerson’s ties with Putin. One of the enormous deals that Vladimir Putin and Rex Tillerson worked on was a $500 billion oil exploration partnership between Exxon and the Russian government’s oil company, Rosneft. The Obama administration blocked the deal when it imposed sanctions against Russia for its intervention in the Ukraine. In a recent column for ThinkProgress titled “Trump, Putin, and ExxonMobil team up to destroy the planet,” Joe Romm, founding editor of Climate Progress, writes, “This deal could explain why Putin appears to have interfered in U.S. elections in favor of a Trump victory.” Romm goes on to say, “if the sanctions are lifted?—?something a new Secretary of State could help make happen?—?it would pay off big time for Exxon. … Imagine … if the oil giant is freed to produce and sell oil on the staggering 63.7 million acres of Russian land it leases, which is over 5 times the amount of land it leases in this country. Happy days are here again, for Exxon.”

Comments are closed.