General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Clapper Calls for Arming Ukrainian Forces: Who Would That Actually Empower?
Excellent article worth reading in full.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/27/clapper-calls-arming-ukrainian-forces-actually-empower/
Its easy to forget that just two years ago, President Obama was determined to bomb Syria and remove the Assad regime, and U.S. establishment institutions were working to lay the groundwork for that campaign. NPR began dutifully publishing reports from anonymous U.S. officials that Syria had stockpiled large amounts of chemical weapons; the NYT was reporting that Obama was increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down Assad; Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that forced removal of Assad was a matter of national security and a matter of the credibility of the United States of America.
Those opposed to the anti-Assad regime change bombing campaign argued that while some of the rebellion was composed of ordinary Syrians, the rebels the U.S. would arm and empower (i.e., the only effective anti-Assad fighters) were actually violent extremists and even terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda and worse. The people arguing that were invariably smeared as Assad apologists because this happened to be the same argument Assad was making: that the most effective fighters against him were jihadis and terrorists.
But that argument in D.C. was quickly converted from taboo into conventional wisdom the moment it was needed to justify U.S. involvement in Syria. The U.S. is now bombing Syria, of course, but rather than fighting against Assad, the Syrian dictator is (once again) Americas ally and partner. The rationale for the U.S. bombing campaign is the same one Assad long invoked: that those fighting against him are worse than he is because they are aligned with Al Qeada and ISIS (even though the U.S. funded and armed those factions for years and their closest allies in the region continue to do so).
A similar dynamic is at play in Russia and Ukraine. Yesterday, Obamas top national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told a Senate Committee that he supports arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed separatists, as the Washington Post put it. The U.S. has already provided non-lethal aid to Ukrainian forces, and Obama has said he is now considering arming them. Who, exactly, would that empower?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long said that the Ukrainian coup of last year, and the subsequent regime in Kiev, is driven by ultra-nationalists, fascists, and even neo-Nazi factions. The Russian TV outlet RT also frequently refers to the active role far-right groups have played on the pro-government side in Ukraine since the violent coup of the last year.
For that reason, anyone pointing out that arming the regime in Kiev would strengthen fascists and neo-Nazis is instantly accused of being a Putin propagandist: exactly like those arguing that the best anti-Assad fighters were al-Qaeda-affiliated were accused of being Assad propagandists (until that became the official position of the US Government). U.S. media accounts invariably depict the conflict in Ukraine as a noble struggle waged by the freedom-loving, pro-west democrats in Kiev against the oppressive, aggressive Russian-backed separatists in the east.
more...
uhnope
(6,419 posts)in GG's world
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
randome
(34,845 posts)I truly doubt Clapper has any sway over anything these days. He needs to fade away and stay out of the limelight.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)the two most powerful people in the universe....
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They should've known better.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)As of right now, there are four, maybe five responses above mine. None of them wants to know anything more about the liar James Clapper wanting to arm these people. None of the respondents above wants to talk about supporting neo-Nazis. They only want to talk about Glenn Greenwald. Why is that?
Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. He very likely had someone killed yesterday, and he's done lots worse besides. But it would be the height of stupidity to therefore assume that anyone against Putin is one of the "good guys". Nazis aren't good guys. I would hope that we could have a more nuanced and less idiotic discussion about this than the one that has gotten started above.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yeah, that's it. You got us.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I think it's hilarious that Greenwald rambles on at the beginning about NPR and the NYT as government mouthpieces then cites RT.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)This limits you to the point that I'm going to bid you a good evening. Life is short and all that. Let me know if your muse renders you capable of discussion.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)"Boo, Nazis under your bed, pay no attention to Russia carving up yet another former Soviet republic"?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Arming the Taliban and Al Queda worked so well let's start arming the Nazis and Nationalists.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Good article. Excellent points.
Some folks hate Greenwald so much that they can't acknowledge the truth of what was written.
They're lost in their own misunderstanding.
Greenwald should adopt an alias. I think we'd hear those same grumpy people applauding the truth of what was written.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Then, there's the Booz Allen Hamilton/Carlyle Group crony of the BFEE.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_R._Clapper,_Jr.
Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group
Written by Bob Adelmann
The New American; June 13, 2013
According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker and former BAH employee Edward Snowden. By the time top management at BAH learned that one of their top level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.
For years Carlyle had, according to the Post, nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries; but now the light from the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies, parent and child, bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.
And have they ever. When The Carlyle Group bought BAH back in 2008, it was totally dependent upon government contracts in the fields of information technology (IT) and systems engineering for its bread and butter. But there wasn't much butter: After two years the companys gross revenues were $5.1 billion but net profits were a minuscule $25 million, close to a rounding error on the companys financial statement. In 2012, however, BAH grossed $5.8 billion and showed earnings of $219 million, nearly a nine-fold increase in net revenues and a nice gain in value for Carlyle.
Unwittingly, the Post authors exposed the real reason for the jump in profitability: close ties and interconnected relationships between top people at Carlyle and BAH, and the agencies with which they are working. The authors quoted George Price, an equity analyst at BB&T Capital: "[Booz Allen has] got a great brand, they've focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience." (Emphasis added.)
For instance, James Clapper had a stint at BAH before becoming the current Director of National Intelligence; George Little consulted with BAH before taking a position at the Central Intelligence Agency; John McConnell, now vice chairman at BAH, was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the 90s before moving up to director of national intelligence in 2007; Todd Park began his career with BAH and now serves as the country's chief technology officer; James Woolsey, currently a senior vice president at BAH, served in the past as director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and so on.
BAH has had more than a little problem with self-dealing and conflicts of interest over the years. For instance in 2006 the European Commission asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Privacy International (PI) to investigate BAHs involvement with President George Bushs SWIFT surveillance program, which was viewed by that administration as just another tool in its so-called War on Terror. The only problem is that it was illegal, as it violated U.S., Belgian, and European privacy laws. BAH was right in the middle of it. According to the ACLU/PI report,
Though Booz Allens role is to verify that the access to the SWIFT data is not abused, its relationship with the U.S. Government calls its objectivity significantly into question. (Emphasis added.)
Among Booz Allens senior consulting staff are several former members of the intelligence community, including a former Director of the CIA and a former director of the NSA.
As noted by Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU director, Its bad enough that the [Bush] administration is trying to hold out a private company as a substitute for genuine checks and balances on its surveillance activities. But of all companies to perform audits on a secret surveillance program, it would be difficult to find one less objective and more intertwined with the U.S. government security establishment. (Emphasis added.)
CONTINUED w Links n Privatized INTEL...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15696-behind-the-curtain-booz-allen-hamilton-and-its-owner-the-carlyle-group
Personally, I like him. Politically, he's too right for me. Why so many on this thread give him a pass is telling.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Brzezinski:What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."
What happens to a member of the 99% when they lie under oath, obstruct justice, and give false testimony?
When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."
A Nation of Laws not men, or not. It's America's choice.