« Ataturk Airport - 29 June 2016 | Main | "We talked about his grandchildren" Loretta Lynch »

29 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

alba etie

Col Lang
As you know I am a self identified FDR Democrat - but I agree with you more often then not , and certainly the MSM is totally in the bag for Mrs Clinton ..

Jeremy C

I fully agree with your assessment of the MSM. This is a terrible sign of the rotting of American democracy, when the media actively -- and on an unprecedented scale -- seeks to manipulate the election, presumably with guidance or assent from the owners of the media oligopoly. And I say this as a long-time activist of the left.

I greatly appreciate this site and the comments section for bringing together intelligent and open-minded people from across the political spectrum and around the world.

SAC Brat

I would like to give credit to Tyler for pointing out almost a year ago here that the MSM would do everything they could to drag Hillary Clinton's carcass across the finish line.

I'm glad the Sanders and Trump campaigns are making so many masks drop.


I remember (I think - getting older) in the last election you were a moderate Clinton supporter. I mention that only to point out your ability to change your mind with new evidence. You did it with Libya too. It is, sadly, a rare gift but one that is particularly crucial for anyone in the intelligence business. As I near my own retirement, I'm troubled by the number of people, particularly in senior leadership positions, who are the opposite of you - people who are assimilated into the borg collective and cannot change their mind until force to the knife's edge.

I always voted on the basis of foreign policy because that is where Presidents can act with greater authority. On that basis I also cannot vote for either HC or DT and will likely vote for Johnson or another third party candidate depending on who makes the ballot here in Florida.

Eric Newhill

Sir, What you say has been increasingly obvious over the past several months. The Borg has cleansed media outlets - in the Stalinesque fashion - to where now it is now populated only by assimilated drones; excepting Fox News.

The certainty of a Trump victory that I had savored since last fall is beginning to dissipate as a result.

The only way for a non-Borgist to have a shot is to utilize the internet effectively. That may not even be enough.

IMO, if Trump does not succeed, we will be stuck with absolute Borg rule until our last gasp as a nation. It's now or never. He's not the best candidate by any measure, but he's all we have. That or Comey, but I'm rapidly losing faith in Comey too.


As yet another "to the left of (you)," allow me to say that H Clinton supporters fall more accurately into the Neoliberal category rather than any 'real' Left category. I come here to obtain a sane, level headed analysis of the foreign policy of America. You fulfill that need. Keep going as long as you feel comfortable doing the blog. I for one, appreciate all of your hard work.


Colonel so far up to last comment I read tonight @11:14EST all your bloggers, readers, commentators support your assessment of US media and coming General election, if we didn't agree with your thinking, there was no reason to hang in here. I for one would like to think I know the difference between SST and Huffington post , I hope you will have more confidence on us, your readers.
For analysis on current events I read this blog and b' but IMO the comments on this blog have much higher quality due to your hand on control and comments, IMO. Thank you for doing this.


IMO, in this coming general election for presidency of the USA, we all will have 4 choices on how and who to vote or not. Based on My Own Opinion, I will try to outline the 4 choices we can have and what significance they may have. I welcome your opinion, since it can help make up one' mind.

1- Is to vote for Hillary, IMO that is to go with the flow and media current and jump on the band wagon.
2- Is to vote for Trump, if you are not a true Trump supporter or base republican voter, this means a vote to reduce the chances of Hillary becoming POTOS, which is anybody but Hillary.
3- Is to vote for Bernie or any third part choice, IMO all voters in this group know that their vote is a protest vote on the 2 choices in front of them but not against the system that produces only 2 possibility for presidency, so they are supporting the system but not only possible choices that the system produces. So they know they are wasting their vote but they still support the system.
4- Is the group that intends to seat home and not to vote, this group IMO are disconnecting and not believing in the system anymore, and no longer have any confidence in the system, they no longer believe system will produce or allow a candidate that is not pre-vetted by the Borg to become elected. So they rather not to participate.
I was in 1st group on 1980 and I voted for Reagan , I am in the second group in this election, I was never in the 3rd group, I was in 4th group in last 3 elections.

Eric Newhill

Bill Herschel,

You're ranting and worried about a delusion.

30,000 gun deaths/yr. 20,000 of those are suicides. another 2,000 are police or private citizens shooting in self defense (AKA justifiable homicide). of the 8,000 to 9,000 murders committed with guns each year, the majority are criminal on criminal.

Try to get it right, please. If you're not suicidally inclined or a gang banger your odds of being killed by a gun are miniscule.


Take your pick, it's either Trump or a century of oppressive rule by the globalist oligarchs/Deep State schemers/ethnocentric neocon over-class. If Trump is taken down-- and the elites/globalists are working 24/7 on this-- enjoy the unbridled cheap labor, open borders, massive surveillance, affirmative action, endless deficit spending, constant invasions and bombings of third world countries (Operation Clean Break 6.0), deferential treatment of big finance and banks, et al.

And once Trump is no longer in their way, they can return to their machinating and hating on Russia and Putin. And of course this same crowd will work the Deep-State military-industrial complex, which feels it would benefit economically from a new Cold War.

If you don't vote for Trump you're supporting the demonic work of the global elites, if even by default.

Btw, I'm sure you've already seen this Foreign Policy piece:


"It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses"

The Brexit has laid bare the political schism of our time. It’s not about the left vs. the right; it’s about the sane vs. the mindlessly angry.


*(Traub grew up rich and went to Harvard).

William R. Cumming

P.L.! IMO your post your honest opinion and accurate. Clearly the polls are almost worthless. The polling I find of most interest is that of HRC and DT unfavorables. This election season is a highly explosive one for that reason. And I mean explosive.

Check legal and other definitions of the term Riot and Civil Disorder! Summer 2016 may well be memorable for many of the wrong reasons.

And the real failure of the MSM babbling heads IMO remains their displayed ignorance and incompetence. Why does MSM continue to fail to reveal which commentators are paid for by them?


I always voted on the basis of foreign policy because that is where Presidents can act with greater authority.

Me too.

That’s why I am voting for Trump. I believe as Stephen Cohen does that the only rational candidate who will work to keep us out of WWIII is Trump. Bernie's foreign affairs savvy was half-baked. Clinton’s is irresponsible. She’s a legacy burner, not a leader.


(From Canada), I've watched a bit of the FoxNews and CNN on TV. But I don't fully read U.S. Newspapers, just links to stories. I have to agree that the media has had it in for Trump from the beginning, but also that Trump has been awfully bad at media relations. He has no twinkle in his eye. The media know that, and goad him. They framed him as a "joke" candidate early on, and if there is one thing about the media is that they rarely admit any error, or allow any self-examination.

But the campaign has barely begun, and there will be platforms for the candidates to debate. There has been very little examination of Clinton's or Trump's policies.

It's quite possible that the soap opera we are seeing today is just the default media story due to a lack of more substantive political content. And that will change as the campaign moves on. Don't expect an apology or reflection by the media on the shambles they've made of it so far, but they may just change their narrative.

Christopher Fay

An unscientific survey, but of the people that replied regarding left/right of Colonel Lang, everyone replied they think they're further to the left than the Colonel. What is it with all these lefties following Sic Semper Tyrannous? Maybe the Colonel is further left than he thinks.


David S wrote: ". It is a category that I created when Bush The Younger began his wars". I think you are letting the media, our elites, and most of our citizens off far too easily. It was 'our'war. The people (majority, anyway) not only supported it, they cheered it on. For a while. Till things started getting hot...and then (many) jumped off. i.e. Hillary

Peter Reichard

The media is nowhere near as Liberal as it is made out to be but this is irrelevant as the issue in this election is not Left vs. Right. The faux populist Trump represents no revolutionary threat to overthrow the established order but is far too egomaniacal, spontaneous, and unpredictable to be properly controlled. He is therefore feared by both the Right and Left wings of the establishment and thus the fix is in for Hillary.


Sir, I too have noticed the extreme media bias. Mr. Trump, for ago his natural buffoonery, is on a hiding to nothing. If he says something foolish it is derided. And if he says something sensible and intelligent it is twisted and then derided. HRC however can threaten to impose a non fly zone in Syria, and it's ignored. She can offer the kids of the rich a break on their student loans and it is praised. And she can say she opposes TPP, while the DNC filed with her proxies refuses to rule it out in the policy platform. It will require an extra ordinary exercise of bravery from the American people to ignore the propagandists and vote their mind. I say good luck to them but I'm not optimistic.


Christopher Ray

Originalism, states rights, and what amounts to isolationism are what I favor. Is that "left" for you? pl


Almost all of the media coverage of Trump was negative. Trump won because of his policies in regard to trade, immigration and foreign affairs. Good reason almost all politicians have identical policies in these areas, they are deeply unpopular so the people can't be given a choice.

What I find odd about the US is there seems to be no diversity amongst the press. In Britain our newspapers range across the ideological spectrum, and in fact the right wing papers are more widely read (Daily Mail, Daily Express, Telegraph, even Murdoch's neocon Sun and Times). The Leave campaign won the Brexit vote as they had sufficient support from the papers and a sufficient number of front line politicians joined the campaign, despite the all out fear mongering for Remain by the establishment (which suffered from diminishing marginal returns as it went on).

Trump seems to hanging on in there, the business end of the campaign is still months away, Remain was well ahead until the final weeks. Impressed to see Trump has picked up Dan Dimicco as his senior trade advisor, Chinese won't like that. All about a good team for a novice like Trump who intends a hands off Presidential style.


BTW, Colonel Lang,

One of the reasons why your readership has a more 'left' readership is because I regularly cite & link your website as reference in foreign-policy sites & Facebook discussion/debate groups, which lead to editors
Tom Hickey & Mike Norman
regularly featuring & linking to your analysis at their evidence-based economics news site http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com , which is one of the largest MMT sites (you can see that on your trackback or referral links on your web traffic report under web administrator tools)

I post your site on both 'right' & 'left' groups & websites but the 'right' groups mostly dismiss anything that is anti-neocon & wasn't pro-Iraq War, pro-military intervention so they rarely if ever read your link I post
the 'left' groups are more willing to read & consider the anti-neocon posts & click the links I post


The Borg will not tolerate ANY dissent from the party line. Unless you're an established gate keeper (Thomas Freidman, etc) you're not allowed to question orthodoxy, and even then only after it starts gaining traction on the acela cocktail circuit.

Both Sanders and Trump have not only questioned the Borg orthodoxy but have vocally, publicly challenged major planks in the neo-liberal order.

I consider myself pretty jaded but i've been literally stunned by how unanimous and how ferocious the Democratic Party and a lot of their kool-aid drinkers went after Bernie Sanders, ditto for Trump on the republican side. The Democratic primary looked like something out of a banana republic. The DNC didn't just put their fingers on the scales they dropped an anvil on the Hillary side.

The MSM and other established "neutral" parties have done the same. The moment Sanders/Trump started challenging central planks in the neo-liberal order the gloves came off and any semblance of neutrality went out the window.

Now that it's a race between the borg queen and Trump it's even worse. Of course the borg may be outsmarting themselves, as usual, as the Brexit result happened after similar elite carping, scaremongering, and general douchebaggery.


Both Bernie Sanders & Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein's foreign policy is anti-neocon, non-interventionism, anti-regime change

They also support states rights in the state's abilities on gun laws & marijuan legalization, decriminalization

Bernie Sanders & Green Party Dr. Jill Stein are thus more 'left' than the DLC Democratic Party under Clinton & Obama (they are 'centrists')

"Originalism" has 2 sections of the Constition where it mentions the gov promoting the General Welfare as well as promoting the Sciences and the Arts (which thus encourages investment on green energy & other scientific endeavors, GI Bills, healthcare, education & other things that improve the general welfare & standard of living of the US



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

and again in the American Constitution, Article 1 -- Section 8:

"Section 8, Article 1 of US Constitution

"1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

to borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


That's typical from the Harvard KSG. That whole school is full of very smart people saying very dumb things. They're pretty much ground zero for Obama's neoliberal draft pool. The R2p gals, Ashton Carter, etc. All KSG alumni. Doug Feith gave a speech their to a standing ovation, so that should tell you everything you need to know.

KSG's main recruiting goal is finding people who can take brain bursting amounts of cognitive dissonance, internalize it, and continue to pump out new and interesting formulations for maintaining whatever the latest borg status quo is. Prime example being Michael Ignatief, the KSG alumni and human rights lawyer who endorsed the use of torture during the Bush years.

This isn't a torture debate question, it's the issue of a HUMAN RIGHTS lawyer advocating the use of torture. That kind of cognitive dissonance is prime KSG material. Come to think of it I'm shocked Hillary/Obama haven't tried to lure him back away from Canada to work the diplomatic circuit in Syria and Ukraine...

David Habakkuk


On ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Sometimes these notions make obvious sense. At other times, they don’t.

Someone – unfortunately I cannot remember who – suggested that what you got with the Clintons was a kind of alliance of Goldman Sachs and ‘Black Lives Matter’.

(Although he and she forgot the Israelis and Saudis pulling the puppet strings, sometimes in different directions, at the moment it seems in harmony.)

Traditional ‘left’ and ‘right’ distinctions don’t seem quite to apply.

And then, there are words whose meaning seems to become more opaque, the more you look at them.

So, what does ‘multiculturalism’ actually mean?

Or indeed ‘liberal’?

Is Francis Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ notion ‘liberal’?

And what about today’s ‘New York Times’?

The question is raised rather sharply by a piece by the former ‘religion editor’ of ‘Newsweek’, Kenneth L. Woodward, entitled ‘Church of the “Times”’, published in ‘Commonweal’ magazine back in 2010.

(See https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/church-%E2%80%98times%E2%80%99 .)



Just listened to an exchange between Peter King (R/NY)and Joe Scarborough (faux bubba/immigrant to NY) King was asked to talk about IS threats. He is the head of the House committee on terrorism. Having dealt with that, Joe pressed King to repudiate Trump's statement last night on O'Reilly's show that there are thousands of Syrians coming into the US who are unvetted. King said that the number is 4800 and that they are not well vetted. Joe changed the subject. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad