« The Bonnie and Clyde of US politics - by Publius Tacitus | Main | "Under CIA Pressure Trump Blocks Full Release Of Kennedy Assassination Docs" - SF »

26 October 2017


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


"Purple Gonads" ... sounds like somebody took a kick below the belt...
With the Russia dunnit meme moving to Clinton, Trump and Tillerson, whatever their intentions at the start, are now fully compromised. All aboard the train to regime change and neo-con/Israeli wet dreams.


"Or does this mean the Russians have agreed to remove Bashar?"

Highly unlikely. Russia has invested years to paint itself as a reliable ally in contrast to the U.S.
Removing Assad would bring the value of that investment down to zero. Russia would be exposed as a patsy unable to resist any of Trump's demands. Who would want such as a friend or ally?

"Tillerson stated he is unsure of how to bring about Assad’s end"

Let's give him some ideas. How about:
- instigating demonstrations
- recruiting and paying "moderate rebels"
- handing them 10,000nds of tons of weapons
- watch the evolving of an Islamic State that will counter Assad ...
All novel stuff that has (officially) never ever happened before. It will surely work well.


I think it means that the negotiation over the eastern parts of Syria now held by the SDF will be held hostage to the bargaining position that Assad must step down for the country to unite under Damascus.

In other words, since Assad is not going to step down, Syria will not be united under the current Syrian government, and the justifications for the continued presence of the US/SDF in Eastern Syria are being promulgated.



Its not like this kind abrupt change in policy towards the ME hasn't happened before.

100 years ago, in April, Brandeis and Weizmann (Zionists) conspired to prevent Henry Morgentau from making a peace deal with Turkey which likely would have ended the war 18 months earlier and twarted the Zionist's game plan. Who says history doesn't repeat?

"Henry Morgenthau, the former American ambassador to Turkey and a Jewish anti-Zionist, advised Robert Lansing, the secretary of state, that the Turks desired a separate peace with the US, a settlement which would have had the effect of increasing relief efforts to aid the hungry people of Syria and Palestine. Palestine's Jewish population was receiving some aid from the American Joint Distribution Committee. Wilson sent Morgenthau to Switzerland to meet Turkish representatives. But American Zionists opposed this move, as Thomas Bryson explained in American Diplomatic Relations with the Middle East 1784-1975 (1977). It seems that the US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis knew the purpose of the Morgenthau mission and told Weizmann, who promptly alerted Balfour. According to Bryson, "the two agreed that the Morgenthau mission should be scotched, for an anticipated British offensive against the Turks in Palestine would do far more to assure the future of a Jewish national home. "



as of now, everyone in positions of power will be as consistent, & coherent, as donald trump. we have attained lowest common denominator :) ...


re: "Perhaps AIPAC and WINEP are his sources of information."

Perhaps AIPAC and WINEP are just his opponents and unermine him whenever they can. Trump went try to kill the Iran nuclear deal, alleging that Iran doesn't live up to the spirit of the treaty.

Well, whatever "not live up to the Spirit of the treaty" means - practically it means that the US don't intend to stay to what they signed to and will make the excuse for that up as they go along.

I.e. thanks to Haley, and Trumps silly clownery about UNESCO or the Kyoto protocoll, there is another evidence that the US is still quite willing to not 'live up to the spirit of any treaty' they sign.

I read that the phrase about the 'spirit' came from old neo-con John Bolton who himself had a rather subversive, dishonest and destructive time as the US UN ambassador.

That 'spirit' line was happily fed to Trump by a happy Haley. And not long ago, Trump said that Tillerson was wasting time by negotiating with NoKo - that's a boss openly subverting his minister.

That suggests to me some things:

Trump prefers just whacking folks with a big stick in contrast 'do weak things', like thinking, negotiating and talking with them. Loyalty to his ministers he doesn't have. They are to him not more than a tool. Tools may break and are then replaced, or, worse, are deliberately not replaced.

Haley is a Person with plenty of ambitions ...

... and not many inhibitions.

She wants to get rid of Tillerson and maybe get his Job.

And while Bolton's moustache disquialified him for Trump to be foreign secretary

*6* he is still influential and has his ways to get money from folks like Adelson.

So Haley benefits from sticking to him. He has ready talk points and money.

The old school neo-cons are unhappy with Trump ...

... as much as they, just as top GOP donors like Adelson, are 'furious' with thinking persons like Tillerson in general ...


... so they are attacking Tillerson

IMO they will stab and subvert Tillerson where-ever and when-ever they can. Likely Bannon and his Breitbart crew will join that fray happily. He'll be attacked from the top, from behind and from the sides.

All this suggests to me that Tillerson is for them on the 'to be done' list.

I wouldn't be surprised when the was fired, or simply quit in disgust before he gets, say, a gastric ulcer.

Likely Tillerson is, showing signs of sanity, privately opposed to continuing the idea about regime change in Syria, but he is under pressure from the neo-cons and the whitehouse to play their games. I have a hunch that he was ordered to say these things about Syria and Assad.

And as far as regime change in Syria goes, folks like Bolton and Haley are still quite enthusiastic. And so are likely the (pro-)Israelis. There are Netanyahu Folks making statements that Israel prefers Syria being controlled by ISIS over Syria being controlled by Assad.

That speaks for itself: Assuming that nonsense is said seriously, then Israel is insane enough to want Syria destroyed and be replaced by smallish BS statelets that they can bribe and/or overfly and overpower any time.

Details like facts, honestly, reality or legality only distract from that.

In case of the Iran nuclear treaty, the neo-cons eventually had Trump's ear, and Trump chose to ignore adults like Tillerson and follow girly Haley's proposals and call the nuke treaty with Iran as 'flawed and very limited'. She convinced Trump to reiterate that.

That Iran is according to the IAEA obedient to their obligations under the treaty ... oh never mind. The vile Iranians are in Syria and support Hezbollah, and Israel dislikes that so, who cares for such trivial details?

IMO the idiotic Iran treaty axing by Trump is as notabe as it is odd and dangerous: So on Iran a neo-connish second level gal like Haley had the last word in this matter and hot her superior, and Trump followed her proposals ignoring her superior?

Well, in light of these things - good luck. We'll all need it.


"Or does this mean the Russians have agreed to remove Bashar?"

Doubt this would ever happen. If Putin has decided to dump Assad then he'll lose most of his hard-earned credibility when it becomes public knowledge and he knows full well now that Washington can no longer be trusted to honour any commitment to the R+6 (if it ever could). Doing a deal with Washington for them to then trash it would make him look very stupid and destroy his credibility completely. And the idiots in Washington would treat any sign of wanting a deal as a Russian weakness and go on pushing Russia further and faster.


Potential US-Russia showdown in eastern Syria over IS-held territory:


Either it’s major-league incompetence or a bargaining position. Article at above link has me guessing it’s the latter as it sets a tone of being in preparation for the worst. Appears in a source liable to be read by US military personnel. But I too was taken aback initially by Tillerson’s remark. Must have been the intended effect.


Knowing that governments have "interests," I must ask; what would be so important that Russia would throw away their 'reputation' as steadfast friends and reliable allies? (At least for public relations purposes.)
As for Tillerson, the man seems to have mastered the art of believing six impossible things before breakfast. If that is so, inside the Beltway must be far down the rabbit hole indeed.


Here is Radio Free Europe giving a bit of context:


The Beaver


It all comes down to what came out from that sewer in Turtle Bay yesterday.
Someone must have forced his hand in saying that after Russia vetoed on Tuesday thus extension of mission probing chemical weapons use in Syria and the Israeli Firster witch representing the UN was mad.

The investigation by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) - known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) - was unanimously created by the 15-member U.N. Security Council in 2015 and renewed in 2016 for another year. Its mandate is due to expire in mid-November.

Thus, surprise surprise, look what came out yesterday when the diplomats were enjoying their drinks after a hard day's work:


The "panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Sheikhun on 4 April 2017," said the confidential report to the UN Security Council, which was obtained AFP.

Check that word: CONFIDENT
when they didn't even have access to the site since it was too dangerous to send the experts. However, everyone and his brother amongst FrUKUS believe the White Helmets

and all the rags and the AIPAC citizen journos are saying that Assad DID it , even NYT.

We know what the goal is : First Assad and then Iran !


Wow. If this is true, then it is something he definitely shouldn't have said. If false, it makes him look like an idiot. Either way, what could possibly have been on his mind?


Patrick Armstrong writes about how he became Russian troll.


Perhaps he's reading off the same "info" that Congress was fed when it passed the Magnitsky Act? The "social activist" William Browder hooked up with some ass-hat in State and spoon-fed those dopes a line of BS (which has been partly de-bunked in the book as follows (not available in print in the US...Amazon refused to sell it without "editing"):

and most thoroughly disabused by the most reputable (and usually critical...though fair...of Russia)documentary film-maker Alexei Nekrasov in his film "The Magnistsky Act.-Behind the Scenes". This film is IMPOSSIBLE to find in the US. I had to resort to yandex.ru to find an online version which was overdubbed in Russian (orginal soundtrack in English). The film was screened in Norway (produced there too) and the only US screening was a private showing at the New Theater in DC...much to Browder's objection. There is a rather fascinating youtube vid about it from a Russian TV expose...

Seeing as the MA was the tipping point in US/Russian relations, the importance of the truth cannot be underestimated. Most glaringly, Sergei Magnitsky was NOT a lawyer as commonly professed...he never attended law school. He was an auditor...an accountant at best. Noether was he the "whistleblower" who was tortured to death in a Moscow prison...he died of medical neglect...suspicious circumstances for sure (a patsy more likely for Browder's rip-off of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds). Of course now that Nekrasov has exposed some rather damning inconsistencies in the "story", he is being labeled a "former Krelin critic turned stooge)!

The memory rabbit hole will swallow up this massive deception same as the yellow cake though and we will likely continue to blunder along down the path towards catasphrophic confrontation.

Slightly off-topic but well worth your attention I think.


Or does this mean the Russians have agreed to remove Bashar?

For which they would have to have a motive. There is none that I could
infer from publicly available information. That's your caveat right there, of course.
Lacking proof to the contrary, I will file this under "the unbearable sameness of political posturing
across administrations".



I must say that I have come to agree with nearly all of this. pl


Patrick Armstrong's latest is part of a book put together by Phil Butler, which I have not read yet, but the cover is reproduced here:


Interesting, ok the redirect makes sense.


Will this surface three times too?



How about the possibility that Tillerson knows that Israel is going to war soon against Hizbullah and Syria. Lebanon of course would be crushed again in the process by pointless IAF "strategic" bombing. pl

Babak Makkinejad

In regards to JCPOA, Trump has acted on his promise to his constituent - who are convinced of the Omnipotence of the United State - by punting JCPOA to US Congress.

He has done the same thing with socialized medicine laws that were passed under Obama as well as with reform of tax laws in the United States.

In all 3 cases, he has wrapped himself with a teflon-like argument: "I delivered on my promise to you but the Establishment thwarted me."

I think that was all fine and well if he operated in a political vacuum - but he is not.

Domestically, An Act of God, this time in Puerto Rico, demonstrated the extent by which the United States had ceased to invest in herself over many decades.

Internationally, he has practically gone against the Russian Federation (he could have recalled NATO troops from the Baltics, for example), he has not addressed the strategic concerns of the Russian Federation, he has done nothing against Chinese evisceration of US jobs, has forewarned Iranians that their cease-fire deal will not reach the 8-year milestone, has signaled the Shia Muslims all over the world that the United States and himself personally stand with their enemies, has humiliated the European allies publicly, and both domestically and internationally projected an image of racial prejudice and bigotry.

At some point, he has to put a execute to a concrete program and strategy; both domestically and internationally. One would hope that at such time, he would have a positive program rather than a negative one.

Babak Makkinejad

I agree.

And what does US have to offer the Russian Federation.

What is needed is a trilateral settlement among US, Russia, and China to replace the defunct Peace of Yalta.


IMO, Applying Hanlon's and Occam's razors, in a sort of 'stereo effect', helps to reveal disinformation and explain illogic when viewing events and statements. Much time is spent here and elsewhere trying to decipher what is truth and what is not. More time is spent trying to figure out the why of them or their objective. Some kind of razor is required to cut through the disinfo and the blathering and posturing. I have come to believe that a LOT of anti-Russian statements are virtue signalling by government officials - and little else.

I came to disbelieve the Russia narrative through doing business with and drinking beer with Russians personally. We have much in common, but we here in the US seem to have a government that is afflicted with dementia - there is often not a good rationale for what we do or what we say as a nation. The Russians told me it reminds them of Yeltsin's time in their country.

When the facts on the ground belie what is being said, it makes sense to avoid the noise until it grows louder.

"America seem to to be a very petulant nation, where Russia seems more gracious." - Azamat Duysaliyev, Kazakh business acquaintance.


Tillerson does NOT take anything from Main State and few people knowledgeable about the ME or any other geographic region have quit, been fired or gone to ground in some innocuous office.

At the outset of the Syria conflict when the US was trying to keep Russia out of the international circle trying to end it, one prescient journalist opined that, "The conflict will end when it is announced that the signing of a peace accord was going to be held in Moscow.

Babak Makkinejad

A Co-dominion or Entente between the United States and the Russian Federation is not in the interest of those of us who do not belong to the European stock.

I do not find the prospect of this planet being dominated again by the European or European-derived people - in a manner reminiscent to the world before 1914 - attractive at all.

Are we to again become servants to them and our land their playgrounds for such as Gertrude Bell and TE Lawrence?

I think not.

This is the best of all possible worlds for us.

The Beige Barbarian


I do not believe for one moment that Israel will go to war against Hizbullah, and certainly not against Hizbullah and Syria.

It would be the end of Israel. The people would flee the country when they experience that the IDF can not protect them from volley after volley of missile fire.

Netanyahh is pretty crazy, but he understands a losing bet.

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