Monday, June 30, 2014

Want to know what is really going on in the world that the "mainstream media" will never tell you? Ask Paul Craig Roberts! How? Well, Greg Hunter is by far PCR's the best interviewer, and here is a relatively recently interview that will have you glued to your chair for the duration...


Paul Craig Roberts: US is Completely Busted, Non-Delivery of Gold - Crash the System, War in Ukraine

Greg Hunter

Published on Mar 11, 2014 - Economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, "The physical stock of gold in the West to meet delivery demand is diminishing rapidly. So, one day the Chinese will buy 100 tons of gold, and we won't be able to make delivery. That would crash the system. It would just pop. So, there are things that could crash it suddenly. Regardless . . . the economy is going to gradually sink because there are no jobs, or no good jobs. . . So, there is not a recovery. The U.S. is a busted state. It's completely busted."

On the Federal Reserve money printing to prop up the economy, Dr. Roberts, who has a PhD in economics, contends, "I think they realize all the money printing does undermine the dollar, and if they lose the dollar, the game is over. So, they have to protect the dollar."

Thursday, June 26, 2014

"A final number for real US GDP growth in the first quarter of 2014 was just released. The number is not the 2.6% growth rate predicted by the know-nothing economists in January of this year. The number is a decline in GDP of -2.9 percent." "It is possible that the drop in first quarter real GDP is three times the official number." "The US economy cannot grow because corporations pushed by Wall Street have moved the US economy offshore." "An official decline of -2.9 percent in the first quarter implies a second quarter GDP decline. Two declines in a row is the definition of recession." And with regard to Russia... "Only a government drowning in arrogance and hubris or a government run by psychopaths and sociopaths would pick such an enemy." -- Paul Craig Roberts

A New Recession and a New World Devoid of Washington’s Arrogance? — Paul Craig Roberts

June 25, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

A New Recession and a New World Devoid of Washington’s Arrogance?

Paul Craig Roberts

June 25, 2014. A final number for real US GDP growth in the first quarter of 2014 was released today. The number is not the 2.6% growth rate predicted by the know-nothing economists in January of this year. The number is a decline in GDP of -2.9 percent.

The negative growth rate of -2.9 percent is itself an understatement. This number was achieved by deflating nominal GDP with an understated measure of inflation. During the Clinton regime, the Boskin Commission rigged the inflation measure in order to cheat Social Security recipients out of their cost-of-living adjustments. Anyone who purchases food, fuel, or anything knows that inflation is much higher than the officially reported number.

It is possible that the drop in first quarter real GDP is three times the official number.

Regardless, the difference is large between the January forecast of +2.6 percent growth and the decline as of the end of March of -2.9 percent.

Any economist who is real and unpaid by Wall Street, the government, or the Establishment knew that the +2.6 percent forecast was a crock. Americans’ incomes have not grown except for the one percent, and the only credit growth is in student loans, as those many who cannot find jobs mistakenly turn to “education is the answer.” In an economy based on consumer demand, the absence of income and credit growth means no economic growth.

The US economy cannot grow because corporations pushed by Wall Street have moved the US economy offshore. US manufactured products are made offshore. Look at the labels on your clothes, your shoes, your eating and cooking utensils, your computers, whatever. US professional jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore. An economy with an offshored economy is not an economy. All of this happened in full view, while well-paid free market shills declared that Americans were benefiting from giving America’s middle class jobs to China and India.

I have been exposing these lies for a decade or two, which is why I am no longer invited to speak at American universities or to American economic associations. Economists love the money that they receive for lying. A truth teller is the last thing that they want in their midst.

An official decline of -2.9 percent in the first quarter implies a second quarter GDP decline. Two declines in a row is the definition of recession.

Imagine the consequences of a recession. It means that years of unprecedented Quantitative Easing failed to revive the economy. It means that years of Keynesian fiscal deficits failed to revive the economy. Neither fiscal nor monetary policy worked. What then can revive the economy?

Nothing except to force the return of the economy that the anti-American corporations moved offshore.

This would require credible government. Unfortunately, the US government has been losing credibility since the second term of the Clinton regime. It has none left.

Today no one anywhere in the world believes the US government except the brain dead Americans who read and listen to the “mainstream media.” Washington’s propaganda dominates the minds of Americans, but produces laughter and scorn everywhere else.

The poor US economic outlook has brought America’s two largest business lobbies–the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (or what is left of them) into conflict with the Obama regime’s threat of further sanctions against Russia.

According to Bloomberg News, beginning tomorrow (June 26), the business groups will run advertisements in the New York Times, Wall St Journal, and Washington Post opposing any further sanctions on Russia. The US business organizations say that the sanctions will harm their profits and result in layoffs of American workers.

Thus, America’s two largest business organizations, important sources of political campaign contributions, have finally added their voice to the voices of German, French, and Italian business.

Everyone, except the brainwashed American public, knows that the “crisis in Ukraine” is entirely the work of Washington. European and American businesses are asking: “why should our profits and our workers take hits in behalf of Washington’s propaganda against Russia.”

Obama has no answer. Perhaps his neocon scum, Victoria Nuland, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice can come up with an answer. Obama can look to the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Weekly Standard to explain why millions of Americans and Europeans should suffer in order that Washington’s theft of Ukraine is not endangered.

Washington’s lies are catching up with Obama. German chancellor Merkel is Washington’s complete whore, but German industry is telling Washington’s whore that they value their business with Russia more than they value suffering in behalf of Washington’s empire. French businessmen are asking Hollande what he proposes to do with their unemployed workers if Holland goes along with Washington. Italian businesses are reminding that government, to the extent that Italy has one, that uncouth Americans have no tastes and that sanctions on Russia mean a hit to Italy’s most famous and best recognized economic sector–high style luxury products.

Dissent with Washington and Washington’s two-bit puppet rulers in Europe is spreading. The latest poll in Germany reveals that three-quarters of Germany’s population reject permanent NATO bases in Poland and the Baltic states. The former Czechoslovakia, currently Slovakia and the Czech Republic, although NATO members, have rejected NATO and American troops and bases on their territory. Recently, a German minister said that pleasing Washington required giving free oral sex for nothing in return.

The strains that Washington’s morons are putting on NATO might break the organization apart. Pray that it does. NATO’s excuse for existence disappeared with the Soviet collapse 23 years ago. Yet, Washington has increased NATO far beyond the borders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO now runs from the Baltics to Central Asia. In order to have a reason for NATO’s continued expensive operation, Washington has had to construct an enemy out of Russia.

Russia has no intention of being Washington’s or NATO’s enemy and has made that perfectly clear. But Washington’s military/security complex, which absorbs about $1 trillion annually of US hard-pressed taxpayers’ money, needs an excuse to keep the profits flowing.

Unfortunately the Washington morons picked a dangerous enemy. Russia is a nuclear armed power, a country of vast dimensions, and with a strategic alliance with China.

Only a government drowning in arrogance and hubris or a government run by psychopaths and sociopaths would pick such an enemy.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has pointed out to Europe that Washington’s policies in the Middle East and Libya are not merely total failures but also devastatingly harmful to Europe and Russia. The fools in Washington have removed the governments that suppressed the jihadists. Now the violent jihadists are unleashed. In the Middle East the jihadists are at work remaking the artificial boundaries set by the British and French in the aftermath of World War I.

Europe, Russia and China have Muslim populations and now must worry if the violence that Washington has unleashed will bring destabilization to regions of Europe, Russia and China.

No one anywhere in the world has any reason to love Washington. Least of all Americans, who are being bled dry in order that Washington can parade military force around the world. Obama’s approval rating is a dismal 41 percent and no one wants Obama to remain in office once his second term is complete. In contrast, two-thirds of the Russian population want Putin to remain president after 2018.

In March the poling agency, Public Opinion Research Center, released a report that Putin’s approval rating stood at 76 percent despite the agitation against him by the US financed Russian NGOs, hundreds of fifth column institutions that Washington established in Russia during the past two decades.

On top of US political troubles, the US dollar is in trouble. The dollar is kept afloat by rigged financial markets and Washington’s pressure on its vassal states to support the dollar’s value by printing their own currencies and purchasing dollars. In order to keep the dollar afloat, much of the world will be inflated. When people finally catch on and rush into gold, the Chinese will have it all.

Sergey Glazyev, an adviser to President Putin, has told the Russian president than only an anti-dollar alliance that crashes the US dollar can halt Washington’s aggression. That has long been my opinion. There can be no peace as long as Washington can print more money with which to finance more wars.

As the Chinese government stated, it is time to “de-Americanize the world.” Washington’s leadership has totally failed the world, producing nothing but lies, violence, death, and the promise of more violence. America is exceptional only in the fact that Washington has, without remorse, destroyed in whole or part seven countries in the new 21st century. Unless Washington is replaced with more humane leadership, life on earth has no future.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Thanks to Wikileak cables we now know that Ukraine's new president, Petro Poroshenko, has been working for the U.S. government since at least 2006 and they knew he was corrupt. Now the so-called "civil war" in Ukraine consists of Kiev attacking Russian speaking civilians in the southeast with vicious neo-nazi troops, artillery, and arial bombing at the pleasure of Washington, which claims that Russia is the aggressor, and the despicble mainstream media repeats this lie daily.

Wikileak Cables: Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Washington's Pocket Since 2006

It turns out that Ukraine's new president, Petro Poroshenko, has been working for the U.S. government since at least 2006 and they knew he was corrupt. 

There's not much point in staging a coup if you don't influence who is placed in power in the aftermath. Of course in order for a puppet government to be effective, they can't be perceived as such. You wouldn't want the natives to get restless would you?

The evidence that the U.S. was behind the toppling of the Ukrainian government early this year is so overwhelming at this point that the subject really isn't up for debate, however initially it was unclear how the election of Petro Poroshenko fit in. The ecstatic response by Washington when he was declared the winner, and their unbending support in spite of his ongoing military assault against civilians in the east, made it clear that he was the chosen one, but the paper trail wasn't immediately obvious.

As it turns out, the evidence that Poroshenko is in the pocket of the U.S. State Department has been available all this time, you just had to know where to find it. In a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 released by, U.S. officials refer to Poroshenko as "Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko".

A separate cable also released by Wikileaks makes it clear that the U.S. government was considered Poroshenko corrupt.
"Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations, but wielded significant influence within OU; Poroshenko's price had to be paid."
The U.S. government knew Poroshenko was dirty, but he was influential, and arguably their most dependable mole.

Perhaps the most interesting revelation comes from a 2009 cable where Poroshenko told then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he supported "the opening of a U.S. diplomatic presence in Crimea" and "He emphasized the importance of Crimea, and said that having U.S. representation there would be useful for Ukraine." Poroshenko's role as an informant for the U.S. government continued in cables in 2010 as well.

Reading through the cables, I have to wonder if Poroshenko was actually breaking Ukrainian law by sharing the kind of strategic information that he did. Considering that this information was certainly used when planning the coup against Yanukovich, one could argue that he committed treason.

Poroshenko, however, isn't the only Ukrainian politician mentioned. For example, the cables mention the scandal surrounding Oleksandr Turchynov's destruction of SBU documents tying Julia Tymoshenko to organized crime, and note that the accusation that Tymoshenko wanted Turchynov get the Interior Minister position so that she could gather damaging information on her enemies. The cable refers to this accusation as "not farfetched". Turchynov went on to be installed as the acting president of Ukraine in the provisional government.

In order to grasp the extent of the U.S. government's tinkering in Ukraine it is worth reading the documents for yourself.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

"Alas, goodness has ceased to be a feature of US policy and simply cannot be found in any words or deeds emanating from Washington or the capitals of its European vassal states. The Western World has succumbed to evil." "There are few patriots in Washington but many tyrants." -- Paul Craig Roberts

Washington Is Beating The War Drums — Paul Craig Roberts

June 17, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Washington Is Beating The War Drums

Paul Craig Roberts

I wish I had only good news to bring to readers, or even one item of good news. Alas, goodness has ceased to be a feature of US policy and simply cannot be found in any words or deeds emanating from Washington or the capitals of its European vassal states. The Western World has succumbed to evil.

In an article published by Op-Ed News, Eric Zuesse supports my reports of indications that Washington is preparing for a nuclear first strike against Russia.

US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack. Washington pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and is developing and deploying an ABM shield. Washington is demonizing Russia and Russia’s President with shameless lies and propaganda, thus preparing the populations of the US and its client states for war with Russia.

Washington has been convinced by neoconservatives that Russian strategic nuclear forces are in run down and unprepared condition and are sitting ducks for attack. This false belief is based on out-of-date information, a decade old, such as the argument presented in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press in the April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization of American elites.

Regardless of the condition of Russian nuclear forces, the success of Washington’s first strike and degree of protection provided by Washington’s ABM shield against retaliation, the article I posted by Steven Starr, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons,” makes clear that nuclear war has no winners. Everyone dies.

In an article published in the December 2008 issue of Physics Today, three atmospheric scientists point out that even the substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty hoped to achieve, from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 1700-2200 warheads by the end of 2012, did not reduce the threat that nuclear war presents to life on earth. The authors conclude that in addition to the direct blast effects of hundreds of millions of human fatalities, “the indirect effects would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” The stratospheric smoke from firestorms would cause nuclear winter and agricultural collapse. Those who did not perish from blast and radiation would starve to death. Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev understood this. Unfortunately, no successor US government has. As far as Washington is concerned, death is what happens to others, not to “the exceptional people.” (The SORT agreement apparently failed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the nine nuclear-armed states still possess a total of 16,300 nuclear weapons. )

It is a fact that Washington has policymakers who think, incorrectly, that nuclear war is winnable and who regard nuclear war as a means of preventing the rise of Russia and China as checks on Washington’s hegemony over the world. The US government, regardless of party in office, is a massive threat to life on earth. European governments, which think of themselves as civilized, are not, because they enable Washington’s pursuit of hegemony. It is this pursuit that threatens life with extinction. The ideology that grants “exceptional, indispensable America” supremacy is an enormous threat to the world.

The destruction of seven countries in whole or in part by the West in the 21st century, with the support of “Western civilization” and the Western media, comprises powerful evidence that the leadership of the Western world is devoid of moral conscience and human compassion. Now that Washington is armed with its false doctrine of “nuclear primacy,” the outlook for humanity is very bleak.

Washington has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board. As recently as November 2012 NATO Secretary General Rasmussen said that NATO does not regard Russia as an enemy. Now that the White House Fool and his European vassals have convinced Russia that the West is an enemy, Rasmussen declared that “we must adapt to the fact that Russia now considers us its adversary” by beefing up Ukraine’s military along with those of Eastern and Central Europe.

Last month Alexander Vershbow, former US ambassador to Russia, currently NATO Deputy Secretary General, declared Russia to be the enemy and said that the American and European taxpayers need to fork over for the military modernization “not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.”

It is possible to see these calls for more military spending as just the normal functioning of agents for the US military/security complex. Having lost “the war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington needs a replacement and has set about resurrecting the Cold War.

This is probably how the armaments industry, its shills, and part of Washington sees it. But the neoconservatives are more ambitious. They are not pursuing merely more profits for the military/security complex. Their goal is Washington’s hegemony over the world, which means reckless actions such as the strategic threat that the Obama regime, with the complicity of its European vassals, has brought to Russia in Ukraine.

Since last autumn the US government has been lying through its teeth about Ukraine, blaming Russia for the consequences of Washington’s actions, and demonizing Putin exactly as Washington demonized Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Assad, the Taliban, and Iran. The presstitute media and the European capitals have seconded the lies and propaganda and repeat them endlessly. Consequently, the US public’s attitude toward Russia moved sharply negative.

How do you think Russia and China see this? Russia has witnessed NATO brought to its borders, a violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings. Russia has witnessed the US pull out of the ABM treaty and develop a “star wars” shield. (Whether or not the shield would work is immaterial. The purpose of the shield is to convince the politicians and the public that Americans are safe.) Russia has witnessed Washington change the role of nuclear weapons in its war doctrine from deterrent to preemptive first strike. And now Russia listens to a daily stream of lies from the West and witnesses the slaughter by Washington’s vassal in Kiev of civilians in Russian Ukraine, branded “terrorists” by Washington, by such weapons as white phosphorus with not a peep of protest from the West.

Massive attacks by artillery and air strikes on homes and apartments in Russian Ukraine were conducted on the 25th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, while Washington and its puppets condemned China for an event that did not happen. As we now know, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. It was just another Washington lie like Tonkin Gulf, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, etc. It is an amazing fact that the world lives in a false reality created by Washington’s lies.

The movie, The Matrix, is a true depiction of life in the West. The population lives in a false reality created for them by their rulers. A handful of humans have escaped the false existence and are committed to bringing humans back to reality. They rescue Neo, “The One,” who they believe correctly to have the power to free humans from the false reality in which they live. Morpheus, the leader of the rebels, explains to Neo:

“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

I experience this every time I write a column. Protests from those determined not to be unplugged arrive in emails and on those websites that expose their writers to slander by government trolls in comment sections. Don’t believe real reality, they insist, believe the false reality.

The Matrix even encompasses part of the Russian and Chinese population, especially those educated in the West and those susceptible to Western propaganda, but on the whole those populations know the difference between lies and truth. The problem for Washington is that the propaganda that prevails over the Western peoples does not prevail over the Russian and Chinese governments.

How do you think China reacts when Washington declares the South China Sea to be an area of US national interests, allocates 60 percent of its vast fleet to the Pacific, and constructs new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam?

Suppose all Washington intends is to keep taxpayer funding alive for the military/security complex which launders some of the taxpayers’ money and returns it as political campaign contributions. Can Russia and China take the risk of viewing Washington’s words and deeds in this limited way?

So far the Russians, and only the Russians (and Chinese), have remained sensible. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister said: “At this stage, we want to give our partners a chance to calm down. We’ll see what happens next. If absolutely baseless accusations against Russia continue, it there are attempts to pressure us with economic leverage, then we may reevaluate the situation.”

If the White House Fool, Washington’s media whores and European vassals convince Russia that war is in the cards, war will be in the cards. As there is no prospect whatsoever of NATO being able to mount a conventional offensive threat against Russia anywhere near the size and power of the German invasion force in 1941 that met with destruction, the war will be nuclear, which will mean the end of all of us.

Keep that firmly in mind as Washington and its media whores continue to beat the drums for war. Keep in mind also that a long history proves beyond all doubt that everything Washington and the presstitute media tells you is a lie serving an undeclared agenda. You cannot rectify the situation by voting Democrat instead of Republican or by voting Republican instead of Democrat.

Thomas Jefferson told us his solution: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

There are few patriots in Washington but many tyrants.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The neocons continue their plan for a preemptive nuclear first strike on Russia, a country that is no longer communist, is threatening no one, and has even refrained from sending troops into Ukraine to stop the slaughter of Russian speakers by the viscious government illegally emplaced in Kiev by the CIA. The idiots in Washington are oblivious of the fact that such a nuclear strike could destroy the entire human race. And the clueless American public, continuing to believe every govenment lie regurgitated by the despicable "mainstream media", is cheering them on. I'm an old man who has lived a full life, but I deeply fear for our children and grandchildren. So, please, please wake up America before it's too late!

OpEdNews Op Eds

Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

By (about the author)     Permalink      
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ;

On Wednesday, June 11th, CNN headlined "U.S. Sends B-2 Stealth Bombers to Europe," and reported that "they arrived in Europe this week for training." Wikipedia notes that B-2s were "originally designed primarily as a nuclear bomber," and that "The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration."

In other words, the primary advantage of the newer, "Stealth," version of B-2, is its first-strike (or surprise-attack) nuclear capability. That's the upgrade: the weapon's ability to sneak upon the target-country and destroy it before it has a chance to fire off any of its own nuclear weapons in response to that "first-strike" attack. The advantage of Stealth is creating and stationing a nuclear arsenal for the purpose of winning a nuclear war, instead of for the goal of having continued peace via "Mutually Assured Destruction," or MAD.

Some historical background is necessary here, so that a reader can understand why this is happening -- the switch to an objective of actually winning a nuclear war (as opposed to deterring one). One cannot understand what's happening now in Ukraine without knowing this bigger picture.

(This account is written under the assumption that the reader already knows some of the allegations it contains, but not all of them, and that the reader will click on the link wherever a given allegation requires documentation and support.)

I have previously reported about "How and Why the U.S. Has Re-Started the Cold War (The Backstory that Precipitated Ukraine's Civil War)," and, "Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?" I pointed out there that we don't really need to re-start the Cold War, at all, since communism (against which the Cold War was, at least allegedly, fought) clearly lost to capitalism (we actually won the Cold War, and peacefully) but that America's aristocracy very much does need to re-start a war with Russia -- and why it does. (It has to do with maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency, something that benefits America's aristocrats enormously.)

Consequently, for example, a recent CNN Poll has found that Americans' fear of Russia has soared within just the past two years. Our news media present a type of news "reporting" that places Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, into a very bad light, even when it's unjustified by the facts.

The situation now is thus rather similar to that right before World War I, when the aristocracy in America decided that a pretext had to be created for our going to war against Germany. That War had already started in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep the U.S. out of it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P. Morgan and Company. This was documented in detail in an important 1985 book, Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well summarized in Business History Review, by noting that: "J.P. Morgan & Co. served as Britain's financial and purchasing agent, and the author makes especially good use of the Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in London to probe that relationship. Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to pay for North American imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely central to Anglo-American relations. How to manage those politics became the chief preoccupation of Her Majesty's representatives in the United States," and most especially of Britain's financial and purchasing agent in the U.S.

In 1917, after almost two years of heavy anti-German propaganda in the U.S. press that built an overwhelming public support for our joining that war against Germany, Congress found that, in March 1915, "J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media" so that we'd join the war on England's side. Whereas back then, it was Germany's leader who was being goaded into providing a pretext for us to declare war against his country, this time it's Russia's leader (Putin) who is being demonized and goaded into providing such a pretext, though Putin (unlike Germany's Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing the pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion of Ukraine). Consequently, Obama's people are stepping up the pressure upon Putin by bombing the areas of neighboring Ukraine where Russian speakers live, who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just a few more weeks of this, and Putin's public support inside Russia could palpably erode if Putin simply lets the slaughter proceed without his sending troops in to defend them and to fight back against Kiev's (Washington's surrogate's) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama has been warning about.

I also have reported on "Why Ukraine's Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance." The article argued that "This civil war is of massive historical importance, because it re-starts the global Cold War, this time no longer under the fig-leaf rationalization of an ideological battle between 'capitalism' versus 'communism,' but instead more raw, as a struggle between, on the one hand, the U.S. and West European aristocracies; and, on the other hand, the newly emerging aristocracies of Russia and of China." The conflict's origin, as recounted there, was told in its highest detail in an article in the scholarly journal Diplomatic History, about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 fooled the Soviet Union's leader Mikhail Gorbachev into Gorbachev's allowing the Cold War to be ended without any assurance being given to the remaining rump country, his own Russia, that NATO and its missiles and bombers won't expand right up to Russia's doorstep and surround Russia with a first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a chance to get its own nuclear weapons into the air in order to destroy the U.S. right back in retaliation.

That old system -- "Mutually Assured Destruction" or MAD, but actually very rational from the public's perspective on both sides -- is gone. The U.S. increasingly is getting nuclear primacy. Russia, surrounded by NATO nations and U.S. nuclear weapons, would be able to be wiped out before its rusty and comparatively puny military force could be mustered to respond. Whereas we are not surrounded by their weapons, they are surrounded by ours. Whereas they don't have the ability to wipe us out before we can respond, we have the ability to wipe them out before they'll be able to respond. This is the reason why America's aristocracy argue that MAD is dead. An article, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War" was published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, "the indirect effects ['nuclear winter'] would likely eliminate the majority of the human population." (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global warming.) However, aristocrats separate themselves from the public, and so their perspective is not necessarily the same as the public's. The perspective that J.P. Morgan and Co. had in 1915 wasn't the perspective that the U.S. public had back then, and it also wasn't the perspective that our President, Woodrow Wilson, did back then, when we were a democracy. But it's even less clear today that we are a democracy than it was in 1915. In that regard, things have only gotten worse in America.

So, President Obama is now trying to persuade EU leaders to join with him to complete this plan to replace MAD with a first-strike nuclear capability that will eliminate Russia altogether from the world stage.

As I also documented, the IMF is thoroughly supportive of this plan to remove Russia, and announced on May 1st, just a day prior to our massacre of independence-supporters in the south Ukrainian city of Odessa on May 2nd, that unless all of the independence supporters in south and eastern Ukraine can be defeated and/or killed, the IMF will pull the plug on Ukraine and force it into receivership.

Obama clearly means business here, and so the government that we have installed in Kiev is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine, in order to convince the residents there that resistance will be futile. Part of the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the losses of all of Ukraine's unpaid debts to Russia, so that far less of Ukraine's unpaid debts to the IMF, U.S. and E.U., will remain unpaid. It's basically an international bankruptcy proceeding, but without an international bankruptcy court, using instead military means. It's like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment, and the one with the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is the reason why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down the rebellion in Ukraine's southeast. What's important to the IMF is not land, it's the Kiev government's continued control over the assets in the rebelling part of Ukraine -- assets that will be worth something in a privatization or sell-off to repay that debt. However, for Obama, what is even more important than repaid debts is the continued dominance of the U.S. dollar. Wall Street needs that.

Among other indications that the U.S. is now preparing a nuclear attack against Russia is an article on May 23rd, "U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System," and also a June 10th report from a website with good sources in Russian intelligence, which alleges that Ukrainian President Petro "Poroshenko secretly met with ... [an] American delegation headed by the Director of ... the CIA's National Clandestine Service, Frank Archibald, which also included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current -- Raymond Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA agent in the Polish intelligence Agency, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who is working as senior Vice President of the insurance company Brower. Poroshenko and Archibald signed a paper entitled an 'Agreement on Military Cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine'"

Furthermore, barely a month before the CIA and State Department overthrew the previous, the pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, the government of Netherlands decided, after 18 years of "dithering," to allow the U.S. to arm our F-35 bombers there with nuclear weapons. And this was already after Holland's "Parliament in November signed off on a government plan to purchase 37 F-35As to replace the Dutch air force's aging fleet of nuclear-capable F-16s. The Netherlands is widely understood to host about two dozen U.S. B-61 gravity bombs at the Volkel air base, as part of NATO's policy of nuclear burden-sharing."

Moreover, Obama isn't only beefing up our first-strike nuclear capability, but is also building something new, called "Prompt Global Strike," to supplement that nuclear force, by means of "a precision conventional weapon strike" that, if launched against Russia from next-door Ukraine, could wipe out Russia's nuclear weapons within just a minute or so. That might be a fallback position, for Obama, in case the EU's leaders (other than Netherlands and perhaps one or two others) might happen to decide that they won't participate in our planned nuclear invasion of Russia.

Certainly, Obama means business here, but the big question is whether he'll be able to get the leaders of other "democratic" nations to go along with his first-strike plan.

The two likeliest things that can stop him, at this stage, would be either NATO's breaking up, or else Putin's deciding to take a political beating among his own public for simply not responding to our increasing provocations. Perhaps Putin will decide that a temporary embarrassment for him at home (for being "wimpy") will be better, even for just himself, than the annihilation of his entire country would be. And maybe, if Obama pushes his indubitable Superpower card too hard, he'll be even more embarrassed by this conflict than Putin will be. After all, things like this and this aren't going to burnish Obama's reputation in the history books, if he cares about that. But maybe he's satisfied to be considered to have been George W. Bush II, just a far better-spoken version: a more charming liar than the original. However, if things come to a nuclear invasion, even a U.S. "victory" won't do much more for Obama's reputation than Bush's "victory" in Iraq did for his. In fact, perhaps Americans will then come to feel that George W. Bush wasn't America's worst President, after all. Maybe the second half of the Bush-Obama Presidency will be even worse than the first.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Paul Craig Roberts considers Vladimir Putin to be the top world leader because he is willing compromise with other world powers in order to avoid conflicts (particularly nuclear war). By contrast, the U.S. has recently changed its nuclear war model from "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) to the notion that the U.S. can win a war by "first strike" (INSANE). PCR regards today's U.S. government to be "the greatest collection of dangeous fools in world history."

Downloading MP3 / Broadcast Interviews Are For Individual Listening Use And NOT For Reproduction Or Redistribution And Are The Sole Property Of ©King World News.  However, Linking Directly To The Desired Interview Page Is Permitted and Encouraged.

Blogger's Note: Following the instructions above, I commend the reader to go to the original, where this very germane on-radio interview will play shortly after you click the link below:

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - Former US Treasury Official, Co-Founder of Reaganomics, Economist & Acclaimed Author - Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist, a columnist and recent author of “The Failure Of Laissez Faire Capitalism”. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Dr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy. He has also written extensively that during the 21st century the Bush and Obama administrations have destroyed the US Constitution's protections of Americans' civil liberties and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Biography from
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - Economist, Co-Founder of Reaganomics & Acclaimed Author

Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University. His first scholarly article (Classica et Mediaevalia) was a reformulation of "The Pirenne Thesis."

In Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), Roberts explained the Soviet economy as the outcome of a struggle between inordinate aspirations and a refractory reality. He argued that the Soviet economy was not centrally planned, but that its institutions, such as material supply, reflected the original Marxist aspirations to establish a non-market mode of production. In Marx's Theory of Exchange (1973), Roberts argued that Marx was an organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out good will as an effective force for change.

From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff. As economic counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which became the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. His influential 1978 article for Harper's, while economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, had Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley give him an editorial slot, which he had until 1980. He was a senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.

From early 1981 to January 1982 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." Roberts resigned in January 1982 to become the first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University. He held this position until 1993. He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution (1984), in which he explained the reformulation of macroeconomic theory and policy that he had helped to create.

He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

In The New Color Line (1995), Roberts argued that the Civil Rights Act was subverted by the bureaucrats who applied it and, by being used to create status-based privileges, became a threat to the Fourteenth Amendment in whose name it was passed. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Roberts documented what he saw as the erosion of the Blackstonian legal principles that ensure that law is a shield of the innocent and not a weapon in the hands of government.

Monday, June 16, 2014

It appears that the two greatest government liers are the United States and those installed in Kiev who, with U.S. aid, took power away from the legally elected president by means of an (illegal) coup d'etat. Now these two lying governments are attacking Russian-speaking enclaves in the east and south of Ukraine with heavy artillery and aircraft dropping internationally baned white phosphorus incendiaries. Rivaling the U.S. govenment lying is the despicable U.S. "mainstream media" that reports every lie the govenment utters without doing a shred of journalistic research. Consequently, the gullible American public is led to believe that all of the slaughter is being committed by Russia at the direction of Vladimir Putin, whereas Putin has pulled back his troops from the border and has set up shelters for the Russian-speaking Ukrainians fleeing their homes to save their lives and those of their children. How much longer can the American people be so heinously duped! ...this blogger asks.

‘Bombardment never stops’: E. Ukrainian refugees share horrors of Kiev military op

Published time: June 13, 2014 19:34                             Go here if you should want to play the videos (recommended)

Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.

Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.

While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.

“According to the Federal Migration Service, more than 40,000 Ukrainian citizens have crossed into Rostov Region. As of today, about 4,000 Ukrainians have been housed in temporary accommodation centers,” a local Russian Emergencies Ministry official, Aleksandr Naumov, told RT. 

Reporting from the Russian-Ukrainian border, RT’s Paul Scott interviewed several women, who said they left their husbands and relatives behind to get the children away from shooting, bombing, and air raids.

“We left because we are scared. The streets are empty – we are afraid to let our children go outside. They too got scared and nervous with the constant sound of gunfire and jets,” a woman said.

Another female refugee, who fled the embattled city of Slavyansk with two small children, shared the story of their desperate escape.

“First we fled to Nikolayevka when the bombardment got intense. They then started bombing Nikolayevka too and we fled to Artyomovsk. In Artyomovsk, almost every night there were shootings, explosions, we heard how Grad [multiple rocket launchers] were fired at some places nearby...I can’t bear those sounds anymore,” the woman said while crying. 

People from other regions of eastern Ukraine “are in fact fleeing because they know the story of Slavyansk,” another woman, who crossed to Russia with her two sons and cats, told RT.

“The [Ukrainian] National Guard is simply bombarding the people, killing children. We fear for our children above all, we want them to be alive and well,”
she explained.

One of her sons has been having nightmares because he heard a shooting close by at night, the woman said.

According to the woman, her Ukrainian-speaking neighbors do not understand her family and support Kiev’s military operation. Moreover, the Ukrainian authorities and media are outright “lying” about civilian corridors being organized for refugees, she said.

“It is scary in this situation that the Ukrainian authorities, the Ukrainian media are lying about humanitarian corridors being organized – there is no such thing in reality. They are not letting the people leave, and the bombardments never stop. They don’t give a damn about us, the people of Donbas, Lugansk, they just need the territory,” the woman said.

Watch RT’s Paul Scott talking with eastern Ukrainian refugees

OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier on Thursday visited Rostov to meet with eastern Ukrainian refugees and hear their accounts of Kiev’s military operation – a move which was welcomed by Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that talking to witnesses about the events in eastern Ukraine is crucial for anyone wishing to get a “full, clear and impartial picture” of what is happening there.

However, Zannier outraged the refugees after saying that newly elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko “wants prosperity for Ukraine and is ready to use every effort for that.” The witnesses of Kiev’s military operation responded by shouting: “No! This is not our president, we did not elect him,” RIA Novosti reported.

Meanwhile, ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich on Friday recorded a video address, in which he urged Kiev to stop the military operation. 

Yanukovich, who was born in Donetsk Region, said people there are “shocked that instead of peace and stability [they got] a bloody massacre” right at the start of Poroshenko’s term.

“It is unbearable to see those deaths, this hatred incited in the not-so-long-ago peaceful country,” the ousted Ukrainian leader said. Yanukovich wondered why European leaders kept reminding him of the “unacceptability” of the use of force against civilians in the wake of mayhem in Kiev, but are now supporting the use of heavy artillery and jets against the population of eastern Ukraine.

The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.

“Lavrov particularly stressed the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the residents of southeastern Ukraine, the creation of appropriate conditions for a safe passage of refugees to the territory of the Russian Federation,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Professor Stephen Cohen, prominent US scholar of Russian studies and author who advised George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s, speaks to RT about the mistakes of consecutive American administrations in their Russia policies, leading to the worst crisis in decades and the deterioration of political discourse in America, which prevents things from changing in Washington.

Cohen on Ukraine civil war: ‘Lincoln didn’t call Confederates terrorists’

Published time: June 14, 2014 13:08

Historical analogies may be inaccurate, but Americans may need to look at their own civil war and compare it to what is happening in Ukraine now. Today the US supports a murderous criminal adventure that has little to do with unifying the country.

This assessment came from Professor Stephen Cohen, prominent US scholar of Russian studies and author, who advised George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s. He spoke to RT about the mistakes of the consecutive American administrations in their Russia policies, the worst crisis in decades that they led to and the deterioration of political discourse in America that prevents things from changing in Washington.

Cohen challenged the narrative of the Ukrainian events dominating in the US, calling the military crackdown by the government an “unwise, reckless, murderous, inhuman campaign that Kiev is conduction against what are admittedly rebel provinces.”

“Lincoln never called the Confederacy terrorists,” the scholar pointed out. “He always said, no matter how bad the civil war was, fellow citizens he wanted to come back to the union. Why is Kiev calling its own citizens terrorists? They are rebels. They are protesters. They have a political agenda. Why isn’t Kiev sending a delegation there to negotiate with them?

“Their demands are not unreasonable. They want to elect their own governors – we elect our own governors. They want a say on where their taxes go – ‘no taxation without representation.’ We know what that is,” Cohen said. “There are extremists among them, but there are also people who simply want to live in a Ukraine that is for everybody. And instead the Kiev army, with the full support of the United States, is supporting this assault.”

‘Kremlin an essential ally Washington pushes away’

What the US doing with Ukraine now is alienating arguably the best potential ally it has now, Cohen said.

“I am convinced that the most essential partner for the American national security in all of these areas from Iran to Syria, Afghanistan and beyond is the Kremlin, currently occupied by Putin. And the way the United States has treated Putin – I would call it a betrayal of American national interest.”

Russia helped the Obama administration save its face in Syria, where the president was pushed into bombing the country over chemical weapons. It helped make bridges with the new leadership of Iran to start the first serious negotiations in decades.

“Obama had within his grasp at last – because it was a failed foreign policy presidency for Obama – two achievements that would have been in American national interest. And they have slipped away almost in proportion to the degree that Obama pushed Putin away. Pushed Putin away so far that over Ukraine we [the US] could be on the verge of war with Russia.”

Cohen blames the US, particularly the Clinton administration for setting the world on a path that led it to the current confrontation between the West and Russia.

“This is the playing out of American policy of expanding NATO to Russia’s borders – for whatever reasons. It began with Clinton, was continued under the second George Bush, has been pushed by Obama. And that is the rooster that has come home to roost.”

“Some people in the 1990s… warned that this was going to happen. Now that it has, and the people would not take responsibility for it,” he said. “They would not say ‘OK, we were wrong, we have to rethink policy.’ Instead they say to people such as myself, ‘You are an apologist for Putin. You are serving the Kremlin, you are not a patriot.’”

‘Obama isolated himself on foreign policy’

This lack of ability to change policies is evident in the current administration, the scholar believes.

“I had lunch with two men much older than me, who had served many presidents and who’ve known them personally. And they were agreed that this president more than anyone in their lifetime isolated himself on foreign policy.”

One anecdotal example Cohen cited is Obama’s refusal to talk to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

“I have heard – whether it’s true or not I don’t know – that President Obama has declined to meet privately with Henry Kissinger, who sees Putin twice a year. Kissinger probably knows Putin better than any American statesmen alive today and who has been consulted by so many presidents. Think what we might about Kissinger’s past, but he has already declared his criticism of American policy towards Russia. And Obama wouldn’t want to spend an hour with him, asking ‘Are we doing something wrong? Are we misperceiving the situation?’”

It’s no surprise that a leader, who doesn’t take into account various viewpoint on a problem cannot take a rational decision on tackling it, Cohen said.

“I ask for a president to be a person, who solicits the best and most diverse learned views involving an existing crisis, that’s all… A president has to bring in people with conflicting views whose legitimacy is based on their knowledge, their learning. A president who doesn’t do that is going to get us into a crisis that Obama and Clinton got us into.”


‘The only way to break orthodoxy is with heresy’

Unfortunately for America, it’s not only the White house that discourages debate now, but also American society in general, the professor said.

“There is no debate of public opposition in this country about this, unlike the situation 20-25 years ago, when we had real debates and public fights,” he said. “I don’t know if they [the mainstream media – RT] know the truth and therefore are not telling the truth, or that they are just caught up in the myths that had been attached to Russia since the end of the Soviet Union.”

“An orthodoxy about Russia has formed in this country over 20 years,” he added. “And it’s not only wrong, it’s reckless. It led us to this crisis in Ukraine… The only way you can break orthodoxy is with heresy. Some of the things I say are regarded as heretical, treasonous, unpatriotic. But heresy is a good thing, when it’s needed.”

This situation is a sharp contrast to what happens in some other democracies, which don’t hush a public debate on foreign policy issues and don’t try to push opinions not liked by the political establishment into the ‘fringe press’.

“Germany, a relatively new democracy with a past as bad as Russia’s, could develop a democracy, where people can speak openly and feely without fear of failing to get a promotion or getting on an op-ed page. Two of three former German chancellors have blamed Europe for the crisis in Ukraine – not Russia.”

“Where are our former presidents? We know why President Clinton wouldn’t speak out, because he began that policy. But where is President Carter? Where are the former secretaries of state who pursued other policies? Why the silence? We’ve developed, I fear, a political culture within the establishment that is conformist. Even though the penalty of dissent in our country is cheap, unlike in many other countries.”

Saturday, June 14, 2014

"Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has just been overrun by al Qaeda forces. These are the forces that Washington has claimed a number of times to have completely defeated. These "defeated" forces now control Iraq's second largest city and a number of provinces. The person Washington left in charge of Iraq is on his knees begging Washington for military help and air support against the Jihadist forces that the incompetent Bush regime unleashed in the Muslim world." -- Paul Craig Roberts

Washington’s Iraq “Victory” — Paul Craig Roberts

June 14, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Washington’s Iraq “Victory”

Paul Craig Roberts

The citizens of the United States still do not know why their government destroyed Iraq. “National Security” will prevent them from ever knowing. “National Security” is the cloak behind which hides the crimes of the US government.

George Herbert Walker Bush, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency who became President courtesy of being picked as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President, was the last restrained US President. When Bush the First attacked Iraq it was a limited operation, the goal of which was to evict Saddam Hussein from his annexation of Kuwait.

Kuwait was once a part of Iraq, but a Western colonial power created new political boundaries, as the Soviet Communist Party did in Ukraine. Kuwait emerged from Iraq as a small, independent oil kingdom.

According to reports, Kuwait was drilling at an angle across the Iraq/Kuwait border into Iraqi oil fields. On July 25, 1990, Saddam Hussein, with Iraqi troops massed on the border with Kuwait, asked President George H. W. Bush’s ambassador, April Glaspie, if the Bush administration had an opinion on the situation. Here is Ambassador Glaspie’s reply:

“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

According to this transcript, Saddam Hussein is further assured by high US government officials that Washington does not stand in his way in reunifying Iraq and putting a halt to a gangster family’s theft of Iraqi oil:

“At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:

‘Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?’

“to which she responded: ‘I’m entirely unaware of any such protest.’

“On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion [of Kuwait], John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the ‘United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq’.”

(See here among other sources: )

Was this an intentional a set-up of Saddam Hussein, or did the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait produce frantic calls from the Bush family’s Middle Eastern business associates?

Whatever explains the dramatic, sudden, total change of position of the US government, the result produced military action that fell short of war on Iraq itself.

From 1990 until 2003 Iraq was acceptable to the US government.

Suddenly, in 2003 Iraq was no longer acceptable. We don’t know why. We were told a passel of lies: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to America. The spectre of a “mushroom cloud over an American city” was raised by the National Security Advisor. The Secretary of State was sent to the UN with a collection of lies with which to build acceptance of US naked aggression against Iraq. The icing on the cake was the claim that Saddam Hussein’s secular government “had al Qaeda connections,” al Qaeda bearing the blame for 9/11.

As neither Congress nor the US media have any interest to know the reason for Washington’s about face on Iraq, the “Iraq Threat” will remain a mystery for Americans.

But the consequences of Washington’s destruction of the secular government of Saddam Hussein, a government that managed to hold Iraq together without the American-induced violence that has made the country a permanent war zone, has been ongoing years of violence on a level equal to, or in excess of, the violence associated with the US occupation of Iraq.

Washington is devoid of humanitarian concerns. Hegemony is Washington’s only concern. As in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan,Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Washington brings only death, and death is ongoing in Iraq.

On June 12, 500,000 residents of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, benefactors of Washington’s “freedom and democracy” liberation, fled the city as the American trained army collapsed and fled under al Qaeda attack. The Washington-installed government, fearing Baghdad is next, has asked Washington for air strikes against the al Qaeda troops. Tikrit and Kirkuk have also fallen. Iran has sent two battalions of Revolutionary Guards to protect the Washington-installed government in Baghdad.

(After this article was published, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani dismissed the widespread news reports–Wall Street Journal, World Tribune, The Guardian, Telegraph, CNBC, Daily Mail, Times of Israel, etc.–that Iran has sent troops to help the Iraqi government. Once again the Western media has created a false reality with false reports.)

Does anyone remember the propaganda that Washington had to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to bring “freedom and democracy and women’s rights to Iraqis”? We had to defeat al Qaeda, which at the time was not present in Iraq, “over there before they came over here.”

Do you remember the neoconservative promises of a “cakewalk war” lasting only a few weeks, of the war only costing $70 billion to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues, of George W. Bush’s economic advisor being fired for saying that the war would cost $200 billion? The true cost of the war was calculated by economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes who showed that the Iraqi war cost US taxpayers $3 trillion dollars, an expenditure that threatens the US social safety net.

Do you remember Washington’s promises that Iraq would be put on its feet by America as a democracy in which everyone would be safe and women would have rights?

What is the situation today?

Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has just been overrun by al Qaeda forces. These are the forces that Washington has claimed a number of times to have completely defeated.

These “defeated” forces now control Iraq’s second largest city and a number of provinces. The person Washington left in charge of Iraq is on his knees begging Washington for military help and air support against the Jihadist forces that the incompetent Bush regime unleashed in the Muslim world.

What Washington has done in Iraq and Libya, and is trying to do in Syria, is to destroy governments that kept Jihadists under control. Washington faces the prospect of a Jihadist government encompassing Iraq and Syria. The Neoconservative conquest of the Middle East is becoming an al Qaeda conquest.

Washington has opened Pandora’s Box. This is Washington’s accomplishment in the Middle East.

Even as Iraq falls to al Qaeda , Washington is supplying the al Qaeda forces attacking Syria with heavy weapons. It is demonized Iran that has sent troops to defend the Washington-installed regime in Baghdad! Is it possible for a country to look more foolish than Washington looks?

One conclusion that we can reach is that the arrogance and hubris that defines the US government has rendered Washington incapable of making a rational, logical decision. Megalomania rules in Washington.

This article is published jointly with the Strategic Culture Foundation