Debating Hillary: 3. Energy and Climate Change, Bill Whittle Channel, October 4, 2016
(Please see also, DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent. –DM)
Archive for October 2016
Debating Hillary: 3. Energy and Climate Change
October 5, 2016U.S. Society Ignorant of Migration Problem, Latin America Press Says
October 5, 2016U.S. Society Ignorant of Migration Problem, Latin America Press Says, Latin American Herald Tribune
(Summary — Americans are stupid and like Trump because they don’t know that Latin America has an unbearable violent crime problem and we haven’t bothered to attempt an “honest search” for a solution. Let’s violate American laws by sneaking in so we can give America the same problems we have. –DM)
He regretted that Central America “continues to be a region that hasn’t found the formula for solving the problems of violence that is terrorizing most of the population” adding that he has “come to believe the reason is because there has been no honest search” for a solution.
***************************
MEDELLIN, Colombia – U.S. society remains blissfully ignorant about Central America’s migration problem, according to Carlos Dada, founder of El Faro, the digital news daily of El Salvador and winner of the Gabriel Garcia Marquez Award for Journalistic Excellence.
Dada has been digging into the subjects of migration and violence in the region for the past 18 years.
“American society lives in such amazing comfort that it is completely ignorant of the problem, and only a society so ignorant can explain the success of someone like (Republican presidential candidate Donald) Trump,” Dada told EFE in an interview in Medellin, where he accepted the prize that, as the jury indicated, “for the first time has been awarded to a team and not to an individual.”
The journalist warned that big media in the U.S. “are beginning to realize… how disconnected they are from their own societies.”
“They still don’t get how half the people in their country can be Trump supporters,” he said.
According to the journalist, those media “are terrified to see that the richest, most developed society in the world… is made up of very ignorant citizens who have the great power to give a dangerous, ignorant clown like Trump the most important, most powerful office in the world.”
El Faro journalists were dubbed “the uncomfortables” in a profile by the New Ibero-American Journalism Foundation, or FNPI, founded by Colombian Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez, that accompanied the Journalistic Excellence Award.
The FNPI wished to honor “the quality of El Faro’s journalism and also the courage of its journalists” who undertake such projects as reporting on the violence in El Salvador.
“Central America continues to be seen in the north as a very violent and very corrupt region,” said Oscar Martinez, another El Faro journalist who this year was also honored with the Maria Moors Cabot Prize.
He warned that one thing that is happening is that “the verb ‘to migrate,’ which had economic implications, now mostly means ‘to flee’ or ‘to escape.’”
“A lot of people are being displaced and are leaving the region because of the violence,” Martinez said.
He regretted that Central America “continues to be a region that hasn’t found the formula for solving the problems of violence that is terrorizing most of the population” adding that he has “come to believe the reason is because there has been no honest search” for a solution.
“Last year was the most violent year of the century in El Salvador with 103 homicides for every 100,000 inhabitants; of those homicides in 2015, only one in every 10 has been prosecuted up to halfway through this year; in other words, only one in every 10 homicides in the most violent year of the most murderous country in the world had the chance to be punished,” he said.
Similarly, the director of El Faro, Jose Luis Sanz, lamented that the political debate about violence “continues to be repetitive, vague and simplistic.”
DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent
October 5, 2016DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent, Watts up with that, Eric Worrall, October 4, 2016
(Please see also, Reviving Religious Tests for Public Office. — DM)
Screenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be banned from public office.
It is one thing for a hypocritical jetset climate clown like DiCaprio to say something outrageous and anti-democratic. But it is an entirely different issue, when the serving President of the United States, who took an oath to defend the US constitution, fails to discharge his duty by speaking up against a high profile verbal attack against the liberty of the people he swore to protect.
***********************
Climate advocate Leonardo DiCaprio has called for climate “deniers” to be banned from public office. President Obama, sharing a stage with DiCaprio, did not object – Obama’s words in my opinion appear to actually lend some support to DiCaprio’s outrageous demand, for limiting the US people’s freedom to choose leaders who represent their views.
DiCaprio: Climate change doubters shouldn’t hold public office
Politicians who don’t believe in climate change should not hold public office, said actor Leonardo DiCaprio Monday at the White House before the screening of his new climate documentary.
“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at the White House’s South By South Lawn event.
“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
…
“Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.
“The political system in every country is not well-designed to do something tough now to solve a problem that people will really feel the impact of in the future.”
…
Read more (includes a video): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/leonardo-dicaprio-barack-obama-sxsl-climate-change
How many tyrants and dictators through history have used the pretext of an imminent disaster to seize control, to deprive people of their freedom?
It is one thing for a hypocritical jetset climate clown like DiCaprio to say something outrageous and anti-democratic. But it is an entirely different issue, when the serving President of the United States, who took an oath to defend the US constitution, fails to discharge his duty by speaking up against a high profile verbal attack against the liberty of the people he swore to protect.
James Madison Students Instructed Not To Say Things Like “Picking People Up By Their Bootstraps”
October 5, 2016James Madison Students Instructed Not To Say Things Like “Picking People Up By Their Bootstraps”, Jonathan Turley Blog, Jonathan Turley, October 5, 2016
James Madison University has issued a list of 35 things to instruct students on not saying “dumb” things, a list that reflects phrases considered to be “microaggressions” or insensitive comments. The students at the orientation were told never to say things like “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” and “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.” among other expressions.
The list appears to come from Dr. Maura Cullen’s book “35 Dumb Things Well-Intended People Say: Surprising Things We Say that Widen the Diversity Gap,” a popular source for those who argue that microaggressions should be sanctioned on campuses, a view recently embraced by the Northwestern University President who called those with opposing views “idiots.”
James Madison University wants students to stop referring to people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or “I know exactly how you feel.” Even expressions of empathy are disfavored because they “shut[] the other person down.” So telling a gay or lesbian person that “what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business” is still “hurtful and annoying” because it belittles their experiences.
I have written columns and blogs through the years about the disturbing trend on U.S. campuses toward free speech regulation and controls. In the name of diversities and tolerance, college administrators and professors are enforcing greater and greater controls on speech –declaring certain views or terms to be forms of racism or more commonly “microaggressions.”
Here is the full list:
1. “Some of my best friends are …”
2. “I know exactly how you feel.”
3. “I don’t think of you as …”
4. “The same thing happens to me too.”
5. “It was only a joke! Don’t take things so seriously.”
6. What do ‘your’ people think.”
7. “What are you?” or “Where are you really from?”
8. “I don’t see color” or “I’m color blind.”
9. “You are so articulate.”
10. “It is so much better than it used to be. Just be patient.”
11. “You speak the language very well.”
12. Asking black people about their hair or hygiene.
13. Saying to LBGTQ people “what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business.”
14. “Yes, but you are a ‘good’ one.”
15. “You have such a pretty face.”
16. “I never owned slaves.”
17. “If you are going to live in this country, learn to speak the language!”
18. “She/he is a good person. She/he didn’t mean anything by it.”
19. “When I’ve said the same thing to other people like you, they don’t mind.”
20. Calling women “girls, honey, sweetie pie” or other familiar terms.
21. When people of color say, “It is not the same thing.”
22. When people of faith say, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
23. When white men say, “We are the ones being discriminated against now!”
24. Referring to older people as “cute.”
25. Asking a transgender person, “What are you really? A man or a woman?”
26. Referring to the significant other, partner, or spouse of a same gender couple as their “friend.”
27. “Why do ‘they’ (fill in the blank) always have to sit together? They are always sticking together.”
28. “People just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.”
29. People with disabilities are “courageous.”
30. “That’s so gay/queer. That’s so retarded.”
31. “I don’t see difference. We are all part of the same race, the human race.”
32. I don’t care if you are pink, purple or orange, I treat all people the same.”
33. Asking a transgender person, “Have you had the operation.”
34. Saying to a Jewish person, “You are so lucky to have ‘your’ Christmas spread over a week!”
35. “Here’s another book on political correctness.”
Iran Rejects UN Chief’s Human Rights Report as Fundamentally Flawed
October 5, 2016Iran Rejects UN Chief’s Human Rights Report as Fundamentally Flawed, Tasnim “News” Agency, October 5, 2016
(It all depends on the meaning of the phrase “human rights.” — DM)
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman slammed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s recent report on human rights situation in Iran as baseless, saying there are fundamental flaws in the report, which has been drafted on the basis of unfair resolutions with political purposes.
“Such reports have fundamental flaws in essence and that is why they lack validity from Iran’s viewpoint,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi said on Wednesday, after the UN chief gave a negative assessment of human rights in Iran in a 19-page report, released this week.
Ban has said he remains “deeply troubled” by what he called accounts “of executions, floggings, arbitrary arrests and detentions, unfair trials, denial of access to medical care and possible torture and ill-treatment” in Iran.
In response, Qassemi said the report lacks credibility since it has been prepared on the basis of “cruel, unfair and politically-motivated resolutions” with the purpose of exerting pressure on Iran.
What casts more doubt on the credibility of the report is that it has used unclear and unreliable sources, he added.
“The report makes an unfair, one-sided and incorrect judgement on Iran’s human rights situation and has missed the opportunity for an evenhanded and fair assessment based on facts,” the spokesman added.
Highlighting Iran’s efforts to promote human rights and protect civil rights under the Constitution, Qassemi said Ban’s report has ignored the Islamic Republic’s struggle against major challenges, such as the fight against narcotics trafficking and dealing with cruel sanctions.
The spokesman finally warned of erosion of trust in the United Nations as a result of continued politicization of issues, adoption of double standards on human rights and turning a blind eye to the killing of women and children in Yemen.
Such a poor performance dashes hopes about the UN’s role in promoting the human rights situation in the world, he deplored.
New Report Shows Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Profiting from Iran Deal
October 5, 2016New Report Shows Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Profiting from Iran Deal, Counter Jihad, October 5, 2016
A new report from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies showcases the ways in which Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has benefited from the so-called nuclear deal. This deal, which Congress never voted to approve nor reject, and which the Iranian government fundamentally altered rather than accepting, has nevertheless led to a vast transfer of wealth to Iran. Much of that wealth has fallen right in the hands of the IRGC, which oversees Iran’s terrorist and military nuclear programs.
Here at CounterJihad, we have covered the problems withIran’s nuclear deal somewhat extensively. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies report’s conclusions will thus be of little surprise to our regular readers. However, it does include additional detail on the degree to which Iran’s corporate and business ventures are secretly dominated by IRGC elites. As the report says:
[IRGC abuses] did not stop France’s mobile phone giant, Orange, from beginning talks with Iran’s largest mobile phone operator, Mobile Telecommunication Company of Iran (MCI), over acquiring a stake in the Iranian company. The IRGC controls MCI through a 50-percent-plus-one stake in its parent company, the Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI). In short, whether its internal security, foreign adventures, or large corporate ventures, the IRGC plays an outsized role in Iran’s internal power structure. Established in 1979 to consolidate the Islamic revolution and fight its enemies, the IRGC has evolved over the years into a full-fledged conventional army, conducting and directing terrorist activity abroad. The Guard has also become a political power broker, an economic conglomerate, and an agency in charge of nuclear and ballistic-missile proliferation…. IRGC revenues from economic activities yield the necessary resources and political leverage to place its members in positions of power. Conversely, the Guard’s political power serves the economic enterprises it owns, and both its political and economic weight in turn advance its military projects.
The IRGC’s corporate activity offers revenue to the organization in the same way that its control of narcotics within Iran does. However, whereas the narcotics are often passed on to Hezbollah to be turned into heroin, corporate profits can be rolled over into apparently legitimate enterprises that have useful military applications. That allows Iran a backdoor to internationally-developed advanced weaponry and so-called “dual use” technologies. These are technologies that have both a legitimate purpose, but also an application to Iran’s nuclear program.
Their space program is an excellent example of the way in which a legitimate purpose can mask development of nuclear weapons: the same technologies involved in building space rockets that can deploy satellites in particular orbits can also be used to develop ballistic missiles that will deliver nuclear warheads to particular cities. The New York Times reported in September that the biggest engine in North Korea’s nuclear missile program seems to have been developed in partnership with Iran. Iran’s version is “nuclear-capable,” but the North Korean version makes no pretense about its intentions.
The potential links to Iran complicate the issue. Iran has ignored a United Nations Security Council resolution, passed in conjunction with last year’s agreement freezing its nuclear program, to refrain from tests of nuclear-capable missiles for eight years. The Obama administration has not sought sanctions, knowing they would be vetoed by Russia and China, nor has it said much in public about the details of the cooperation on the new rocket engine.
Nor are they likely to do so, given how much of the administration’s prestige is tied up with the so-called nuclear deal. It is worth noting, however, that the effect of the deal has been to embolden Iran — and North Korea, and Russia, and America’s enemies in general.
U.S. Army Chief Threatens War With Russia
October 5, 2016U.S. Army Chief Threatens War With Russia “We will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before”
Paul Joseph Watson – October 5, 2016
Source: U.S. Army Chief Threatens War With Russia » Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley warned last night that the United States was ready to “destroy” its enemies in comments that were clearly directed at Russia.
“I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm….the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that,” said Milley.
The General went on to warn that Russia and other countries had taken advantage of the U.S. being focused on the war on terror.
“Other countries – Russia, Iran, China, North Korea – went to school on us,” he said, adding, “They studied our doctrine, our tactics, our equipment, our organization, our training, our leadership. And, in turn, they revised their own doctrines, and they are rapidly modernizing their military today to avoid our strengths in hopes of defeating us at some point in the future.”
Milley cautioned that the next major conflict would “be highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced at least since World War II,” and would involve fighting in “highly populated urban areas.”
“Make no mistake about it, we can now and we will … retain the capability to rapidly deploy,” he said, “and we will destroy any enemy anywhere, any time,” he concluded.
Gen. Milley made it clear who he was talking about when he went on to quote a senior Russian official who vowed, “Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win.”
The comments come amidst rising tensions between the two superpowers.
40 million Russians from all sectors of government are currently taking part in a nationwide emergency drill that will wargame “evacuation” procedures during a national crisis.
According to Oleg Manuilov, the director of the Russian Civil Defence Department, the exercise will be a test run of how the population would respond to a “disaster occurrence” under an “emergency” situation.
Last week, Russian officials revealed that huge underground nuclear bunkers had been built to provide shelter for the city’s 12 million population.
A nationwide television station run by the country’s Ministry of Defence also warned citizens last week that nuclear conflict was on the horizon.
“Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow,” reported Zvezda.
EU roadmap for ties with Iran accused of ignoring antisemitism, terrorism
October 5, 2016The “EU strategy towards Iran after the nuclear agreement” is scheduled to be voted on Thursday by the Committee on Foreign Affairs in Brussels.
The European Parliament is set to vote on a roadmap for relations with Iran that critics charge sidesteps Tehran’s endorsement of antisemitism, terrorism, and calls to destroy Israel.
Compiled by Richard Howitt, a member of the European Union’s legislative arm for Britain’s Labour Party and a close ally of party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the draft report on “EU strategy towards Iran after the nuclear agreement” is scheduled to be voted on Thursday by the Committee on Foreign Affairs in Brussels.
The draft document, which sets principles for normalization of European Union relations with Iran following the agreement to lift sanctions from Tehran in exchange for the scaling back of its nuclear program, contains one single criticism of Iran, regarding its use of the death penalty. It does not mention Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, support for Holocaust denial, and threats to destroy Israel.
“Iran’s revolutionary legacy and its constitution as an Islamic state must not be an impediment for finding common ground on matters related to democracy or human rights,” the document states. Omitting reference to Iran’s support for the Hezbollah military wing, which is on the EU list of terrorist groups, the document “welcomes Iran’s contribution to the fight against ISIS.”
The report in its current form “is a serious blow to the standing of the European Parliament as a defender of human rights, justice and freedom,” Daniel Schwammenthal, director of the American Jewish Committee’s EU Office, the AJC Transatlantic Institute, said in a statement.
Iran has been accused of fueling sectarian violence that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and Iraq.
Many EU sanctions on Iran have been lifted, along with other international sanctions, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the formal name for the deal reached last year between six major world powers, led by the United States, and Iran, exchanging sanctions relief for a rollback of nuclear development in Iran.
Israel has opposed the deal, claiming it will pave Iran’s way to nuclear offensive capabilities rather than block it, as US President Barack Obama said the agreement would.
The document devotes considerable attention to the benefits of trade between Iran and Europe following the lifting of sanctions and notes that “European investments are key” for Iran’s stated objective of achieving a yearly growth rate of 8 percent.
Iran has faced criticism over its support for terrorist groups, persecution of minorities, state-sponsored torture, persecution of dissidents and journalists, and other human rights violations. In addition, it has been condemned for hosting last year the Second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest in Tehran. The event was decried as anti-Semitic by UNESCO, Germany and the United States, among others.
Noting this, the Transatlantic Institute wrote in its Oct. 3 statement that it is “deeply concerned over the European Parliament’s failure to mention let alone criticize in its draft Iran report Tehran’s anti-Semitic propaganda and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel; its support for international terrorism, and illegal ballistic missile tests.”
Pavlich: Jerusalem, Israel | TheHill
October 5, 2016OPINION | The capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and Obama should have the courage to say so.
Source: Pavlich: Jerusalem, Israel | TheHill
Getty Images
By Katie Pavlich – 10/04/16 05:33 PM EDT
Late last week, the White House sent out a press release featuring remarks made by President Obama at the memorial service for former Israeli President Shimon Peres. The location on the original release was marked Mount Herzl, Jerusalem, Israel.
“I could not be more honored to be in Jerusalem to say farewell to my friend Shimon Peres, who showed us that justice and hope are at the heart of the Zionist idea,” Obama said in his opening remarks. “A free life, in a homeland regained. A secure life, in a nation that can defend itself, by itself. A full life, in friendship with nations who can be counted on as allies, always. A bountiful life, driven by simple pleasures of family and by big dreams. This was Shimon Peres’s life. This is the State of Israel. This is the story of the Jewish people over the last century, and it was made possible by a founding generation that counts Shimon as one of its own.”
Soon after, another release was sent featuring the same remarks with a different header, simply reading: Mount Herzl, Jerusalem.Why the change from the White House? After all, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, one of America’s strongest allies in the Middle East deserving of priority even during the most controversial of disputes.
“The administration’s policy toward Jerusalem follows that of previous US administrations — of both parties — since 1967,” the White House told The Jerusalem Post about the “correction.” “The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final-status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way this is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
The real answer is as obvious as it is unnecessary. Jerusalem will always be the capital of Israel, even if someday a peace agreement were to be reached. The change came as a way to appease the Palestinians and their leftist allies, who of course have attempted to erase all previously established Jewish history in Jerusalem for centuries. The change was also likely made as a way to prevent violence in response to the declaration from the United States that Jerusalem belongs to Israel, as if those carrying the ideology that has fueled terrorism against innocent Israelis for decades need an excuse.
In the category of U.S. interest, Israeli intelligence services regularly share valuable and essential information about the Middle East. As the region has all but collapsed under Obama’s leadership, Israel has been a reliable, steady, stable force in the region. The Palestinians, however, have partnered with enemy terrorist organizations and have repeatedly taken advantage of good will in order to take innocent life.
Despite being constantly under attack, Israeli doctors and nurses treat Palestinian terrorists in their hospitals, and the Jewish state regularly sends humanitarian aid and assistance to Gaza, even in the middle of wars. Over the years that aid hasn’t been used to promote peace and a better way of life, but instead to build tunnels for future attacks on the Israeli people. The small minority of Palestinians who truly believe in peace are bullied into silence for fear of being killed for admitting so.
In the private sector, Israel has more companies on the Nasdaq than any other country in the world, producing life-saving technology and medical devices. Palestinians and their leftist supporters boycott all of these products, services and information in the name of “human rights,” despite Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East surrounded by severe intolerance.
While Tel Aviv hosts the world’s largest gay pride parade each year, those even suspected of being gay are dragged through the streets in Gaza, and women are treated as slaves and property.
These are just a handful of examples that represent the relationship between the U.S. and Israel as a healthy partnership that promotes human dignity and freedom all around the world, rather than extreme ideological oppression. The U.S. relationship with the Palestinians is a limited, one-way street for a number of reasons, one prominently being a lack of common moral values.
The moral equivalency between the Palestinians and Israel constantly drawn by the White House is not only inaccurate, it elevates evil to the same level as true good. Denying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel does nothing to promote peace — instead, it disrespects a longtime, helpful and humane ally in the Middle East.
The capital of Israel is Jerusalem, it always will be, and the White House should have the courage to stand by saying so.
Pavlich is editor for Townhall.com and a Fox News contributor.
Obama Warned To Defuse Tensions With Russia, “Unintended Consequences Likely To Be Catastrophic”
October 5, 2016Obama Warned To Defuse Tensions With Russia, “Unintended Consequences Likely To Be Catastrophic”
by Tyler Durden
Oct 5, 2016 5:03 AM
A group of ex-U.S. intelligence officials is warning President Obama to defuse growing tensions with Russia over Syria by reining in the demonization of President Putin and asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: PREVENTING STILL WORSE IN SYRIA
We write to alert you, as we did President George W. Bush, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, that the consequences of limiting your circle of advisers to a small, relatively inexperienced coterie with a dubious record for wisdom can prove disastrous.* Our concern this time regards Syria.
We are hoping that your President’s Daily Brief tomorrow will give appropriate attention to Saturday’s warning by Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova: “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”
Speaking on Russian TV, she warned of those whose “logic is ‘why do we need diplomacy’ … when there is power … and methods of resolving a problem by power. We already know this logic; there is nothing new about it. It usually ends with one thing – full-scale war.”
We are also hoping that this is not the first you have heard of this – no doubt officially approved – statement. If on Sundays you rely on the “mainstream” press, you may well have missed it. In the Washington Post, an abridged report of Zakharova’s remarks (nothing about “full-scale war”) was buried in the last paragraph of an 11-paragraph article titled “Hospital in Aleppo is hit again by bombs.” Sunday’s New York Times totally ignored the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s statements.
In our view, it would be a huge mistake to allow your national security advisers to follow the example of the Post and Times in minimizing the importance of Zakharova’s remarks.
Events over the past several weeks have led Russian officials to distrust Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who parses his words carefully, has publicly expressed that distrust. Some Russian officials suspect that Kerry has been playing a double game; others believe that, however much he may strive for progress through diplomacy, he cannot deliver on his commitments because the Pentagon undercuts him every time. We believe that this lack of trust is a challenge that must be overcome and that, at this point, only you can accomplish this.
It should not be attributed to paranoia on the Russians’ part that they suspect the Sept. 17 U.S. and Australian air attacks on Syrian army troops that killed 62 and wounded 100 was no “mistake,” but rather a deliberate attempt to scuttle the partial cease-fire Kerry and Lavrov had agreed on – with your approval and that of President Putin – that took effect just five days earlier.
In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:
“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”
Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric. He also criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”
Policy differences between the White House and the Pentagon are rarely as openly expressed as they are now over policy on Syria. We suggest you get hold of a new book to be released this week titled The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War by master historian H. W. Brands. It includes testimony, earlier redacted, that sheds light on why President Truman dismissed WWII hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command of U.N. forces in Korea in April 1951. One early reviewer notes that “Brands’s narrative makes us wonder about challenges of military versus civilian leadership we still face today.” You may find this new book more relevant at this point in time than the Team of Rivals.
The door to further negotiations remains ajar. In recent days, officials of the Russian foreign and defense ministries, as well as President Putin’s spokesman, have carefully avoided shutting that door, and we find it a good sign that Secretary Kerry has been on the phone with Foreign Minister Lavrov. And the Russians have also emphasized Moscow’s continued willingness to honor previous agreements on Syria.
In the Kremlin’s view, Russia has far more skin in the game than the U.S. does. Thousands of Russian dissident terrorists have found their way to Syria, where they obtain weapons, funding, and practical experience in waging violent insurgency. There is understandable worry on Moscow’s part over the threat they will pose when they come back home. In addition, President Putin can be assumed to be under the same kind of pressure you face from the military to order it to try to clean out the mess in Syria “once and for all,” regardless how dim the prospects for a military solution are for either side in Syria.
We are aware that many in Congress and the “mainstream” media are now calling on you to up the ante and respond – overtly or covertly or both – with more violence in Syria. Shades of the “Washington Playbook,” about which you spoke derisively in interviews with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this year. We take some encouragement in your acknowledgment to Goldberg that the “playbook” can be “a trap that can lead to bad decisions” – not to mention doing “stupid stuff.”
Goldberg wrote that you felt the Pentagon had “jammed” you on the troop surge for Afghanistan seven years ago and that the same thing almost happened three years ago on Syria, before President Putin persuaded Syria to surrender its chemical weapons for destruction. It seems that the kind of approach that worked then should be tried now, as well – particularly if you are starting to feel jammed once again.
Incidentally, it would be helpful toward that end if you had one of your staffers tell the “mainstream” media to tone down it puerile, nasty – and for the most part unjustified and certainly unhelpful – personal vilification of President Putin.
Renewing direct dialogue with President Putin might well offer the best chance to ensure an end, finally, to unwanted “jamming.” We believe John Kerry is correct in emphasizing how frightfully complicated the disarray in Syria is amid the various vying interests and factions. At the same time, he has already done much of the necessary spadework and has found Lavrov for the most part, a helpful partner.
Still, in view of lingering Russian – and not only Russian – skepticism regarding the strength of your support for your secretary of state, we believe that discussions at the highest level would be the best way to prevent hotheads on either side from risking the kind of armed confrontation that nobody should want.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that you invite President Putin to meet with you in a mutually convenient place, in order to try to sort things out and prevent still worse for the people of Syria.
In the wake of the carnage of World War II, Winston Churchill made an observation that is equally applicable to our 21st Century: “To jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than to war, war, war.”
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Fred Costello, Former Russian Linguist, USAF
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA, (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
* In a Memorandum to President Bush criticizing Colin Powell’s address to the UN earlier on February 5, 2003, VIPS ended with these words: “After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments