Showing posts with label Chuck Hagel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Hagel. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 September 2020

Is There A Coup Brewing In The US?

Written by Leonid SAVIN on 28/09/2020

In August, a curious document emerged in the US entitled “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition“. It was prepared by a group called the Transition Integrity Project, which includes more than one hundred current and former senior US officials alongside experts from various fields. The group announced that they had run crisis scenario exercises for the November 2020 elections, all of which had shown rather disappointing results.

It should be noted that the group, which was put together in December 2019, includes not only Democrats but also Republicans who speak out against Donald Trump. It has been reported that the Transition Integrity Project has the direct support of George Soros, who is trying to organise a colour revolution in the US.

Among other things, a link has been uncovered between the group’s founder, Rosa Brooks, and Soros himself, as well as Hillary Clinton’s campaign leader, John Podesta, and former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who works for Joe Biden.

Rosa Brooks is a fellow at the New America Foundation, which was sponsored by the Open Society Foundations, and she used to work as a senior national security advisor in the US State Department during the presidencies of both Clinton and Obama. She is currently pursuing an academic career at West Point’s Modern War Institute. For some reason, Rosa Brooks believes that the forthcoming elections will lead to violence and a constitutional crisis.

The group’s second founder is Nils Gilman, who is vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute (San Francisco) and also works at the Rockefeller Foundation. The institute is a research centre that promotes ideas of transhumanism, that is, it is opposed to traditional values.

The group’s director is Zoe Hudson – a former senior policy analyst at Soros’ Open Society Foundations who was responsible for maintaining contacts between the organisation and US government departments for more than ten years.

The group also includes well-known neoconservative Bill Kristol, military analyst Max Boot, former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the aforementioned John Podesta.

Transition Integrity Project

The 22-page document states that “November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the [sic] President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.” The recent protests, which federal agents were deployed to suppress, are also regarded as evidence that Trump may go to extreme measures to stay in office.

Here are the key conclusions that the authors themselves highlight in the report:

– The concept of “election night” is no longer accurate and has become dangerous. “We face a period of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20,” note the report’s authors. “The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on ‘election night’ as officials count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations starting immediately.”

– A determined campaign will be able to contest the elections into January 2021. The report states: “We anticipate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides. President Trump, the incumbent, will very likely use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions – including illegal actions – to defy the popular vote. Federal laws provide little guidance for how Congress should resolve irregularities when they convene in a Joint Session on January 6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respond in the context of uncertain election results. Here recent evidence offers some reassurance, but it is inconclusive.”

– The administrative transition process itself may be seriously impeded. According to the report’s authors: “Participants in our exercises of all backgrounds and ideologies believed that Trump would prioritize personal gain and self-protection over ensuring an orderly administrative handoff to his successor. Trump may use pardons to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments that benefit him financially, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents, and attempt to divert federal funds to his own businesses.”

The report contains four recommendations that reflect the agenda typical of colour revolutions – preparation of resources, scenarios, lawsuits, etc.

– Plan for a contested election. “If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly,” the report states. “Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity. Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.”

– Focus on preparedness in the US, providing political support for a full and accurate count. The report’s authors state: “Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and reinforce laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion.”

– Tackle the two greatest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and the escalation of violence. “Voting fraud is virtually non-existent,” states the report, “but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.”

– Foresee a difficult administrative transition. According to the report: “Transition teams will likely need to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.”

Many liberal media outlets have supported the Transition Integrity Project’s statements and published a number of interviews on the “war games” carried out by the group. Leading television channels in the US are also supporting the group’s image and giving airtime to its position. For example, Al Gore openly stated live on Fox News that if Trump does not leave the White House in January 2021, then the military will remove him.

In fact, one of the exercise scenarios run by the group was a clear Trump win. So, on what basis would US citizens be showing their defiance and organising riots?

Despite such contradictions, and the fact that there is no mention of the US Constitution’s provision on presidential elections, which clearly shows the mechanism for recognising the victor, it is obvious from the report itself and the subsequent reaction that public opinion is being programmed in the US and includes several elements: the inevitably of civil conflicts throughout the country; Donald Trump’s direct responsibility; the need for mass mobilisation; and a military intervention in favour of Trump’s opponent, that is, the representative of the US Democratic Party.

At the very least, these actions are already devaluing the practice of electoral democracy that, until now, has been regarded as the foundation of Western “rule of law” societies.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

The Da’esh Cadre and the Revolt in Washington

The crisis gripping the US state apparatus is directly threatening the survival of the Empire. This is no longer merely the opinion of Thierry Meyssan, but the subject that is shaking the ruling class in Washington to the point that the honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations is demanding the resignation of the chief advisers of President Obama and the appointment of a new team. This clash has nothing to do with a typical opposition of Democrats and Republicans, nor even with that of the doves / hawks. What is at stake is leadership in the United States and NATO.
JPEG - 34.6 kb
Barack Obama’s Cabinet.© SS&SS
For several months now, I’ve been noting that there is no foreign policy in Washington, but two factions that oppose each other in all things and separately conduct contradictory and inconsistent policies. [1]
The climax of this situation has been reached in Syria, where the White House first organized the moult of Daesh and sent it to ethnically cleanse Iraq, then fought it even though the CIA continues to support it. This inconsistency has gradually spread to the Allies. Thus, France joined the anti-Daesh coalition while some of its legionaries are part of the Daesh cadre [2].
When the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, requested written clarification, he not only received no answer, but he was fired. [3]
The disorder soon spread to NATO, an alliance created to fight the USSR and maintained against Russia, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed gigantic economic agreements with Vladimir Putin. [4]
Coming out of his silence, the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations [5], Leslie H. Gelb, sounded the alarm. [6] He said that “the Obama team lacked basic instincts and judgment to lead the national security policy in the next two years.” And he continued, on behalf of the US ruling class as a whole: “President Obama needs to replace his team with strong personalities and experienced strategists. He should also place new people as Senior Advisors to the Secretaries of Defense and State. And he must finally implement regular consultations with Bob Corker, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain [7], the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. »
Never, since its creation in 1921, has the Council on Foreign Relations taken such a position. This is because the divisions within the state apparatus are leading the United States directly to doom.
Listing the main advisers, which, according to him, must leave, Mr. Gelb cites four people very close intellectually and emotionally to the President: Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Dennis McDonough (Chief of Staff of the White House), Benjamin Rhodes (Communications) and Valerie Jarrett (Foreign Policy Advisor). The ruling class in Washington accuses them of never submitting original proposals to the president, much less contradicting him, but always humouring him in his prejudices.
The only personality to find favor in the eyes of the Council on Foreign Relations, Anthony Blinken, new No. 2 at the State Department, is a “liberal hawk”.
The Council on Foreign Relations being a bipartisan body, Mr. Gelb proposes that President Obama surround himself by four Democrats and four Republicans corresponding to the profile he described. First the Democrats: Thomas Pickering (former ambassador to the United Nations), Winston Lord (former assistant to Henry Kissinger), Frank Wisner (unofficially one of the bosses of the CIA and incidentally Nicolas Sarkozy’s stepfather) and Michèle Flournoy (the President of the Center for a New American Security) [8]. Then, Republicans Robert Zoellick (former head of the World Bank) [9], Richard Armitage (former assistant to Colin Powell) [10], Robert Kimmitt (probable next boss of the World Bank), and Richard Burt (former negotiator on the reduction of nuclear weapons).
For Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gelb offers Rabbi Dov Zakheim to manage budget cuts [11], Admiral Mike Mullen (former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Jack Keane (former Chief of Staff of the Army).
Finally, Mr. Gelb proposes that the national security strategy be developed in consultation with the four “wise men”: Henry Kissinger [12] Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [13] and James Baker. [14]
Looking more closely at this list, we understand that the Council on Foreign Relations did not want to decide between the two opposing groups within the Obama administration, but it intends to restore order in the system from above. In this regard, it is not irrelevant in a country thus far led by WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) that two counsellors whose dismissals are required are black women, while fourteen of the fifteen incoming names are white males, either Protestant or Ashkenazi. The political housekeeping is also therefore an ethnic and religious takeover.
Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] For instance : “Does Obama still have a military policy?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 1 December 2014.
[2] “French « ex-military » operatives with Daesh jihadists”, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2015.
[3] “Who is the Pentagon fighting against in Syria?”, Voltaire Network, 4 November 2014.
[4] “How Vladimir Putin Upset NATO’s Strategy”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé,Voltaire Network, 13 December 2014.
[6] « This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance », Leslie Gelb, The Daily Beast, January 14, 2015.
[7] “John McCain, Conductor of the “Arab Spring” and the Caliph”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18 August 2014.
[8] “CNAS, the democratic version of conquest imperialism”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network, 6 January 2015.
[9] « Robert B. Zoellick, maître d’œuvre de la globalisation », Réseau Voltaire, 10 mars 2005.
[10] « Richard Armitage, le baroudeur qui rêvait d’être diplomate », Réseau Voltaire, 8 octobre 2004.
[11] « Dov Zakheim, la caution du Pentagone », par Paul Labarique, Réseau Voltaire, 9 septembre 2004.
[12] « Le retour d’Henry Kissinger », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 28 novembre 2002.
[13] “The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia”, by Arthur Lepic, Voltaire Network, 22 October 2004.
[14] « James A. Baker III, un ami fidèle », Réseau Voltaire, 16 décembre 2003.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Thursday, 4 December 2014

Netanyahu Fired Chuck Hagel

Tricky Netanyahu  In 2001

 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'

'I Deceived the US to Destroy Oslo Accords'. 

English Subtitles



Vatic Note:    

Anybody want to guess who runs America?  Initials start with "A", like AIPAC, and "I" for Israel and "R" for Rothschild Wall STreet Brokerage Houses.  Yes, you can include Soros,  Zbig,  and others, but they are minions who do the power elites bidding and handling of our elected and appointed officials, similar to what the khazar Zionist bankers and Israel do for the illuminati 13 bloodlines. .

If we remember correctly that when he was first named to his current position, there was a hue and cry from the Israel Supporters quarters as not being acceptable to them, but he got the position anyway.   Notice we did not invade or attack Iran.  Is that why he was fired?   





Netanyahu Fired Chuck Hagel 
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=107478
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Truthseeker, November 26, 2014
  

NY Times: Top Candidates to Succeed Hagel Are Longtime National Security Specialists

President Obama, working to shift his team’s focus in confronting a raft of national security crises, is considering two former Defense Department officials as successors to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, administration officials said Monday.

REBUTTAL BY

THE ANTI-NEW YORK TIMES


The resignation (forced firing) of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is a bad sign folks; a very bad sign. It’s not that Secretary Hagel was anything special of course; Globalist, DC Insider, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) etc; but at least he wasn’t a complete warmongering psychopath like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.
You see, Schmuckie Hagel was more of a “soft power” Globalist, a fact which had earned him the open enmity of the Jewish neo-conservatives and the Israelis. It is clear now that a weakened “Ebola-ized”, post-election Obongo has been usurped by the more aggressive faction of America’s PRC (Predatory Ruling Class), operating within his own Party and administration.
Bibi to Chuckie: "You're Fired"!
Bibi to Chuckie: “You’re Fired”!
This fact is confirmed in this Slimes article which has already short-listed the candidates to replace Hagel: Michelle Flournoy and Ashton B. Carter. Those may sound like nice Anglo-Saxon names, and indeed these two candidates are. But they are both 100% certified kosher neo-cons that would eagerly service BibiSatanyahu quicker than you could say ‘Monica Lewinsky’.
Ms. Flournoy is married to W. Scott Gould (Jewish?), who is very pro-Zionist as well as a contributor to Israel’s advocacy group, the Brookings Institution. 
In 2007, Ms. Flournoy co-founded the pro-Israel advocacy group, the Center for a New American Security. Described by the Los Angeles Times as “a haven for hawkish Democrats”, CNAS houses such filthy Muslim-hating warmongers asDouglas Feith, Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan (Vicki Nuland’s husband), Frank Gaffney, David Kilcullen, etc. The group is headed by retired Lt. Col. Dr. John Nagl, a Christian-Zionist.
Flournoy and her husband are anti-Iranian, anti-Russian hard-liners. Click to enlarge
Flournoy and her husband are anti-Iranian, anti-Russian hard-liners. Click to enlarge
As for Ashton B. Carter, his ‘righteous Gentile’ credentials are just as kosher as Flournoy’s.  In 1998, radical Zionist Philip D. Zelikow authored an article in 1998 in the CFR’s ‘Foreign Affairs’ magazine. In it, they laid out what changes would need to be made within the U.S. government in the wake of “catastrophic terrorism,” which is also the title of the article. The ”Catastrophic Terrorism”article begins with the strange subtitle ‘Imagining the Transforming Event’, and advocates a transformation of the U.S. government and the way Americans live.
Ashton B Carter

Ashton B Carter

Just like the PNAC document, Carter and Zelikow predicted the coming Catastrophic Terrorism" and a "Transforming event" 3 years in advance of 9/11
Just like the PNAC document, Carter and Zelikow predicted the coming Catastrophic Terrorism” and a “Transforming event” 3 years in advance of 9/11

So there you have it. Two of the many high levels co-conspirators behind the 9-11 attacks and the never-ending ‘War on Terror’ are the main candidates to replace the somewhat dovish Chuck Hagel. Joining one of these lucky demonic creaturesin DC’s coming march to World War III will be the soon-to-be boss of the Senate, John ‘psycho’ McCain, and his equally deranged sidekick of dubious sexual orientation, Lindsey Graham. Bibi Satanyahu is loving this!
In the final analysis, we expect that Ms. Flournoy will get the nod. In fact, we suspect that it has already been determined. After all, isn’t it time that we break the ‘glass ceiling’ and name the first female Defense Secretary? (Barf)
Netanyahu appearing before the UN General Assembly in 2012 to warn of the threat posed by Iran. Click to enlarge
Netanyahu appearing before the UN General Assembly in 2012 to warn of the threat posed by Iran. Click to enlarge

I always get my way!! Click to enlarge
I always get my way!! Click to enlarge


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Saturday, 29 November 2014

US-Iran talks extended, AIPAC rushes to step in

ayatollahkhamenei[1]Netanyahu and his American poodles in both Houses are celebrating the extension of nuclear talks between the US and Iran in Vienna. On November 24, the E3+3 announced that they intend to continue their dialogue to resolve US-Israel “concerns” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

With anti-Muslim pro-Israel law-makers, both Republican and Democrats controlling both Congress and Senate and Liz Sherwood-Randall (Jewish) WMDs Czar while the so-called “soft on Iran”, Pentagon’s top gun ChuckHagel dumped – Next year will be the best time to make Iraq out of Iran for Israel.

As I wrote last week that both the US and Israel are not interested in resolving Iran’s nuclear issue. They’re preparing the necessary anti-Iran groundwork for a violent military regime change in Iran, as all their efforts to achieve that goal through propaganda and the “crippling sanctions” have failed to change Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei’s views about the Zionist regime.

It’s now essential that Congress now take up new bipartisan sanctions legislations to let Tehran know that it will face much more severe pressure if it doesn’t clearly abandoned its nuclear weapon program,”AIPAC said in a statement on Monday after P5+1 and Iran agreed to extend the final deal deadline to June 30, 2015.

Zionist prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who called US-Iran nuclear talks as “blunder”, approved the extension “better than a nuclear deal between the US and Iran”. John Kerry tried to take the credit for delaying a final deal agreeable to Tehran. Both Iranian president Rouhani and his foreign minister Dr. Zarif said that talks did not need extension if American administration had been sincere in understanding Iran’s concerns. Both said that Tehran will never roll-back its civilian nuclear program.

Some political analysts are of the opinion that Israel, Russia and China will be the main beneficiaries in the long-term “no deal” scenario while European Union will be the main loser.

On November 26, Chuck Freilich, former Israeli national security adviser wrote at The BUZZ that since the US-Iran talk has failed to curb Israel’s “existential threat” from Iran with a “nuclear capability” – Obama administration should put the “military option” against Iran back on table.

Rob Eshman’s article Obama’s Jewish War posted at Jewish Journal on July 11, 2012, opens many doors to what’s being cooked at the White House. “Barack Obama rescued Egypt from fundamentalist chaos and to secure Israel,”Liz Sherwood-Randall told a large Jewish gathering sponsored by Foreign Policy Roundtable in July this year.
I would pause here and say there are some who assert there is a different sort of relationship between the president and the prime minister, that it is not a solid relationship. I would assure you that the president has built a very important relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. What this administration has done to advance Israel’s security is, literally, unprecedented,” she said.

She detailed military-to-military cooperation, $205 million spent to assist Israel in developing its Iron Dome missile defense system, Obama’s assistance to stranded and threatened Israeli diplomats in Egypt, and his speech before the United Nations General Assembly arguing against a bid for Palestinian statehood.

On Iran, Sherwood-Randall maintained that the administration has imposed the most far-reaching sanctions that Iran has ever faced, and that because of its intensive diplomacy, 18 countries – including Turkey, Japan, South Korea and India – have decreased purchases of Iranian oil, halving Iran’s crude oil exports.

Sherwood-Randall whose father Richard Sherwood was leader of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) for years, pointed out that the president Obama had never ruled out a military option on Iran.

I sincerely hope all Iranian leaders committed to the survival of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, stop chasing the “ghost” and learn from North Korean experience. Iran should dump NPT in garbage-can like Israel, India and Pakistan did longtime ago. It must rush to build a few nukes. That will put a duct-tape on Obama-Netanyahu mouth. In contrast to North Korea and Pakistan – Iran is loaded with oil and gas reserves and its economy has already withstood the western sanctions since 1980s. Israel-born British writer, author and musician, Gilad Atzmon, agrees with me on this.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Thursday, 27 November 2014

Hagel Didn't Start the Fire

November 26, 2014
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired.
And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.
Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”
Undeniably, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?
Who made them? Who supported them?
The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.
With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar and the Sunni third of Iraq.
Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.
Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back — to prevent a catastrophe.
A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.
Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.
Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.
Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.
The Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.
So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.
A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.
After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.
Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.
The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.
Unfulfilled by such a victory for peace and freedom, unwilling to go home when our war, the Cold War, was over, Bush 43 decided to bring the entire Warsaw Pact, three Baltic states, and Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. For this project, Bush had the enthusiastic support of McCain, the neocons and the liberal interventionists.
Since 1991, we sought to cut the Russians out of the oil and gas of the Caspian basin with a pipeline through the Caucasus to Turkey, bombed Serbia to tear off its cradle province of Kosovo, and engineered color-coded revolutions in Belgrade, Tbilisi and other capitals to pull these new nations out of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Victoria Nuland of State and McCain popped up in Maidan Square in Kiev, backing demonstrations to bring down the democratically elected (if, admittedly, incompetent) regime in Ukraine.
The U.S.-backed coup succeeded. President Viktor Yanukovych fled, a pro-Western regime was installed, and a pro-Western president elected.
Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.
Now, we are imposing sanctions, driving Russia further from the West and into a realliance with Beijing, with which Putin has completed two long-term deals for oil and gas running over $700 billion dollars.
As the U.S. and NATO send planes, ships and troops to show our seriousness in the Baltic and Ukraine, Russian planes and ships test Western defenses from Finland to Sweden to Portugal to Alaska and the coast of the continental United States.
Who made these decisions that created the debacle?
Was it those isolationists again?
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Chuck Hagel got fired under “J” pressure

Rehmat

On Monday, Helene Cooper at The Jew York Times reported that US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has submitted his resignation which was immediately accepted by president Barack Obama. Chuck Hagel was confirmed in February 2013 after a disastrous opposition from the Jewish Lobby (here and here). The paper claimed Hagel resigned under pressure without mentioning the “pressure”.
She claimed that
Barack Obama decided to replace Chuck Hagel after coming to the conclusion during the last few weeks that the current defense chief was not the right person to lead fight against ISIS.”
According to the Associated Press, Hagel has had his own frustrations with the White House. In recent weeks, he sent a letter to national security adviser Dr. Susan Rice, an Israel Firster, in which he said Obama needed to articulate a clearer view of the administration’s approach to dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The letter is said to have angered the Zionist-controlled White House officials.

In September 2014, both Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee that White House is against putting American boots in Syria or Iraq (ISIS) as Senators John McCain and Lindsey want. Rather, Pentagon would prefer to arm and trained the Syrian rebel groups (of US choice) fighting Syrian Army. Read more here.

Hagel told one of his associates that he took the job to end war, and not to start another one.”

Chuck Hagel like his two predecessors has complained that Obama gives more importance to his White House advisers than his cabinet members when it comes to national security issues. Perry Bacon Jr. at the NBC News claims the Hagel is the latest victim of Obama’s failed national and foreign policy.

Hagel is being made responsible for Obama administration’s failures, such as, failure to contain Taliban rising popularity in Afghanistan, convincing Egyptian defense minister Gen. Sisi not to lead a military coup against country’s first elected civilian president, defeat of USrael created ISIL in Syria, and Washington’s humiliation by Russia in Ukraine.

Max Fisher, editor of Jewish VOX magazine blamed Obama’s top foreign policy adviser Dr. Susan Rice, being the main actor behind Hagel’s firing.
What is not being told is that there’s been speculation of for a couple of months that, after the midterm elections, the Obama administration would fire some lead foreign policy people to try to fix the problems. But every one thought he would fire someone who works in the White House, such as national security adviser Susan Rice, because Obama has forced all foreign policy-making to happen within the White House. Instead he’s fired someone outside of the White House, which suggests that Obama is going to keep the White House foreign policy team,” Fisher wrote on November 24, 2014.
Sen. John McCain, the top critic of Hagel, said Hagel left “frustrated” as result of interference in his duties from Obama’s top advisers especially Dr. Susan. McCain praised Hagel as honest, patriotic and brave man – but not suitable to the defense post. He said McCain did not agree with Obama’s policy toward ISIS and Ukraine.

Both CNN and Fox News have claimed that Obama fired Hagel. Hagel has agreed to stay at the post until his replacement is found which has to wait until the pro-Israel Republican-dominated Congress convenes next year.

As expected, the leading contender to replace Chuck Hagel is no other than Michele Flournoy, wife of Zionist Jew W. Scott Gould and founder CEO of Israeli advocacy think tank, Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

Both Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s defense minister and Abraham Foxman, Israel’s highest-paid ($760,000 per year) lobbyist have called Chuck Hagel “Friend of Israel” over his resignation.
Personally, I don’t feel Hagel’s firing is bad for the Muslim world. As soon as, Hagel got the job, he started licking Israel’s feet. Last year, during his aliya to Zionist entity, he assured the “baby killers” that he’s committed to protect Israel. On November 15, 2014, Hagel accused Hizbullah being a threat toUnited States.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Why Chuck Hagel’s Departure Really Matters

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 24.11.2014 | 22:40

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s surprise resignation — reportedly at the strong urging of the White House — will dominate Beltway news in the coming days. But perhaps the much more significant foreign-policy news came early Saturday morning.
 
The New York Times reported that the United States will expand its mission in Afghanistan in 2015, with US troops participating in direct combat with the Taliban while American airpower backs Afghan forces from above. The shift, leaked anonymously to reporters ahead of a holiday week, is a big “oh, nevermind” to Obama’s very public announcement six months ago in the Rose Garden that US troops in Afghanistan would be shifting into a training and advisory role next year.
 
The president didn’t even make a glancing reference to the Afghanistan reversal in his remarks announcing Hagel’s departure. The administration would clearly prefer a limited public debate, and based on the media coverage so far, it is getting its wish.
 
But it is against this new hawkish posture that Hagel’s departure should be understood and discussed. It is possible that it was the subtext to his resignation: Hagel came aboard to help manage a withdrawal from Afghanistan and shrink the Pentagon budget, and an anonymous US official told the Times Monday that “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus.”
 
The retrenchment in Afghanistan reportedly came after a “a lengthy and heated debate” inside the White House that pitted military generals against some administration officials:
 
Mr. Obama’s decision, made during a White House meeting in recent weeks with his senior national security advisers, came over the objection of some of his top civilian aides, who argued that American lives should not be put at risk next year in any operations against the Taliban—and that they should have only a narrow counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda.
 
But the military pushed back, and generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged Mr. Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if intelligence revealed that the extremists were threatening American forces in the country.
 
Was the historically dovish Hagel one of these officials? It is certainly curious that his departure directly coincides with the new aggressive plan for Afghanistan.
 
No reporting yet indicates that for certain, and Hagel is notoriously guarded—one reason cited for his resignation was reportedly that he remained quiet in meetings, supposedly to avoid leaks of his position. It is certainly possible that ISIS’s rapid emergence and other foreign-policy crises contributed to Hagel’s poor standing inside the White House, along with his reported leadership problems.
 
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
 
Ultimately, that’s an academic question for the administration’s biographers. What matters now is that the United States is changing course toward a more aggressive foreign policy: it is recommitting to the war in Afghanistan, which is by far the country’s longest and now promises to span two two-term presidencies. The number of troops in Iraq has doubled, and the administration will soon seek an authorization from a Congress that is extremely unlikely to include a provision that outlaws direct combat by US troops. Even supposed doves like Rand Paul are switching their position on fighting ISIS, and the incoming class of Senators has distinct interventionist positions.
 
Hagel’s departure — and the confirmation of his successor—will hopefully allow for some serious public debate about this new turn, even if the administration prefers otherwise. The real story here is about the policy, not the personnel.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!