Venezuela – The Bachelet “Human Rights Lie”

By Peter Koenig

Global Research, July 08, 2019

When reading the Bachelet Report on Human Rights, following the HR High Commissioner’s 3 day visit to Venezuela, published on Venezuela’s National Holiday, 5 July, that it makes hardly any reference to the deadly sanctions and blockades imposed by the United States. How is that possible? The High Commissioner for Human Right does not mention the crimes of all crimes committed vis-à-vis Venezuela?

The Washington based Center for Economic and Policy Research issued a few weeks ago a report co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot, concluding that more than 40,000 people have died in Venezuela since 2017 as a result of sanctions. They reduced the availability of food, medicine, and medical equipment, increasing Venezuelans disease and mortality rate. Jeffrey Sachs wrote in the report and repeated to Democracy Now–

“American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela’s economy and thereby lead to regime change. It’s a fruitless, heartless, illegal, and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people.”

Is Michelle Bachelet bought by Washington? Has she been threatened? Been given Washington’s script of what has to be in the report? Has she been told that no condemnation of the sanctions is allowed, or else… and who knows what “or else” might include? Believe me, it could be the worst.

Of course, Ms. Bachelet knew what she was doing when she accepted the job of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 September 2018. It was and still is, a challenge and also a prestige. It’s a prestige traveling around the world and telling countries, selectively that they are in breach of Human Rights – while others will get the thumbs up, usually the world’s most flagrant HR abusers, as long as they are in bed with Washington. But, if not Michelle Bachelet, who knows who would have been made High Commissioner for Human Rights? – Maybe a Saudi? – These are considerations we should not forget. She was maybe the ‘compromise’ accepted by Washington.

However, what Ms. Bachelet should not forget and most certainly did not forget, when she accepted this high-profile assignment, is her father, Alberto Arturo Miguel Bachelet Martínez. Her dad was in the Chilean Air Force as a Brigadier General, who opposed the 1973 CIA-Pinochet coup. He was imprisoned shortly after the coup on 11 September 1973; he was tortured and died on 12 March 1974, while incarcerated, from the usual “heart attack”. In fact, he died from torture. One of his two chief torturers, Retired Chilean Air Force Colonel Edgar Cevallos Jones, died a few months ago, the other one, Ramon Caceres Jorquera, was recently liberated from prison and put under house arrest by current President Sebastian Piñera’s High Court, for “severe dementia and irrelevance”. Together the two were the top leaders of Pinochet’s repressive torture team, “Joint Command”.

Venezuelan Government Slams ‘Biased’ UN Human Rights Report

Alberto Bachelet was deprived of food and water, water-boarded, tortured with apparent suffocation with plastic hoods over his head, electric shocks – and more. All of this, his daughter, Michelle Bachelet, was aware of and has for sure not forgotten. She knows what torture is; she knows what disrespect for Human Rights means. So, she knows that Venezuela, the legally elected Nicolás Maduro Government, does respect Human Rights; that, if there is any torturing in Venezuela, it’s by the opposition, by Juan Guaído’s criminal cronies.

Michelle Bachelet, member of the Chilean socialist party and a pediatrician by profession, was twice President of Chile, from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010, and from 11 March 2014 to 11 March 2018. In her first term she enhanced civil rights and social services. In between her two terms, Sebastian Piñera, a right-wing multi-billionaire, said to be one of Chile’s richest people, served as President, and as if by coincidence, he followed her second term, and is currently serving also for the second time as President of Chile.

In his first term, Piñera had veered Chile onto a fully neoliberal course, “privatizing all” is the name of the game, and now in his second term, very much prepared and pushed by Washington, he is finishing the job. This means, in her second term from 2014 to 2018, Bachelet’s hands were pretty much tied by an all dominating financial sector, while the country’s social infrastructure, from health to education to pensions, started already to deteriorate, and now it is declining at an even faster pace.

Former consultant of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Alfred de Zayas, says that Bachelet’s report is highly flawed and “unfortunately unbalanced and does not draw conclusions that can help the suffering Venezuelan people.” He went on calling for what Bachelet’s report did not call for – “immediately lifting United States sanctions on the nation.”

The report did not condemn the US sanctions, and did not address the criminality of the foreign guided internal coup attempts. Instead the report states dubious figures of deaths that have occurred during the last several years of violent upheavals – some 9,000 – leaving unclear who is responsible for the deaths, but implies by the general tenor of the report that it is most likely the Maduro Government. – That is not true, but that’s precisely what Washington and its European and Latin American vassals, want to hear.

What Bachelet’s report will undoubtedly do is adding more fuel to the western anti-Venezuela fire. It will further justify outside interference and oppression, as well as contribute to continuing with financial and economic torture of Venezuela by western political corruptness. Ms. Bachelet, you, and with you the entire Human Rights Commission, have not served Human Rights. Quite to the contrary, with this report you are serving the oppression of Human Rights.

The Venezuelan Government said there are 70 corrections that the report should make. – Well, it is a real pity that the UN has missed an opportunity to bring Venezuela back into the fold of the nations that make up the “United Nations”, as a sovereign country, deserving the respect of all – as she does. The UN was created as an instrument for Peace. It is currently manipulated by the western powers, led by – who else – the US of A, as an instrument to foment war. Yes, once more, the UN and one of its top agencies for peace advocacy – The Human Rights Commission – has made the bidding of the rogue, unlawful, criminal United States of America.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21stCentury; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-bachelet-lie/5683019

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

The Gulf of Credibility. False Flag, Ludicrous Allegation. Iran Rescued the Crew of the Japanese Tanker

By Craig Murray

Global Research, June 15, 2019

Craig Murray 14 June 2019

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.

That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.

The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Who Is Afraid of American Sanctions?

The original source of this article is Craig Murray

Copyright © Craig Murray, Craig Murray, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-gulf-of-credibility-false-flag-ludicrous-allegation-iran-rescued-the-crew-of-the-japanese-tanker/5680665


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

Pompeo’s “Tanker Narrative” against Iran.“Thank God my Enemy is so Stupid”!

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Global Research, June 15, 2019

“I was the CIA director. We lied, We Cheated, We Stole”.  – Mike Pompeo

It appears that Mike Pompeo has a hard time kicking his old habits.  He appears to be as smug about lying as a CIA operative as he is as Secretary of State.  Categorically blaming the Iranians for the recent oil attack tankers has left allies scratching their heads; and perhaps leaving foes thinking: “Thank God my enemy is so stupid”!

On June 13, 2019, as Ayatollah Khamenei was holding talks in Tehran with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, two oil tankers carrying oil to Japan were attacked.  As investigations into the incident were just beginning, Pompeo had already concluded his assessment and had it ready for the press.  Much to the audible surprise of the world, and without any proof or supporting documents, he laid the blame firmly at Iran’s feet citing “intelligence”.

To his relief, in no time at all, US officials claimed that they had managed to get their hands on videos and pictures. They presented a grainy video alleging to show an Iranian navy boat removing mines from the damaged Japanese ship. It is easy to understand why the grainy video’s existence was necessary.

Precisely a month prior, on May 13th, four oil tankers were damaged in the region. The United States blamed Iran without any evidence.  Saudi Arabia followed suit.  The rest of the world was skeptical and doubts floated about the accuracy of US claims.  This time around, Pompeo was saved by the video – although not for long! The Japanese vessel owner disputed the presence of mines damaging his vessel (as suggested in the blurry video).

Even allies were skeptical.  To enforce its position and allegations against Iran,  the Trump administration made its argument  based on misinterpreting what Iran had said about the oil embargo. Following Trump’s announcement on April 22nd that America would not renew US waivers for countries which imported oil from Iran, in essence, imposing an oil embargo, on April 25 the Iranian government retorted by condemning America’s illegal demands and stated that no other country could take its share of the oil market.

The Trump team would like us to believe that what Iran meant was the sabotage of the oil tankers. This is far from true. Iran was referring to its legal right under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which legally allows it to impede the passage of oil shipments through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz.

Obsessed With Regime Change: Trump’s Iran Gambit Won’t Pay Off

While UNCLOS stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage, under the UNCLOS framework, a coastal state [Iran] can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”[i].

Given Iran’s recourse to international law, American diplomacy at its all time low, and the rally behind Iran – if only verbally – it makes absolutely no sense for Iran to blow up oil tankers and turn the world opinion in favor of  Trump and his the warmongering advisors – Pompeo and Bolton.

But tankers were blown up.   What other motivation were there?

Perhaps NOPEC – No to Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act.   In February, House passed a Bill that would cripple OPEC.   The Bill would prohibit OPEC from coordinating production and influencing prices.  While the Bill was said to provide a useful leverage for the White House, Persian Gulf Arab states sent their warnings to Wall Street.

On April 5th, Saudi Arabia even threatened to drop Dollar for oil trades in order to discourage US from passing the NOPEC Bill.  The Saudi threat came on the heels of UAE cautions the prior month that if such bill passed, it would in effect, break up OPEC.

Perhaps this was the reason behind Saudi Arabia’s lack of cooperation.   After Trump announced his Iran oil embargo, a senior US administration official assured the world at large that Trump was confident Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would fill any gap left in the oil market. He was mistaken. On April 29th, the Saudi Energy Minister, Khaled el-Falih made it clear that Saudi Arabia would not “rush to boost oil supply to make up for a loss of Iranian crude”.

After the May 13th incident, apparently America’s accusations did not carry any weight around the world, but they did have an impact on the jittery Saudis.   On June 3rd, Bloomberg reported that over the last month, the Saudis  raised their oil production to replace lost Iranian oil.    The oil market was satisfied and America could continue to put pressure on friend and foe to stop buying Iranian oil – there would be no shortages.

What then explains the second tanker incidents of June 13th?

Perhaps the motive is two-fold.  Firstly, the United States would reinforce its unfounded allegations that Iran is a ‘bad actor’ and discourage and dissuade the international community from cooperation with Iran.  And secondly, the hike in the price of oil as a result of the tanker attacks no doubt sent a sigh of relief to shale oil producers in the United States. A drop in oil prices would greatly harm or bankrupt US shale-focused, debt-dependent producers.

Not on Trump’s watch.

Although many states in the US and some countries in the world have banned shale oil production due to its adverse effects on the environment, specifically water, the United States’ goal is to be the biggest producer and supplier of oil depending on its shale oil production.  Currently, according to the latest US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States is a net importer of oil.   With low oil prices, a halt or slowing of shale, the trend would continue to be an importer.

Having Saudi Arabia cower to US demands, demonizing Iran, intimidating allies and non-allies with fear of conflict in the region in order to press further demands on Iran, increase in the price of oil, and the weapons that would be purchased by US allies in the nervous neighborhood, seems like a win-win situation for America.  For now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy. she is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note

[i] Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supranote 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1.

Featured image is from High North News

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Global Research, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pompeos-tanker-narrative-against-iran-thank-god-my-enemy-is-so-stupid/5680684



JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

What “Everyone Knows” About D-Day

By Prof Susan Babbitt

Global Research, June 10, 2019

Four days of coverage of D-Day on CBC radio and no one explains “free world”. After seventy-five years, everyone knows what it is.

Evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould said nothing is as dangerous as what “everyone knows” but no one remembers the arguments for. Che Guevara called out the US president, at an economics conference, for what “everyone knows” democracy is.[i] Guevara said the conference was political, not about economics.  JFK made no arguments.

But there were arguments and Che Guevara knew them. He refuted them, as Gould refuted scientific arguments for white supremacy. Today the arguments for “free world” are forgotten, even by some who study such things. Nothing is as dangerous as ideology not recognized as ideology.

Gould knocks out one peg of that ideology: an idea of reason.  Evolution has no final purpose, Gould argued. It aims for no ideal. Yet if you wind back the tape of evolution to any point, the next steps are constrained by myriad causal factors.[ii] Gould used the word “contingency”. It means dependence.

Marx had this view of reason, radically contingent upon circumstances and conditions. He got part of his view from Hegel, who saw reality structured organically and developmentally.[iii] Marx accepted Hegel’s vision but found Hegel’s explanation “mystical.” For Marx, it was just a fact that the world is structured dialectically, and so the best way to know it is in terms of organic tendencies and systems.

Einstein agreed. He criticized US schools for emphasizing end results: success. Students should feel their relationship to their work, knowing through their own bodies how engagement with the world creates them.  When we focus on end results, we focus on what is expected, not what is. We miss out. [iv]

In theory, the view is appealing. Connectedness is trendy. Walter Isaacson’s new biography of Leonardo da Vinci upholds such a view and then denies it, in practise. Isaacson doesn’t know that he does this.[v]

He doesn’t bother with philosophy. It is not a luxury, although it seems so, the way it is done, in rarified language, accessible to few. Gramsci said everyone is a philosopher. It is because we all, at some moments of reflection, rely on ideas like “freedom” or “human”. If you don’t think critically about such ideas, you’re a slave of convention, for instance, of the “free world”.

Isaacson tells us the Mona Lisa is “a distillation of accumulated wisdom about the outward manifestations of our inner lives and about the connections between ourselves and the outer world.”  It is, we learn, “Leonardo’s profound meditation on what it means to be human.” For him, it means contingency. It is what Leonardo lived: the intersection of mind and body. It is how he saw himself.

It is how Leonardo thought. It is not how Isaacson thinks. He insists, irritatingly, that we should be like Leonardo by asking questions, as if questioning is an act of will, something decided.  In fact, we ask questions when surprised by what is unexpected, and expectations are part of who we are. Asking questions, when it matters most, is a way of letting go of expectations.

It is a kind of renunciation. We must care. Leonardo asked questions not because it is good to ask questions but because he cared about what those questions explained: what it means to be human. Caring is an orientation. It is not something you do because your life coach tells you to.

And this is how the book ends: talking points for a life-coach. We get a list, for an entire chapter: We are to “retain a childlike sense of wonder”, “go down a rabbit hole”, “start with details”, “get distracted”, “procrastinate”, “make lists”, and on and on. A formula.

If we learn anything from Leonardo’s life, it is that the intersections his art expressed are not formulaic.  No formula. But why look for one? It is for control. We can’t trust relations.

Sensitivity to relations is insecure.  No straight lines in nature, Leonardo noted. He knew we are part of the unfolding of the universe, complex and mysterious, but beautiful for being so.  We are not discreet beings, the lie of the “free world”. We live well, and better, without complete control: because of contingency. Marx knew this too. So did Lenin and others not part of the “free world”.

Feminism, since the 80s, is the area of scholarship in North American universities most attentive to relations, most expressive of Marx’s dialectical vision (although he doesn’t get much credit). The ends-dependent view of reason is refuted by insistence on interdependence.

But the vision is elusive. The Apology, by radical feminist Eve Ensler, is an imagined letter from her father, dead 31 years, apologizing for abuse.  Why it is liberating for the abused to tell this story, so long after the fact, as if it is the father’s story, when in fact it is not? Why invent a story about oneself, conforming to one’s own expectations, as a “way to be free”?

We don’t get an answer. Perhaps “everyone knows”, and the arguments are forgotten. Interestingly, in 7,200 pages of notes, covering a remarkable range of scientific passions, Leonardo says little about himself.  Or so says Isaacson. In fact, it is all about himself. Leonardo knew human beings by intensely studying nature.  He knew himself that way.

We know ourselves, as human, through dependence, through solidarity. This is part of the argument against the forgotten arguments for the “free world”.  It is a more interesting vision, acknowledging the myriad causal relations constituting human community and through which we know that community, and ourselves.

As Patrick Mondiano describes in Sleep of Memory, such encounters might “drag you in their wake when they disappear”. But they’re real.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] Punta del Este, Uruguay, 1961

[ii] Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (Norton 1989)

[iii] A. Wood Karl Marx (Routledge 2004) 197ff

[iv] Ideas and opinions (Wings 1958)

[v] This book is reviewed at https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/along with the two referenced below.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Susan Babbitt, Global Research, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-everyone-knows-about-d-day/5680146


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is Out to Kill Her Chances

By Philip Giraldi

Global Research, June 06, 2019

Strategic Culture Foundation

Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.

The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.

Tulsi’s own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged “focus on the issue of war and peace” to “end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.” She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.

In a recent interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be “devastating,” adding that

“I know where this path leads us and I’m concerned because the American people don’t seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be… So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region… Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?”

Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked

“How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not,” Gabbard said. “It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran.”

Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics, Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the “illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government,” also observing that “the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.” She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries “if you are serious about pursuing peace.” She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for “regime change” in the region.

In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders’ antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting “unarmed protesters” in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.

Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists.” The article also had a sub-headline: “The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.”

The obvious smear job was picked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, television’s best known Hillary Clinton clone, who brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was “softer” on Putin than were some of the other candidates. Gabbard answered:

“It’s unfortunate that you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news.”

Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: “’Fake news’ is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump…,” putting the ball back in Tulsi’s court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos’s pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced its own version of Tulsi the Russophile, observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to “attack the credibility of negative coverage.”

Tulsi responded

“Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I’m not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering.”

Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept described how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1st, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.”

But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68, a news “intelligence net checker” that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that “Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity.”

ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.

No doubt stories headlined “Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge” are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage. Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message across. But, for the moment, she seems to be the “real thing,” a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to “spread democracy” and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Strategic Culture Foundation

Copyright © Philip Giraldi, Strategic Culture Foundation, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/tulsi-gabbard-pushes-no-war-agenda-media-kill-her-chances/5679802



JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info