Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 10, 2016

'The Obama Doctrine' Is To Whitewash His Foreign Policy

The Atlantic publishes Obama's great whitewashing of his own foreign policy. It is the result of a series of interviews with Jefferey Goldberg written up into one gigantic piece under the headline "The Obama Doctrine". Throughout the piece Goldberg and Obama touch various foreign policy issues, mainly in the Middle East.

The ostensible purpose is to refute hawkish critics of Obama who say that he has not been militaristic enough or was 'leading from behind.' Judging from comments to the piece in various media the readers seem to fall for that. But the real purpose of the piece is to hide the militaristic, dangerous to catastrophic decision Obama has made on many foreign policy issues.

The real Obama has used the military to wage open or hidden wars in more countries than any president since the second world war. Obama has ordered thousands of unknown people be killed by drone strikes in ten or so countries. He has used clandestine means for illegitimate regime change from Honduras over Ukraine to Iraq where, as he admitted in an earlier interview, let the evil of ISIS grow for the sole purpose of ousting Prime Minister Maliki. Instead of making room for the inevitable growth of China, Obama is preparing to wage a preemptive war against it.

The whitewash includes a lot of juicy, diverting quotes that many people will like. It bitches about foreign paid think tanks in Washington and the Saudis. It lambastes Cameron and Sarkozy. It badmouths his own hawkish advisers.

When it discusses why Obama let his 'red line' on chemical weapons in Syria slip and did not bomb the country it tries to paint Obama's decisions on Syria as sensible and reasoned. But what is sensible or reasoned in ordering the CIA to ship thousands of Jihadis, recycled from his war on Libya and earlier conflicts, to Syria? What is peaceful in arming and paying sectarian "rebels" with billions of dollars to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government? The piece does not mention those facts and the interviewer never touches those questions.

Obama criticizes the Saudis and Iran for waging proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. But Iran came in only after Obama and the Saudis waged war on those countries. Without him Yemen would not be bombed and Syria would be peaceful. It is he who enables the Saudi misdeeds.

On Libya the president blames France and Britain for dropping the ball after Ghaddafi was killed. But it was the U.S. that enabled and directed the war, flew most attacks, dropped 7,700 bombs and had its people on the ground training and organizing the Jihadis for attacks on government positions. Here the fake 'leading from behind' is used to blame the allies when the inevitable consequences of the war, the destruction of the functioning state Libya, appear.

In general the piece is somewhat interesting and shows some insight into Obama's thinking. But if you take the hour that is at least needed to read it keep in mind that this was published for a purpose. Obama is preparing his next career step. With the Goldberg interviews and this piece he is attempting to wash the blood off his hands and to whitewash his legacy.

Posted by b on March 10, 2016 at 18:13 UTC | Permalink

next page »

[deleted - b.]

Posted by: lame | Mar 10 2016 18:36 utc | 1

"The United States has now been engaged in a cold war with Iran – Persia – for thirty-seven years. It has conducted various levels of hot war in Iraq for twenty-six years. It has been in combat in Afghanistan for fifteen years. Americans have bombed Somalia for fifteen, Libya for five, and Syria for one and a half years. One war has led to another. None has yielded any positive result and none shows any sign of doing so."
No wonder Obama was never allowed to bring Chas Freeman aboard his administration.

Posted by: Maracatu | Mar 10 2016 18:37 utc | 2

I think why Obama let the cemical weapon red line slipped is, because he knew it was a false flag incident and he could not come to terms with declaring an overt war for that (I am pretty sure US already knew it was a false flag back then).

Posted by: JodocusQuak | Mar 10 2016 18:41 utc | 3

b: "Goldberg and Obama touche various foreign policy issues"

douche? (LOL!)

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 10 2016 18:53 utc | 4

Red line in Syria? The British parliament voted against engaging in Syria, depriving Obama of a crucial ally. And that was the end of that. Except he then wanted the House to decide for the US, washing his hands of responsibility, and of course it wouldn't burn its fingers on such nonsense. Moreover Obama probably knew the attack was a false flag. Does he criticize himself anywhere in the long interview or does he just go on spouting his usual verbiage? I'm not going to waste my time reading it, especially since Jonah Goldberg is so slimy.

Posted by: Quentin | Mar 10 2016 19:02 utc | 5

I was wondering whether to waste time reading it... not sure it'd be worth it.
Mr. O has fulfilled the only two wishes I had for him at the voting time - no war against Iran and decent SC appointments. But not in a million yrs would one have imagined the mess he made of the US-Russia relations, the bloody disaster in Ukraina, complete destruction of Libya, and the continued criminality ag Syria and Yemen. But then one knew when the names of Summers and Geithner were floated before he was even confirmed where he might be coming from... And the Honduras coup d'état that happened under his and HRC's early watch. B's right ... moving on to bigger and better things probably (only perhaps w less blood)... (The only respectable ex-prez is J Carter - but then his foreign policy was also quite bloody... being willing to destroy and spill others' blood must be occupational hazard!)

Posted by: GoraDiva | Mar 10 2016 19:03 utc | 6


IMO you should mention Sy Hersh's "The Redirection".

I think most people will accept the 'whitewash' because they have been previously guided/brainwashed toward that USA/Obama-friendly conclusion. While some people will only 'wake-up' when confronted with a 'smoking gun', the realist community should not be shy about describing the 'warm gun':

1) evidence that USA conspired with ME Allies to use extremists as a weapon (as described by Hersh);

2) evidence of ME allies (virtually ALL of them) supporting ISIS/extremists;

3) evidence that USA provided material support:

> gun-running to Syria;

> knowledge of ME allies planning (declare Caliphate);

> failure to stop ISIS funding;

> light bombing of ISIS;

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 10 2016 19:12 utc | 7

Wow and Wow. b, this post leaves me speechless. And Thank you.

Is it McBeth? "Out damn spot out." Those blood stained hands can never be washed. His legacy Is completely blackened. (Pardon the pun). Can never be whitewashed (pardon the pun). Whatever was the intent of the Nobel Prize Committee? They should be embarrassed.

(Oh. btw my "coloured statements" above should not be considered racist. I am of many ethnicities -described as "we, the colour enhanced people" as is among us, the potus - subject of this post.. We too are embarrassed - there was such hope but he disappointed the world on so many issues.)

5 years ago, Der Speigel ran such an article with that title, said spot on.
"How Obama Disappointed the World.

The world also had high hopes for a changed America, a country that would be less militaristic than it was under his predecessor, George W. Bush, and one that would pursue smarter policies, both in dealing with the Islamic world and on issues of environmental protection and climate change.

For me:
His choice of Clinton for SoS was the first turn off. Drone kills [oh, yes we can] and NDAA [double yes, we can] sealed my disgust.

Posted by: likklemore | Mar 10 2016 19:16 utc | 8

Obama is the great betrayer of the American people. During his first presidential campaign, he aroused great hope among the voters that *finally* there would be *change* in the policies of the Federal government, that the criminals on Wall Street and in the Bush administration would be held accountable for their almost innumerable criminal acts . . . that the US Constitution would be restored, that the US would live up to its stated ideals, that the endless wars, torture, and rendition would finally end.

Just the opposite happened. Obama was planning drone strikes three days after entering office. He not only gave a pass to Wall Street, he increased their influence; he did not end the wars, he set new records starting them while he made out his weekly "kill lists" and played God killing thousands of civilians -- including US citizens --with his murderous drone strikes.

Obama is a murderer, a war criminal, a despicable thug who should be drawn, quartered, and hung from a pike in front of the White House.

Posted by: Perimetr | Mar 10 2016 19:17 utc | 9

Well, at least he did us all a favour - now we know the system cannot be changed...
The deep state rules - until at least more of the people finally wake up from their self-induced slumber

Posted by: GoraDiva | Mar 10 2016 19:40 utc | 10

thanks b... in order for obama to make this far, he needed to be a top notch bullshit artist.. the ignorant will remain ignorant while msm will do it's part to prop up the ugly empire of chaos as best it can... goldberg and the atlantic are doing their job...

Posted by: james | Mar 10 2016 19:51 utc | 11

It was the Zionist lobby the blocked Chas Freeman from getting the appointment. Here's his website:

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 10 2016 19:52 utc | 12

That he gets away with this really boils my piss.

Not only does he escape justice but it sets the political landscape so that many people demand 'someone tougher'. Then you get public support for another Bush.

Then when the next Bush overtly invades Badmanistan the public go against war again and the next Obama steps up.

Round and round it goes.

Posted by: Bob | Mar 10 2016 19:56 utc | 13

will jesus wash the bloodstains from your hands

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 10 2016 20:03 utc | 14

For a glimpse of his thinking, see
A funny quote re Libya: "“So what I said at that point was, we should act as part of an international coalition. But because this is not at the core of our interests, we need to get a UN mandate; we need Europeans and Gulf countries to be actively involved in the coalition; we will apply the military capabilities that are unique to us, but we expect others to carry their weight.”
Note the "...not at the core... need to get UN mandate..." So if something is at the core of US interests, there's no need to follow international law and get a UN mandate, regardless of how destructive and criminal the action... way to go nobel prize winner!

Posted by: GoraDiva | Mar 10 2016 20:19 utc | 15

lame | Mar 10, 2016 1:36:54 PM | 1

Is that racist tone really necessary? Coundn't you critizise Obamas dreadful politics without looking at his skin? Please.

Posted by: Pnyx | Mar 10 2016 20:24 utc | 16

I've always thought of Obama as a weakish Chief of State sitting on top of a volcano of NeoConism which he is unable to control. He's been able to do some things but not much. He had the desire, I would say, but he gave in, early on.

Posted by: Laguerre | Mar 10 2016 20:31 utc | 17

When there was no mention of Israel in your posting, I can only assume that the whitewash job is effective.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 10 2016 20:44 utc | 18

Dan Rather said that back in 2009. The Rub's thought he was weak. And sure enough he was.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 10 2016 20:52 utc | 19

This is ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED for! This should NOT BE ALLOWED here!

Comment 1:

"The real question should be if he really is anything else than a degenerated porch-chimp at the White House Plantation."

Posted by: susetta | Mar 10 2016 21:03 utc | 20

thanks b, ('cause you'd have to waterboard me to get me to read it)

...but does he mention THE FUCKING KILL LIST?

...the crux of 'The Obama Doctrine'...this heinous, demonic ritual...

ensconced and codified in executive privilege...

the decisive power, secret, outside the purview of any legality, literally, of life over death...

the reticle rules!

Posted by: john | Mar 10 2016 21:12 utc | 21

The whole comment @ 1 should be struck out.

Posted by: Jen | Mar 10 2016 21:12 utc | 22

...i wonder....

Posted by: john | Mar 10 2016 21:17 utc | 23

Not sure if I can be bothered to read Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Barack Obama but if there's no mention of the Secretary of State he had during the O'Bomber's first term and the influence she had on senior appointments at the State Department and the disastrous decisions she made, then that'll make up my mind not to read it all.

Posted by: Jen | Mar 10 2016 21:21 utc | 24

To understand Obama, you need to to understand the fact that he is, as Normal Finkelstein described him, "a stunning narcissist".

Obama is like Jim Kelly in the movie Bruce Lee, "Enter the Dragon." Kelly is summoned to the evil warlord's office and is told he needs to prepare for defeat. Kelly says "I don't waste my time with it - and when it comes, I won't even notice." The warlord asks, "How so?" Kelly replies, "Because I'll be too busy looking good!"

That's Obama - his sole focus is to be "slick" and look good, like any good black hustler from Chicago. After the Benghazi incident, White House staffers reportedly were entirely focused on "making the President look good."

This is why Obama says one thing in public - whatever makes him "look good" - and does the exact opposite secretly. This was proven when in 2010 he sent a letter to the heads of Brazil and Turkey outlining the Iran deal he wanted - and then when they got the deal, he reneged on it within 24 hours.

Most people still don't understand this about Obama - even so-called "antiwar pundits". Most of them are still drinking the Obama Kool-Aid - the spin that says he is "reluctant" to start or escalate conflicts. Of course he is - it might tarnish his Nobel Peace Prize. But in reality, he is fully on board with any new war - as long as he can claim it's not his fault for starting it. He simply does what his neocon-military-industrial-complex-Israel-First masters in Chicago tell him to do, while finessing it to prevent him from being blamed for it.

People forget that Obama has destroyed four countries during his administration - two more than Bush Jr. - Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen - while continuing to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan - and ramping up Somalia. Not to mention massively extending drone strikes. Yet even "antiwar pundits" continue to declare that Obama is "reluctant" to get involved in new wars.

It's sad, really, how much a slick black hustler from Chicago can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, even his detractors.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Mar 10 2016 21:25 utc | 25

"Black Hustler"? porch-Chimp? etc? GTFO of here with that mess. And anyway Obama is about as black as Barbara Bush, where is counts; in foreign policy.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 10 2016 21:31 utc | 26

There is an obvious split in US foreign policy re the ME - we have the US backing the Turks and also backing the Syrian Kurds - how's that for a f*cked-up policy! And the Houthi's are making some amazing strikes against KSA - how's that possible - I still can't get the drop on who it is who's making the Houthi's so lethal - is it Iran? Or is it Israel? Whoops?

And come to that, who would use illegal weapons, when their backs are to the wall?

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 21:36 utc | 27

I don't have an RSS feed for when there will be a new post, but I know almost instantly upon reading certain articles on the internets that there will be MOA activity, and thanks to this site among others, where the lines were crossed. Fin.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Mar 10 2016 21:37 utc | 28

PS - forgot to mention this great work of citizen investigative journalism by Robert Stuart against the BBC propaganda immediately before the vote to go to war against Syria...

An in-depth study of war-propaganda and worthy of watching...

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 21:44 utc | 29

To weigh in on the racist posts and the subsequent desire to ban, or erase them. These are the unadulterated views of our fellow citizens. Reading these types of remarks, though unpalatable, should be a reminder of the plurality of opinions in society. The reminder is more important than the threat that the content will infect your mind like a virus. At the very least , such remarks are a time saver by giving one an early indication that the following text is likely to be poorly conceptualized, and thus left unread. But as long as people are thinking and feeling it, we should all be cognizent of it, because it plays a role in society (and may elect leaders).

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Mar 10 2016 21:57 utc | 30

@30 Yeah - whatever!

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 22:00 utc | 31

My take on the Obama's interview as I critiqued his explanation of foreign policy [failures] ...

NYT Interview On Foreign Policy: Hogwash Mr. President!   August 9th. 2014

Posted by: Oui | Mar 10 2016 22:00 utc | 32

Will Trump's Rise Leave Neocons Homeless?

Some Neocons already pledged to vote for neocon lite Hillary Clinton... great stuff for Bernie Sanders to exploit. The Israel lobby group has flocked to Floridian Marco Rubio for now ... just a short stopover looking at his failed campaign. Some billionaires like Adelson is still sitting on the fence ... and his fortune to support a winning ticket and earn influence in Washington DC.

Posted by: Oui | Mar 10 2016 22:07 utc | 33

" In the interview, Obama outlined Israel's development over the years. "It is amazing to see what Israel has become over the last several decades," he said.

"To have scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant, incredibly successful, wealthy and powerful country is a testament to the ingenuity, energy and vision of the Jewish people. And because Israel is so capable militarily, I don't worry about Israel's survival," Obama explained."

Why go back to 2014? - things have changed irrevocably since then...

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 22:07 utc | 34

Exclusive: Romney Foreign Policy Team Is Schooling 2016's Republicans | The Daily Beast – Sept. 2014 |

The 'John Hay Initiative’ has been working secretly for over a year to keep a large part of the Romney foreign-policy team together, and it’s ready to help top contenders—even Hillary.

Early in 2013, leaders of the foreign policy team that guided presidential candidate Mitt Romney regrouped under a new banner and began working to influence lawmakers and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, keeping their work secret.

Now the “John Hay Initiative,” a nonprofit organization named after the private secretary to Abraham Lincoln who eventually rose to be Teddy Roosevelt’s secretary of state, is planning its first public event, a national security speech by 2016 hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio on September 17 in Washington.

Posted by: Oui | Mar 10 2016 22:07 utc | 35

@25 RSH '... like any good black hustler from Chicago ...'

Are you lame 'itself' or just lame yourself? I had taken your posts seriously prior to this one.


I'm going to cut and paste this one - you hit a four bagger, and then one.

The real Obama

  - has used the military to wage open or hidden wars in more countries than any president since the second world war.

  - Obama has ordered thousands of unknown people he killed by drone strikes in ten or so countries.
    [3076 - 4940 in just 3 of those countries, and 122 kids he killed in just 2, in just his 1st term]

  - He has used clandestine means for illegitimate regime change from Honduras over Ukraine to Iraq where,

  - as he admitted in an earlier interview, let the evil of ISIS grow for the sole purpose of ousting Prime Minister Maliki.

  - Instead of making room for the inevitable growth of China, Obama is preparing to wage a preemptive war against it.

Don't forget Killary's role in the Honduran coup and its subsequent 'legalization'. Berta Cáceres is one among thousands who certainly didn't.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 22:07 utc | 36

@28 ihlta


I agree with your take on the knuckle dragger(s). Better to leave such posts up, as the albatross around the Ancient Mariner.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 22:15 utc | 37

@37 jfl - made me laugh - knuckle draggers!

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 22:20 utc | 38

I guess Obama's foreign policy has been as bad but more hypocritical and underhanded than Bush's.
Both have killed about the same number of people, but Obama has managed to have less Americans killed because it is well known that Americans are more humans than Syrians, Libyans or Iraqis!

Posted by: virgile | Mar 10 2016 22:30 utc | 39

@35 oui

That backs up Glen Ford's forecast of the emerging 'superparty', analagous to the USSA as 'superpower' after the collapse of the USSR.

Makes sense for the warparty to move the USSA to formal, one-party status, just like its old 'nemesis'/role-model.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 22:30 utc | 40

@39 virgile

And Obama has insitutionalized the 'unitary executive', the POTUS as terrorist/assassin in chief, the NSA/FBI role as the USSA's Stassi On Steroids, the internment of the US Constitution, the militarization of the police, Black lives don't matter ...

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 22:36 utc | 41

Glen Ford - 'non-racist', 'duopoly' 'corporate shill, Hillary Clinton?', '“If Clinton is perceived as insulting the Sandernistas or their leader, there could still be a revolt on the Democratic side of the duopoly.”', 'The U.S. duopoly electoral structure is in deep crisis', 'Hillary Clinton rides the Black vote to inevitable victory in the Democratic camp...' infinitum - jesus give us a break...

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 22:40 utc | 42

Obama: Black LivesCorporate Personhood Matters

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 10 2016 22:40 utc | 43

Black hustler ,porch-chimp Like really???....what does this racist comments have to do with the fact that Obama is a criminal and a puppet from the American oligarchy(and the globalists) ?Sometimes I wonder if some people are smarter than donkey in here? There is truer and harsher things to say about Obama and there is no need to use racist comment for that.All this just contributes to impoverish the general discussion.Anyway To me I won't read that whitewashing article.Everything is obvious for those who want to see.Obama is everything but a dove.he's a despicable president and one of the worst the united states ever have.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Mar 10 2016 22:43 utc | 44

Ok - I will admit to thinking that 'Duopoly' was a made-up word, it appears that it isn't (and this branch of treachery has been around for a while!)

Freom Wikipedia...

"A true duopoly (from Greek duo δύο (two) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) is a specific type of oligopoly where only two producers exist in one market. In reality, this definition is generally used where only two firms have dominant control over a market. In the field of industrial organization, it is the most commonly studied form of oligopoly due to its simplicity.


1 Duopoly models in economics
2 Politics
3 Examples in business
4 Media
5 Broadcasting
6 See also
7 References

Duopoly models in economics

There are two principal duopoly models, Cournot duopoly and Bertrand duopoly:

The Cournot model, which shows that two firms assume each other's output and treat this as a fixed amount, and produce in their own firm according to this.
The Bertrand model, in which, in a game of two firms, each one of them will assume that the other will not change prices in response to its price cuts. When both firms use this logic, they will reach a Nash equilibrium.

See also: Two-party system

Modern American politics, in particular the electoral college system has been described as duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. Third Parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, more so in recent decades...."

I've always maintained that children should be taught, principally, the art of lying...

Cheers Fred

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 23:01 utc | 45

We already knew he was working up his legacy. What I'm interested in reading about is how he, the great leader go pushed around by the war party against his better judgement, and why he was too weak and indecisive to bring any of the people who fucked him over to task. Nuland, Geithner, Isis Tsar Allen, Hillary among others. Obama has basically been well intentioned but incompetent.

Posted by: Secret Agent | Mar 10 2016 23:37 utc | 46

On the upside, Obama helped us forget about W.

Posted by: Secret Agent | Mar 10 2016 23:39 utc | 47

@42 fjc

Well you're right that The Hil had not yet won the democlican nomination. But the point is that 'real' rebublicrats want to get away from The Donald, and the demoblican party is welcoming them with welcome arms, whether its Hillary, or Biden ... or 'even' Bernie. Look how well the 'progressive' Obama turned out for all concerned. The point that Glen Ford is making is that the demoblicans ... with their superdelegate insurance, post-McGovern ... is now the natural home for what used to be called republicans. They might just as well embrace the rebublicrat label. You can't always get what you want, but you'll find sometimes you get what you need. And the republicrats can live with any of the three demoblicans named above very comfortably.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 23:47 utc | 48

All very artistic - apart from being pure BS...


Posted by: fredjc | Mar 10 2016 23:51 utc | 49

Sen. Obullshit tipped his hand before his first inauguration when he betrayed every citizen who clamored for justice against big Telco. He emphatically stated that he would vote against Harry Creep Reid's "retroactive immunity" for telco and their data mining. He voted in favor. The bankster bailout followed that.

The next tells were the SOB's in his cabinet, the retention of Republican Warmongers in virtually every position (most notably Gonzo Gates). Rham Emanuel COS, Summers, New York Fed Weasel, were other tells; and all the Republican Judges from Liberty U got to keep their jobs.

Dubya Bush (a different breed of asshole) was less deceptive than this Shitbird.

I hope none of my remarks are misconstrued as racist.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 10 2016 23:54 utc | 50

@46 sa

I think he's been exceptionally competent. No only was it 'you want it, you got it' from the getgo to the people who manufactured his personna and put him in the WH, but he also still has people who think his cold-blooded nihilist self was well-intentioned. Now he'll cash in and segue into his role in 'retirement'. Manage his daughters' careers in politics, or some other form of show business?

Posted by: jfl | Mar 10 2016 23:58 utc | 51

The whole of the US admin needs burning and renovating - since this is not gonna happen soon, due to them having all the weapons and such we is gonna have to STOP COMPLYING. That's it - SIMPLES - make the fuckers come to you and your neighborhood!!! And good luck. X

Posted by: fredjc | Mar 11 2016 0:01 utc | 52

@ 41

That is what really disappointed me after he went with telecom immunity as a senator.

Posted by: Forest | Mar 11 2016 0:18 utc | 53


Brother from another mother.

Posted by: Forest | Mar 11 2016 0:35 utc | 54

jfl 51

Absolutely Competent. Glen Ford had him pegged right away. Not the lesser of two evils - the more effective evil. Obama was/is a stealth creation of the CIA. That he is half-black gave him carte blanche with black citizens whom he has screwed over at every opportunity (along with every common citizen of every race, creed and color).

The MS media crafted the well-meaning, incompetent, effete framework allowed him to do all the nasty shite he had done under cover and undiscovered by the masses.

The Nobel Prize had already been discredited as a fraud when the prize was awarded to War Criminal Zionist Kissinger. He and Obama are Master and Puppet.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 11 2016 0:39 utc | 55

I'll read the link asap but my initial response to this post is that maybe "whitewash" isn't the right word.

Maybe the point was in fact to elevate awareness that the oBomber was the baddest ass in the room after all. He just did it in a quieter and more sophisticated manner than would a cowboy president like RayGun or Bush II.

In other words, he's not being taken to the woodshed, he's having his lame duck cojones inflated to boost both his personal image and the management skills of his political handlers.

In a way, this may just underscores how much more useful the Democratic Party has become to certain factions that want conservative policies initiated under the radar.

If I'm right, this burnishes Hillary's war monger cojones as well but that's another story.

Posted by: Ziggy | Mar 11 2016 0:42 utc | 56

'he let the evil of ISIS grow'

b picks up 2 paragraph later on what Obama did to help ISIS grow ... 'ordering the CIA to ship thousands of Jihadis, recycled from his war on Libya and earlier conflicts, to Syria', 'arming and paying sectarian “rebels” with billions of dollars to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government' ... but apparently the audience for the piece ... anyone who takes Jeffrey Goldberg seriously ... is blind to Obama's active support of ISIS.

' the fake ‘leading from behind’ is used to blame the allies when the inevitable consequences of the war, the destruction of the functioning state Libya, appear '

I'm sure that b knows that the 'allies' are as guilty as Obama in Libya, and in Syria ... but I imagine that Goldberg and Obama are pushing the line just as presented.

The collapse of North Africa and the Levant and the 'refugee' torrent in Europe are as much the product of European actions as of American. France, Italy, and Germany especially are as much the willing executioners as is the US. The UK is seen as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, or the other way 'round, I suppose, if you're a British Tory.

@56 ziggy

Yeah. I think that is exactly the point of the exercise, as b points out in his second paragraph. The Atlantic and Goldberg are neocon at core.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 11 2016 1:15 utc | 57

"Washing the blood off his hands" is going to be quite the trick; Obama and his administration are the butcher's of the 21st century. Just how can that be white washed?

Posted by: V. Arnold | Mar 11 2016 1:18 utc | 58

For those of you who seem to be pooh-poohing Glenn Ford of the Black Agenda Report, read this, and then tell me who had his measure years ago.

And then this follow-up post.

Note that the list of "accomplishments" was from September 2012; he's had a few more years to either consolidate his earlier misdeeds, or to grace us all with even more of them, including the Ukraine atrocity, and his further adventures in Syria and the Middle East in general.

And just a little reminder for the "P.C." thread nazis; yes, some of the remarks were a little over the top. But without the racial identity politics that Obama was more than willing to exploit for his self-aggrandizing purposes, and the ever-present cries of "Racism!" whenever anyone from even the Left pointed out the corporatist, authoritarian tells in the record of his deeds in the Senate, the Illinois legislature, and even before these back in his "community organizer" days, would he even have been sitting in the Oval Office?

The black Manchurian Candidate was the perfect vehicle to project all manner of liberal feel-good crap onto, and he was a shoo-in with the black community. And when the mask really slipped for those capable of seeing what was behind it, for those who could not admit how they were totally fooled, well, for them there was still denial reinforced by tropes of "Racism!" no matter how hard they were being screwed, and no matter what the evidence of his manipulative treachery, even involving race politics to get into office.

It still seems to work with some of you folks. And this even despite the fact that this cynical bastard has worked this "Racism!" angle for years. Maybe he got the idea from his Zionist pals who scream "Anti-Semitism!" anytime anyone has the temerity to criticize Israeli actions or the machinations of their fellow travelers in U.S. or other western nations.

Of course, how do you explain Glenn Ford, who happens to be black, holding these unflattering thoughts about the racial manipulations of Obama? Well, I guess he must be one of those "self-loathing" blacks, kind of like those Jews who hold Israeli actions in disrepute, obviously "self-loathing" Jews, all of them.

Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Mar 11 2016 1:49 utc | 59


With the next asshole.

My take-a-way from 2008 was that we need to just push the machine to the right for a reset. Low-and-hold we now have Trump joy. If it's a reset I'll take it didn't work out well for the first few NAZI but worked over the long hual.

Posted by: Forest | Mar 11 2016 2:07 utc | 60

@ 59: Good post on Glen Ford, Here's his Site:

Posted by: ben | Mar 11 2016 2:17 utc | 61

“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are FAR IN ADVANCE of the political concepts of the nation-state.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969.

(Carter Warmonger) Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy mentor after Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Any doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

“Integrated global political and economic structure” means: domination of populations via giant corporations.

The current US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who is responsible for negotiating the TPP with 11 other nations, is Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 11 2016 2:21 utc | 62

IIRC, when our advisors were on the ground assisting the Iraqis fighting ISIS, at the first sight of the ISIS warriors, they laid down their guns and ran.

After a couple of weeks of Putin's war on ISIS, all of a sudden, the Iraqis are winning against ISIS.

What changed?

Posted by: shadyl | Mar 11 2016 2:28 utc | 63

Obama and his his sick as fuck White Papers... It really is the wild west... Not above the law, just, Obama's Law.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Mar 11 2016 2:31 utc | 64

Below are NOT my views, pick up from local community online News paper. Comments from stupid Obomo apologist "Jeff Denno" to the editor.

February 29. 2916

Obama’s accomplishment stand on their own

Re: “Democrats’ silence speaks volumes” (Letters, Feb. 25): Here are a few facts:

- 16.4 million more people have health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansions, etc..

- Obama ended our war with Iraq, drawing down our war in Afghanistan.

- Obama rescued the U.S. auto industry, despite most Republican opposition.

- Unemployment has been brought down to a level considered to be “full employment.”

- Over 14 million new jobs have been added to a robust economy.

- Ended diplomatic hostility with Cuba.

- Ended Osama Bin Laden.

- Ended U.S. policy of torturing captives.

All of this despite almost unanimous opposition by those in the Republican Party. It’s amazing what he was able to accomplish against an intransigent Congress and a hostile Supreme Court. Let’s give this president some credit!

Jeff Denno

Read more here:

Posted by: Jack Smith | Mar 11 2016 2:34 utc | 65

fast freddy @#62,

Yes, it's almost analogous to Operation Gladio, a stay-behind force that was originally portrayed as having the purpose of starting a partisan war should the Rooskies ever roll over Western Europe. Of course, it's real intent was to have in place a terrorist infrastructure to keep the leftist forces in Western Europe from ever acceding to power in any meaningful way; false flags, their specialty.

But in this context, the Global Corporatist Authoritarian Elites continuously infiltrate their catspaws and stalking horses into the the bureaucracies of the nation states to keep tabs on them and to influence policies (this particularly in the super-national EU, which has the signal advantage of not really answering politically to the citizens of the EU's constituent nation states). They also infest the think tanks and transnational organizations such as the IMF or the World Bank, and by employing the rotating door between these organizations and national executive branches, they continually advance their agenda. TPP, TTIP, TiSA are the product of a long campaign. Earlier iterations are to be seen in the WTO and NAFTA. The plotters don't see us as citizens, they see us as consumers at best, slaves at worst. Whoo hoo.

Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Mar 11 2016 2:46 utc | 66

from smoothie who posts at sst - How Much Lower Can Obama Stoop?
take away line : "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".

Posted by: james | Mar 11 2016 2:50 utc | 67

With all due respect B, link in your statement:

Instead of making room for the inevitable growth of China, Obama is preparing to wage a preemptive war against it.

... does not say what you suggest (preemptive war against China).

What you link states:

Washington and Seoul’s rancor at North Korea in the wake of its missile tests, illustrated by negotiations on the joint deployment of Thaad (Theater High Altitude Air Defense), has shaken things up in ways that the US undoubtedly finds gratifying. Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) supported a new UN Security Council sanctions resolution and have delivered, at the very least, stern language.

Russia delivered an unprecedented smackdown of Kim Jong-un for his most recent outburst of furious nuclear bloviating:

“We consider it to be absolutely impermissible to make public statements containing threats to deliver some ‘preventive nuclear strikes’ against opponents,” the Russian foreign ministry said Monday in response to North Korea’s threats.

EG. China (and Russia) for 1st time have supported strong UN resolution against Kim/NK.

The other stuff is just speculation as to possible unspoken US motives. I don't see anything in that article where, a you state:

Obama is preparing to wage a preemptive war against it (China).

If you can point out anywhere this is said other then very tangential speculation, I would appreciate it. If not, I think you should correct that statement. It's a huge leap from China/US supporting UN resolution against NK to what you say.

Posted by: jdmckay | Mar 11 2016 3:29 utc | 68

Obama is a disaster. It was obvious he was a token black to White House. The winner in 2008 was to have been John Edwards. BTW, DM is not a good source but it seems EU wants deal with Putin over migrants!

Posted by: Nick | Mar 11 2016 3:32 utc | 69

Sorry, I couldn't get past the first sentence of the whitewash. Obama 'understanding' Churchill was more than I could swallow.

Posted by: juliania | Mar 11 2016 4:01 utc | 70

Perimetr@ 9

I am with you until your final sentence, which I would correct to read that I personally would wish him to be indicted immediately upon leaving office and face justice interminably at the Hague. If I could perform a citizen's arrest, I would do it.

Posted by: juliania | Mar 11 2016 4:13 utc | 71

ff @ 62:

"Integrated global political and economic structure” means: domination of populations via giant corporations."

Thanks freddy, that's the "ball game".

" It's just business"! The lemmings, STILL don't "get it"!

Posted by: ben | Mar 11 2016 4:27 utc | 72

Something that pops up over and over is the small recounting of times Obama overruled his hawkish advisors. Biden, Clinton, Kerry, everyone wants war all the time except Obama and the DIA?

The recountings tell it as if he's always pushed reluctantly into these conflicts. We're told this shows his pragmatism. Does the president have the authority to refuse these things? Is it only PR? I don't quite understand why it's always sold in the same way.

Posted by: Cresty | Mar 11 2016 4:40 utc | 73

Laguerre@17 - I think that sums it up rather nicely.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Mar 11 2016 5:19 utc | 74

With all due respect B, link in your statement ... does not say what you suggest (preemptive war against China).
Posted by: jdmckay | Mar 10, 2016 10:29:19 PM | 68

If you're not a China-watcher, threatened deployment of THAD to South Korea (in response to NK's reaction to perpetual US provocations) might seem innocuous on its own. However, THAD on China's borders is the same kind of provocation as US missile systems in Eastern Europe on Russia's borders = pre-emptive CONTAINMENT of China (and Russia's) self-defence capability.
So THAD has to read in conjunction with US Military provocations in the S China Sea, masquerading as "keeping trade routes open" - but forgetting that "open" trade routes means open to unchallenged passage for cargo ships NOT unchallenged passage for battle-ready WAR ships. Every country's battle-ready war ships are challenged by every other country, whenever they enter or approach another country's territorial waters un-announced. Apart from anything else, doing so is crude and disingenuous and ONLY the US (or its minions such as Oz) does it.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11 2016 5:54 utc | 75

In my search for parallels, something in Jersey Jeffersonian's comment (Mar 10, 2016 9:46:10 PM | 66) reminded me that Mr Hopey-Changey Obama could be seen as a downstream parallel to the UK's Hopey-Changey construct, Tony B Liar.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11 2016 6:26 utc | 76

Daily Mail, is perhaps the most right-wing paper with a large reader audience.

Nato’s top general warned last week that Mr Putin is ‘weaponising’ the migrant crisis.

General Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the head of the US European Command, said the Russian bombing campaign in Syria was ‘wildly exacerbating’ the situation and sending people into the continent via Turkey.

Not true, of course. It's what happens when the US goes for regime change, anywhere.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 11 2016 8:15 utc | 77

Considering the amount of "homework" b must do to find the gems amid the dross which help breathe life into MoA, it seems a relatively small price to pay to read the source material out of respect to b. Before I got started I noticed that the article is dated April 2016, and this is March, 2016. So the first available April date when March has run its course is April 1.

I've read several articles by Jeffrey Goldberg and, imo, all of them read like April Fools Day jokes. Too soon to say for certain, but this one is certainly off to a similarly equivocal start.

He put in a brief appearance at MoA a few years ago as Jeffrey the "editor of a small/struggling newsletter" or somesuch.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11 2016 8:26 utc | 78


Speaking behind a FB firewall both NPR and Newsweek spread an ever-intensifying psyop that the wholly illegal sanctions and naval blockade of DPRK authorized by the UNSC, whose stated goal is to 'collapse (sic) the regime', must be intensified.

In other words, to deliberately starve to death 25 MILLION CIVILIANS, a 'stragic analyst' speaking on ZNPR issued his 'qualified estimate' that Kim Jung Un has 'between 10 and 20 nuclear weapons (and implies KJU has means to deliver them.)

Newsweek tagteams ZNPRs with this: "Admiral Bill Gortney, the officer responsible for defending U.S. air space, told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday it was "prudent" for him to assume North Korea could both miniaturize a warhead and put it on an ICBM that could target the United States."

Nevermind that no radioactivity has ever been detected in one of those KJU 'nuclear' (sic) tests, (which KJU would have no compunction against testing ABOVE ground if he had nukes to demonstrate), or that PDRKs missile program is stuck firmly back in the 20th C 'Sputnik' stage, with no means WHATSOEVER to either miniaturize a nuclear warhead, employ targeting and ballistic re-entry controls, or have any hope of exceeding a 3,000 mile range, short of only Guam, a remote US colony.

Why do they lie so eggregiously? "We need a New Pearl Harbor", it's that simple. They are Trotskyites, continuous stress position de-evolution into a global police state. It's been 15 years since the last false flag. And the Far East Wehrmacht needs another entire whole generation of full pensions for life, whipping this dead dog for OVER 60 YEARS!!

"Oh, he's got the Bmob!" Sure he does, pal: E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E.
Otherwise, go bake yourself a Luciferian Yellow Cake, and pray to the Dogs of Mordor you don't collapse their regime.

More rice tents. More CIA NGOs. More flower revolutions. More 6-figure TS-SCI salaries for life, with no oversight review.

If Americans ever really followed to the Deep State running its sausage machine, their would not be enough hemp rope and pitchforks left in the whole world.

Posted by: Chipnik | Mar 11 2016 9:05 utc | 79

Also, India has never had any radioactivity detected in their so-called nuclear 'tests'.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 11 2016 9:26 utc | 80

In light of the 'Obama doctrine' article in The Atlantic lauding his 'wisdom' for not attacking Syria militarily, this story is a useful reminder. It was categorically and publicly confirmed at a conference which I attended in Brussels this week by a colonel of the French air force. On september 3rd, 2013 the US (i.e. Obama) fired two ballistic missiles at Damascus as the opening shot of its intended war on Syria. Both missiles were intercepted by Russian ships off the Syrian coast and neutralised. That is why the war was off - not because of Obama's supposed wisdom and neither because of a vote in the British House of Commons, but because of Russian military superiority and action. Colonel Chamagne had another few tales to tell about the electronic and technological superiority of the Russian army too...

Posted by: Bart | Mar 11 2016 9:43 utc | 81

Biggest problem with the "lame" racist post at 1 is that it becomes impossible to recommend this valuable post to anyone on on the anti-imperialist side of things. In other words, to my friends.

It drives a big fat wedge between the white European anti-Americans who have no political basis but only racial or "cultural" solidarity, and on the other hand, the much larger and enduring anti-colonial force.

Condescension is as bad as outright racism. If you are not careful you will be down that dead-end street before you know it.

Take out that post, moderator, or leave it at your peril.

Posted by: Domza | Mar 11 2016 9:53 utc | 82

Perimetr says:

Obama was planning drone strikes three days after entering office

Obama was planning drone strikes many days BEFORE entering office...and he even told you so:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan

and a lot of the money that was put where his mouth was came from wall street...

and still you voted for him?

wake up!

Posted by: john | Mar 11 2016 10:15 utc | 83

Current Republican candidates are calling for indiscriminate carpet bombing. Complain all you want about drone strikes, but US voters are stuck with the choice of voting for the lesser evil.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 11 2016 11:45 utc | 84

ralphieboy says:

Current Republican candidates are calling for indiscriminate carpet bombing

gee, i wonder where they got that idea.

(and let's not forget who joined WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam)

so when you figure out who represents 'the lesser evil' do let us know.

Posted by: john | Mar 11 2016 12:09 utc | 85

Yes, a Nobel Prize Black DroneMan Assassin from the 'Dark Side' for sure.

Posted by: x | Mar 11 2016 12:12 utc | 86

Re Bart @81. At last a confirmation of what happened that day. Was there any information on where the rockets were aimed at? Does anyone think the British war debate was a charade, if so were all the MPs in on the show?

Posted by: Midan | Mar 11 2016 12:17 utc | 87

In AmeriKa - it's always someone else's fault. Especially if you're trying to blame the black guy for something? Then it's DEFINITELY someone else's fault. The buck doesn't stop with him.

Posted by: farflungstar | Mar 11 2016 13:27 utc | 88
Obama: David Cameron 'distracted' over Libya invasion

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 11 2016 13:41 utc | 89

re 88

Sorry don't mean to sound racist, but that's the main way the true-believers deflect criticism (surely just coincidence, right?)
And remember, any crimes committed are by "teens" in the media

Posted by: farflungstar | Mar 11 2016 13:46 utc | 90

Domza @ 82 Yes!

I've shared b''s post far-and-wide, including to Chas. Freeman, on whose list-serve it was posted last night. Freeman's readers are as important as b's are in terms of intellectual integrity. I resented having to lose good time in weighing whatever "free speech" issue was at play with the importance of broadcasting b's work.

Like you, I hesitated after reading #1. I'm so eager to spread b's analyses to new audiences. That first racist comment jarred me but I decided b's post was too important to hold back because of that opening gratuitous insult. Update: I see now that b deleted it. Grazie!

Posted by: Glorious Bach | Mar 11 2016 13:53 utc | 91

Hoarsewhisperer @ 75

If you're not a China-watcher, threatened deployment of THAD to South Korea (in response to NK's reaction to perpetual US provocations) might seem innocuous on its own. However, THAD on China's borders is the same kind of provocation as US missile systems in Eastern Europe on Russia's borders = pre-emptive CONTAINMENT of China (and Russia's) self-defence capability.

HW: B cited this article as source for his saying: BO is preparing to wage a pre-emptive war against China. You didn't show me where it says this in that article. If China, as article says... is supporting the squeeze being put on NK and it includes THAD, I'd like to see explicit language. That's a huge claim to be throwing about, and if B is sourcing it the source should stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by: jdmckay | Mar 11 2016 14:15 utc | 92

Jeffery Goldberg is warmongering lying piece of shit. Here's the only true thing in the article:

He and McDonough stayed outside for an hour. Obama told him he was worried that Assad would place civilians as “human shields” around obvious targets. He also pointed out an underlying flaw in the proposed strike: U.S. missiles would not be fired at chemical-weapons depots, for fear of sending plumes of poison into the air.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 11 2016 14:20 utc | 93

Yep, exactly.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 11 2016 14:58 utc | 94

To #81: Thanks for the link. And God bless the Russian military. Only fukwits and fools go toe-to-toe with 'em. Notice Israel isn't the one shooting. Always hiding behind USSA bully-skirts. Unless its shooting pregnant women and young children throwing rocks. That they'll do.

Watched 5 minutes of GOP debate last nite. The genuflecting to "our friend Israel" was across the board. My "FUCK YOU DEEP STATE" vote for Trump is NOT an easy one lemme tell ya. But sometimes a strongly worded message isn't enuf. In that case Russian missiles are a nice fallback position.

Posted by: 4H | Mar 11 2016 15:34 utc | 95

Johnnie Carson, U.S. assistant secretary for African Affairs,
*China is a “very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals.*

exhibt n = nk,

unitedsnake has finally gotten sk to accept the thaad inspite of china's vehement opposition, !

one stone kills two birds, typical unitedsnake m.o.
1] its like pointing a dagger at the dragons heart.
2] sk, practically the last of china's friends, would be pushed away from china ,towards
the much coveted snake/jp/sk coalition.

all courtesy of nk.

even this isnt the last of china's problem,
beijing better watch out,
dont be surprised if one day nk *accidentally* lob a couple of nukes over !!

uncle sham
*O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!*


Posted by: denk | Mar 11 2016 15:44 utc | 96

(> posts at top.) Obama knew that Ghouta was not an Assad chem attack. In fact, Obama denied two previous chem attacks/events as being ‘Assad killing his own ppl’, and (as far as I could see, I went into all this in detail at the time of Ghouta) completely ignored a real incident — perps unidentified, it might even have been an accident? - in which ‘only’ 2 or 3 ppl were killed. This ‘atack’ was covered by a long BBC show which one could hunt up. BBC covered it because real ppl did really die.

Obama accepted the face-saving Lavrov-Putin move (to have chem weapons removed from Syria) for unclear reasons. Perhaps the red line was never genuine (no expectation of a real attack); or the time-line did not suit; or a deal was made with Putin; possibly the Russians put forward their serious objections and Obama retreated. Or, other?

I didn’t read the piece. One point appears to be missing in the comments here at least. One can interpret Obama-Kerry bringing Iran and Cuba in ‘from the cold’ (though many US sanctions etc. remain in place.. ) as an effort not towards, bold quotes, world peace and more harmonious international relations, free trade (thus oppos for various big biz), but as an attempt to block their ties, past and poss future, to Russia.

One important, telling, detail. US affairs in Cuba and Iran were run by the Swiss. They handled all on the ground issues as an intermediary who ‘negotiated’ in their Embassies. Now, the US will deal *directly.* The Havana Swiss Embassy part in charge of US affairs has closed down (hello on the dole diplomats ;), they all came ‘home’), and the same will happen in Teheran.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 11 2016 16:03 utc | 97

#1 - - - -
Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11, 2016 12:54:06 AM | 75
“Every country's battle-ready war ships are challenged by every other country, whenever they enter or approach another country's territorial waters un-announced.”

This is where your argument breaks down – precisely the problem in the S. China Sea – China going out and building islands to extend its “territorial waters.” What if the US claimed, say, the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean as its “territorial waters” by extending the Florida Keys with a string of fake islands all the way to Yucatan? The US-haters here would be going bonkers, as well they should.

It is only now that Vietnam is beginning to realize how valuable a major US presence, including an airbase, would have been to them during all these years of China’s “inevitable growth,” as b puts it. Germany’s growth was “inevitable,” too, which is why Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill should have had the balls to push back before it was too late.

#2 - - - -
okie farmer | Mar 11, 2016 3:15:59 AM | 77
Daily Mail, is perhaps the most right-wing paper with a large reader audience.

The Daily Fail is a phenomenon. I have read in other sources that the MailOnline is by far the most widely read news website in the world. One reason: it is a porn-mongering tabloid that has no limits when it comes to disgusting gutter-crawling. But it has blind, illiterate monkeys for editors and ESL drop-outs for writers. HuffPo and The Independent are almost as disgusting. Here are some recent examples:

And, yes, the DM is a shrill right-wing rag who’s bias in that direction is almost as boundless and shameful as HuffPo’s in the other.

But durn it all, when something happens almost anywhere in the world, the DM is in there before anyone else even knows there’s a story. And by “in there” I mean on the ground taking photos and getting interviews, not just re-tweeting AP. Somehow the DM paparazzi always get photos of the alleged perps in handcuffs before other outlets can even find the crime scene. CNN comes plodding along 3 days later with “breaking news” derived from the DM, who has already moved on to the next story. Don’t know how they do it.

#3 - - - -
Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11, 2016 3:26:18 AM | 78
a: “it seems a relatively small price to pay to read the source material out of respect to b.”
b: “I've read several articles by Jeffrey Goldberg and, imo, all of them read like April Fools Day jokes.”

As to a: yeah, I don’t think so. What if he links to War and Peace, does that mean I’m gonna’ drop everything and read it? I pay my respects by reading what he has to say and commenting, especially when I disagree. He has a great stable of faithful, admiring commentators, which is respect enuf and is what makes his blog so durn interestin’.

As to b: Frikkin’ bingo, dude! Jeffrey Goldberg’s online crap isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If I want to read zionist BS, I’ll stick with Abe Foxman or Michael Oren. At least they come right out and put it in your face rather than relying on linguistic deceit.

To be honest, I have turned off the Jewish media almost completely. It’s not that many of them, like Goldberg and Hersh, aren’t smart and talented, and some even have something to say. It’s just that I’m sick and tired of my news being dominated by their viewpoint. I want to hear more from blacks, and Sikhs, and Arabs, and Russians, and Germans (hat tip to b). Can’t remember when was the last time I got a Sikh viewpoint on anything.

Jews represent 3% of the American population and something like 0.002% of the world population -- (divide 14 million by 7.2 billion). 85% of major US news anchors are Jews. There's something about those disparate numbers that just make me uncomfortable, like when Congress was all white males. I am aiming to keep my news from Jews to about 3%, which seems fair. Same for movies and bagel shops. OK, just kidding on the bagel shops.

Posted by: Denis | Mar 11 2016 16:31 utc | 98

This was Obombas attempt to take the heat of the hell bitch for Libya,by blaming Europeans,that's all.
Might I point out that terms such as porch monkey,Uncle Tom and house negro were invented by black people to disparage their alleged leaders genuflection to whitey?
But to say black hustler does point to racism,as hustlers are a universal human issue.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 11 2016 16:46 utc | 99

Cited at 34:

"To have scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant, incredibly successful, wealthy and powerful country is a testament to the ingenuity, energy and vision of the Jewish people. And because Israel is so capable militarily, I don't worry about Israel's survival," Obama explained."

This is one of the most deceitful pieces of Israeli hasabara that has been tossed around for as long as that country exists. Jaffa and Gaza City were two of the most thriving Mediterranean cities, renowned for their beauty. Palestine was farmed and productive, thriving. As if there was nothing in Palestine before the European Jews turned up there. Obama knows nothing about history (or about any other humanity, in fact he sneers at them, only lawyers are people, see the Clintons and a whole bunch of shysters). No mention that Israel's succes, wealth and power are largely thanks to the support of obeisance of the US of A, about which, he as president, might be expected to know. Did he really have to genuflect to the likes of Jeffery Goldberg (isn't he the sone of the Goldberg woman who tripped Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky?). The man is a conceited fool.

Posted by: Quentin | Mar 11 2016 16:53 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.